Judge Milianaire

Long time lurker. First time poster. You guys are so funny and pick up on so much that I agree with! Sometimes I don't even need to watch the show! Not trying to disrespect anyone, but maybe this legal talk is getting a little too intense (and a little condescending)? if this isn't your area of expertise and the OP is a lawyer why don't you guys just hash it out over "DM"? Lawyers love to talk--believe me! (Sorry if I offended anyone! I just like to come on here and NOT feel like I'm at work!) Please carry on with the dresses. Personally, I think they all looked fug.

The pumpkins alone justified the Corpse Crushers' win. The Corpse Crushers really put time and detail into their pumpkin--between the contouring of black and purple, and the striking eyes. The judges couldn't get over it. Contrast that to Sweet Nightmares' pumpkin, which looked like, well, a pumpkin. A carved pumpkin, but a pumpkin no less. I'm positive they would have colored it if they had more time, but, alas, they didn't, which was likely the game changer. I agree the Corpse Crushers' candy girl had a terrible attitude, but this is an art contest, not a popularity one, so her attitude had no bearing on what I thought of the outcome. I too thought the conjoined twins were sloppy. The one that was supposed to be making popcorn in his stomach, which was going to be covered by clear candy glass, just didn't turn out. Neither the contestants nor the judges mentioned this feature during judging. That was a pretty major part of the concept to just disregard. But what do I know? I thought the two-headed snake and its minions were awesome, but that Sweet Nightmares' project looked like a second-grade diorama.

http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/sex-and-the-city-season-rankings I guess this is the page where we share the good articles. I found this piece that ranks the seasons from worst to best, as well as the best and worst episodes of every season, and I think it's very well-written and captures the essence of the show enormously. It came out in February, so I'm sure some people have already read it. I wholeheartedly agree with the choice for best season.

That article was cute, but I think Noth is a little confused on the timing. The first movie was the one that came out right when the recession hit (or more accurately, six to eight months into the recession). By the time the second movie came out, we were well into the recession. And who is the "they" he refers to who got greedy on the second movie? Did he not bring home a paycheck from it? I read he got a million dollars for that movie. If the movie bombed, I think it was because it was lame; not because the viewing audience was scandalized that four fictional middle-aged American women would dare take a (free) trip to Abu Dabi when real Americans were taking pay cuts.

Yeah, I agree that a normal man would probably cut off all communication and maybe even paper the neighborhood with fliers that had a picture of Carrie and "stalker" written on it a la Samantha with Richard. And Big seems like a normal man, especially compared to some of the weirdos and creeps that have traipsed across our screen. But your post actually prompted me to come up with a theory about Big--he'll tolerate the crazy so long as it doesn't put him out--that I guess I'll post in the men's thread once I have it fleshed out.

I've watched this episode twice recently, and I just can't reconcile the ending. Carrie tells Big she's been hanging with the ex-wife, and Big's answer is a casual, "she told me she told you." In what world are a man and a woman who've split up from a childless marriage, presumably years ago--because he had a wandering eye that wandered right over to her best friend--still "talking"? As in, chit-chatting. I picture the conversation to have gone like this: Barbara: Jon, you'll never believe who came by the office this week to pitch a book: Carrie Bradshaw, the sex columnist for the New York Star. Big: [no words, just stunned silence] I just don't see them getting on the phone and making idle chit-chat like best friends from summer camp. Not when Big had never even mentioned to Carrie that he had been married before, even though he and Carrie had been in a monogamous relationship for a little while now. Could I see Carrie and Big gossiping on the phone post break-up? Absolutely. But Barbara seemed like a straightforward, mature woman who would walk away from the cheating louse and not look back. The only alternative explanation is that Barbara divulged the info to Big with the knowledge that he and Carrie were in a relationship (aka your crazy girlfriend is stalking me), but I don't buy that for a second. Barbara sems like a self-confident woman who doesn't play mind games. I don't see her sitting around sipping wine with Carrie, asking her to be friends, without informing Carrie straight away that she had been married to Big, if she knows this information is relevant. I think it was just shoddy writing. It's my personal conclusion that the writers wanted to give us a sort-of goofy, awkward, "who's on first" kind of dialogue, so they indulged themselves, even if it came at the cost of losing some fidelity with the characters.

