Irlandesa
-
Posts
12.1k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Irlandesa
-
-
Not having seen the whole sketch makes it harder to say, but I also felt Aida was the weak link on her team. She was flubbing lines and needing to be bailed out, then complaining they weren't "listening" to each other. But again, maybe that's true and we didn't see it.
I think we did see that. She did flub some of her lines but they all did. I think when mentioned "listening" she was talking about all the times that people were talking at the same time. Jimmy, especially, ended up talking over his teammates. Ultimately, the team just didn't find the rhythem or chemistry the first time discovered. They kept talking over one another and would descend into silence when they were thrown by it.
As for the stand up, I didn't laugh at Jimmy's set at all. He was energetic but I had more natural laughs coming from Aida. Rod Man seemed lost but I guess that's his thing. I remember him being funny so I'm not sad he won. I am sad that we're down to one woman.
-
2
-
-
But, what of those who do? Are motherhood and being "strong, intelligent, and independent" mutually exclusive? Maybe I'm way off base and reading the tea leaves wrong, but that's the vibe I'm picking up.
Oh absolutely not. My mother was all of those things and a mother to boot. I firmly believe that a woman can have it all if they want it all even if I personally don't want it all. But that has less to do with my career and more to do with "me time." And not being very fond of kids but I digress.
As for her decision not to have children, would it have been more palatable if the writers had just had her change her mind and decide she'd like a baby after all? No, not every woman wants children, nor does she have to, but *some* women do change their minds. I'm not in the entertainment industry, but I write creatively as a hobby, and if characters aren't allowed to change or grow, they stagnate.No, it honestly probably would not have been more palatable. As @Sweet Tee pointed out, the desire to parent was not an underrepresented desire on HIMYM. Lily and Marshall were married with kids bound. (In fact, Lily was a career mother and was employed more consistently than her husband over the course of the series.) Barney even expressed an interest in having kids. It wasn't make or break for him but the desire was there. And Ted really wanted to be married with kids. In fact, their differing wants in regards to children was one of the main reasons we were told that Robin was actually "Aunt Robin" and not the mother. Robin's decision to not want children made her somewhat of a unique character on TV. I think the percentage of women who choose not to be mothers in the real world is significantly greater than the percentage of TV women who manage to escape their shows without having the "mother" label aded to their description.
So the fact that there was a positive and honest portrayal of a woman choosing not to have kids pleased me. I know characters changing is important in fiction but there are thousands of ways to change while still maintaining some core beliefs. Robin did change, by the way, but she changed for the worse.
-
5
-
-
Was the show implying that her upbringing was traumatic, that if her father hadn't called her "son", etc, she'd have been okay?
I know we've moved a little away from HIMYM but I would like to go back to Robin because one thing I really identified with was the fact that she didn't want children. She was a smart, funny, ambitious and warm character who just simply had no desire to be a mother. As someone for whom parenthood holds little appeal, I found it so refreshing.
It started going downhill for me with her when, during a lull in her career, she was playing with a baby bootie which had the unfortunate result of linking her choice to be childless to the state of her career. It became more about not thinking she could have it all than being a woman who had no desire for children even if her career stunk. To make matters worse, they then essentially robbed her of her choice not to have children by having a doctor tell her that she was incapable of having biological children. (In the craziest, most unrealistically revealing blood test yet.) And we had to have episodes where she was bummed over this.
I know, in theory, that being told that being upset over not being able to have kids even when one doesn't want kids is realistic but at that point I didn't care. Robin was refreshing as a television character when she was a happy young woman choosing not to have kids just because. They slowly robbed her of that freshness and by the end they turned her into someone who essentially seemed to put her life on hold until the man who she rejected numerous times while they were dating became a widow.
On a related note, does "strong" equal "good"?No. A character who is a strong woman is its own thing. You can have a character who is a "strong woman" but they may not be very well developed characters.
