scarynikki12

I hope Sona and Matt got to at least hang out backstage.

Damn they open the show with a showstopper. Good luck everyone else.

For the record, Ari, this GORGEOUS red dress should've been your Oscars dress. Also she sounds amazing. I'm hoping Cynthia's about to join her? I guess not? Oh wait Cynthia's got her own song. Love it. I'm just glad she's enunciating. My pre-Wicked research shows her pop songs are great at demonstrating her vocal ability yet terrible at making clear what the lyrics are. Wicked and tonight she enunciated like a boss so I'm happy. Aw we're getting Defying Gravity.

Looks like we're opening with a tribute to LA. Makes sense.

Has anyone seen Cillian Murphy? I have no idea if he's going to be there. Ariana, honey, can you wear your hair down JUST ONCE? I get having it up all the time removes the temptation to mess with it (this is why I keep my short) but it's the Oscars, you're nominated, just go wild! Or at least don't do such a severe type of bun if you insist on wearing it up.

I do like Timmy's yellow suit.

I love Zoe's dragon/snake necklace but not her dress. We have got to get these designers to actually finish their work before their customers need to get dressed. SIGH On a different note I love Halle Berry's and Michelle Yeoh's dresses. I dropped the ball big time on the Oscar movies this year. I saw and loved Wicked and...that's it. I have predictions for a few categories but no emotional investment in the outcomes. This should be an interesting ceremony.

He did have over 500 people to wade through don't forget. I agree there also may be a deleted/unfilmed scene where he gets delayed yet again. I also agree there's a good chance Franck and his team showed up bright and early the following morning to clean everything up. I just can't automatically assume that given all the shenanigans of the movie (a standard risk with comedies to be fair). It was more important for Franck to be present for the reveal of the wedding cake than George, the seemingly reasonable Nina didn't think to tell George "oh and we're hiring the recommended number of parking attendants" when she gave him her speech at the jail (we did later learn they went back and agreed for Hanck to cook the expensive seafood rather than the "chipper chicken" and Nina had heard Howard tell George the bare minimum number of attendants needed), and Annie and Nina made exactly zero effort to actually find George when they noticed his absence. Personally, and I may be alone on this island, if I hire someone to throw an event at my home, and not necessarily a wedding just an event, they better clean up as soon as the event is over unless explicitly told otherwise. It did make for a pretty closing scene, and we can always assume the cleanup had started in the kitchen, but Franck's own behavior in the movie was such I wouldn't be surprised if he left the cleanup to the Banks. And Nina still wouldn't see a problem with that. I have thought about it more and I've changed my mind on how my hypothetical Father of The Bride: Double Wedding movie should go. Instead of George reverting to form and freaking out the whole time I want him to have learned from the first movie. In the first movie he finally came around on Brian once he sat down and got to know him a bit and he had a hard time of seeing Annie as an adult. If we go by real time then Megan would be around thirty and unlikely to be living at home. Right away George would have gotten the "my little girl" stuff out of his system when she graduated from school and moved out. Also, I think the Netflix special said something about Megan having an existing boyfriend and, if I'm misremembering, they can just write her as having one the whole family knows well. George would have a harder time freaking out if he'd known Boyfriend for years, loved him, and maybe had been wondering when he was going to propose. The conflict comedy in such a movie doesn't even need to come from George himself exactly but can come from Megan and Georgie deciding to have the double wedding but then having wildly different expectations, ideas, and so on. When Megan and Georgie start clashing George and Annie could step in to play referee. I don't know exactly but I would like to see take a learned approach to any fiance and wedding of Megan. Hell that could be a source of conflict if Annie notices George has learned and is put out about him not being like this for her wedding.

Sarah was the first person I thought of. In less than a year she’s lost two dear friends in Shannen and now Michelle. She and Michelle both have talked about how they instantly bonded when they first met on Buffy and maintained that relationship since. In Sarah’s Instagram post she included some lovely pictures of her and/or Michelle from over the years and it ends with one of them plus Shannen. I’m sure Freddie, the kids, and her other close friends are providing her with all the support she needs because she has to be absolutely gutted.

