cuppasun

Nope, you're not the only one. (*sniffle*) Yes. My son, eldest of my three, was born in 1980, and it's so easy to do the math in my aging head, heh. (Also, yes, not a math person, so whatever...). I've used that to track how old the kids on the show are ("oh yeah, same age as A! Wow, how'd I get a kid that old already...")

Seconded. I'm a survivor of two abusive relationships (including the one I had to flee across the country from to save my life...), and several instances of non-relationship violence. I was nauseated for much of the episode, and crying. Frighteningly well-done, and the depiction of gaslighting was heartbreaking, infuriating and terrifying, all at once. I had those fantasies of killing my abuser, once upon a time. The one I fled died a few years after I left (car accident), and only then did I begin feeling safe again. Even on the level of fictional wish-fulfillment, though, I hope Alex & Jo didn't do it--I want them, most of all Jo, free and safe, not in prison. I'd prefer it be the fiancee, even if that's narratively a bit neat. I, too, was expecting to see her either desperately injured or dead. I do hope he dies of his injuries, though. Also, having spent a lifetime mostly not believed or my experiences minimized, it was such a profound thing to see the unconditional support Jo got from not just Alex, but Mer and Arizona as well; such an important part of combating the psychological aspects of abuse. I had just enough emotional energy to cheer the fabulous hacker doc (Carter? not quite remembering his name-- ETA: Parker! Dr. Parker! Thank you, shantown), and was crazy happy with the low-key and lovely trans reveal. A trans man, played by a trans man! The world shifts just a touch to the better...

It can happen, though. Years ago, when my oldest two kids were teens, they decided one day to have a contest to see who could hold their breath longer (yes, they were--still are!--weird people...). My son won (or, as he and I were discussing recently, maybe lost? We never really called it formally) when he passed out, and on his way down, hit his head on a brick in the brick-and-board bookcase he was standing next to. He's the genius child in the family, too (no, really! not Sheldon-level genius, though, thank goodness). Which just goes to show all teenagers are stupid in some way, and Sheldon's emotional maturity isn't much beyond adolescence, I suppose. Still, the joke was one of the two laugh-out-loud moments in the ep for me, a rarity these days, because I understood it immediately when I saw the board : ) The other moment I loved: I was already grinning happily through the back-and-forth scenes featuring...science!! Even the music stuff was about science. And the women weren't shunted to "less important" or filler/token science storylines, and the constant forced trope of "the nerdy science guys do stuff that bores/annoys/mystifies the women while the women only want to do relationship-based or domestic stuff" (and variants, usually involving how the guys aren't worthy of the women) was entirely absent. These were all smart people (yes, including Penny!) acting on their capabilities and competence, and it was fun to boot. And the sheets remark from Penny to Leonard and Amy after the brainstorming session with Sheldon was perfection--I laughed so loud I scared the cat. This is the stuff that makes me come back to BBT, because it's possible. I wish they'd give up on the pathetic/loser-type storylines once and for all.

Me, too. Except I'm pretty sure I didn't. Which means this wasn't in it. Unless I did, and it was. Anyone? Did anyone see something like this? Otherwise, I continue to like the series, and got a kick out of the over-the-top half&half anti-hero bad boy helper. Hope he shows up again sometime. Calvin could do with being a little less sullen, though. : )

I had coffee. It was delicious! Bwaaaahhhhh! Oh yes, young innocent, it is true: coffee is the gateway to all that is naughty and fabulous!

Ha! I have always wanted to see a reenactment of the musical beds/belongings (and subsequent--what was it, algebraic? whodunit?--problem no one could solve) when everybody had the "grippe"! But "Charles" might be one of the funniest things ever filmed, if they got the right people with the right comic timing, yes.

I love all things Shirley Jackson as well. The Haunting of Hill House is, to my mind, still the very best "haunted house" book ever written (and yes, I like Stephen King, and liked The Shining, but don't know if it could have existed in the same way or had the same impact without Hill House). The repeated attempts to revisit it in film--well, look, I get it, it's a creepy story and pretty well-known. But it's not easy to represent well, because it's about atmosphere, disturbance and the terror of uncertainty, not pop-up scares. It takes real skill to create that onscreen, and when done well, it's unforgettable. I don't yet trust this will be done well, but I do love some of the cast, and can't resist anything Shirley Jackson...so I will watch, at least until/unless it makes me run away crying and foot-stomping. I would be even more impressed if someone was able to make a truly good adaptation of We Have Always Lived In The Castle. Like Turn of the Screw, that one is creepy on the highest level, with a story based on an unreliable narrator. I like it as much--and occasionally more--than Hill House. I've listened to the audio versions of both, which are extremely well-narrated. Now, something that would make an excellent series from Jackson's work would be an adaptation of Life Among the Savages and its follow-up Raising Demons--funny, witty, and snarky rather than creepy, but such great material!

