BW Manilowe

I've gotta say, the character of Jamie's ex-husband, Neil Gordon, drives me absolutely batshit. I almost wanna *not* watch when I realize it's an ep that includes that character. Mostly because, until they made him a defense attorney in the LA/NY 3-parter about the Heidi Ellison murder case, he (to me, anyway) served no real function than being written in occasionally to threaten Jamie's custody of their kid because he didn't like that she apparently spent more time at work than with the kid--mostly because she HAD to (although if he had custody, I'd bet he'd do the same)--which he also did during the Ellison case eps (although I'm pretty sure that, during the Ellison case, it was an attempt to get her off the case &, hopefully, give an advantage to the defense/disadvantage to the prosecution because she was forced off); then he decided to threaten her custody again, & perhaps Jamie's new relationship, when Jamie was engaged to be remarried, claiming the Stepfather-to-be would end up spending more time with the kid. Although I'd bet, if they were still working together, &/or still married, he wouldn't give a shit how much time she spent at work. I think the custody threats were probably supposed to be all about controlling (continuing to control?) Jamie, as far as Neil was concerned. Interesting fact: I have a kind of weird reaction when the eps about the Heidi Ellison murder case are aired, for other reasons than Jamie's assholic ex, whom I detest with great passion, is featured in the trial part rather prominently. See, before she got married, our next door neighbor's daughter (who I've known since she was a seriously little kid, as our families have been neighbors for, like, 40 years as of next year) was named... You guessed it... Heidi Ellison!

Yeah. Visitation with his kid (I already forgot the character name, though I remember it seemed like there was supposed to be a "crush" kinda thing, or an "interest" between him & Paige in S1--Paige in him, not him into her) seems more like it. Although by this point wouldn't you think he'd be of legal age, according to the court, & not bound by a formal custody/visitation decree as far as his parents are concerned? Wasn't he supposed to be either 16 or 17 in S1? I'm reasonably sure he was supposed to be at least a year older than Paige. And I'm thinking the character maybe should be a Freshman in college this season--& so not necessarily seen onscreen, for now at least. I think that's why I thought the other guy was talking about Sandra when he made the comment that could've been related to visitation. They could write him out by having him go to college away from DC; maybe at least partly due to all the stuff going on between Stan & Sandra connected to the separation/probable divorce (even if Stan doesn't want 1).

For those who missed it, or those who just wanna watch it again, CBS is repeating this ep this Saturday night, February 21st, at 8PM Eastern/7PM Central (check local listings outside of the Eastern & Central time zones for the correct time in your area).

SOURCE: http://cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/hawaii-five-0/releases/view?id=41828

Something else I wanted to comment on, but chose not to edit my previous comment to do it... As I remember, when Stan went to see Sandra there was another guy there (the guy she's now living with?) & I'm pretty sure he said something like "It's not your week" when Stan asked to see Sandra. I got a vibe, from that, like she was supposed to be a kid they were sharing custody of & the other guy was a bit put off Stan came to visit at some time other than his legally-designated week. Did I misread that scene/did anyone else get the same vibe from it that I did?

I'm pretty sure that was only Paige's *15th* birthday in last night's ep, not 16th. I'd swear, as recently as last week--if not early in this week's ep--Paige was referred to as (at the time) only being 14. Which, to me, may be part of the reason Philip is so dead set (right now, anyway) against The Centre wanting them to begin training her in the real "family business"; she's younger than her parents were when they began training. I'm pretty sure it's show canon that Elizabeth was 17 when she began KGB training; presumably Philip was also somewhere in that age range (although I don't remember them specifying his age, at the time, in the show).

Cool! I hope the size translates OK for you, since it's not from a US site. And if it doesn't fit, it's still a neat reminder of the show. You could turn it into a pillow or something. Like I said, it's "subtle" regarding the connection to the show. Which is a reason why I like it. If someone seeing it knows enough about the show to know the last names of the original Bartlet Administration Senior Staffers, then they'll "get" it; if they don't know enough to know their last names, then they'll either think it's just a weird shirt or it's for a law firm, or corporation of some sort, or something. You know? I went poking around the site after posting the link. They have the same type of shirt (a "line up" shirt, I think they call it) for characters from other TV shows (i.e. Cheers, I think from the Shelley Long era) & members of current (i.e. Bon Jovi) & not-so-current (i.e. The Osmonds & The Carpenters) musical groups.

I linked a new interview with Matthew, from The Hollywood Reporter, over in the Media thread earlier today--in my post I mention his other comment about how the show isn't winning any awards 'cause (Matthew says) they're (people connected to the show) sleeping with the wrong people. Matthew talks, in this interview, about the scene where Philip tears up Paige's Bible.

