STOPSHOUTING

Your opinion isn't unpopular with me. I agree completely.

In season 1 this was my favorite show on television and, well, I just finally finished season 2 after several fits and starts, if that tells you anything. Much of my ambivalence stems from the fact that they cut back on/eliminated characters I loved — Greg leaving, Heather almost disappearing after the first few episodes, way less WyJosh and Hector, who are infinitely preferable to drippy, dumb Josh — and doubled down on Rebecca who is, intentionally I know, but still, rouuuugggghhhh to “enjoy” watching. They also really, after Santino Fontana left, lost their best singer/dancer and the whole musical part of the show, one of its cleverest, most interesting and engaging elements, seemed to almost vanish. I can still recall 6-8 great Season 1 songs, and eagerly bought the soundtrack, but in Season 2 there wasn’t a single post-Tapped That Ass song that is even vaguely memorable, funny or revealing. All the, much briefer, musical interludes seemed forced, overly-stylized and more focused on the music video aspect, rather than the story function of the song. Honestly, they were just totally tacked on. The only really interesting musical number post-Greg’s-departure was Let's Have Intercourse and that still only had 2-3 good lines, whereas something like Season 1's Sex with a Stranger was wall-to-wall laugh-out-loud jokes AND catchy musically. The intro of the new boss actually worked better than I thought it would at first, even though they had his character do a total 180 inside of less than 2 episodes -- but the whole everyone-falls-in-love-with-Rebecca-for-some-reason thing was just … no. They didn't even give him a reason to like or admire her (digging up dead bodies -- or, more accurately, having PAULA do it -- really?), just a peek at her bra and he's totally infatuated and sending private planes for her dad? I mean, he's a good looking, wealthy young professional ... He's never seen a girl in her bra before? I mean, they're nice, I'm sure, but ... c'mon! Another small, slightly petty, thing that, I’m sorry, I just couldn’t let go, was when Paula calls Rebecca’s mother and she says to “buy a six 6” wedding dress … Now, I in no way, shape or form think that Rebecca, or actress Rachel Bloom, is fat, but a size 6? C’mon! I mean that completely unnecessary aside just reeked of personal vanity. She could lose 20 lbs and not be a size 6 — particularly not a designer dress size 6 — due solely to her bustiness. I mean, just, sheesh! Every time I saw the dress I was like, ‘Not a 6’ and ‘Why?’ Because it sends like 10,000,000,000,000 wrong messages that the show CLAIMS to be above. What’s wrong with being a 10 or 12? Or, heck, just cut the STUPID UNNECESSARY LINE ALTOGETHER and just say “buy your daughter the most expensive designer dress you can find,” no size mention needed. Arrrggghhh!! This is maybe just me, but it really bugged. Also, the dress was ugly (butt bow, Rebecca, really?). Also, remember when season 1 Rebecca’s money problems were a plot point? Yeah, neither does the show. Because now she can just buy endless wedding dresses ($$$), decor and supplies ($$$$), buy a new house ($$$$$), give her dad money on a whim ($$$$$$) and bribe a bride to give up her wedding date ($$$$$$$) with zero consequences to her lifestyle. Like, none. Either money matters in this world or it doesn’t, writers, you can’t have it both ways. Of course, the fact that I could not let these very small things go, is probably also because I just didn’t much care if Rebecca and Josh married, because it’s so clearly a terrible, non-interesting idea. They’re wildly unsuited for one another, EVEN WITHOUT Rebecca’s serious mental health issues. In fact, I hated and admit I skimmed several episodes of them playing happy couple at all, because ... It. Just. Doesn’t. Work. The actors lack chemistry and the characters are so poorly matched it’s not fun to watch them together. At all. That having been said, I think it would have been waaaayyy more interesting if Rebecca had left Josh at the alter, especially if they’d started out making it look the other way and then, twist. I think that would make a much better, and more interesting, season 3 set-up than the stupid-retcon-she’s-a-Harvard arsonist (insert giant eye roll here). I mean, it just makes NO SENSE. People would have known. People we’ve MET in Rebecca’s past would have said something, or hinted, or slammed her for it WAAAYY before now. And I don’t buy for one second that Rebecca herself was blocking it, simply from a time standpoint. She never wondered or questioned why AT LEAST (given trial, institution, et al) a YEAR of her life was just missing in her mind? The same gal who investigated exes and clients and clung like glue to childhood grudges? Umm. Don’t think so. Makes zero sense for the Rebecca we know. It’s just not credible on any level, including the most basic of you-don’t-leave-a-mental-instituion-where-you’re-dribbling-on-yourself-after-burning-down-a-Harverd-prof’s-house-then-go-on-to-wild-success-at-Yale. Why would Yale even accept her? I mean, no one writes an essay compelling enough for them to overlook major mental instability followed by a felony, like, even solely from a liability standpoint and, yes, I know I’m overthinking this, but still … No. Though, honestly, if that had been the Inception-esque all-in-her-head SERIES finale, where nothing we saw really happened and she was just institutionalized all along and just imaging West Covina? THAT, I’d buy. I don't know if I'd like it. But, I'd buy it. OK, rant/vent complete. I don’t know even know if I’ll tune into season 3 and that’s just … sad, given how much I once loved this unique little show and would still 100% watch a show about Daryl & WyJosh, Hector and his mom (My take: 75% cute, 25% unhealthy co-dependance), Paula and the law firm run now by what’s-his-name (though ditch weird glasses girl & Karen) and Father Brah. Heck, even Valencia as wedding planner kind of grew on me. But Josh and Rebecca? Don’t really care. About either of them. Though I admit I did like the end-of-episode dynamic where the four women are on the cliff, united against the crowd. There's potential there, but I just don't know how you thread the needle between serious, crippling mental health issues and fun, funny female bonding. Again, it just doesn't mesh. You're either too flip with the mental health care Rebecca so clearly, desperately needs (she's literally a danger to herself or others) or you can't integrate her into any light, funny story, because she's dealing with severe mental health problems. It's a problem I think the show has written itself into.