A strong character is a well defined character whose decisions are based on their character and not solely in service of plot. That can be good things or bad things but its their thing. That doesn't mean they can't do things that service the plot but is there follow through with the character? Do we see what reasoning led up to the choice? Do we see that character deal with the repercussions of their decision?
True Detective was always a problematic series for me in terms of female characters. They were either dead, prostitutes or served at the pleasure of men. It did many things well but female characters was not one of them. I got into debates about whether or not Michelle Monaghan's character filled the bill for a "strong character." My problem with her was that she was mostly defined in relation to the man in her life. There was confusion as to whether or not she was a doctor a nurse. And the one powerful act she took as vengeance never seemed to me to be about that character. It was about explaining why these two main characters ended up estranged for so many years. They didn't do much to explain why she felt this was her only choice nor did they show us the character living with her decision. That's why she doesn't pass the muster for me.
-
1
-
-
I love puppies as much as the next person but I'm a sucker for Steve Buscemi doing weird shit so I would totally need him tap dancing.
I used to see Dr Oz as someone to trust, someone authentic with real bonafides.Even some of his harshest critics admit they wouldn't think twice about going to him if they needed cardiac surgery. So he maintains his cred there. But TV show Dr. Oz? Total sell out. It's one thing to be open to natural aids because I do think there is a lot out in nature that can be helpful in either a treatment of an illness or the symptoms of an illness and there isn't a lot of money out there to study the effectiveness of these natural solutions. It's quite another to not offer up a critical perspective of the claims being made.
I take some supplements -- not any bizarre ones, but things like fish oil and calcium -- and I just hope the labels are truthful.John focused on the weird supplements because that's what Oz was being called out on, but it's not just the "bizarre" ones with negative consequences, unfortunately.
Consumer Reports did a big report on supplements a year or two ago and in most healthy adults, they're just a waste of money or can even have negative consequences. For instance, the calcium information is interesting. Who would have thought that calcium supplements could potentially be related to heart attacks?
Fish oil and calcium are probably the most popular supplements taken but quite a lot of the research seems to suggest that there is no "magical pill" (either from supplement manufacturers or big pharma). Fish oil supplements and calcium supplements don't provide the same benefits that fish oil from fish and calcium from food do.
-
1
-
-
Dom with the old guy works for me, but I felt that relationship was moving really fast.
The truth of the matter is, Richie is wonderful, but the combination of insecurities between those two along similar lines creates the type of friction that can kill new relationships quickly. Patrick and Kevin are likely a better match based on who they are.
I'm curious, how are Dom and Lynn moving really fast? I know they're probably the duo the best situated to develop into something stable in Season 2 but they had their first reciprocal kiss in the finale so I'm surprised to see them called "fast."
I think Kevin and Patrick are a good match on paper but I don't think we can divorce the fact that he used his position as his boss to create an opportunity to get Patrick alone so he could cheat (apparently) on his boyfriend from the definition of who he is. Based on the way they started, I'd imagine that this would lead to its own brand of insecurities--going back to the old adage of "If they cheat with you, they'll cheat on you."
-
Looking will have 10 episodes next season.
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/looking-hbo-series-to-have-larger-second-season-32891/
-
I don't think so. Fargo wrapped filming a while ago.
-
The reason I am dead certain that Gus would have saved the FBI agents' lives is that for once, a freaking cavalry would have descended upon that cabin. Said cavalry largely composed of competent Duluth and State LE.
Duluth is three hours away from Bemidji. They wouldn't have been involved. I don't agree that Gus's decision to not call in Malvo certainly cost Key & Peele their lives. There was certainly the potential of that outcome but Malvo left that cabin pretty soon after Gus arrived. It was in the middle of nowhere. He could have likely taken a few routes to get into town. All it would have certainly done is draw the people who were out around town looking for him towards a cabin where he wasn't and where he would likely never return given the fact that he had a police blotter. He'd know his cabin would be surrounded.
