onthebrink03

Andorra, thank you for posting that interview. It WAS very entertaining. I laughed tears as well. He is a very funny and charming man. Totally adorable!

I see your question has already been answered, so not the first time. And truly, I think the viewers dodged a bullet here. For all we know, we could have had pallbearers and angels dancing in the background just to really bring it home. The picture at the end was probably the most cheap and blatant manipulation I have ever seen on this show. And we've seen a ton over the years.

Bite your tongue. Perish the thought. Don't even go there. They wouldn't, would they? They couldn't, could they? CCB ain't looking so bad considering...

My God, Fellows is more of an idiot that I thought. He didn't want Matthews death to dominate the Christmas special so he killed him at the very end? Like that made any difference at all? Like the final shot of Matthew lying there with cold dead eyes was not the dominate thing his loyal audience came away with? Like it was a good idea to include such a scene on Christmas night? Was Fellows born a moron or has he worked for it all his life? Inquiring minds want to know. Dan Stevens didn't spring his desire to not renew his contract and leave the show at the last minute. He informed the show of his intentions at the beginning of his last contracted season. Doesn't matter if Fellows had scripts written and casting done. He shouldn't have assumed anything. And to keep blaming Dan Stevens for the mess Fellows made of not only the Christmas special but the storylines going forward, is simply ridiculous. Fellows is supposedly a writer. Then write you imbecile. Surely you have more than one idea rolling around in that head and if real life circumstances change, you can also change direction. Dan Stevens owed his audience and the shows producers some quality work for the time he was contracted. He gave them that. People leave shows all.the.time. To keep insinuating that Dan Stevens created this almost insurmountable problem is preposterous. And the Christmas special did not have to end with Matthew's death (shown so gruesomely so you knew he was really, really dead). You could have had screeching brakes, sounds of a crash, people running and left it a cliffhanger. Still not the most cheerful of ways to end a Christmas night offering but it would have been far less grisly and the opening of the next season could confirm Matthew's death. We could then see the funeral and the grieving of all concerned. There were others besides Mary who suffered a loss. Isobel lost her only son, Tom lost a close and valued friend, Lord Grantham lost a loved SIL and the immediate heir to Downton Abbey etc. These were all things that would have made for some compelling viewing. We got very, very little of that! But of course most of the truly compelling stuff has always been off screen so at least Fellows is consistent if nothing else!

Thanks for the info Dahlia. I just read this morning that the best way to get more magnesium (besides the proper foods in your diet) is to apply it topically either through a lotion, oil, spray or bath product. So your recommendation on this is prompting me to seek out one of the topical solutions mentioned and see how I fare.

Cosmocrush, thanks for that link. To my mind trying a natural remedy is always preferable to loading up on drugs so this is very much appreciated.

I've been reading up on magnesium and it is supposed to be good for RLS, Periodic Limb Movement Disorder and leg cramps. It seems that a deficiency in magnesium could be at least part of the cause of these ailments. Although it has been stressed to talk to your physician or pharmacist before starting any supplements as too much of magnesium could have some serious side effects. I also suffer from RLS, PLMD and the occasional leg cramp so I will be asking my doctor about testing for a magnesium deficiency and, if one is present, what would be a safe dosage to take. The impact on one's sleep from these conditions can be depressing and overwhelming so I hope all of us find some relief in the future.

Are they f-ing insane? The person voted the most hated celebrity a few short years ago? The person who is constantly referred to as out of touch with real people and the real world? How does hiring someone like THAT help save the show? Clearly the producers of this show need an intervention, followed by many, many, many months (years) of group therapy because of all the bone-headed, ridiculous, out of their minds decisions this group has made, this one is mind-blowing in it's absurdity. Of course if they are looking to piss people off daily then maybe this is the most brilliant.decision.ever. Whenever Raven fails to deliver with the stupid and delusional, Paltrow can pick up the slack.

Because Allen Leech had a contract and the fans wanted him back. Screw giving him any sort of proper storyline and send off. That would be asking a tad too much. We can't have Fellows actually bring Tom front and centre even for a moment. He's not really utilized the actor and his character (other than a prop in someone else's storyline or that disastrous turn with the horrible Miss Bunting) since Sybil died. Why start now, eh?