So, rewatching this with my husband, who hadn't watched with me originally, and it's a long haul until the podcast catches up, so I got here and I just need to vent ... This is the dumbest break-up since the last, at least short-lived, dumb break-up. Veronica's last boyfriend not only raped her while she was roofied -- I don't care how they tried to justify/de-gross it, it's still gross and horrible -- he also KNOCKED UP Veronica's friend, because he's a feeble-minded simp who doesn't know how to use a condom, apparently, and yet Veronica not only FORGAVE him, instantly, apparently, she also helped him flee the country with his love child. By the way, that was the second time he'd bugged out and disappeared. Oh, and he has some weird disease that causes him to black out and, possibly, hurt people. So, yeah, comparatively, Duncan makes bum fight supporter/child abuse victim Logan look like a prince. All Logan did was sleep with someone else while they were broken up. Neither were virgins when they met. There is no expectation of fidelity between people no longer dating. It's just so dumb. Yes, the dumb Duncan storyline was to get rid of the block of wood that was Teddy Dunn's Duncan, but c'mon, Piz may have genuine charm/appeal but the reasoning for V dumping Logan for good is just ... asinine and wildly out of character. She's a realistic gal who has taken way worse crap than this in stride. And, OMG, I am not traditionally a 'shipper on any show beyond the 'Meh, I preferred them with so-and-so' feeling. These are characters in a pretend world and I am an about-to-be 41-year-old mom of 3 for cripe's sake ... Yet, has anyone ever had more on-screen chemistry than Logan and Veronica? They weren't even getting boring. It didn't crimp the show's style. They were still sups cute and fun as a couple; not at all show-killing, unlike her relationship with Duncan (ugh). Why, Rob Thomas? Why??!?! I was already a mom when this show came out, so far from a teen, yet I feel like I just want to put pictures of them up in my locker and draw little Logan and Veronica 4ever designs on my binder. This can't be healthy.

Though it's sunk into the cultural consciousness it was also a relatively short-lived, and almost wholly unsuccessful program. In fact, it contributed to making people think child abduction was rampant, when the opposite was, and remains, true. The entire program, which was only ever loosely organized, lasted only 5-6 years total. It was a completely defunct practice by the end of the '80s. It didn't help find any stranger-abducted children and lead to a lot of extra work for police checking out bogus tips and false leads. There's a really interesting story about one of the few so-called milk carton kids actually found, possibly due to their picture being there ... She was taken by her mother, had no idea she was even "missing," nor that her stepfather wasn't her real father. It wasn't exactly a storybook reunion or rescue.

As someone who has experience with mail-in DNA tests (adoptee), you don't use blood. It's cells from inside of cheek on a q-tip in a baggie, from both parties.

I literally can not conceive of another series where the props dept had so few fucks left to give that they gave the actors a raw turkey to use in a dinner scene and the cast was just like, 'Go with it. No one cares.'

OK, I know the critics hated on this pretty hard and I wouldn't say I loved it, but I liked it. I watched the whole thing in two days and laughed out loud several times, particularly at Fred Savage, who was really quite funny. Yes, I love so much of this cast, which definitely helped. Did I like these characters? Umm, no, they're awful, self-destructive, tools with a serious case of arrested development. But that's not unusual. Seinfeld -- and a dozen other shows I can name -- was ALL awful people doing awful things with no real world consequences. Honestly, my biggest gripe was that, while I think Smulders and Key have great chemistry and are a believable couple, what is up with making the show about "Friends From College," and then casting actors with age gaps of more than a dozen years? It wasn't just Smulders, Jae Suh Park also seemed way too young to have been in college with these guys. I was also one of the three people on earth who basically enjoyed Married, too, so ...

So, to be clear, in season 7 the teen soap added a 60-something diner owner to the opening credits -- finger on the pulse of the youth there, Aaron -- and made his 50-something girlfriend pregnant. You know, like all the kids were clamoring for. At least they can use their Guinness Records/medical miracle cash to pay for all that free food Nat's been giving away for years.

