Trillian

You know, I’ve thought about this a lot (too much, probably), but I’ve decided that I wouldn’t have minded if they had fudged the timeline and had the 40th birthday in 2019. I would’ve liked to have seen how the original plot line developed. Partly, it’s because I don’t think they handled the pandemic issue very well. They could have at least reshot the scenes of Rebecca in the restaurant and with the police, so that people were masked. And maybe had her wander off, rather than go out to buy a cake after they had tested and then all quarantined for 20 days (as Kevin said). You go to all that trouble to keep your bubble safe and then you let mom go to the store unmasked to buy a cake? And then you let Randall in? Sorry, buddy, it doesn’t matter how often you were tested, you could’ve picked up the virus anytime since (or been tested last before it showed). Stay away from your elderly mom and stepdad, your pregnant sister-in-law and your (probably) high-risk sister. But mainly, I’m with the others who have said that they watch this show for entertainment and the virus is not entertaining. Racism is not entertaining. It’s not to say that these aren’t big, hugely important topics - of course they are - but this opener suggests that the show is heading towards being “about” these topics. I want my nighttime soap opera back, not a whole season of Very Special Episodes. I hope I’m wrong that this is where it’s going, but if I’m not, I don’t think I can take it

Wasn’t there even an exchange between him and William about this? I’m thinking of when William got hassled by the police for Walking While Black in Randall’s ritzy neighbourhood. As I recall, it hadn’t even dawned on Randall that that was a thing, and he was more embarrassed about William’s clothing than anything.

Isn’t that Randall though? The only person who exists or matters in the world? I thought that so much when he phoned the therapist. A normal person would’ve waited for his next appointment. Not made an emergency call from his car. And then said politely that he appreciated everything she had done for him but that maybe someone else would be a better fit going forward. Maybe even asked for a referral to someone who met his criteria. But he went after that poor woman as if she had done something wrong and just fired her ass, even though any professional would’ve understood the issue. Because that’s Our Randall

Steinem (we don’t call men by their first names so why would we do that with women) agrees that Schafly gets too much credit: “In actuality, I don’t believe she changed one vote. Nobody could ever discover that she changed even one vote. The insurance industry here opposed the equal rights amendment because if they stopped segregating their actuarial tables it would cost them millions upon millions of dollars.” Schlafly was someone “brought in at the last minute” to make it seem that women opposed equal rights when the truth was “the vast majority” always supported it... “The series makes it seem as if women are our own worst enemies, which keeps us from recognising who our worst enemies are. Not that we aren’t in conflict, yes we are in conflict, but by and large we don’t have the power to be our own worst enemies.” https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/22/tv-account-of-1970s-feminist-history-not-very-good-says-gloria-steinem-hay-festival. I would’ve loved a show focusing on Steinem, Abzug, Chisolm, Friedan, et al. I’ll take what I can get and this was amazing but it could’ve been so much more.

I hear you, sister, particularly “I cannot stomach watching it all over again.”. I’m somewhat younger than you - barely in my teens during this time- but was introduced to what we then called women’s liberation at about age 12 by an older cousin and never looked back. Despite being Canadian, I followed the ERA debate with passion and considered Ms (hope that title makes you spin in your grave) Schlafly to be evil personified. I’m finding this really hard to watch. Part of it is Cate Blanchett’s performance and part of that is the show itself. Is she supposed to be a villain, or are we supposed to feel sorry for the woman who campaigned against the criminalization of marital rape as she is raped by her husband? The feminist in me wanted to be outraged but another part of me is saying “serves you right” (and then the feminist part of me slaps the other part of me and I end up emotionally bruised and confused). I suspect part of the problem is the writers don’t want to take a stand on the actual issues because -ratings - and are trying to have it both ways. And Blanchett, to me, is coming across as not believing in her character (she’s said as much in interviews). I appreciate it’s hard to strike a balance but it’s not coming across for me.

I don’t know how much longer I can bear to watch this show with Randall in it, unless something really bad does indeed happen to him.

I think that’s the fundamental problem so many of us are having. It could ok - brave even - to portray Randall as an ass. Let’s face it, every family has a Randall in one form or another. What’s problematic for me is that they are still thinking of him as a hero whom we should actually like. It doesn’t help that Stirling Brown is a great actor and comes across personally as a likeable guy. It’s hard to picture him as a villain. I suspect it’s that dissonance between what they want us to see and what’s actually coming across on the sceeen that bugs. It certainly is for me.

I wonder if they could have successfully aged up the actress who plays teen Kate, and used her more plausibly.

Can I like this 100 times? Randall cannot manipulate his mother like this and be allowed to be a hero of this show. No wonder flashforward Kevin and Kate aren’t speaking to him. Despicable.

