quangtran

I'll have to disagree with both these things. Bottle episodes are usually one set affairs written to reduce costs, while 24/7 was still a pretty expensive and effects heavy episode. Seconds, Sandman is a series made up of often loosely connected stories, so calling them "filler" makes them seem pointless when they are the point in the first place.

I'd say no. Virtually every celebrity creator has favourite actors and a distinct style of writing, and the few negative tics from their style usually comes with a lot of positives that made them famous in the first place. Palladino characters are talky and annoying, but their shows are charming and heartfelt. Shonda shows are talky and over-the-top, but they are romantic and addictive. Damon Lindelof shows are often frustrating, but they are ambitious/innovative.

They are only comparable when framed in the absolute broadest possible way. I'd say the endings were vastly different from both an event and emotional standpoint. I'd say she performed many times. Off the top of my head I remember the "revenge" set at the Gaslight, her doing the set with her pretending to be a typical male comic, the one where Lenny was throwing things at her, her warming up for Sophie, the one that Rose say and then copied, the one at luncheon, and the one in honor of women at the end. So that's one one per episode.

I thought it became clear as the season went on that the theme of the season was women. - It started off with her being angry at all the men, like: Shy, the police who kept sending her to jail, the club owner who banned her for life, people like Eugene who was reveling in her downfall, and those hack comedians. - This led to her improving conditions at the strip joint and bringing in more women customers. - This led to her coming in conflict with other working women, like: her mother, the columnist (who she assumed was a man), and rival Sophie - The season ended with her doing a set in honor of nurses and womenfolk in general Did it have to be climatic? I'm generally an anti-shipper, and I thought it was written as well as needed. They gave into their attraction for each other, she insisted that he always sees her as a comedian, and they reiterated that he still has problems and that a real romance is not going to happen.

There was also the knowing look between the Fanes at the opera, after they heard Marion talk to Betha about Raikes not having any money, so the writers are 100% dropping hints that they know something more is going on. I like Aurora as well, but part of me thinks she's still somewhat angry at the Russell and just does a better job at hiding it than Anne Morris.

To me it was obvious that they were friends even during the boot incident and that she only said they weren't out of anger. It also kinda annoyed me that everyone took that comment literally, stating that people like Peggy can't ever truly be friends with Marion, which I don't think is at all true or the message the show was trying to send.

I haven't heard the podcast yet, but based on all every actor interview I've read, all of them were taught to treat their character as the hero in their own story despite whatever terrible things the writers make them do, so Thomas Cocquerel playing him from a sympathetic angle isn't indicative of Raikes not being a con artist.

Given the penchant for titles with double meanings, I just assumed that her job will evolve to the "cleaner" positions seen like shows like Nikita, where those people would dispose of unwanted dead bodies via dissolving them via acid though the bathtub. But given the creator talking about wanting positive and sympathetic depiction of asians and immigrants, I doubt they'll go too dark for the lead.

I think the opposite, in that it has been long established that all the Pritchett's are obsessed with being right and proving others wrong.

Does the show actually do this? They have a running joke about Bex being a 7. They have a running joke about women finding Greg so sexy. They treat Valencia and Nathaniel like they are both 10's. Entire plotlines and songs were written around how hot the men are. Other than people constantly complementing Bex's boobs, it seems like there has been a conscious effort to place praise over the supporting cast over her own character..

The Raging Waters episodes covered this. Greg and Bex has clearly changed a lot since when we first saw them in season 1, but still faced the same hurdles of his misanthropy and her not being able to deal with adult problems without spiralling. Not buying that for a second. It is a huge leap to conclude that Josh and Nathaniel have both lost their one true love just because they haven't had other love interests. I'll be disagreeing with a lot of what you wrote, because the show clearly is aware of the grossness of the whole Bachelor setup, and the dates were shown to be emotionally draining on her after the second one. But on a macro level there isn't anything gross about a single person having romantic date with other single people, especially compared to Bex's old pattern of running off her dates to sleep with other dudes.

That where I see this plot going. Rebecca was perfectly happy to be an extra in South Pacific and Moby Dick, so her simply being allowed to contribute in the smallest possible way would be a good enough hobby for her. It couldn't have been her dream or passion given that she did it on a whim. Starting up Rebetzels was more about her not wanting to be a lawyer. I kind of figured that this that musical theatre was the solution to her problems since literally day one, given that the butter ad asking "when was the last time you were truely happy", she flashed back to her the singing South Pacific number (and mistook her last happy moment to be with Josh and not being in a musical).

I see no problem with this story structure. There's no drama or conflict in detailing Greg and Rebecca's few weeks of couple bliss, so they can keep that off-screen and do a concept episode on Nathanial instead. That that IS what they showed us, in that both the show and Bex focused completely on her relationships at the expense of her therapy. She was making all the right decisions in some aspects and just assumed that it would be enough.

