screamin

IiRC Shannen stipulated in an interview that her husband (not even a "heightened" fictionalized version) is not to be appearing in the show. Which should make it interesting if fan spec about her character being pregnant is true. I think Gabrielle scrutinized and questioned the cop at the end simply because he wasn't wearing an ID like most staff were, though I did note the passing resemblance to Jesse.

Brian's wife would send a private detective, not a police detective. Maybe the kid's a career con artist, though at least a somewhat well-informed one, since he presumably knew at least the name of the obscure extra Brian dated back in the day, and it's hard to see what he might be plotting to get away with yet. Gabby: "Corey Feldman, The Surreal Life!" Heh.

It appears to be Tori's kids' neglected pet that Shannen 'rescued.' Forgot to add - the capture of the stalker seems a bit anticlimactic. Was that all there was to that plot?

Fun, only dragged a bit during the endless sex scene crap. Loved Jennie's "It's not real. Like these," line. And not really credible that Brian didn't ask for a DNA test.

In the case of both Gabby and Christine we are actually talking about 50-somethings, I believe. I wholly agree with the sentiment, though.

I always thought that the problem of what to do with Andrea in college would have been better resolved having Steve be her casual rebound after breaking up with the TA - and having him be her inadvertant baby daddy, leading to all that angst between two key characters, instead of between her and a nonentity we never got any reason to care about.

Oh, speaking of soccer moms, I remembered Uncle Bob of Television Without Pity recapped the first season of Surreal Life, which had MC Hammer, Corey Feldman, Vince Neil, and Gabrielle on it, among others. IIRC, it was mildly amusing and rather unpredictably had Vince Neil seemingly to occasionally be interested in Gabrielle when there was a Playboy bunny wandering around. To elicit DRAMA, the producers one evening had a naked woman covered in sushi appear lying on a table, for dinner. Corey Feldman and MC Hammer (who's a preacher now) threw a shit fit of moral indignation and left, but Vince Neil, Gabrielle and Jerri from Survivor calmly chowed down like it wasn't no thang, which threw Uncle Bob for a loop: Gabby and Vince are outside truly enjoying this feast, which is kinda disturbing because I can't imagine Gabby as a bisexual soccer mom. Uncle Bob was a prophet, but he simply didn't have the faith to believe in his own revelation.

When he says he didn't want an open marriage, she answers, "It's not about an open marriage." If she were really asking for his permission to fool around with women non-monogamously outside her marriage, that would be an open marriage. So she is NOT explicitly demanding to be non-monogamous. I agree with Bastet that what she said later to Christine: "It is about me, and I just I thought that if I I could have Andrea do this, I could see how it feels... You know, I told my husband about this, and he accused me of wanting to cheat. This isn't about that," is describing exactly what she told her husband in the parts of the conversation that we didn't see - that she wanted to feel how it would be to have a same-sex relationship by means of acting it out on the show, not by having a relationship IRL. I don't see why we should assume she's lying about not wanting an open marriage and what she told Christine when she's been honest about everything else.

One thing I noticed about this last episode - Jason was earlier giving updates about his pregnant wife's condition as if they were back together, but then toward the end Gabby apologizes to Jason for not letting him know she wasn't coming home last night - which seems to mean that he's still staying with Gabby. Does that mean there isn't much of a real reconciliation with his wife yet? Or did the writers just screw it up?

I expect we'll get more information about the current status of her separation soon, when her story with Christine gets messily imploded all over the tabloids...not a spoiler, just a speculation, given that one of the running themes of this reboot is that what you do in the secret chamber will be cried aloud from the rooftops within an episode or two (because we has only six).

It's not about writing to suit the characters at this point; the writer knows the characters fairly well as a TV viewer. But she doesn't know the actors at all, and currently the problem is trying to suit them. Seeing what kind of people they are and how they interact with each other would probably help her tailor their characters' lines and actions to a measure they would be more comfortable with.

I must whisper it very softly but...I feel that Shannen was phoning it in. At least, judging from the scene where she pleads for the poor orphans who will be deprived of so much if she doesn't get her 200% payday. If that was supposed to be her giving a heartbreaking performance that convinced everyone to lay off, I didn't believe her and I didn't think anyone else there would. Then again...maybe "Shannen" the character is not actually supposed to be convincing them. Maybe she is supposed to be conveying this: "I'm selling you bullshit, and I know you all know it's bullshit, but I'm betting none of you will quite have the nerve to call me on it." Which would make "Shannen" the character a master of manipulation rather than thespian brilliance. Yet while I think making "Shannen" a rogue would be interesting, I don't think the show has managed to convey that either in the rest of what little we've seen of her. I find that unsatisfactory either way.

