satrunrose

So... you purpose to take pictures of porpoises, Happyfatchick?

My definitions are Continuation: Same universe, same (basic) premise, different characters (usually), but original series characters can turn up and original series plots can be referenced. I would call the Star Trek tv shows after the Original Series continuations. Remake: Same characters, same premise, same setting, different actors. Usually follows the general plot for the first few episodes to full season before going off in its own direction. Usually these are shows that were originally popular in other countries like Ugly Betty, The Office or Being Human. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I think remakes could also make sense for shows that were cancelled before their time or are too outdated to be enjoyable. Reboot: Same starting point, some of the same characters, different actors. Most importantly, something big happens to set it apart from the original, like blowing up Vulcan and starting a whole different time-line in the Star Trek movies. I think TBTB like this best because they have a built-in audience of fans of the original, but can pretty much do what they want from that point (and I can't totally blame them for that, we fans are sticklers for detail and continuity which must make writing a lot trickier). One thing I can't quite define in my own head is the difference between a continuation and a spin-off. Any ideas?

I would so, so love to see Star Trek back on tv. When I saw the last movie, with the ridiculously ham-handed US foreign policy metaphor, I thought that idea might actually be interesting if, like the show, they were willing to talk more and blow up less. Unfortunately, they've backed themselves into a corner because I doubt it's financially possible to have fairly big stars like the movie cast in a weekly series. Oh well. I also wonder about rebooting or continuing shows like Buffy, for example, that went downhill rather badly in the final seasons. Doesn't that say something about the creative potential of a reboot if they seemed to have run out of stories to tell in the original version? All that being said, if anyone knows of a movement to reboot Quantum Leap or Dead Like Me, I am so there!

I didn't realize it was a video at first, and from the still photo, and thanks to JCS, assumed purple sash guy was a roman/temple guard holding a pantomime weapon on the crew to the right. Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding, pretend Jesus.

I don't think Josh needs to hide for life, but he does need to stay far away from the instagram. It's just keeping himself open to criticism and keeping him (negatively) in the public eye by continually reminding people of what happened. It just makes sense to hide from the media and inter webs (not real life) for a few months until some new scandal or blatant hypocrisy has captured the public imagination. Also, if Josh just can't quit social media, being a millennial and all, I think he might get less criticism if he was posting evidence that he is being the most helpful human ever right now (Helping with the 4Ms, making dinner, washing dishes, mowing Jessa's lawn, working in a soup kitchen). Showing himself doing things that are generally considered entertainment (baseball games, eating out, Silver Dollar City) doesn't help to change my opinion that he a. doesn't think he did anything particularly wrong and b. isn't responsible for making any reparations even if he did admit to wrong-doing.

Thank you Churchhoney! this is exactly how I've been feeling about the cancellation! I keep feeling a little badly for being happy that the show is gone because it does seem unfair to all the kids (except Josh, obviously) that their family income is drying up over something that wasn't their fault and in 10 or so (?) cases happened before they were born. On the other hand, I really do believe that the financial incentive of the show has allowed JimBoob and She of the Missing Back Muscle far more control over the kids than just Gothard's teaching explains. Up until this point, any kid who wanted to break away not only had to deal with fears of Satanic-attacks, crazy purple-haired people, the fallout from their sub-standard education and the loss of relationships; I will bet you anything that JB pointed out (probably right before a trip to ALERT or Journey to the Heart) that breaking away would cost the family the show and cause suffering to the siblings. In a situation like that no wonder we haven't seen any escapees. I am honestly praying that without as much financial need for a united boxed -set family, someone (or someones) will start to become their own person instead of notches on their parents "look how much God loves me" list.

I feel your pain Neural-p. I have a pretty common M name and I'll admit I was very relieved to be spared sharing a Duggar name... for this one at least, I'm sure there's going to be more chances a-coming. Anyway, Meredith is a pretty name.