Yes, this. There was something from this last episode, I don't remember exactly, where she was saying that she knew something that was about to happen and wanting to be there with Scott when it did--his arrest, maybe?--and I found myself wondering if maybe she tipped him off, and that was part of why he tried to "run." It's not anything there's proof for, it just hit me that she had inside info, was clearly in his corner, and it didn't seem like the kind of thing she'd be above. She's rubbing me the wrong way, no doubt. I simply do not get her enthusiastic support for this guy. I kind of feel like "The Murder of Laci Peterson" is a misleading title for this production. Would have been more honest to title it "The Innocence of Scott Peterson." It all feels very dismissive of Laci, as if she's just a set piece, not the central figure. The one interesting thing that struck me was the juxtaposition of the Iraq invasion news with Laci's murder. I honestly hadn't remembered the fact that these were happening at the exact same time--it's so weird (and a little disconcerting!) to realize how much stronger my memory of the murder and its aftermath are than those huge world events. Local stuff really does make more impact, it seems.

Yeah, last night's episode pretty much dropped any thin pretense that this series is about anything other than "Scott Peterson is really innocent and was railroaded!" There's almost no attention or details regarding the actual case built against him; the rhetoric is that somehow, the voracious press, and the press alone, influenced and maybe even controlled the police and prosecutors, who were only going along to feed the frenzy. There was one moment where someone (that woman reporter who was on the 'inside' maybe?) was talking about the response to finding Laci's body as a high-five moment because oh boy, now we don't have to prosecute a "no body" trial, woo-hoo! All I could think was, hmmmm...or maybe there was grim relief that, I don't know, a murdered woman and her child's bodies were found? Because those victims deserve some kind of justice? Thing is, I'm not ever opposed to reevaluating my views on something in the face of compelling evidence that changes things. That's science; that's the way things should work. But the major "evidence" being presented here as "compelling" is almost exclusively eyewitness statements collected by a P.I. well after the fact. The one from the marina was preposterous--the guy acknowledges he didn't see the person's face, but remembers a jacket and that he "looked into the boat" from the pier? Not likely. It's well-established by now that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence available. Like it or not, we humans don't have memories as good as we think we do--and more importantly, memory is often overlaid with elements that find their way in from elsewhere and come to seem a concrete part of the memory, even when it's not. In this case, there's no possible way anyone not living under a rock, especially in the Bay Area, wasn't bombarded with the news, conjecture, images and info connected to the case, and that can easily cause conflation or inaccurate memories. Hell, it's downright common to mistake when a remembered event took place, especially if the event wasn't important at the time, but becomes connected in the mind to something that's become important later. (Yeah, I read a lot of cognitive science books. I'm all into that stuff.) I lived in Oakland when all this was happening, and like everyone else, followed the story avidly. This show, so far, has done nothing to convince me there's a credible case that anyone other than Scott committed the murder(s). Sadly, it's a textbook thing, not at all uncommon in situations like Scott and Laci's. I'm no fan of Nancy Grace's antics, and think she's just as bad for figuring out the facts as the defense folks (or maybe worse), but it's not her ranting that ever swayed me then, or now. I wish she wasn't being used as the representative voice of Scott's guilt--though it's pretty clear why they're doing that. It makes the "innocence project" parts sound much more reasonable by comparison. I can grasp why something like this would be devastating for the family members of the murderer, and why they want desperately to believe it's not him. That's a sympathetic place to be. But feelings about your loved ones, no matter how tragic or genuine, are not evidence, and the litany of "I just know because I love him and he could never!" doesn't help in persuading the audience (or, well, this audience right here, anyway). It's frustrating. At this point, I'll stick with: the jury saw lots of evidence, that evidence was compelling enough for them to convict, and absent any real, physical, provable evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to think a mistake has been made. The whole thing does make me flinch on behalf of Laci's family, though. I sure wouldn't want to be them witnessing this right now. Yuck.

I damn near laughed myself into a stroke at the Wu-Tang Clan moment. All I could think was, "hey, wait--I didn't know my son-in-law was one of the prospective jurors!" Because that could have--no, scratch that, would have come out of his mouth. Probably has.

Or a Gravenstein, my favorite! (Arkansas Blacks are yummy, too.)

So much yes. I adore Craig Ferguson, and will watch anything he's in/on. I wish he was around more. He's so freaking intelligent! Yes, do! She's fabulous. She's one of my laugh-through-the-tears trifecta of the humor-based current event folks: John Oliver, Seth Meyers, and Sam Bee. They are a big part of how I stay somewhat sane these days... (Now if only Craig Ferguson would come back and do *something*, my world would be complete.)

