theatremouse

Gender non-comforming newborn and the hospital lady is supportive? ;) Or, I mean, was it a newborn? Because if not it might've been a generic hospital blanket they're all blue kind of sitch, wherein you just trust the person talking about the infant knows which baby it is, rather than any kind of intentional, gender-based, color-coded shorthand.

Indeed, contrary to Penn and Teller, and I loved when they pointed out the immorality of the potential danger of such a trick, this show specifically seems to value danger. I don't just mean with the magicians, and I don't think it's that they value perceived danger where there is none. This show regularly praises acts for doing genuine dangerous tricks, and criticizes when not dangerous enough (if it's the sort of act that does anything somewhat dangerous). Really interesting juxtaposition. Also one reason I'm growing evermore tired with this show. For all its hemming and hawing, and its title, it oh so rarely seems concerned with the present of talent.

So, having seen this, presumably the big thing they were leading up to, I've come to the conclusion that everything that annoyed me about the clunky drawn outness is still valid. I mean, sort of one of the strengths of this show, I think, is that it doesn't really go too far in detail into anything. That's one of the things that works. Enough, but not too much. It gives kind of a sense of things and then flashes to something else, which is a good strategy. Shut up before the writing fails you. All the extra scenes that were plugged in presumably to build to this failed that model. So, the plot of this episode, working very much like the normal episodes except we're more familiar with some of the characters... the initial awkwardness when Cross was introduced, the vague insinuation that he and Angie not only had a relationship but did something and wrong covered it up.... I think that alone, way back when it was first mentioned, would've been enough. Establish he's a dating a prosecutor and something potentially related to his undercover work and the mysterious thing they covered up are relevant to her current casework. That's it. That's all. That was enough to prep for this one episode. We didn't need the hammers, or the absurd will she/won't she testify. Just those few facts established, maybe spread out a bit so it didn't seem out of nowhere or mentioned six episodes and then abruptly brought back, all the other details that we got in the actual plot of this episode including flashbacks, all enough. AND the dead prosecutor would've been more sympathetic because I wouldn't have spent however long being irritated at her for her total lack of logic.

I was being sarcastic because I am annoyed by his constant ovations for mediocre performances.

One thing that stuck out to me during the after hours: I was disappointed that Alex made a napoleon, mainly because it's on my personal list of "everyone effing does that in the dessert round" (along with french toast and bread pudding). So the second she said it I wanted to be all, come on, you're better than that. But at the same time, it looked SO much more impressive than any silly half-assed napoleon I've ever seen on this show, and from the other judges reactions, apparently it tasted awesome. So now I don't know what to think. I'm torn between if you're gonna do a napoleon; that's how you do an effing napoleon and still wanting to consider it a cop out dessert choice. My brain hurts.

The thing about Mara Justine is...even if she were really good, and I don't think she is, there's a certain presence and composure required from a performer, child or not. Some people can handle that when they're kids and some people can't. Now yes, people of all ages do get emotional on this show sometimes, but it's usually when they hear they're through or they hear they're cut. Other than when she's actually singing, the kid's an emotional wreck. She doesn't have the wherewithal to deal with what winning entails. There's no point in voting for her. The judges save for her specifically was a terrible idea and now she's continuing to go through on sob votes? That kid needs to go home, be allowed to be a child, maybe take more voice lessons, and maybe when she's a little older she'll have more confidence and be able to not fall apart on stage. When I see her I see the definition of not ready. It's doing her no favors to treat her as if she's some wunderkind when she's not. Howie must have sciatica or something that he seems to need to stand up so frequently during the show... I certainly don't see a better reason for him to be doing so constantly.

Neurochick, not familiar with the ad you're mentioning but often there's a long version and a short version of the same ad. Maybe the one you caught was a short-version and there's a longer one of the same spot that makes more sense? That's a wild guess. Alternately: was there anything about soccer or other athletes in there? Nomar?

It sounded really natural to me. Either written/directed that way, or for me, a good acting choice. It felt like a very "real" reaction to me.

The whole exchange about "are you done with the ice cream machine", rather than making me think "wow she's ignoring him/being a jerk" etc, made me think they were setting up for a "she's totally overchurned and ruined hers and his repeated asking should be a good reminder not to leave it in there so long." Man, this show has me conditioned.

The show never airs live, right? So no risks regarding f-bombs. Plenty of time for bleeping.

I miss Sharon. I feel like she would've called a lot of these acts on their bullshit. That's part of what's missing.

My favourite part was when Angie said as they walked out of frame/cut to commercial "oh it was totally made here" or something to that effect at the chemistry lab. Hilarious.

I liked Lachlan all season but he lost me in the last (second to last? I forget) set with the drunk driving joke. I might have a stick up my ass, but that's just never funny to me, and too serious a problem that too many people take too lightly. To me, you have to be reallllllllly funny and clever with your writing to get away with something in poor taste. That one didn't, for me.

I especially enjoyed that it ended up being Joshua's hat's origin story.