The only additional info Gus had is where Malvo was for a few brief minutes. He didn't know where he was going. All the cops already knew Malvo was in the vicinity and likely after Lester.
Gus was stuck with two bad choices in his mind. One was calling in the cops and risk Malvo shooting his way out. The other was taking care of it himself.
I understand wishing Molly would have taken Malvo down but narratively, I think this was the best way to achieve the ending they did. Molly would have been too "by-the-book" in taking down a man who had an uncanny ability to roll over everyone in his way. He had to be put down. Molly likely wouldn't have chosen that option. That's not her style. Gus, who carries guilt about how he let Malvo go, would. But it's not an easy solution or one that I think makes either of them super happy. Gus may have gotten away with getting rid of Malvo the way he did and even received a commendation for it but neither one of them on the couch seemed overly thrilled with it. They knew it probably wasn't "right" in the legal, moral and ethical way even if they felt it was their only choice.
Molly had to make a difficult choice between doing what her husband asked of her for their family and her job. She ultimately chose her job which I think Gus knew would happen deep down.
Bill had to face the choice of leaving a job he had spent his life doing or continue in it and face just how much his ideal world had changed.
Lester had the choice to keep trying to survive on his own or work with the police for his own protection.
And that's why I accept some of the choices Fargo made more easily than had it happened on another show. I felt it worked with the theme of the episode and the story of the series.
-
4
-
-
I was reading through to see if anyone mentioned Smash. I was so looking forward to the show, being a theatre fanatic, but the blindness to the lack of any talent in Ms McPhee sent the whole thing into a tailspin. Terribly disappointing.
And I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it, but I feel the same way about Boardwalk Empire. Loved the first couple of seasons, but then the whole thing went off the rails. Too bad.
Yep. McPhee was the big reason but I would throw in Julia's weirdly dropped adoption story and affair in there as well. Ellis was bad but getting rid of him was only the tip of the iceberg of what they needed to do.
I don't personally agree that Boardwalk Empire went off the rails. In fact, I'd argue that the third season finale was a brilliant episode and did a great job tying what came before it together and the four season had some very good storytelling as well. But I feel like a viewer needs to have too much patience with that show sometimes.
-
The pilot had one cast of characters. The rather annoying woman in the pilot was replaced by episode 2 with an actress I liked. But then she was killed in the first season finale and I was done with the show even though I love Kevin Bacon. I used to think he could get me to watch anything, and maybe he did since I stuck with the whole first season, but I couldn't stomache the idea of watching a sixteenth episode of that show.
I'd like to throw Smash in here. The pilot was pretty good. It had its issues but I thought they could be resolved. And honestly, they could have been but the show, for the most part, chose not to. It had some really good stuff and way too much dreck.
Perhaps Boardwalk Empire could be here too. I really enjoy BE but one of the criticisms of the show is that never achieved the greatness that its actors and "look" were capable of achieving. I can kind of agree with that, although I do think it has had enough great moments that I'd say it was better than good but probably not as agreat as it could have been.
-
1
-
-
I missed it too. When did they actually specify that Nicholas hit the Powells' son?
There is NO excuse for predictability, so don't make one!It's only predictable only if one can predict it. If this is the big secret, it won't be a surprise to me because I read the speculation here and over at TWoP before it closed. But would I have reached that conclusion if I hadn't read the spec? Maybe. Maybe not. I can sometimes predict twists and other times I don't. Would a general audience who doesn't spend much time thinking about the show beyond watching? Probably not.
I think I'm enjoying this season a little bit more than last season. Last season was held together better by an overall murder mystery that affected everyone but there was no way the murder mystery resolution could live up to all that focus. So I have more "fun" so-to-say watching multiple stories. I miss Odessa but Carmen works better with less of a focus on how her employer can make her career work and instead having her employer expecting her to do real work. I knew Rosie's beau was bad news as soon as the daughter mentioned not getting a statement for a few months and I look forward to that exploding. Even if the mystery isn't interesting, I think Opal is. And, as always, I love Zoila and Genevieve.