Here's a link to a really cool (I think) show-related T-shirt. It's a shirt that maybe doesn't really SCREAM "West Wing fan" if you have times you wanna show you're a fan, but maybe need to be subtle about it. It's just the last names of Bartlet & his Senior Staffers... Which wouldn't necessarily mean anything to people who really aren't that familiar with the show. Heck, they could think it's a shirt for a law firm or something! I initially saw it when I recently got a pic on my Twitter feed of a *non*-TWW actor wearing it; someone else then linked to the online store/site where you can buy it from. http://www.redmolotov.com/catalogue/tshirts/all/the-west-wing-line-up-tshirt/lightoxfordtshirt.html If you don't like the color/style of shirt pictured, it appears you can change the color & style. They also apparently have other show-related shirts. A "Bartlet for America" logo shirt is at the bottom of the same page. NOTE: The store/site is in the UK. Prices are in UK £.

Matthew says, in this new interview with The Hollywood Reporter, that the show isn't winning awards 'cause they're not sleeping with the right people (I laugh at Matthew here). He also "dishes" on Philip's alter ego, "Jim" & "Clark" & Martha's relationship (but what he says isn't necessarily fatally spoilery for enjoying the show the rest of the season). http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/americans-matthew-rhys-spoilers-awards-774652 Also, he's telling his Twitter followers *not* to use "Enterprise Car Hire" (aka Enterprise Rent-A-Car to Americans): https://twitter.com/matthewrhys/status/568079966400864256 Also... Alison Wright (Martha) talks about S3 with InStyle magazine. It's maybe getting a little old now, but it's still online (I think it's the February issue, as far as the stores/newsstands go): http://news.instyle.com/2015/02/04/the-americans-star-alison-wright/

I like that too; acting is acting, & no role is beneath him. I mean, really, a job should be a job, when it comes to your profession. I don't get those actors/actresses who are all "I won't do... (commercials, TV shows/TV movies, etc.)" about things... Until they're perhaps forced to, 'cause they need the money to support themselves/their family (or even their ex[es]) & it's the only gig on the horizon.

Someone removed the (2010) at the end of the show title for the current version of Hawaii Five-0. I'm the person who originally requested the show forum. I mentioned the (2010) in my request & that there were very specific reasons for having it at the end of the show title (among them, the "classic" version of the show & the current version are so different that discussions of both in the same thread/forum don't necessarily work &, without the [2010], potential posters may think the area is only for discussion of the old show, not the new version which it's meant to be about). I get that this isn't TWoP (which is where I came here from), but they saw fit to have a thread for each, separate, version of the show in their Dramas section. They felt the shows were so different that 1 thread wouldn't work, among other things (& I agree). Could we please have the (2010) back in the show title in the forum? And then, if needed (I don't really see too many people asking for 1, right now), start a separate area for the original show? Thanks for listening (again). I appreciate it.

Perhaps he/his people (whoever, if anyone, helped him decide how to submit himself) felt he'd have a better chance at actually winning if he went with Supporting Actor as opposed to Lead Actor; especially in the Oscars. More famous/better known actors in bigger movies in the Lead Actor category, & all that. Or maybe they went Supporting based on his "name recognition" (or lack of it). Every award I know he's won for the role (which are the major US ones, so far, in "awards season" plus the BAFTA in Great Britain) has been in the Supporting Actor category. So at least they're being consistent. Also some of the awards, but I'm not sure this includes the Oscars, determine which category is appropriate by how much screen time the potential nominee actually has in the project. Since you said he dominates the movie, & I have yet to see it, I'd think he had enough screen time for Lead Actor consideration. So I'm going with he submitted for Supporting Actor since it would probably give him the best chance of winning, & because of the "name recognition" factor thing (you have to admit, sometimes you do look at the Supporting Actor/Actress nominees, compared to the Lead nominees, & go "Who?" with certain names--I'm wondering how many L&O fans actually know that's "our" Dr. Skoda up for this prestigious acting award on Sunday night?)