SMF and David Hull were both upgraded to regular in season 3, but Hull was quietly placed back to guest star status in season 4. Also, Josh wasn't really the male lead. He was barely in the pilot and wasn't developed into episode 3. Season one had just as much Greg as it did Josh. Also, the show perfectly explained why Josh's role was reduced. When Bex stopped obsessing over him, he became "irrelevant", thus became a supporting player like Valencia and Heather.

Nathaniel was given a lot of screen time since his first episode in season 2, and Josh was pushed into the background halfway into season 3. Second, Josh was clearly never intended as the endgame love interest or a lead character, with the writers always being addement that Paula was the second lead. This episode make it clear how the writers have struggled to find a place for White Josh, given how Maya, Jim and Tim have all done more singing on the show. WhiJo not directly being a friend of Bex or a a co-worker means he had no place in this episode or last week's. Getting Over Jeff was a Paula-centric episode, with Bex and Josh having smaller roles. That was part of the gag. Marcy had a squeeky voice in the dream (and kept saying "I'm Marcy") based solely on Maya's impression of her, Greg's douche personality was purely because Nate was jealous, and Bex constantly telling Greg he is funny was because Nate heard them laugh.

Maybe my standards have dropped due to me hating last week's so much, but I liked that and I thought it was cute. I should have predicted where it was going, but I chuckled when the two successful kids and two burnout kids walked out on stage. I'm glad Glora has finally concidered a career again, because it seemed like she was content to be a trophy wife for most of the series. I can't help but like the photoshoot storyline because it played out almost exactly like MF plot I envisioned in my head, where the Dunphy family are act as stock models for a real estate campaign.

I like that Scott didn't let Paula explain away with ridiculousness and outright told her she was wrong. I get so tired of shows like Modern Family where stories end with characters having a vulnerable moment to justify schemes or lies. Babies are notoriously difficult to work with, so it wouldn't have to wait long to film a naturally crying baby (or if the baby is crying too much, an actor is forced to with an empty cot or stroller).

I've grown to hate the way the writers never seems to tell us why we should side with Darryl. Bert has been trying to create a friendlier work enviroment, everyone (including Nathaniel) has been receptive to this, and Darryl has a problem with it because people now like else? And then he attacks Bert for no reason?

I don't see the similarities either. Heck, I'd go as far as saying that the cheographers were going for opposite dance language, in that Nitty Gritty is all about them shuffling left and right, while Pink Shoelaces was all about them bopping up and down.

You don't agree that he did all that because he wanted to sleep with her?! Even though that's exactly what was shown on screen? Declan: Are you sure I can't get you to sleep with me? Midge: Nope. Declan: Even after I told you my sad, lonely story? I mean, my God, that was my very best line.

It doesn't have to be just one thing. Also, the writers intentionally undercut the loftiness of the scene by making it clear that him showing her tha fabled painting and giving her the long spiel was a move to get her to sleep with him.

I'll be one of those throwing some flak. - Women who are harassed are in no way obligated to confront and appease those who are harassing them. Speculating that she was defensive or confrontational does sound like victim blaming. - The whole "somewhere in the middle" argument doesn't work when there's video evidence, and is guesswork based on absolutely nothing. - I call bullshit on this case not raising awareness and diminishing other stories. So much of this discussion of forums and reddit has been about how harassment isn't just Hollywood and politics, but everywhere. She's very much another example of a real women who lost her job.

No offense, but I think this argument is a complete load, and in this case clearly not based on reality. Michael was/is protected by the network because he was their star. so clearly him making making stupid and lewd jokes isn't going to get him fired and accused of molestation. If that does happen I'll gladly come back to say I was wrong.

He does all these things. I know several realtors who runs several bussineses. Phil never stopped selling houses. He went out on his own and tried to sell the house full of bees after getting kicked out of this old group, and tried to sell a house to Chris Martin after owning the magic shop.

I didn't like Joel in season one, thought he was mostly okay in season 2 but hope his screentime is reduced in season 3. Not sure I completely agree with this. Some of the stuff with Joel's parent's didn't make sense (like how they took huge loans but had lots saved) but they aren't significant enough for me to care whether they were ruined just to prop up Joel. Also, his rehabilitation has already started in season one when he fought for a promotion and worked hard to set his family for life. Him suggesting that this father own the building is no different then convincing the board of his old job to become the supplier. I don't see this as a story issue, but as a more realistic take on a guilty person. Midge's forgiveness alone isn't going to make him quash all his guilt. It'll hang over his head for the rest of his life and everyone will perceive him differently.