-
2
-
-
I'm a binge watcher without the patience to be a binge water. I would love to gobble down multiple episodes at a time. I think it's easier for me to get into a show that way and once I'm into the show, I want to keep going. That's what happened to me with Deadwood which I don't think I would've watched if it weren't for the fact that it was On Demand and I had a rainy lazy Sunday to kill. It's especially true with comedies. US comedies are approximately 22 minutes long and can three can be watched in just over an hour. They go down so smooth.
But if it's a show I really want to watch, I am not going to wait until after it's aired so I can binge watch it all at once. I want to see it "now" so I will watch it live, or within a few days of recording it. The benefit to that is being able to discuss it online.
Still, there are some shows out there that escape me initially for whatever reason and I love being able to just watch them all at once. Heck, I binge watch shows I've already seen. If I'm free and there's a L&O marathon on, I will watch. Or when Scarecrow & Mrs. King was free on Prime, I would watch multiple episodes at at time. Or rewatching Quantum Leap. That's my comfort time.
-
And he'll be on Seth Meyers tonight.
-
Well yes, he is surrounded by "yes men." And they're all named Louis C.K.
I understand wanting more comedy from someone as funny as Louis but I've never seen his show as about that. It's one man's personal project that sometimes wants to make me laugh and other times wants to say something. I'm not saying I'll always watch it or that everyone should be satisfied with it but that is what it has always been. The only reason it get submitted into the "comedy" categories for awards was because of its length.
I don't know that I'd rewatch this episode. I enjoyed it for the performances. Even though Mr. Hoffman was likely meant for PS Hoffman, I can't imagine anyone doing a better job than Seth. Renner had just the right amount of sleaze. Teen Louie was well acted, although I still prefer the younger Louie married to the younger Janet and it was good to see his mom again.
I do think he was too easy on Jane, though.
-
5
-
-
And why would Malvo be listening to the Lester recording?
I don't think he was. It didn't sound like Lester and the scenario of the phone call, with a gun shot, didn't match Lester's phone call. I think it was some other poor sap whose life Malvo ruined through his "encouragement." It was meant to show that Malvo hasn't changed even while stuck in KC, MO.
So why doesn't Lorne shoot Lester in the elevator? What's the point to waiting to try to track him down at home?
Knowing Malvo, there are probably a few good answers to this. It could be that he wanted to clean up the mess in the elevator and needed Lester's help for it. He did ask Lester to help him move one of the bodies. Another reason could be that he just wanted to play with Lester a bit for the fun of it. Because honestly, that's the kind of guy Lorne is.
I thought this was another great episode. There was so much tension in the episode from the elevator to the diner scene to Lester acting like a sitting duck in his own home. It's just terrific.
The only thing I wonder now is if some of the earlier storylines were just "side trips" and won't be revisited.
-
1
-
-
OMG yes to Nip/Tuck. When it stopped being case of the week itw as just another soap and got more and more far-fetched.
Why can't the writers ever just stick to procedurals?
With Grey's Anatomy, and this year even with Law & Order, they seem to think we won't care unless it's about the main character. WRONG. I don't want a movie in 12 parts. I want a one-hour story I can digest in the few hours I am done with work and not sleeping.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but neither Nip/Tuck or Grey's Anatomy were intended to be anything other than soap operas. Nip/Tuck was a skillfully executed serial in its first two seasons with cases of the week peppered in and GA started with a one night stand. I love procedurals too but I wouldn't look to Shonda Rhimes or Ryan Murphy shows to fill that hole since that's not what they do. Both of these creators start off with well done soap but soon can't help themselves and go over-the-top which is why it's so easy to sour on them.Nip/Tuck's demise was especially fast.