I think they brought on the new Medical Examiner--her character name is Dr. Mindy Shaw, played by Amanda Setton who Co-Starred with the late Robin Williams & Sarah Michelle Gellar on The Crazy Ones last season--so they could still have a character of that type around in eps Masi Oka wasn't scheduled for. Was Max invited to/at the barbecue (I don't remember)? If so, they probably invited her 'cause they invited him, & 'cause she may have been new to the islands & not really known anyone to spend time with besides Max & the team. I think if anyone on the team knows Kono & Adam are engaged, it would probably be Chin since they're cousins & very close. But who knows? In this week's ep it could be painfully obvious the entire team *&* the extended ohana know, & knew before the Valentine's barbecue. It probably just depends on the writer each week & if/how they see fit to mention it. Oh I'll bet we'll revisit Joe & Catherine--maybe even Doris (physically)--before the end of the season. I'm pretty sure Terry O'Quinn Tweeted, after the Bird Flu ep, Joe would be coming back again this season. But, really, there's only so much you can pack into 42-44 minutes of airtime & not have the story go too off the rails. We probably just have to believe Steve & Danny talked about Cath offscreen. Lenkov even says they can't necessarily fit things we've said we'd like to see in every ep/the time allotted; so we have to play them out in our heads, as it were. Continuity doesn't necessarily have to mean in the storyline of consecutive eps; it can mean dropping a thread for a couple eps or more, then bringing it back later. Like the old Hawaiian Auntie who caught Kono (& Steve) getting the money to ransom Chin from the bomb collar in S1 & then returned, out of the blue, to set up Kono for that "theft" in the S1 Finale--12 whole eps later. I liked the original show too--what I saw of it, anyway, which I doubt was every ep, since it was on when I was ages 5-17. It was really good for its time, though stoic, etc., & now "dated". But in comparison with the reboot, the reboot is my preferred version. And I really love that Lenkov's version lets us see the characters more than just "on the job"; they actually have a life this time, something Lenkov said--in interviews, if not S1 DVD extras, as well--he wanted to be sure to include in his version, when he was setting it up (because he didn't like that the original team was all about the work & had very little "play", together or apart). That's actually a big reason why I like the reboot better, it's not just all about the case like the original was.

Yeah, that's who I meant... Perhaps best known as Aaron Sorkin's partner in creativity, in The West Wing & other projects, & as the husband of Oscar, Emmy, & who knows what else, -winning actress Christine Lahti (who most recently played Steve McGarrett's supposedly long-dead Mother, Doris, in S3 of the current version of Hawaii Five-0). By the way, you forgot the H in his last name.

I can't do anymore than the rest of you about getting the forum moved to the front page--which is post in whatever thread(s) you're supposed to post in when you want the Mods to add/fix something, or use the "report" function on individual posts to ask for a change/fix. I don't read the front page anyway; I go straight to the forums. So, honestly, even though I love the show, it really doesn't matter to me if it's on the front page or not. I also DON'T work for the site, I just post here & I have NO influence! I was just pointing out, for whatever reason, that I was the 1 to request the forum (which any user can do)--because it didn't exist when we moved here--in the 1st place. Because we needed a new place to talk about the show. As for the freakin' "cancellation bear" pay NO attention to it. Everybody's in an uproar about that damn bear & its alleged predictions practically everywhere I read about the show &, honestly, I'm sick of hearing about "the cancellation bear" & it's alleged predictions for the show's future. Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, STUPID bear or not. For what it's worth, TVLine.com says the show LOOKS GOOD for renewal. And the ONLY people who MAY have any idea at this point if it's continuing beyond S5 are the network execs, not some FICTIONAL bear, or even Michael Ausiello at TVLine (though I'm paying more attention to TVLine than that damned bear at the moment).

I just read--in the last couple of days--S. Epatha Merkerson is apparently now attached to star in the upcoming Chicago Med spinoff that's in the same Dick Wolf universe started by Chicago Fire & Chicago PD, in which SVU also apparently exists since the Chicago shows have done crossovers with SVU. Also... Isn't it something (& perhaps somewhat surprising) that JK Simmons--aka L&O's NYPD Psychiatrist (after Dr. Olivet) Dr. Emil Skoda--will very likely win the Oscar for Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role this coming Sunday night? (The Los Angeles Times' GoldDerby.com entertainment industry awards website pretty much says his win is a foregone conclusion, shoo-in, etc.) If you'd have told me that prior to the current awards season (when he's also won the fairly major awards the Golden Globe & Screen Actors Guild Award, the BAFTA [Oscar equivalent] from Great Britain, & who knows what else) I'd have probably laughed. Not because he isn't talented enough, but because I wasn't necessarily expecting him to be lucky enough to get a major awards-caliber role like his role in Whiplash (from which I've only seen a short clip on TV, not the whole film). I just figured he'd be like most character actors & continue to do really good, but likely unrecognized, work for the rest of his career. I really never expected to see his name on the final nominees list (& him to be the front runner) for a freakin' Academy Award. An Emmy maybe, but not necessarily an Oscar. So color me pleasantly surprised & rooting hard for him. Skoda is/was a favorite supporting character of mine on L&O. I think I liked him better than Olivet, in fact.