I can agree that they are victims and therefore can cope in whatever way works for them. I just can't agree that they have the right to go in front of millions of people and downplay sexual assault. They have every right to have moved on - or not; to have forgiven him - or not; to have rebuilt their relationships - or not. I don't believe they have the right to say that groping your sisters so frequently that they have to put locks on their bedroom doors is no biggie, or to suggest that it's not a big deal because "everyone's doing it". The downplaying and normalization of a serious criminal offence in those interviews, by all parties involved, was seriously messed up, and they need to be called on it (plus, someone in law-enforcement needs to be looking in to all these "other families", just saying').

Huzzah! Pass the champagne, lock the grape juice in the prayer closet, and purpose to burn the fundy-English dictionary! I know I sound insensitive, but I think this is a good thing in the long run. We've been watching for years, waiting for more freedom for the kids and we haven't seen it. All of the "free Jinger! Free Jana! Free Josiah!" campaigns have amounted to absolutely nothing. Our high courtship hopes have ended with preachy Ben, "so I married a guy who assaulted his sisters!" Anna and the 4Ms, and a guy who would leave a good job to take his wife and baby to spread the good news of Gothard in El Salvador. With no cameras, no family image to uphold and no internet critics to appease, someone has to be able to break free (seriously, Meechelle and the Boob won't even notice if a Howler vanishes one dark and stormy night).

I don't usually comment on casting because I often don't picture people super clearly when I read, but Mary, Fergus, Alex and even Bouton are spot on. Way to go Outlander crew!

Agree 100% Bearcatfan! I actually think good fantasy/ fiction with fantasy elements has to have realism in the character interactions because the premise is so un-real.

I know it isn't likely to happen, (and apologies to Tobias M. because he is wonderful in the role) but I would be really happy to lose a lot of the Mary/Jack/Alex story. I like Mary a lot, and I don't mind Alex (although his line about knowing what his brother is makes me give him the side-eye for the rest of this novel), but I hate, hate HATE the attempted redemption of Randall in the second-half. First there's Wentworth, then the incident with Fergus and in the end it's...all okay because he loves his brother. Hell no! The duel can stay though. I'm not usually a fan of violence and vengeance but Go Jamie!

Finally saw the last episode. I can't say I liked it, because it was hugely disturbing, but I think they did a good job with the material. First, massive, massive kudos to Sam H. The thousand yard stare in the first scene was so good it almost took me out of the action in a "That's amazing! How did he do that?" sort of way. I missed the crying scene with the hand ("two hands to love you with") but I get that it doesn't make much sense without the infection. Could the weird look of Jamie's hand in the season 2 pictures mean that they's moved the potential amputation part there? I've seen a lot of people comment on the opium change. Personally, while I agree that the big healing scene carries a little less weight in the tv version, I'm okay with the loss of the opium scene as I was never a big fan of it in the first place. I get what Gabaldon was trying to do. I like the idea that Jamie needed to regain his lost power and it is pretty compelling storytelling, but it's surreal enough that I had to read it twice before I figured out what the heck was going on (and I really didn't want to given the intensity of the scene) and second, well, Claire "healing" Jamie by impersonating his rapist and having him nearly kill her in the process is just... messed up on so, so many levels for me. Not that all of Wentworth prison isn't epically disturbing but there's just something extra nasty about dragging a drugged out, dying Jamie back to that. I still wonder what the heck was in those scrying herbs to make Claire ever think that was a good idea, positive outcome not withstanding. One other part I really missed that I haven't seen mentioned is the part at MacRannoch's house post-rescue. BookClaire and Jamie are both trying so hard to keep it together and be strong for each other in those scenes. For me, it's one of those parts that really shows how much they love each other. I will say though, that it never made much sense how Jamie goes from out being messed up, but still very much Jamie (making jokes, worrying about Claire etc) to traumatized abbey Jamie. I thought the arc of the show (from hallucinating and being too traumatized to even speak coherently to coherent but suicidal) made more sense. Looking forward to season 2!