So, it looks like maybe it was just me who went to "Narnia?" when the little girl introduced herself as Lucy. Not that I think it fits, just what occurred to me. I guess I don't have the right kind of imagination for this show... ...because I don't need Round 2 of the same damn storyline again! Okay, that's all out of my system. I'm going to try not to watch next season. Might relent if it makes my granddaughter happy. Not impressed with the tease so far, though. (bring back OUAT in Wonderland, and we can talk!)

omg, yeah, Randall and Beth, of course--how could I forget! You're absolutely right. I've never been into Brooklyn 9-9, so I'll take your word for it, and I have to catch up on Pitch so I'll see when I get around to that. I do still find it a little painful that there are so few genuinely healthy examples out of the nearly endless stream of pop culture relationships... but I'll take what I can get : )

To be fair, yurts can be pretty elaborate, depending on what's added to the basic elements. What surprised me was that they didn't choose a larger one, maybe 300 (or even 400) sq ft, so they could organize it better, with walls, insulation, etc. Seems a better use of space than building a second one. I've seen some pretty incredible yurt builds that were frankly beautiful and comfortable, and they don't have to lack any amenities if you want them. As for insulation/winter, traditional yurts are technically designed for that kind of climate, so if they're done properly they should be comfortable--but it really depends on the choices for the build (and the company that makes them; there are several). Although I had a few occasions to live somewhat rustically when I was a very young adult, I've learned a lot about more extreme off-grid living over the last few years (not for myself! can't do that stuff anymore, too old and creaky...) because my older daughter and her husband & two kids have lived off-grid for some time. They started out in a tipi--which kind of shocked me when they told me--that I think was a bit bigger than the yurt from this ep in floor sq footage; the tipi was made by a company, but they cut the poles themselves. They heated and cooked over a central open fire--and they did live in it into early winter (in WA state). Then they moved into a total off-grid cabin on property they purchased: no electricity, no water (not even a well--they had to hand carry in their water), outhouse...that was for four years. They recently bought a neighboring property with a bigger cabin that has running water & electricity, though still off-grid (well & solar), and omg, indoor bathroom--lap of luxury! They kind of amaze me, and I'm really impressed, though I would have hated the winters up there. My younger daughter lived in a bare-bones, pretty rustic tiny house in the same area for a while too, on the property of some folks she did nanny work for. Oh, to be young and resilient!

Well, he's bigger than a pair of kittens, but my older daughter's Belgian Shepherd is named Munch! He's also known as the "fun police"--he stops the other dogs if they get too silly or boisterous.

I'll buy ya a mug of ale and join you at the table... I was, to be kind, underwhelmed. If pressed, I liked Hook's number best. And while I'm not a big-time shipper generally (I'd prefer representations of healthy relationships, which hahahahahaha...never gonna happen on teevee!), I do have a soft spot for hot reformed bad boys paired with tough heroines... so I've been okay with Killian & Emma in general. The "true love" stuff doesn't move me. I bet it's easy to guess what other pairings I've been content with, though, huh?

Yes, she was! Was just reading a review that mentioned it. I didn't notice at the time (darn), but have realized I'm not willing yet to go back and rewatch...

No, it's more (though I'm not sure how many); they dropped the first three at once, then are doing the rest once a week on Weds. From what I've heard, there's even a possibility it will run more than one season, but don't know much about that either.

Ah, my bad for unclear phrasing (clearly too little sleep, not yet tempered with enough coffee!): I didn't mean Janine's earlier pregnancy, I meant the one we saw (which presumably took ~9 mos., and presumably didn't occur until after she left the Red Center). My assumption is that Offred & the others all left the RC for their placements around the same time. Doesn't much matter either way, I think; this is more me trying to practice clarity of thought! (I already know how I'm doing, peanut gallery can quit snickering any time, thanks.)

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean--if I haven't already read a book, I will sometimes wait to do so until after seeing the adaptation. There have been a few exceptions for me, and I've generally been glad for those. Maybe a compromise, start reading (or listening) the book halfway through the series? This is one time I do genuinely believe the written work won't devolve into frustration over adaptive changes, in part because the mode of storytelling is very very different. The book is an entirely first-person account, and a somewhat fractured one at that, something that can't really be replicated in film (and in my opinion, shouldn't attempt to be), so it allows for differences that feel organic. It makes me think of the book and film versions of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest--vastly different, pretty much by necessity, but both amazing. Reading and viewing, in either direction, really doesn't detract from either medium. Of course, you should always do what feels best to you! I just have a sneaking suspicion the kinds of things you're going to wonder about ep to ep are likely to be things you'd get from the book, which would offer depth rather than disappointment. Then again, what do I know? : ) okay, total aside: literally (yes, literally!) as I was writing this, I got a (probable) spam call on my cell from some number in "Mount Gilead, OH". Yikes! After the last few hours submersed in the fictional horror of Atwood's Republic of Gilead, no way would I answer that!