Is there a forum for the classic version? I've never seen 1, & when I requested this forum I made sure to ask for the (2010) designation after the title (like was on TWoP), to be sure the conversation here didn't mingle the classic & reboot versions (again, like on the previous forum).

I Googled. You were right. His full character name was Ben Hamilton.

Stan definitely was embedded, or whatever, & not going home nightly (or at all) during his pre-Pilot mission involving the White Supremacists. I only saw the old eps/see the current eps on FX, but I remember he mentioned at first about having come back from a deep undercover mission involving a White Supremacist group. Just that much, no real details. If you ask me, that's part of what led to the demise of his & Sandra's marriage--though not necessarily 'cause he couldn't open up to her about things. It seems he was supposed to have always been gone on those "deep undercover" missions before he was reassigned to Counterintelligence in DC & I think, over time, he & Sandra just apparently grew apart & it started to show once Stan got to DC (I'm not positive, but I think Sandra even says to Elizabeth at some point that she feels more like a single parent to her son than he has both parents).

I'm not sure how you meant your comment about Stan & his previous assignment involving the White Supremacists, so forgive me if my comment doesn't jibe with your intended meaning. I'm just going based on my interpretation from reading it. Anyway... You wrote as if Stan was going home to Sandra everyday during that assignment. As I remember things from the introduction of Stan's character in the Pilot (& maybe Sandra's, to a certain extent), Stan was actually embedded undercover 24/7 with whatever the group was (KKK or whatever); he wasn't just working the case from 9-5 every day & going home afterwards. Unless I'm forgetting something else, like the Beemans had just moved into the neighborhood, I think that's why it was such a surprise/shock to Phillip & Elizabeth when they learned their neighbor was an FBI Agent. They hadn't even met Sandra before he came home &, therefore, hadn't learned from her what Stan's line of work was. As I remember, they didn't meet the Beemans until after Stan came home & they learned he worked for the FBI. If they hadn't learned he was FBI, & decided/realized they needed to keep an eye on him as best they could (since his employer's activities could affect their activities), I'm not sure they'd have made the effort to get to know the Beemans, preferring to keep to themselves as much as possible.

Then, at least theoretically speaking, you'd think we might've also seen Grover's son by now, since he's apparently younger than the character of his sister, Samantha, & should be living in Hawaii with the rest of the family. I sort of get why they cast the daughter 1st--"damsel in distress" potential, & all that--but you'd think they might've cast the son too, by now. Like I said, there's an ep coming up that's either Grover-centric or Grover-heavy (it deals with more of his backstory from Chicago). I saw a "guest star announcement" for it already; I forget the source but I don't think it was CBS Press Express (which would mean the ep is done & has an airdate already). So maybe we'll finally see, or hear more about, Grover's son in that.

That's entirely possible, & something I'm not positive of. But I'm not sure I'd count that as being on this week's episode. Especially since it's a scene from last season & I think it's also been in the "Previously On..." recaps in every, or every other, ep so far this season. To me, the poster made it sound as if Claudia was part of the actual plot of the ep this week... Which she wasn't.

The TVLine.com site announced 3 days ago (the 11th) that Margo will be back as Claudia this season. But it sounds like it's only for an ep (so far, anyway).: http://tvline.com/2015/02/11/the-americans-season-3-margo-martindale-returns-claudia/ The last comment in the Comments thread claims Margo was on this week's ep... Which she wasn't because nobody's talking about it. So I'm wondering just what ep the commenter was watching (or what they were smoking, if you get my drift) if they think they saw her on this week's ep.

Grover's wife exists. She was in the S4 Finale, when Nick Jonas' Ian Wright character kidnapped their daughter, Samantha (who was also in the 1st Ian Wright/Nick Jonas ep earlier in the season, if not at least 1 more S4 ep). Here are the full cast credits for Ep 422 which will show Grover's wife in the ep's cast. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3666890/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_tt_cl_sc Ironically, the actress who plays her & the actress who plays Grover's daughter share the same last name, although they aren't related in real life (this was stated by Chi McBride, &/or others connected to the show, in some interviews I remember reading &/or seeing on TV). The actresses who play the Grover family members are only related on the show. We still haven't seen Grover's previously mentioned son. Of that I'm positive. So, right now, either he's a good deal older than his sister & has his own life & family, he chose to stay in Chicago when his parents & sister moved to Hawaii, or he's not much older than his sister & is attending college somewhere other than in Hawaii. (That's all I've got for why we haven't seen the Grover son yet... Other than Peter Lenkov/the other writers just haven't seen fit to include him in an ep yet; we still have 10 eps this season, including 1 which appears Grover-heavy or Grover-centric--maybe the Grovers' son will be in, or at least be mentioned in, that ep).