I don't see where the show implied that Gabby thought "he should be alright with that", OR that the show is saying the husband is wrong for feeling hurt about Gabby wanting to explore the idea of same-sex attraction, even if it's just in her acting (as she initially proposed to her husband). We see in her initial unease with her husband, her attempt to confess what happened in Vegas and then backing off, and her telling Jason outright that she knows her admitting to her husband her same-sex attraction would hurt him and that's why she hesitates to do it. But she confesses it anyway, because these feelings are too strong for her to suppress. She assures him there's nothing she's faulting him for. She offers the compromise that she doesn't want to open their marriage to a third party, just explore the feelings through her acting a role. He rejects the compromise outright, as is his right to do so, and says he won't pine for her. Nowhere does Gabby - or the show - tell him he's wrong to do so. She was honest with him. He was honest with her - and he left. We don't see him again - not while Jason is staying with her, not when she wakes up from her nightmare to an obviously empty bed. He's gone. They're separated. Why is it, then, 'cheating?'

If they're otherwise not getting work...sure, why not?

IA that Christine has a stake in the success of the show, and has been shown to work toward that throughout - but maybe the angle is that Fox is not actually going to suffer consequences for things like the fire (there's insurance, after all) and will reap tons of free publicity for the show. But no, you're right. She expressed great relief that the 'dumpster fire' that was happening in production wasn't leaking into the press - and she could have easily leaked it herself if she'd wanted to get it out. So on the whole she seems to be a red herring. Maybe some enterprising LAPD detective will turn out to be a big OG 90210 fan and accuse her because Emily Valentine did the same thing - and GC will have to clear her by explaining why she has an alibi; embarrassment ensues.

I'm not sure I understand. You say that the only way that Gabrielle can be in the right in thinking in theory about being with other women is: a) Get her husband's verification that he is okay with the idea, or b) break up with him if he isn't. It seems to me the conversation she had with her husband is absolutely necessary for her to have if she is to get to either point a OR point b. And it seems to me that her husband, upon being presented with the choice, definitely chose b. He left the conversation, said he wouldn't 'pine'. The door's open if he wants to leave the marriage. So how is she in the wrong here for having done exactly what you said she ought to be doing? Is it because she is indulging in flirting before the divorce papers are in hand? Jennie indulged in a good deal more before she got her papers. I don't fault her for it - her marriage was over, regardless of formalities. Jason outright committed adultery and concealed it for some time after - that's worse. Tori is an interesting comparison - she, like Gabby, also is mentally exploring the idea of something extramarital, without necessarily any intention (let alone concrete plan) to go anywhere real with Brian. Do I fault her for that? Meh, not so much; she doesn't seem self-aware enough to admit to herself what she's doing. So, different degrees of guilt in our protagonists. All of them are doing the coupling-uncoupling-backstabbing-and-betrayal mating dance that was always the plot of the original show. Which is why I don't understand the complaint that Gabby's plot is especially 'cliche' in comparison to the others. I mean, "cliche" means "an overworn, overused trope." Seems to me that the frequency of heterosexual coupling and uncoupling has ALWAYS been much higher than the LGBT equivalent on 90210 and other soaps. By that measure, it's the real cliche.

I think at work they're both inappropriate. Yes, commenting on a person's pretty eyes seems innocuous, but it's still commenting on their physical appearance. It may not have the same sexual connotation as complimenting their lustrous hair, lush lips, or what-not, but if you'd hesitate to say it as a run-of-the-mill compliment to a coworker of your own sex, you probably shouldn't say it to one of the opposite. One may feel that the writer was too harsh with Ian, but he DID need a little pushback. Which means, yes, Tori was being inappropriate. But "Tori being inappropriate" is pretty much her running gag.

Don't sea lions hang out somewhere near Los Angeles? In the same time zone, at least.

So, in the Media thread, there was this fascinating tidbit, which was called a huge spoiler, out of an interview with Christine Elise: So, I'm wondering if this is a genuine spoiler - "Christine" has made no secret on the show that she despises the cast, insults them accurately to their faces at every opportunity. Maybe the only revelation left is her telling them personally why she despises them, how they were dicks to her in the past in their self-absorption and haven't really changed since. Or is she really THE villain? The doll-chopping villain, wanting to 'take them down'? Is all the insulting just a prelude to the REAL revenge? Seems odd for a number of reasons. One, she'd be carelessly giving away the central 'mystery' of the plot. Also, her character is an executive, and sabotaging the 90210 production (whose success she has a stake in) would be cutting herself off at the knees. Another question - is her flirtation with "Gabrielle" just part of her revenge - toying with her as a preface to some especially harsh blow? That seems creepily cruel and personal, and it also plays into old negative LGBT stereotypes the production should probably avoid. Will Emily Valentine burn down the parade float? What do youse think?

