Alapaki

I apologize if I missed mention of this upthread, and maybe it got lost in everything else that went on . . . but In Bran's vision of the White Walkers, did we see a Zombie Wun-Wun?

My understanding is Dragonstone was a volcanic island. I doubt there would have been much more than the Castle and the associated buildings. I can buy the whole place being abandoned once whoever was left learned about the fate of Stannis and his army.

I've been ruminating on The Hound scenes. I know I'm reading a lot into the scenes, but I think the scenes do raise some interesting questions, which is a credit to the writing I suppose. Did Beric know about the Hound's history with that homestead? (It didn't seem to dawn on Thoros until he saw the Hound burying the bodies). Why did Beric ask the Hound to opine on how they died, and why did he specifically tell the Hound that they probably starved to death? If Beric knew, why did they choose that homestead? Sure, maybe it's the only one around or maybe it's just convenient at the time. But did Beric think that confronting that part of his past would effect something in Sandor? Could (or had) Thoros and Beric see the same thing Sandor saw in the fire, or was that vision new information to them? (specifically the location of the white walkers?). If it was new information, does that say something about the Lord of Light revealing things to a "sinner" (albeit on in the process of repenting) that was hidden from the Priest and "Saint"? Overall I thought those were powerful scenes, but I almost wish I'd "seen" them play out on the page first.

I think that's an interesting perspective. But I think it may give the show too much credit. As I saw it (and I pretty much support Arya's actions), the show attempted to "cover" themselves by having Walder conspicuously say (or at least suggest) that these were all Freys (thus not sellswords or other families' soldiers there by obligation) and that they all participated in the Red Wedding. Their cheers were used to demonstrate assent. Now, I recognize that there can still be moral nuance there, and that surely not all of them actively supported what happened and at least a few disapproved but went along out of fear. But I don't think the show was going for moral complexity there. Just my take.

I agree. And I think that scene was effective in conveying a lot of information. Besides what it did internally re: Arya, it demonstrated the thinness of the Lannister forces if they're reduced to sending such relatively young soldiers. It conveyed the squalid state into which Kings Landing has fallen under Cersei. And it gave some insight into the way that the upper crust's wars chew up and spit out the commoners, even those in their armies.

Logistically, what happens if Jon goes along with Sansa and takes the property from those two families? Surely there are more than just the two kids left. Are the remaining members of those families (and the people formerly loyal to them) all executed? Do they become "subjects" of whichever house is given those properties? It would seem that they would largely become refugees who'd head South. The fighters amongst them would therefore provide men for the Lannister/Crown army. Meanwhile, their departure deprives the North of arms it will need to fight the Night King. Conversely, keeping those families where they are will likely keep them "loyal", because they'll have a shared interest: i.e. not becoming undead snow zombies. And that's the only real basis of "loyalty" that you can count on. Scores can be settled next Spring.

I realize that scenes are sometimes used just for exposition, and sometimes just to give the actor something to sink their teeth into. But given the limited number of episodes this season, I'm having a hard time finding a justification for the scene with Euron. No one in that scene said anything that we didn't already know, and hadn't already been shown. And what was Cersei's motivation? She knew what Euron's offer would be, because she told Jaime ahead of time. Why see Euron only to reject the offer? Was it to toy with Euron? To make Jaime jealous by parading a suitor in front of him? I'd hope that Cersei would be smart enough to be above those sorts of things by now. However I was pleased to see, in the earlier scene with the floor-map, the show finally explicitly address the absolute weakness of the Lannister position. I can't recall them having done that in the past.

I think Eric is way too immature to hold up as a Bachelor. Watch every one of his interactions with Rachel. All he does is agree with whatever she says. Rachel: "you don't smell good" Eric: "Yeah, yeah, most definitely, there's an odor there. And you're so right about it. That's what I love about you, girl!"

Best part of the night for me was Giada not knowing the name of Tiffani Amber Theissen's show. When Tiffani joked that she wanted to steal one of the ideas, Giada said "Next on Tiffani's . . . . . . show."

I've been at a loss for anything to say about this season's finale. Because I just don't know how to relate to the show anymore. I've always joked that the formula is: 1) get together to plan a "get-together", and talk about how you hope there isn't a fight; 2) have the "get-together", where of course, there's a fight; 3) get together to talk about the fight at the get-together. 4) rinse and repeat But at least in the past there was at least something else going on between the rinse and repeat. At this point, the get-together to talk about the fight at the get together doubles as the planning session for the next get-together ("I know we had a shitty time in Alaska, so let's throw a dinner party"; "Well, Alaska sucked, and the dinner party blew, so let's have a prom") The only redeeming thing about this episode was them showing Tanya, she of the "fitness video" and "activewear" "empire", she who calls everyone else a "heifer", not being able to squeeze her rolly polly fat fuck self into a dress. I love them for showing that.

Don't forget my entry: Whitney Carbdashian.

Prediction: Emily from Dallas will host the Reunion and it will be pointless.

Yeah. That reads like a big old "nevermind". So now it seems like we might be left with either one or two people from production who may or may not have had first hand knowledge of what happened who apparently cried wolf? Amazing. Although, once again, even given the most non-rapey spin to Corrine's behavior at that pool, they STILL invited her back?

Indeed. It's worth noting that here we are nearly 2 decades into the 21st century, and a prime time franchise on one of the 4 major networks has had to have rules imposed on it that are usually reserved for asshole fraternities with hazing or date-tape problems. Thats what "Bachelor Nation" is.