For sure. One of the writers I follow on instagram describes him as “the rare character actor who became a movie star” which is a perfect summation of his career. Just tremendous a talent and a loss.

https://bsky.app/profile/news.rte.ie/post/3lj5ikixbks2f

If there’s a dead spouse we’re more likely to see a willingness to let the relationship be a good one. Living exes are where the trope tends to get applied. Though now I’m remembering one of the few Tessa Bailey books I’ve read where the man is a widower and it turns out he never loved his wife. She wasn’t a bad person and he does feel some guilt about it but it serves to make clear how the relationship with the heroine is Real. Why couldn’t it simply be that his wife passed and he wasn’t ready/interested in a new relationship until he met the heroine? Or do like the other Bailey book I’ve read I read where the man wasn’t interested in committing to a relationship until he fell for the heroine? Why they insist on tearing down characters unnecessarily I don’t understand.

So there's this thing in romance novels that annoys me. If our heroine had even one serious relationship before the start of the book she will eventually realize she didn't really love her ex or love him the way/as much as she loves her story love interest. Bonus points if the ex in question mistreated her in any way. This trope has been around forever and I hate it. It only exists to prop up the main couple in a cheap and easy way. They don't have to downplay past relationships in order to prop up the current one. It's ok for our heroine (and this almost always applies to women) to have truly been in love before. It's ok for her to have been genuinely hurt by a breakup before giving love another chance. I've read so many romance novels where our heroine's ex cheated on her and she eventually lets go of that anger when she realizes she didn't love him the way she should have or she'd been lying to herself about her feelings. Um...NO. This ends up absolving the ex for his actions and places blame on our heroine even though she did nothing wrong. You want us to see the heroine as equally/somewhat to blame for how the former relationship imploded? Then write them as cheating on each other, or both saying things in a fight they can't take back, or both losing interest in their relationship, or something where they are both clearly at fault. Don't write it so the ex did something unforgivable and later say/act like the heroine drove him to it. Last night I read She Doesn't Have A Clue, which I really liked for the record, that employs this trope. Kate's ex-fiance Spencer cheated on and dumped her for his soon to be bride, she was so upset she basically didn't leave her apartment for six months, but once Jake reenters her life she changes her tune about her relationship with Spencer. At one point Spencer tells her the following: she never wanted to marry him in the first place, she was always halfway out the door to their relationship even after getting engaged, she didn't react correctly when he came home and told her he cheated*, and apparently barely leaving her apartment for six months after the breakup wasn't a clue as to her devastation but was...embarassment (he isn't clear) about getting dumped? And Kate thinks about it and ends up agreeing with Spencer because her feelings for Jake just happen to be way stronger than the ones she had for Spencer. If any of the nonsense Spencer said to Kate was supposed to be true then it would have been better to actually SEE IT. Other than the trope I did enjoy the book. Solid mystery romance and I wouldn't hate to see Kate and Jake solving crimes again. I genuinely didn't guess the culprit and that reveal is well done. I also was reminded to NEVER attend the wedding of an ex even if you remained good friends because: a) there's a real chance you'll end up in a murder mystery, and b) all of the guests will spend their time watching you to see if you'll go all Dynasty against the bride. *Another trope I hate is "you didn't react the way I wanted/expected when you found out I cheated so I'm not going to feel bad because this is now somehow your fault!" People react to so many things in so many different ways and that includes learning your partner betrayed your trust. Not everyone acts like they're on a daytime soap when presented with bad news. Kate was allowed to react to Spencer's cheating in her own way and fuck him for using it against her.

Oh yeah the Banks family is loaded. They aren’t as rich as Brian’s family but they are rich. That’s one reason George is considered so unreasonable as his objections aren’t about not being able to afford all the wedding nonsense but about not wanting to pay for the extravagance. In the scene where they try to pare down the guest list I notice Brian and his family are nowhere to be seen. You know the bulk of those 500+ guests are from his part of the list yet he’s not helping make adjustments. Annie was right to later get upset with him about acting like a 1950s groom but because of things like this rather than the blender. Of course Annie also was acting like a 1950s bride so she’d have to yell at her mirror as well.