I think it's a matter of each to his (or her) own. I've always liked Matthew Goode. I think he's a nice looking man and I think he's a gifted actor. That being said, as much as I looked forward to his time on Downton, and I was so very, very much, is how much I am disappointed in the reality. Instead of being da bomb, his presence has proven to be a dud of magnificent proportions. So for me, it's just such a waste and I do blame Fellows lazy writing for most of it. Julian Ovenden as Blake was the best and obvious choice for Mary up until something happened to change Fellows mind (that or he lost his mind) and he had no idea how to wrap up that story line properly and where to turn next. I'd love to know what happened that took Blake off the table as I thought he was perfect for taking on Mary with all her issues and airs. And the chemistry between Julian/Blake and Michelle/Mary was fantastic. I just don't see it with any of the others ( and that's including Tom/Allen) and it will be a shame if Mary ends up with the "best I can do because my Plan A fell through" because Julian Fellows had no real idea how to continue the show once Dan Stevens beat a hasty retreat. I want a happy ending for sure. But I would dearly love to have one that makes sense as well. Asking too much?

Ah, you beautiful dreamer you. At the risk of breaking your heart, you do know that Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy aren't real, don't you? Unicorns aren't real either but you have a better chance of finding one of them than getting "some good work" out of this crew.

BWAHVO hafo. Oh how I wish you were doing the writing for Downton. Brilliant stuff and with much of the nonsense that Julian Fellows has wanted us to digest in the past few years, why not, eh?

And it seems many are jumping on the "let's make waves" bandwagon. I wish producers/programmers etc. would stop going for controversial and get back to intelligent and thought provoking shows. You know, something that might actually entertain or educate. Something that might make someone seek out more information about people, places and current events. But more and more you see producers scrambling for whatever will net them press and an audience that will tune in out of curiosity as to what idiotic conversation or stunt they will pull out of their asses next. When did intelligent discourse become out of fashion? And when might the pendulum swing back. I miss the days of Meredith, Lisa and Joy in her prime. It can be fun to snark on the idiocy that abounds these days in shows such as The View but you lose brain cells every time you watch this type of drivel and once they're gone, they're gone for good!

Why is Robin's Williams widow going on the show? Surely, she's not going to talk about Robin's death? Or maybe she'll talk about how she locked the family into a legal battle trying to deny his children personal mementos from their beloved father that were rightfully theirs. I can't imagine THIS is going to go well.

They think she has all the qualities that make her a great addition to the panel - confident, genuine and opinionated. *insert rolling eyes emoticon* Gee, how about being intelligent, well informed and mindful of the words that come out of your mouth. Wouldn't THOSE be even better qualities to possess for starring on a show discussing pop culture, political news and national/world issues. Thought provoking and given to creating buzz and discussion are not a bad thing. But what Raven does is spew nonsensical ill informed views on a pretty consistent basis. She's only a good addition to a panel when you hope to talk down to your audience and speak to the morons of the nation. Of course when looking at the mix (for the most part) they've assembled, I guess that is exactly what they wanted and they hit the jackpot with Raven.

Got it. Thank you!

Who knows? We all know she's a not so secret idiot. So there is that...

Well, I'm right at Ground Zero. Pray for me people!

Thanks for the response maggiemae. I thought I had missed some official word. Of course official word from The View means next to nothing most of the time.

Why are people assuming Joy is only a guest co-host? To my knowledge, it has always been stated that she was returning as a permanent co-host, making it six at the table if they all are present, with Joy taking over the moderator duties on a Friday. Am I missing an update that states Joy is only guesting?

Don't know what it's going to take for Outlander to get some recognition for their achievments. The Scottish BFTA Awards have snubbed them. They brought in £40m (that's about $61 million US) to the Scottish film industry and produced a show that has been a critical and audience favourite worldwide but no nominations for the show or the fantastic actors. So upsetting... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/hit-tv-show-outlander-sensationally-6626774

Oops, going to have to brush up on the edit funtion.

It was training in "diversionary tactics", he wanted. And this comment was made in response to Joy talking about how effective would a locked gun be in the case of someone with a gun entering a classroom with the intent to harm. Who is he looking to train in diversionary tactics? If it's the teacher, then they're not going for the gun while busy diverting the gunman's attention because...well...common sense, huh? So we're left with training the kids, to divert attention? "Okay kids here's the deal. Some bad person might come into our classroom with the intent of shooting all of us. Soooooo, what we want you guys to do it make a fuss over here so I can go over there to my desk, unlock my drawer and get my gun so I can blow the bastard to kingdom come. Are we all clear on this - let's map out a plan. So Mikey, what I want you to do is..." That comment confused and confounded me for sure. But, I'm often confused and confounded, not to mention angry and frustrated, once these gun proponents start spewing their nonsense. This common sense thingie seems to elude many and should any person bereft of said common sense be running a country? I think not!

So his right to bear arms is more important and precious than a human life? And this from a doctor. The man is insane!

No, you didn't mishear. Joy said she was off doing something else next week (she didn't specify what) but she would be back in the moderator's chair on Friday.