Dick Wolf does do procedurals. With the exception of a few seasons in the middle, the original recipe L&O stuck pretty well to its procedural roots. Heck, even when it incorporated more personal stories, it was heavily procedural. SVU and CI strayed more from their procedural roots.
-
All respect to those who saw nothing more than the simple black-and-white of a man not hearing that "no means no," but I saw something a little more complicated than that.
Sure that scene was complicated but what justification is there for Louie ignoring her "no" as he did? Your basic argument is that Pamela has issues. Fine. Possibly. But why do those potential issues rob her of the right to make choices for herself? Why do her reasons not matter unless they are good enough to the man chasing her?
I don't know why we're so sure that deep down Pamela wants to be with Louie. With the exception of a fleeting invitation to have a bath with her and when she got back from France, after separating from her ex and kid, she really hasn't expressed much desire to be with him. It has been mostly on Louie's end. Heck, one could even argue that her attempt to get close to him this season may have come as sort of rebound for her. Speaking of rebound, Louie's on the rebound and Pamela recognized it which may also be why she said no.
Pamela feeling scared to get involved, or thinking logically they work better as friends or not wanting to get involved with a man on the rebound, all of those are good enough reasons to not want to get involved with/kiss/sleep with Louie even if she were desperately in love with him. Pamela not shaving her legs that night and not wanting to sleep with Louie because of it should be enough reason for Louie to hear her "no." Cuz you know what? Her body, her choice.
I think we all probably agree on one thing, which is that Louie would not rape her. Even as overcome as he was by his own need for connection, he wasn't so far gone as to take things beyond Pamela's limit.Do I think Louie is going to rape Pamela? No, I don't think Louie CK will take him there. But then again, I never though I'd see Louie raped like he was last season. And I didn't think I'd ever see the character push a woman screaming "no" towards his bedroom. I don't think he'll go there but is he fully capable of surprising us in service of a larger, non-continuous message? Yes.
I think time will tell if she felt her limits were violated but I want to talk about Pamela's "consent" in that you're right, our views on it will be shaped by experience. At that point, she was trapped. Louie was telling her that he was in control. Pamela had two choices there. She could play it nice or fight him. Fighting him wasn't working. So she "consented" to the kiss because she figured if she let him kiss her, he'd let her go. And that's what happened.
I see it that way because I have been in similar situations. I've been groped without my consent in bars. Pushing the hand away just means another replaces it. But grabbing the hand that was on my ass and sort of start "dancing" until I get get away? That works better than any 'no' would. I was once pursued by an older married man who was a client at work. I had to keep turning him down. He didn't respect my "no" until I invented a boyfriend. Then he backed off.
A majority of men respect a "no" but all it takes is a few to not respect it and/or for the rejection to lead to ugly consequences for someone to realize it might just be easier to think of a rejection that doesn't come off as a full rejection (fake significant others, fake numbers, turning an attempted kiss into a hug per LCK's stand up) than it is to have to deal with someone who won't respect a "not interested." Unfortunately, who will take which approach is hard to determine.
*Pamela parts II and III are coming up so of course this could be written as a non-issue. But that would disappoint me because it would mean that there were two episodes in two weeks where a woman was depicted as saying no but Louie persisted and was "right all along." Just another in a long line of fictions where women just don't know what they want which means more fake boyfriends for me.
-
2
-
-
I think a lot of the performances were great but the actual show... Hugh Jackman's hosting fell very flat. It was largely carried on the strength of his charm. No Emmy noms for the show or a song this year.
I was kind of surprised that the hosting was so flat. I knew it'd be practically impossible to even come close to the opening number NPH put on last year so I don't blame them for not trying. I don't think NPH himself could top what he did last year. But I don't know that going with such an obscure concept was the smartest choice. I can appreciate the athleticism but I thought it was boring. At least the original "bounce" routine had more interesting things happen in it and was bounced better.