They both promise George they won’t go crazy in exchange for the $1200 wedding cake and then proceed to do exactly the opposite. I agree they just got caught up and Franck wasn’t helping by convincing them to add swans and tulip borders. Not even for wedding photos but for the guests to admire as they arrived at the house. Such a waste. There is the scene where they discuss paring down the guest list and it does start with Nina giving George a nod of agreement when he says the reception will be limited to 150 people. Then they start arguing about who to cut, George gets mad Franck and Howard are on the list, makes his comment about asking guests not to eat, and Annie flounces from the room like an angry teenager instead of the mature woman she supposedly is. After that the movie shifts into Nina and Annie going along with every extravagant suggestion Franck has while George is the tightwad villain.

Following up my post with a defense of George with regard to money. The movie presents him as So Unreasonable with regard to the cost of Annie's wedding. His frugality is Ruining Her Happiness to the point Nina won't bail him out of jail until he promises to change his attitude. However the movie also gives us multiple examples of George being fine spending money when it's a) reasonable, and/or b) for the family. When the movie opens we see George owns and runs his own company. We don't get to know any of his employees but the facility is clean, the equipment looks well made, and his few interactions with his employees show an easy comfort that would't be there if he was a bad boss. Based on these scenes I conclude he spends the necessary money to keep the place running well, his employees happy, and the product at good quality. We also know George is paying for Annie to attend graduate school including a semester abroad in Rome. Even at a state university graduate programs aren't cheap and neither are semesters abroad yet we hear nothing about George being a tightwad about Annie's education. We know George drives a fancy convertible and the Banks' live in a gorgeous house they own. Based on Nina's comments about how they can afford Annie's expensive wedding I conclude the car and possibly the house were bought in fixer-upper mode and the initial payments were low though fixing up one or both wouldn't have been cheap. When it was time for wedding presents George remembered Annie always wanted a cappuccino maker. Those things are expensive today and they were expensive then and George bought her the most expensive one without hesitation. Three things we see George happily spending and willing to spend money on are: fixing up Annie's bike with new seat and tires, getting tickets to the Lakers, and getting great seats to see Paul Simon. Annie's bike may have been in perfectly good shape but George had it fixed up to look new as a welcome home gift, 1991 was still in the Showtime era for the Lakers and those tickets would have been among the highest in the NBA, and he wasn't planning on having the family sit in the cheap seats for Paul Simon. All three would have been varying levels of expensive and George was happy to pay. George is completely fine spending money in each of these situations so he's not a cheap man. He just doesn't want to spend unnecessary money and that's not a bad thing. Once again I lament the movie leaning too far into George's (justified) issues with the cost of the wedding and not into him having trouble accepting her as an adult and letting her go. If there had been a better balance between the two I'd be willing to accept George going crazy about the wedding in part because it was the only way he could channel his grief about Annie being an adult and leaving.

I've commented over the years how the first movie drives me crazy and yet I still rewatch when the mood strikes. The mood hit again today and it's on right now. All my same annoyances about the things the movie chooses to focus on are still present but I've also noticed something new. So there's multiple jokes about how George is wearing a navy blue "tux-ah-do" instead of a black one like everyone else. I do like how the navy is really only noticeable when next to the color white so it's not George being stupid. The new thing I noticed is: BRIAN IS ALSO WEARING A NAVY BLUE TUX!!! I caught it when Howard opens the door for the wedding processional and we get our first look at Brian at the alter. Plain as day he's in a navy blue tux with a black bow tie just like George. Now I have questions. Does Brian also possess the inability to discern navy blue from black? Did he want to earn some easy points with George by looking the same, sneaked into his closet, and then purposefully get a navy tux? Maybe Brian bought his tux from the cousin of the guy who sold George his? Back to my regular complaining: we're right in the middle of the sequence of George not being able to enjoy the reception, Annie and Nina noticing his absence but doing nothing about it, and Franck abdicating all parking responsibilities to George because it's more important for HIM to be present for the wedding cake than THE FATHER OF THE DAMN BRIDE!! Also, I love how there's no indication Franck and his team were planning to clean up after the reception ended. There's little bits of trash and dirty dishes all over the living room and backyard. If I paid for a wedding, even a reasonably priced one, and had to be the one to clean it up I'd try to put the wedding planner out of business. This party was in Annie's childhood home, where her family still lives, and her parents are apparently the ones who have to clean everything up, return the rented tables and chairs, the swans*, etc. And yet the sequel is not about Annie planning an elaborate revenge on Franck for his failures as a wedding planner. I still want to see a Father Of The Bride movie based on Megan and Georgie having a double wedding because I'm a glutton for punishment. *The swans were stupid then and they're stupid now. Swans should only be a part of a wedding reception if they already live at the venue and the wedding party intends to take pictures with them. Otherwise, keep those vicious birds AWAY.