My problem with Bravo bringing back Kathy and Jacq--other than the fact that I hate Jacq, and feel she brings nothing to the show other than fillers and tears--is that I feel that Bravo is violating some unwritten reality TV principle of not dancing with the one that brought you (aka not using the original S6 cast and bringing in these pinch hitters at the top of the sixth). It is safe to assume that BRAVO fired Jacqueline and Kathy as main players in the show. And it was BRAVO's decision to bring on four new women at once (I count Dina as 'new' in the sense that she wasn't on last season, so there is no continuity of a storyline there). They made this creative choice and they have to live with it. And now that the season has turned out totally boring, with Bravo left holding the bag, I feel like they have a few options for getting themselves out of this ratings mess, which are a.) re-edit the season b.) shoot additional film or; c.) bring on one or more "friends of the housewives" to stir up drama. That's all been done in the past, and it's sort do accepted as a go-to for a desperate reality show. Between the drag queen, Marisol's mother, and former cast members, I think Season 3 of RHOMiami had like six "friends" appearing at any given time, and it was ok, because there was always a distinction drawn between the main players and the day players. But what is unprecedented is for Bravo to just take and run with two new housewives mid-season, without any explanation to the viewer. It's insulting. And confusing. If I had never watched the show before, I'd be very jarred. I'd wonder who this new woman Jacqueline was (Kathy had at least been established as Teresa's cousin by this point). Why are they shooting scenes of their own without being in the opening credits and having their own title cards? It is so bizarre. I mean, Jaqueline's husband even has a talking head of his own! Where did he come from? I know it's fake, but Bravo could at least pretend to have some organic way of making the Lauritas a part of the cast again, rather than just plopping them there apropos of nothing. If Bravo is desperate enough to need them as Housewives and not "friends of," they need to be introduced at the beginning of the show as such, complete with tag lines. Bravo has done this in the past. On OC, they brought Quinn, Tamra and Lynn in as Housewives mid-season. In Atlanta, Porsha wasn't in the opening credits at the beginning of Season 5, but once she became a Housewife, they brought her on fully. Contrast that to Beverly Hills where, it was clear that Brandi had morphed into an unofficial Housewife by mid-Season 2, but she never got any of her own scenes or her own opening line until Season 3 because of her "friend of" status during Season 2. Even Luann never filmed independently on this past season of RHNYC, save for that 30-second piece of her and Jacques taking pictures with their dogs. So the precedent for making new Housewives is there. Just...officially make Kathy and Jacqueline Housewives. Or don't, and relegate them to "friends of" and don't let them shoot their own scenes. But they can't be a little bit of both. I mean, they CAN be, because Bravo can do whatever it wants. But for the sake of this viewer, puh-lease make a choice, so I know how to characterize them, and what to anticipate for the rest of the season. BTW, I know that Bravo is having a tough time with editing, what with Teresa not having been sentenced yet. But I think the solution was to just turn those cameras to Florida. I could happily watch the layers upon layers of dysfunction occurring down there for at least an hour. Maybe two.

As much as I despised 41 y/o enlarged heart lady pregnant by 19 y/o (not to mention that she had a neck tattoo. At what point in the process did she decide that would be a good thing to do?), why didn't JJ compel 19 y/o to be responsible for the lease he signed when he was 19 years old?!? Last time I checked, 18 was the age of majority in the US (and can be as young as 16 if it involves an entertainment contract or necessaries, but I digress). Maybe in "Judge Judy's America," the age of majority is "whenever Judge Judy thinks it's appropriate," but members of society are only going to enter into valid contracts if they can predict that they will be enforced. JJ just kind of crushed that. Also, what was plaintiff talking about when she told JJ not to talk about the baby because she wasn't yet sure what she was going to do with it? Say what? The woman appeared to be about six months pregnant there. How much longer does she need (and will the law allow) for her to decide what she's "going to do about it"? Hmm. Maybe she was talking about adoption... ETA: sorry, I posted before I saw that ZoloftBob and others had already posted about the same exact thing. Great minds and all.

What was the story with David and Leeman's "controversial" act? My theory: D&L basically did the same trick as the one shown on Penn & Teller, only the AGT execution was significantly wanting. In the classic way this trick is done, the audience first sees the empty bags, the magicians place a spike in one bag, and then the bags are randomly shuffled before the magician begins slamming his hand on the closed bags. So...D&L began the trick about halfway in. It was done in its completion on Penn & Teller. The way the trick can be safely done is by removing the spike from the bag before anyone begins slamming on the bags, and spike is returned--both times through sleight of hand--when the contents of the final bag are revealed at the end. Also, I don't recall anyone calling anyone out on performing a trick that can cause injury. As explained above, this trick can be completely safe to perform. After the trick was preformed flawlessly on Penn & Teller, Penn (Teller doesn't speak) was trying to figure out how the trick was done by process of elimination, so he started by saying that legitimately dangerous magic was immoral, thus he did not believe the trick was performed in a dangerous nature, as he didn't believe the magician was immoral, nor did he believe the show would support such "magic." Penn was complimenting the magician for making it look dangerous when it wasn't; he didn't call the magician out. The judges on AGT are so ignorant about magic (see Howie choosing Desmond's father as his wild card), that I doubt they would have paused to consider the morality or immorality of any of the magic performed. Nor do they consider the morality of forcing the audience at Radio City to be subjected to another Mara performance, but I digress... Heidi: Offended by, or just not a fan of Dan Naturman? The thing about it, was that Heidi's first words to Naturman were,"I think you managed to offend everyone here." So she very directly expressed that she was offended. It was only after she didn't enjoy audience support that Heidi did a totally defensive 180 and declared that she wasn't offended, she just didn't think it was funny. Nice try Heidi. Also Heidi, try to remember the contestant's name before showering him with effusive praise, including the promise that people will remember his name (see Miguel Dakota).