It seemed like they probably weren't charging the sister since they seemed to believe, and not really contradict at any point her "went to bed/they were there when woke up" story. The difference in her saying she went to bed at 11 and them saying midnight is, to me, actually very reasonable and lends credibility to their story rather than not. If they all said "11" like nothing it'd sound like they agreed upon it. 12 is close enough that if they were playing video games at the time like they said, then it's plausible she went to bed sometime between 11 and 12, and once she did they went and did their murdering. And potentially were back before she woke up. And it's only her "I'm a light sleeper" bit that would've needed to be wrong. I think even if they suspected the sister in on it, it'd be much harder to pin anything on her. It seemed extra contrived like they were just trying to make it harder to guess, but it didn't really work for me. The second the victim looked at the girl I thought it was clear they'd kill him because of the sister, either sexual assault or tryst gone wrong or something. So then the money thing got introduced as sort of a red herring but the real reveal was the original obvious motive...so...how is that surprising? I mean I get making us think it's one thing, or maybe even two things is a decent enough plot, but then the real answer should sort of be a third that somehow still makes sense despite the other possibilities. This just went back and forth between two obvious motives from the brothers. I am still infuriated by the utter lack of logic from the prosecutor. Does she even hear herself? Do the writers? You were partners and lovers 10 years ago. Yes that is why she does not lend credibility to him, not the other way around, dumbass. Oh, so shocking, it's suspicious and ex doesn't want to say nice things about him? In what universe? (Oh right, the universe of entirely contrived plots.) It can't possibly be that people with not-amicable break ups do not have positive things to say about ex's character. Ugh I can't even with this. I may throw my shoe.

I think we (as a culture) have a sort of odd but too common reaction to anyone presented as a child prodigy which is: oh they must be completely brilliant at everything. When really to be considered a prodigy, you're really being compared to your peer group. So a 9 year old in 10th grade is certainly brilliant. For a 9 year old. But it doesn't mean he'll necessarily stay on that trajectory and continue to be leaps and bounds ahead of his peers. By the time he's 20 he might just be a very smart 20 year old. There's no way to tell at this point, but expectations are rough when you're a prodigy and billed as such. Not only might you always expect to be the best at everything but even if you don't others may assume you should be. When really, all the label means is he's way smarter than almost all 9 year olds, not adults. But when you go on a national television show competition and you're competing with adults, well then, you need to be better than the adults (or interesting enough to convince the people voting at home to like you better anyway). I agree he was going for schtick not precision in his recent performance, and it suffered, but even without the mistakes and the glasses bit (which I originally thought was intentional because he was flailing so absurdly), it still wasn't very good. When he started with the chopsticks bullshit I thought he'd transition into something ridiculously complicated and awesome. That's the only way to get away with that gimmick. What did he transition to? The most cliche obvious piece he could've chosen. I mean, I doubt he chose it. I'm sure there was some sort of parental/producer intervention in the staging of his act, at very least suggestions, so I don't blame it all on him, but between the execution and just what he planned to do, not impressed. No matter how old he is.

Well, Tuscany is in Italy. So apparently the world according to IHOP consists of two countries.

See, this is also a major problem I have with magic acts on the show, rather with the show and magic acts, rather than the acts themselves. The damn editing regularly cuts to the judges at moments when slight of hand is happening. So I too frequently can't judge for myself whether the performers are any good at it, because I don't get to see the shot when they do it. I guess in this case if you watched closely, paused and rewound you could see, but still it is a major complaint of mine. The editing often makes it hard to see dancers steps, hard to see the magicians doing what they do. It's highly suspicious. They're editing so we are more likely to need to take the judges word for it. If they're going to do the silliness with America votes at least let America see the act. Cut away on singers as much as you want, I can hear them, but a magic trick that involves disappearing or reappearing something...if you cut away and back (and I'm not just talking about Mike Super) it's not a magic trick. It's just camera work. I can make a video of myself making stuff disappear too if I edit it. Way to ruin the magic. Pun intended.

I'm sure I'm a jerk for feeling this way, but he loses points with me because the dog's name is Scooby. (Just as he would if his dog were named Spot, Rover or Clifford.)

Are you saying the original Japanese version of the Sprint ad was about people with a dog fetish?

Re: Desmond, methinks the chair was wired. I don't know how he did the bit on the hands, but the extra billowy fog getting billowier as the spiel went on was not subtle. I kept expecting his super clunky leading "did you feel it on your right shoulder" "ok fine I guess yeah" was going to be a setup for some reveal that he had not led directly into, but no. It was just plain-clunky, instead of faux-clunky-as-misdirect. I was not impressed by Cornell Bhangra. It seems like the new way for acts to covince the judges they are special is to do hip-hop-fusion with any other dance style. And the judges seem to be buying into it. It didn't strike me as so new or unique that I'd dig it just for the concept, and the execution wasn't so brilliant that I'd dig it just based on that. I mean, it was fine, it was entertaining enough, but I felt like any group of solid dancers with a good choreographer could've done the same act with the right costumes. And, puh-lease with the not-sneaky handheld camera close up dude jumps out of the audience bit. Was that supposed to be exciting or surprising? To me it read like...obvious things to do in a variety act 101: have dancers come out of the audience who originally appeared to be regular audience members. Not that I was especially impressed by anyone else tonight either...

I don't hate her. I'm just pissed off at her. But you are of course welcome to your own feelings. :)

And, no Jordin Sparks, you are not lucky your mom also had migraines? Why would determining a genetic factor for having a very painful condition be preferable to not experiencing the condition at all? Because now you know to purchase an over the counter medication with the name of the condition on the label? Because it would not have occurred to you to otherwise look for medicine labeled "migraine" and/or "headache"? PS: everyone's migraines are different and a lot of people go through many medications before they find one that works for them at all, even if it works for thousands of other migraine sufferers so knowing Excedrin was helpful to mom only really got you this plumb sponsorship deal, not necessarily a special clue into the world of migraine relief. /whatmebitter

Here is my thinking on this: they present the child in such a manner as to be comical. However, it can only actually be comical if it were so exaggerated as to be conspicuously absurd; ie implausible. But! because oh-so-many children have reached new levels of obnoxiousness in real life, rather than presenting as "so absurd it's funny"; it's just annoying, because it stays within the realm of possibility. Hell, we see children like this on youtube every day. So, it's not funny, it's just a reminder of all the obnoxious staged precocious child videos on the interwebs.

Sounds like average semi-defensive teen, to me.