It occurred to me earlier that this is the perfect movie for Tom Holland. The story is literally thousands of years old so his tendency to accidentally spoil whatever movie he’s working on won’t be an issue.

I'm hoping Nolan decides Damon's Boston accent should be even more pronounced. Hell, have every actor playing a character from Ithaca sound cliche Boston. Could be fun.

I think Matt Damon can do a good job as Odysseus PROVIDED he doesn’t attempt any kind of accent. I wonder who Zendaya is playing? I assume Calypso or Circe but who knows? Maybe a siren, a human hybrid Scylla, or maybe we’ll even see the visit to Sparta and she’s playing Helen. I do enjoy Nolan casting her and Tom which has me thinking he ships them and it’s fun picturing him browsing the fan photos and videos of them and Awwing l.

Ah I missed the blurb about the movie. Looks like the famous moments should remain which is nice. Do we know who Tom is playing? My first assumption is Telemachus but I’d love to see him play Polyphemus.

Impossible. The story is so detailed it should be a five season series so at best we’ll get a decently done truncated version. More likely we’ll get some Troy nonsense where no gods exist and poor Odysseus spent ten years just trying to get back to Penelope rather than having affairs all over the place. I do expect they’ll keep Scylla and Charybdis and cyclops scenes so I hope those are good.

If it were a modern novel I’d say it was for sure Caroline doing some reverse psychology on Lizzie. I guess it still could be but I don’t know. Good question.

Any chance this means the season will start later this year or are we still assuming spring 2026?

I don't know if anyone has read Paris Is Always A Good Idea by Jenn McKinlay. I finished it a couple days ago and I really enjoyed it. I was ready to give it 4 stars on Goodreads until the final line which I hated and dropped it to 3 stars. I'll get to that. So the premise is Chelsea's father is getting married seven years after her mom passed away from cancer, Chelsea's opposed (I'll get to this too), she eventually realizes she's allowed her life to come a halt and decides to recreate the year long trip she'd been on when she got the news of her mom's cancer. She's doing a three week version in Ireland, France, and Italy and hoping she can reconnect with the three men she dated. If there's a renewed spark, great, but it's ok if there's not. She also has a coworker who joins her in France and then Italy to try and get a rich guy to donate to the book version of the American Cancer Society. I liked the basic story and I liked how the characters played out. Rock solid premise and execution. HOWEVER. Now I'm picky about what I give a 5 star rating. For me a 5 goes to the books I love so much I not only make sure to own a copy but I will also purchase a second for when I travel. They get reread regularly and I end up having them almost memorized. My 4 star rated books tend to be the ones I enjoyed so much I'll definitely be rereading and will own but not a second copy. My 3 is for books I genuinely enjoyed and will recommend (with caveats when necessary) but won't necessarily own and may reread but rarely. So, the reason this book didn't hit the 5 star rating is because of the instigating subplot of Chelsea's dad getting married again. Here's the thing: her dad comes to her and reveals his engagement to a woman he's known for literally 2 weeks and then the whole book Chelsea is presented as being unreasonable for thinking they were rushing things and not jumping for joy. Chelsea does accept the wedding will happen pretty quickly, and a part of her concern does come from the place of thinking of her mom as still being her dad's living wife even though she's been dead seven years, yet everyone is all "who cares if we've only known each other two weeks (three months by the time the wedding happens)? We're in love!" Why the hell couldn't they just write it as her dad's been in this relationship for over a year and Chelsea just refused to accept him moving on? At least then the characters and book acting like she was the bad guy in her family would have some validity to it. If anyone I knew in real life came up to me and revealed they were about to marry someone they'd know for two weeks I would absolutely be trying to talk them into a year long engagement at the least. Chelsea's reaction was perfectly normal AND reasonable so no 5 stars. Now, the very end of the book, and I mean literally the last line, further dropped my rating to a 3. The book's almost five years old but I'll still spoil bar it just in case: Whew, rant over.