Now, now. Maybe she's referring to the years she's spent making shit up for MBFFL.

Exactly. Not that I take anything from or about this show seriously. But if they were serious about this issue, they'd have someone not directly connected with the show make that "consent" assessment, both to help ensure the objectivity of the decision, and to insulate themselves. The analogy that comes to mind is the way the NFL and NFL teams used to rely on team physicians or trainers to determine whether a player had a concussion (or other injury that should have required them to leave the game). That was "oversight" in name only, as the person making the assessment had a huge incentive to make the decision that the team (who signed their paychecks) agreed with. And, by the way, how awkward for the couple who get denied permission!

And BARSTOOLS!!! Keep 'em having to heft themselves up on barstools! That never gets old. My goodness, last episode I realized that Tanya actually has barstools in her own house! And "score a release signature" means "get legal cover to slander Christy". Because that's the only reason you'd need a release. If you say something true about another person (especially if that person is a "celebrity", which much to our chagrin Christy is due to this show), they can't sue you. Truth is always a defense. So, almost by definition, the fact that Terra wants a release means that she intends to lie about these women.

All of these new rules are pretty interesting. The concern was with contestants potentially getting too impaired to consent (Because that totally didn't happen here! TPTB swear!) So monitoring "outside" substances like medications and putting a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be consumed would seem to address that. Then why have this requirement that two people profess their consent verbally to a producer before getting it on? Because if I was a lawyer, and I am, I'd argue that the very existence of that policy is an admission that they don't expect their restrictions on inebriation to work. And how exactly are the producers in question going to be trained or qualified to make the decision whether to give "permission"? Breathalyzer tests? And these producers have a tremendous incentive to keep these contestants hooking up. How long do you think a producer who flags a couple will last? Either this is all CYA bullshit that will be largely ignored in practice during filming. Or someone in a suit (and who signs the checks) came down hard on the Production company and demanded a real belt-and-suspenders approach. And, if it's the latter, that may suggest that Fleiss & Co. are going to be on a short leash.

That was my initial take as well. But as a middle-aged white guy I admit I don't have the proper frame of reference. I don't recall there being any controversy when Grant and Lace hooked up (remember the "Grace" tattoos?). So I'm not sure what he would've been worried about on that count

Nothing wrong with hanging out with your daughter at ANY age. I agree. But what Babs is really doing here is participating in some twisted "take-your-mom-to-work-day" with her emotionally stunted daughter who has the maturity of a middle-school mean-girl. I started out loving Babs and Glen. But I'm come to believe that Babs is one cold, calculating number. I still think Glen is more-or-less just along for the ride. But I believe both of them have convinced themselves that this show and the NBS BS is their only hope of keeping Whitney out of their guest bedroom.

I really have no idea what DiMario means by this (from the Hollywood Reporter story linked upthread): Is he saying that, as an African-American man he was concerned about a blond-haired, blued-eyed white woman coming on to him so strongly and how that would look to the racist segment of the viewership? Or was he saying that as an African-American man he thought he needed a solid hook-up with a contestant guaranteed to get screen-time and staying power in order to survive till the end himself? Why did he "make sure the cameras followed us"? To protect himself, or promote himself? Because he then proceeds: It's worth remembering that, even DiMario's version of events makes him look pretty shitty. He's admitting to going down on a naked woman in public at a public resort, poolside. I'm not one to counsel anyone to turn down free vagina, platinum or otherwise. But, time and place, pal! Invite her back to your room. Or go back to her room. You don't do that in public. He also prefaces everything by admitting that both he and Corrine schemed to be "villains" together:

I assume the decision of who gets 1-on-1 and 2-on-1 dates is purely production's. And that's why I think that conversation between Eric and Anthony seemed stilted to me. Surely they know who's calling the shots, but aren't allowed to say it. The fact that they aired that conversation, is interesting. Because, intentionally or not, they're making Rachel appear to be favoring the white contestants over the black ones, which as @backformore notes has been a consistent complaint about this show. I also happen to believe that Lee is consciously targeting the black contestants, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was instructed to do that by production. It seems like everyone there recognizes Bryan as a clear frontrunner, along with a few other of the white contestants. Yet, if this is really a "competition" to "win" Rachel, why isn't Lee going after the biggest threats?

I agree in principle. But I think that in settings like this it's easier said than done. Time and again we've seen reality contestants like Lee, who stir shit in a really offensive way, but are able to do it with a calm demeanor and a smile on their face. They're pros at not getting baited into shouting or physicality when someone calls them out, and yet find ways to "calmly" stoke the fires even more. In that settings it's extremely hard for the person or people calling the asshole out to not lose their cool. And, more often than not, the person who calls the asshole out gets sent home themselves, either as the path of least resistance to "keep the peace", or because in the process of calling the asshole out they torpedoed their own game.

FWIW, Bryan got the metaphorical "leap of faith" date. And, I could swear that when they kissed at the bottom of that rappel the music was the exact same schmaltz they play at the FRC when the proposal is accepted and the "winning" couple kiss.

I agree. She started the one-on-one date claiming that while it clear they had physical chemistry, she wanted to see if there was any deeper connection. Then, after he said he was "falling in love with her", she said that she wanted to (paraphrasing) "reward" him, or "reassure" him after he made that non-physical-connection move. And, what did she do? Moved in to kiss him. Combine that with the way her eyes glaze over when other guys are talking to her (especially when they're not talking about her), and I think she's either completely checked out of any other guy, and/or she's just as much into hooking up as any of the other Bachelor/Ettes have been.