What year was the flashback to the church supposed to be? I couldn't tell from the setup of the church, which appeared to have kneelers but no altar rail (too cheap to modify the church set?), but it looked like mid-60s, judging from the clothes and the hair. Claire should've had her head covered in church. And even today, a priest doesn't walk up and chat with you during Adoration, which is an incredibly solemn and sacred thing.

So Kevin gives his sick mom a magical night where she gets to live the life of a glamorous movie star and pissy self-important selfish momma’s boy Randall has to go spoil it because he wasn’t the centre of attention for a few minutes. Are we supposed to hate his character? Because, if we’re supposed to like him or feel sorry for him, the writers are failing miserably.

Isn’t that an old joke about magazines in the doctor’s office? Flipping through: hmmm, looks like the Beatles are breaking up.

Although it backfired rather spectacularly when Connie Corleone did it.

A couple of us discussed this in the episode thread and I just now went back to the book to confirm what I remembered. There’s no real explanation- just that it’s practice in that locale to drive the prisoners to the courthouse and then walk them in. They expected a mob and offered him a bulletproof vest but, on the advice of his lawyer, he declined it because it would be bad optics for an innocent man. Whatever. My own opinion is that it’s a weak plot point. My experience (as a lawyer not a defendant!) is that accused in custody are driven right into a secure area in the courthouse and not paraded in the streets, as much because of the risk of escape as the prisoner’s safety. And high-profile out-of-custodies are often hustled into a back door because a mob is in no one’s interest. So, plot.

i had heard at the time that Prince Philip was the best person to test because he is a female-line descendant of Queen Victoria, just like the Tsarina and (obviously) her children. As a result, they would all have the same mitochondrial DNA, which is matrilineal and is easy to test.

I didn’t catch that with someone calling her Marcy, but it wouldn’t surprise me after the Sheraton close-captioning thing. It’s like the changed the names at the last minute but missed some original references.

Agreed. American lawyers, is this normal? In my Canadian city, accused in custody are taken into the courthouse in a police vehicle for security reasons. Yup. I bought the book when it came out but (unusually for me and Stephen King), I’m not sure I finished it. In fact, I thought I hadn’t read it until I picked it up this weekend and found it familiar. So, the book is really fresh in my mind. A number of the names have been changed, including Marcy to Glory. Oddly, the hotel he stayed in in Cap City was a Sheraton. The show changed the name, but the close captioning still said Sheraton. Maybe Sheraton objected to the tv hotel’s being presented as kinda shabby without security cams everywhere, as opposed to the book?

I came here to post the same story. You best me to it! Here’s the CBC article anyway: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russian-spies-children-supreme-court-1.5402096

Roman Catholic? Generally, only “priests in training” go to Catholic seminary, although others take theology courses and degrees and some seminary courses are taken in secular universities. “I’m a third year seminarian” would’ve implied priest in training and no Catholic - let alone a priest- would’ve had any doubt what that meant. Varies by parish, and some parishes offer both. I’m with you in preferring the booth. Some people really claim to like the face-to-face, though. For all the little things, this show doesn’t do Catholicism badly. On re-watch, I was actually quite impressed to notice that the altar in the church where David confessed was actually properly decked out for the liturgical season, with advent wreath and purple drapings. Assuming they filmed it more than three weeks ago, they had to go to some effort to do that.

I heard “the Lord has come” and noticed it because I always thought it was “is”. Or maybe I can hear things others can’t because of my advanced age. Well, if he was confessing to a real priest, it was pretty weird for him to say that he was in third year seminary and then go on to explain to a real priest that that means he’s training to be a priest. That really jumped out at me - hit a discordant note, one might say.

That’s not entirely true. Philip II of Spain was King with Mary I during their marriage. Elizabeth I had no spouse. Of the 5 female rulers of England/Great Britain who were married during their reign, 2 of 5 ( the two Marys) had husbands who were called kings. If Mathilda is excluded (as she was arguably never properly recognized as queen, so recognition of the Duke of Anjou as King wouldn’t logically follow), it’s half and half each way before Elizabeth II. As a great great grandson of Queen Victoria, he had his own claim to the throne. It wouldn’t have been unreasonable or without precedent for Philip to expect to be King Consort.

Newer model iPhones, at least, are designed to reveal ICE contacts without the passcode. I think most androids allow this too. My phone even allows the user to put in medical information (blood type, medications, conditions etc) on that page. A step too far, in my opinion, but I’m not forced to fill it in and I guess some people find it handy.

I’m old too. I kept thinking how lovely and touching it was when Archie Bunker did it and this was ... kinda creepy.

I thought that was the protocol everywhere. It is in my Canadian city. I can think of at least one movie where it was used as a plot point. Of course, our heroine Maddie knows better than any damn life-saving protocol.

From Noah’s perspective, this makes total sense. Most males would feel totally humiliated in this female environment at not being able to give their little girl whatever she desired. He would have remembered the staff as being judgmental of his fatherhood and therefore of his manhood, even if they would’ve been more reasonable in real life.