For me, there are two issues that make me dubious about this missionary endeavour (especially if their destination is Nepal). 1- Jill is a 150% Gothard and 200% Duggar girl, which in my mind makes it pretty unlikely that she's the type of missionary who's there to provide clean water and medical care (and a snowball's chance in the Sahara that she'd be willing to build schools). It makes me a little sick to think of Jill coming up to some random Nepali (or Central American) woman and blathering on about how God had laid it on Jll's hard to fellowship with her and tell her that in this season of life she should be purposing to catch as many precious blessings while keeping sweet and gazing at her headships with that pleasing full-frontal lobotomy look on her countenance. 2- If this is going to be the basis of a TLC spin-off, it makes me really uncomfortable to think of a weekly show exploiting the lives of the kind of people who need missionary assistance. Add to that if they are going to Nepal and the TLC film crew is wasting the country's limited resources to charge their video cameras (for example) I will start to see red.

The Book of Duggar? Avenue Duggar? My Fair Duggar? A cranky elocution professor purposes to take on a Duggar girl as his protégé The Duggars and I? A refined lady comes to be governess to the howlers and lost girls. The possibilities are endless!

I really didn't mean to imply that Jill and Jessa Duggar have a duty to become abuse prevention spokespeople or advocates and I'm sorry if my comment came across that way. That being said, for me, the right to be in the public eye and to enjoy the perks that come with that comes with certain responsibilities. Namely, the responsibility not to encourage actions and attitudes that are harmful. I don't think celebrities need to be role models, but I would also have a problem if Katy Perry or Taylor Swift did an interview and encouraged heroin use (for example) as "not that serious". There are ways to get the message (it didn't feel that traumatic at the time; we don't cary any bagage about it; we would like everyone to stop talking about this please) across without saying that molestation isn't a. bad and b. criminal.

Good point! If I lived near the Duggars and my car broke down and I was driving alone (like I do 95% of the time) and wearing pants (90% percent of the time), would I call Duggar towing knowing what the Duggar men in general feel about independent, unmarried, pants-wearing women? Plus, would I run the risk that a certain unemployed Duggar who used to feel himself entitled to do whatever he wanted to vulnerable women's bodies was doing some work for the family business? Nope! As to the interview, I don't know to what point J and J were consciously lying and how much of why they said was the tragic outcome of being raised in a culture (or cult) where their only value is virtue and obedience before marriage and fecundity after. Maybe they weren't traumatized, and I would never expect that they should have been (or should share that with the world if they were). What I do know is that there are other ways of saying that they've moved on without saying that touching vulnerable women and girls, on their breasts and genitals, without consent is no big deal. They are public figures, and they have a responsibility to the audience to, at the very least, not suggest that assault is no big deal.

I think I would be much less angry if they went on camera with a statement like "Twelve years ago we went through a bad/challenging/difficult/horrible experience that no one should ever have to live through. However, with God's grace, we have been able to move on and enjoy the rich/happy/blessed lives we have today. We hope you will join with us in focusing on the future rather than the past." No minimization of what happened and no defending Josh. Josh shouldn't even be mentioned in such a statement. I'm pretty sure that isn't what we'll be seeing tonight, though, so I stand by my righteous indignation.

I wasn't going to comment until Jessa and Jill's interview airs, but the more I think about it, the angrier and sicker it makes me feel. First off, I agree that they are the victims/survivors and they have every right to feel how they feel about it and decide whether they wanted to share their story or not. If they want to go all over social media, or do the church lecture circuit sharing their story of Christian forgiveness, that's their call (although I reserve the right to roll my eyes in their general direction). The thing is, though, this interview isn't in the confines of their own sphere of supporters and like-minded folk that the general public usually wouldn't see unless they go looking for it. This is network programming watched by several million people and it looks like we are going to see victims in front of the camera defending the person who made them victims in the first place! Other human beings who have suffered or will suffer in similar situations will tune in and get the message that molestation just isn't that big a deal. Someone can touch your breasts and genitals, while you are asleep, in your own home where you are supposed to be safe, and it's not a big deal?!?!?! If that's what they believe fine, whatever, but to give them a major platform to spew that nonsense is disgusting and wrong, victim or not.