But the jokes and other musical interludes were equally meh. So I gather Hugh must have different writers.
-
That would have been great, except that no one at L and O knew they were being cancelled.
True. But even though L&O didn't know it'd definitely be the final episode, I think it worked pretty well for a final episode and final season with everyone coming together for Van Buren. I think the story would have been the same, except perhaps with a few more cameos, had they known it was the end.
-
1
-
-
With all the attention the last scene with Pamela is getting, I'm surprised there wasn't more attention for a similiar scene from last week's episode when Louie dragged an uninterested Amia into his apartment and forced himself on her until she finally responded in kind. Like I said, Louie has been very rapey this season.
I brought that up elsewhere in a discussion of last week's episode. It was not received well by some other commenters. I guess because Amia eventually reciprocated, it's okay. It's "seduction" or "foreplay." Now, obviously she gave in and I never claimed it was rape. All I was saying was that I found it unsettling that Louie never let go of Amia, even when she was trying to leave. It reinforces some really old fashioned stereotypes of "seduction" that I don't like very much at all.
I don't know if Louie meant for the scenes to be different or two shades of the same thing but clearly the recreation wasn't unintentional. Ultimately, both "consented" although with Pamela, it was clearly against her wishes. Giving in was a way to get out and not make the situation uglier. So I'm very interested where he takes this the rest of the season because there is some kind of theme going on, I just am not sure what it is.
-
2
-
-
FYI, the reason Fargo and True Detective are submitted in different categories for awards is because that's how the respective networks chose to submit them. HBO wanted to put up True Detective in the drama series categories because, despite the stiffer competition, the attention and publicity are greater for Drama Series rewards. FX chooses to submit their anthology series American Horror Story and Fargo as miniseries because they'll have a greater chance of winning in those categories.
Right. True Detective is probably HBO's best shot at some drama wins. Boardwalk Empire is past its Emmy prime and Game of Thrones appears to be too genre-y. I think only Peter D has a win.
In the movies/mini-series category, HBO can throw its support behind The Normal Heart which I think will get plenty of acting nominations.
I agree with the Martin Freeman praise. The transformation was perfect and he did even out the accent which happens the more exposure to other accents someone gets. But one thing I liked his his physicality in the way he was standing and talking. I'm specifically thinking of the stance he had when Molly looked in the window into the insurance office. It was just a small but great touch.
-
Please don't cave, Louie. Please. Do not cave.
At this point it's Pamela who I don't want to cave.
I'm kind of interested in seeing where this is going. I didn't like last week's scene with Amia but having such a similar scene with Pamela makes me wonder if there is a larger theme at play here that won't end in justification for Louie's behavior. The comedy bit he chose tonight makes me hopeful but we'll see. I had higher hopes for the end of the Louie/Amia relationship but those never materialized.
-
John is scheduled to be on Letterman tomorrow night.
-
It's only been five episodes, but I really think this show and John Oliver already found their footing and their voice. This is pretty impressive, and I hope HBO keeps this around.
John has proven himself to be a fast learner or adjuster. It only took him about a week (4 shows) as the anchor at TDS to find his groove there and each LWT show seems to improve.
I absolutely love this show and I wonder if HBO will ever add another night.
The net neutrality thing was brilliant and I love how it just built to Oliver "unleashing the monsters." Just a thing of beauty.
-
2
-
Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened
in Everything Else TV
Nope, he's not alone. It's also not just men asking this question. I've seen other women ask women this question as well. The sexism is so pervasive that his set up is based on the fact that somewhere out in the media there is a story in which her children are asked about how they feel about their mother taking this big job. I just can't imagine anyone doing a piece on a new male CEO and asking his children how they feel he'll be able to handle it.
OT But this always baffles me. All I remember from when she was co-anchor of The Today Show was people talking about how she was a poor fit for that job and not good at it but once she was let go, the opinion of her fitness for the job was changed retroactively.