"...we know the Waterford household is her first assignment..." Just a quick correction: this is June's second assignment; Serena Joy specifically mentions that when she arrives, and makes a point of commenting that it reduces her need to "train" June. So presumably it's been some time since even the Red Center (and we don't know how long that indoctrination took, either), since there's almost certainly some minimum number of "tries" before scrapping an assignment and moving on. eta: Also, duh (just realized, because math is so not my thing...): since Janine had to be placed at least once, and bring a pregnancy to term, I think we can safely assume it's been at least a year since the Red Center. Maybe as much as a couple years since the coup, but that's more of a guess. (I think I've become too used to TV Pregnancy, which often seems to take either six weeks, or 15 months...)

I woke up around 3 a.m. and watched all three eps (not sure I would have made it through if it were the middle of the day, feeling "normal"), only breaking for coffee and a little hyperventilation shortly into this episode. Through the first two eps, I had this shell-shocked, almost frozen emotional reaction; horrified and disturbed, yes, as I'd expected to be (as I am every time I reread the book...), but almost in that kind of afraid-to-react place that Offred herself is, sort of an identification with the trauma of our protagonist. Most of the things I was concerned would bother me in the adaptation I'm glad to find work for me after all (e.g., the revelation of Offred's name in the first ep). But it was this ep that finally brought me tears, in the place I least expected it: during the scene of the protest, when June and Moira are fleeing and hiding from the soldiers who open fire. Maybe it felt just too too close to home and recent reality: protests that look so much like that have been such a part of life lately, for reasons just a few (tiny) steps removed from this fictional one. And the horror of protesters being openly killed and bombed by an "official" armed force is not remotely unheard of in the world at large, and again, is only a few small (grim) steps from possible reality here in our own backyards. I just kept thinking: in the unfolding of a coup like that, what would any of us--no matter how sensible, thoughtful, or intelligent we thought we were--actually do? When would we recognize life-altering danger? What could we do, and would it be too late once we'd decided? The thought of that helplessness intertwined with almost unimaginable horror (not that it should be unimaginable; see Nazi Germany, Taliban Afghanistan, North Korea, etc etc among endless other examples...) was overwhelming for me. And then what happened to Ofglen took what remained from me. I think I'm kind of glad this can't be binged all at once. I'd be tempted--this version, so far, is as compelling for me as the book (and when I listened to the audiobook narrated by Claire Danes recently, I couldn't stop except to sleep)--and it would not be a good thing for me emotionally, I suspect. Waiting a week between eps is a bit of forced recovery. <<shudder>> Though, at least, it's washing away the terrible taste of the awful film version. Will be awfully glad that anyone ever, from here on out, who wants to see a filmed depiction, won't have to bother with that thing. Yeesh.

ElectricBoogaloo, I strongly recommend you read the book. My personal experience (having read it several times, including a recent reread via the audio version magnificently narrated by Claire Danes) is that it doesn't in any way reduce the effect of this filmed version, despite knowing some of the plot already. Because there are variations, for me, it actually enhances it, since I already understand some of the things you're asking about; so far, for me, the two are working very well together. And yes, I agree, the hypocrisy is infuriating and horrifying, but I feel that is a common part of any fundamentalist agenda. One answer I'll provide to one of your questions (going to spoiler tag this, hope I've done it right since I never have before!):

Yeah, I was like whoah, that's too damn many kids in the opening scene. But then Glenn says something like he's taking a picture for Jerusha's birthday with all the "kids they've ever fostered" which I took to mean past and current foster children, so most of the kids shown probably don't live with them anymore. It's not common for foster kids to stay with foster parents for life. I really loved all the places Bobby Sue found to have some good fun, right out in the open. Having looked for a lost kid myself, I understand the frantic reaction, though. Love love love that the trap worked! When Cheyenne shrieked that the moving tub was Bobby Sue, I first thought "Why is she so sure?"--I had forgotten all about the trap, and totally cracked up when Dina bragged that it worked. And I liked that Mateo was responsible with those kids (even if he was getting them to do his work--and I'm of the opinion that a little work now and then isn't a bad thing for kids): he didn't leave them to their own devices, made sure to take them for food, listened to them with no more disdain (or maybe even less) than he does anyone. Not bad, Mateo. I hope he meets someone new who treats him better than Jeff did.