So, should we have a spoiler thread? Because I really want to discuss the spoiler in that Advocate article.

Yes, but this was after she told her husband the truth about what she wanted and he bluntly rejected her offered terms. He told her no deal, he wasn't going to sit around waiting while she worked through her issues. You've said the right thing for her to do would be divorce...her having that conversation with him was the first step to that if he decided that was what he wanted. We don't even know if they're still together at this point. Why should we expect her to unilaterally abide by a deal he rejected outright? I don't think what she's doing is "wonderful." I think it's understandable, human, defensible from both sides to some degree, and therefore complex, and well acted. I think it therefore is a fine, interesting conflict to have on a soap like BH90210, and belongs there as much as any of the other soapy conflicts do.

No, that's not so. As Bastet said, she is not showing any interest in looking up the bartender and continuing whatever the kiss started; she has no relationship with her. When she spoke to her husband, she said clearly that she did not want to 'open' their marriage (bring a third party in - that is, another relationship). She wanted him to know about this tumult in her feelings she was having, and that she has the intention of 'exploring' that through the non-adulterous medium of her acting. The unspoken corollary means that exploring those feelings MAY in fact lead to a relationship in the future, if she eventually decides they are strong enough - which she will presumably be as scrupulously honest in warning him about IF it happens. Because she's made up her mind to mentally explore the possibility, she's doing the honorable thing by giving him warning of it and giving him the choice of deciding if that uncertainty is something he can live with or something he can't. And for him to make a fully informed choice, he needs the unvarnished truth about how things stand - including the strength of her feelings about what happened. Why should we pick sides to root for? I think she acted honorably in telling him the truth, and I don't think he did anything wrong in choosing to respond, "no, I can't live with that uncertainty, don't expect me to wait around for you while you do this." That's his choice to make, and it seems to me just as honorable.

Double standard? You're castigating Gabby as having committed the equivalent of actual acts of adultery committed in deception, for having an involuntary surge of feeling when someone surprises her with a kiss, and leveling honestly with herself AND her husband about it immediately after the fact. To me it seems like you're applying a double standard in her detriment. Why do we have to apply Jesus's "lust in the heart=adultery" to her and her alone? Gabrielle's Jewish, anyway. :)

Yes, it was hurtful. But he's asking her to forget about what happened, and she's made up her mind that she can't. And the reason is that kiss. She's made up her mind to be honest about it, and there's no way to honestly explain why that kiss is important enough to her to do this without being hurtful. How would you have worded it in a less hurtful way? To me, trying to soft-pedal the matter would have been worse. "The kiss was nothing special - but I'm going to shake up our thirty year marriage and your cherished assumptions about our relationship because of it." To me that comes off patently and lamely false, disrespectfully so, and therefore more hurtful than the truth told straightforwardly. The only way to spare her partner ANY hurt at that point would be to withhold the truth completely; keep her exploration to herself until she's absolutely sure of what she wants. But she's made up her mind to tell him the truth, and you can't have that honesty without some pain. IMO, if she's made up her mind to tell the truth, ripping the bandage off is the best of the bad options available. Some hurt is unavoidable.

But the confession doesn't make sense without saying that. I mean, who overturns the assumptions of a lifetime and introduces uncertainty into a thirty year marriage over a kiss that was NBD? Since she's made up her mind to be forthcoming about the part she chose to play and the reasons behind it, and her husband is asking her to just forget about what happened that shook her up so, her saying "yes, that kiss really WAS a big deal, so I can't just forget about it" is kind of an inextricable part of that confession. In their conversation, she says she wasn't interested in opening their marriage. The implication (I think) was that she was going to act out her new feelings in her new scripted role only, at least at first, which would not be technically adulterous, any more than it would be if she were acting out a romance with a male actor in a soap. Of course, neither of them know if that will be enough for her in the long run. And it seems to me that the husband didn't want to live with that uncertainty. It's his right to decide to draw his emotional boundaries that way. But she couldn't know for sure unless she asked, so that's why she did ask instead of just going straight for a separation. It's implied they DID separate - I can't imagine Jason going off to Gabby's house to stay while she and her husband are glowering at each other. And it seems to me that if they've separated, she has less incentive NOT to go for broke in her experimentation, instead of sticking strictly to the script.