So, let's see if I'm clear on this... By the age of 12 or so, the Duggar daughters know that... 1- They have to keep their shoulders and knees covered at all times because a random passer-by might be incredibly aroused if they don't. 2- They are ultimately responsible for men's sexual thoughts and impulses (NIKE!) 3- If they hold hands with an unrelated man prior to engagement, they are like dented bicycles and no (godly) man will ever want them. But they didn't know the difference between a good touch and a bad touch. Really? Really?

This is confusing for me too. I've taken a few peeks outside of this wonderful forum (Thanks mods for all you do. It's a little scary out there) and there's this issue that there's no gradation of "sin", "crime" or "bad behaviour" for Duggars and their defenders. I know there are different levels of sin for Catholicism, and in my church we don't really discuss sex in terms of "sinning", so I'm a little ignorant here. The impression I'm getting, though, is that if I were to, say, watch Titanic and get "desires that cannot be righteously fulfilled" from the car or drawing scene, and then instead of repenting and seeking forgiveness, I turned around and watched it again, my soul is in greater peril than Josh Duggar's because he, allegedly, repented. Really? ETA. Whoops, I see Razzleberry pie addressed this while I was typing.

My first tv crush was on Jonathan Frakes aka Will Riker when I was 7 or so. Rewatching now, though, it's all about Patrick Stewart. Right now my great tv loves are Sam Heughan (Jamie) from Outlander and Colin O'Donoghue (Hook) from Once Upon a Time. I hope this means I have a thing for loyal, supportive, protective guys with amazing accents and not for two-hundred-year-olds who can sword fight, 'cause that would be awkward. ETA: I also fell hard for Josh Dallas (also from Once) in the pilot as he battled his way through a bunch of knights with his newborn daughter in his arms. Swoon. Again, not sure if it was the sword, or protecting his daughter in a fairly hopeless situation that did it.

This. This has really been bugging me today. I can try to put aside my considerable cynicism/skepticism and, for the sake of argument, accept that Josh's punishment/renovation work/whatever actually worked and he repented and confessed. He might have completely reformed and became a perfectly respectable, upstanding hate-monger (oops, said I wouldn't be cynical, didn't I?). If his parents hadn't sold out to TLC, this story would never have broken and no one would have ever known. How could the Boob and Meechelle have agreed to put their children on tv knowing they had this massive skeleton in their closet that was bound to come out sooner or later and ruin everyones life? They can't have believed it would stay quiet forever.

I see what you're saying, GEML, and I agree that we don't know the inner workings and private conversations of the Duggar home. Some of the girls could very well have moved on without intervention. I even get that some could have found a way to forgive what happened. The problem is, once again the Duggar children are being treated as a boxed set, and not as individuals. My parents both come from big baby-boom families and they and their siblings are as different as chalk and cheese, yet in the Duggar household the whole family has been able to process and move on in exactly the same way and arrived at the same point of Christian forgiveness. Sorry, I don't buy it. If there was ever a time to look at these precious human beings as individuals with unique needs, not just a number on "how much God loves us" score board, it's now.

If this is true, then the folks at TLC are even stupider than I thought. Yes, the girls are the source of most of the ratings, but there are good reasons for that which have been made moot points by what has happened. Before this broke, I think the fans were watching to see the girls have their happily-ever-after story (which quickly turns into the ho-hum Anna wrangling four small children story anyway) casual folks were watching because weddings and babies have always been a good part of TLC's bread and butter, and critics (like us) were watching to see if and how the children's lives would change away from their many responsibilities and restrictive rules. Everything's changed now. Jill's totally neat-ing and clingy-ness used to be seen as an an effect of her naive and limited experience. Now we learn that the older girls aren't even a little bit naive and Jim-Bob's "umbrella of protection" was about as much use as a kleenex in a hurricane. Those girls have seen and repeatedly been party to some of the darkest sides of human experience. The twenty going on twelve thing isn't endearing, or silly anymore. It's disturbing. Who could watch that, whether the show acknowledges Josh or not?