What did everyone think Tamra meant when she gleefully shrieked to Vicki, "Don't say it! Don't say it!" when Andy asked Vicki "what does gay look like"? Tamra had to have been referring to Danielle's husband, right? Aka "don't (but do) say that 'gay looks like Danielle's husband'." I can't imagine what else would have caused Tamra to go into such a tailspin over this particular question. Hmm. More Danielle mystery. Just what we need.

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, judging men against women in a modeling competition is like comparing apples and oranges. At first I wanted Tyra to just get rid of the guys and go back to the old format, but I would be ok with her keeping the guys, and just awarding one top model to each sex, so long as they avoid the flirting and hook up drama. WHY did TPTB (aka Tyra) think the viewing audience who watched females walk, pose, and otherwise model for 19 cycles would automatically transfer into a viewing audience interested in dem boyz gettin naughty with da girls?? Please!I totally agree with the poster who said the cut-off age should be 23. Even that's long in the tooth. Hell, 21 is old to start a modeling career, but I understand it because they can't use minors, and they need to be able to find enough losers to sign up for these shenanigans. Since when did they fail to complete casting in week one? The CW couldn't spare an extra hour for it? Unfortunately, I think BryanBoy will be back as soon as social media becomes a factor : ( My big question is whether that loser stylist with the lisp will be back. He never had ANYthing helpful or important to say. I literally think having no one on set would be better than having him--it would be less confusing, and the photographer could just direct the shoots. None of the contestants stood out to me in a good way, but damn if I didn't loathe the guy who said he was a quadruple threat. His acting? I was expecting a bit of a scene from Shakespeare or its equivalent. His "singing"??? The booty song? He will never recover from that with me. Never. Ever. He can take the fiercest photo with a spider AND a snake--better than Yaya's and Adrienne's combined, and I will always wish for his soul to be eliminated. The fact that Tyra condoned it just underscores the need for Kelly Cutrone to be there to snap this show out of its unprofessional funk, to the extent that she can. I'll still watch--I don't think there's anything they can do that would make me stop watching--but I'll always yearn for days gone by. RIP. LOL.

NObody asked Heather to apologize for having a chef as far as the show goes, because NObody cares that she has one. It was just her half-baked attempt to remind all the poor, humble viewers (who probably work in construction) that she has one. Congratulations Heather--you just scored your 6,434th humble-brag since being on the show, the most in history. I'd say she should just come out and say what she's proud of a la Lisa Vanderpump, but there is nothing comparable about those two women, and I don't think Heather could pull off anything Lisa does. I agree that all the women took it with a grain of salt, but none of the others took it as an opportunity to remind us of their superiority. If Tamra would have said, " I'm sorry, but not sorry that I have a young, sexy, manly man in my bed and you don't," (LOL) I'd give her just as much side-eye as Heather. Equal-opportunity side-eyeing here.

I totally agree--in a lot of ways, I think Heather and Ms Terry are worse than Tamra. They are snobs, whereas I don't think Tamra has shown much proclivity for snobbishness.For example--during the interstitial (aka the awkward the 30-second bit), where all the ladies were apologizing for their various misdeeds over the course of the season in a humorous way, it really rubbed me the wrong way when Heather was listing what she was sorry about, and in her list she said--to the camera--"I'm sorry I have a chef when you have to cook--actually (que annoying laughter) I'm not sorry. I'm not sorry for that one." Is she not cultured enough to know that there are viewers of the OC who have means, some of whom may be able to afford a chef too? Geez, no wonder she wants to take down the Beadors. They're rich. No one's allowed to be rich but Heather apparently. This is probably why she's been such a "good" friend to Tamra and Vicki. They fit into her narrative. There was something else that rubbed me the wrong way about Heather's mea culpa--something about the way she "apologized" for purchasing a puppy for her kids, rather than getting it from a rescue, but I can't put my finger on it exactly. It was as if she were over-apologizing in a comical way, as if to say anyone having a complaint against someone who goes to a breeder instead of saving a life is comical. Not that going to a breeder is necessarily wrong. Not at all. But she should respect the fact that people are going to have differences of opinion with her if she publicly buys a dog. It was like she was mocking those with different "perceptions" than she.

Last night there was a repeat on where a 17-year old girl and her dad were suing 17-year old boy and his mom because defendant drove plaintiff-father's car with plaintiff-daughter's permission on three separate occasions, and on one occasion he hit a mailbox. Turned out in the hallterview that defendant was allowed to drive the car because plaintiff-daughter was too stoned to drive. Lol. At the end of the case, just before awarding the plaintiffs half of their requested damages, JJ turned to plaintiff-daughter and admonished her not to "tell [her] a grandma story." JJ went on to say that the girl could potentially get away with telling "grandma stories" to her father, but Judge Judy wouldn't tolerate it. My question is, what's a grandma story????? Is this a thing now? Is it like a tea dance? Inquiring minds want to know, thanks!