Have to say if next season's arc is Who Did Bellamy Bang in Space?, I'm definitely out. Also, who are the science advisor on this show; Scott Pruitt & Beaker from the Muppets?

For a second there I thought that was Anne Heche as the talk show host, which, if it had been, would be some A+ trolling/stunt casting.

I like the storyline that is definitely and completely not about Scientology and Tom Cruise, mostly because the contract thing rings sorta true. Like, it wasn't a "fake" relationship, per se, but it was a totally dictated and controlled relationship from moment one. What takes me out, sorry, is the mostly 3rd rate acting cast. "Kyle" has zero charisma and say what you will about TC, but he's charming as hell. And what the heck "Megan's" (aka Bargain Basement Mischa Barton) appeal is I have no idea. She's so basic I literally don't recognize her in photos as different from the other generic blondes that populate the show. Also, her Rachel haircut & entire wardrobe are ... Odd. If you told me this was shot in 1989-91, I'd totally believe you.

I generally find this show entertaining, due mostly to its spectacular cast. But this ep got all the eye rolls from me. For two women who have had so much real-life work done to stand up for "looking your age" ... with zero commentary on their own help, seems, at best, disingenuous. And the stuff about "dying rich" from two clearly already wealthy beyond most people's dreams women was groan-worthy. Real lack of self-awareness all around here, showrunners, writers and stars.

Suspension of disbelief is one thing; insulting viewers' basic intelligence is quite another. So, "black rain" only effects human skin? Not organic materials, clothing, vegetation, rubber, etc.? And its effects can be alleviated/negated by a quick rinse with plain water? Gotcha. Oh and, you rip off all your clothes because pain is unbearable, except for undies because modesty is more intense than radiation burns. And the lab/mansion is dust/dirt free, fully stocked, fully electrified, etc. AND has a space ship ... but it's out of gas. Em hmm. The ark has crashed down from space and been blown up/set on fire how many times? And yet STILL has working jail cells, computers and intact crystal chandeliers? Also all this talk about fertile females "on the list" ... Yet no one muses about how weird it is that not one of these supposedly child-bearing age girls has gotten knocked up from all the sexing up of each other they've done since landing 2 weeks or 2 years, or whatever the hell its supposed to have been, ago? They sent the 100 down to Earth with no food or supplies ... Other than a generous amount of condoms, apparently. (The dumbness that it was only "97 years" -- AKA only 3 generations, give or take -- since first nuclear disaster and Earth has totally regrown, humans have genetically mutated and adopted entire new cultures and languages plus forgotten thousands of years of education still makes me mad EVERY SINGLE TIME IT'S POINTED OUT.) Lastly, to be clear, Octavia had a through and through stab wound from a dirty sword, fell 1,000+ feet and went untreated for days only to then be 3' from a major explosion and ... She's totes ready for sexy time with a guy whose bruises from a mild beating he sustained on the same day are more visible than any wound she has. This show ... ?‍♀️

The Bev 9er's drug dealer's cousin, I presume ...

By "closer" -- which was followed by an "actor's of this caliber" discussion, if I really correctly -- I think they mean sharing a lot more screen time than the in-book relationship would have allowed, not necessarily that the characters are emotionally more attuned to one another or extremely close confidantes. As in the book, Madeline is still the primary connection between Jane and Celeste (that they know of anyway), but the three share more time together on screen than on the page, where it's more usually Madeline and Jane or Madeline and Celeste and most of the information about both women are passed via expositional conversations ABOUT them, versus WITH each other.

I don't believe she ever says that's why she moved to Monterey in the series. She says she never looked for "Saxon Banks," the name Perry gave her when he assaulted her, but that she thinks she'll someday run into him and recognize him by his smell. That's when Madeline quickly finds him and they make the road trip and discover he's not the guy. (And he's also not Perry's cousin, unlike the book's -- I would argue -- more tidy and satistfying explanation. Again, a plot point they said was dropped so that Celeste could be involved with Jane more closely, because she never has to recognize the name Jane gives them of her rapist as one of her in-laws, and then hide that fact from her until the story's climax.) Again, agree or disagree about why Jane is in Monterey per the series, the creators explicitly say Jane didn't come there knowing/thinking Perry, a.k.a. her rapist/Ziggy's biological father, was in town, and I tend to take them at their word at what was intended.

This is true to the book but was never discussed, alluded to or even intended to be suggested in the mini-series, based on interviews with the creator David E Kelley. This is based, in part, on another book-only detail that has Jane talking about actively hunting for her rapist while Celeste keeps a secret that could help her find him, which Kelley said he thought "harmed the bonds of sisterhood," between the women. In essence, he traded the detail of Jane moving to the town to find her rapist/Ziggy's father for a closer relationship between Jane and Celeste, which doesn't really exist in the book. This challenges the logic of coincidence in terms of ID'ing Perry as Jane's assaulter AND Celeste's abusive husband, but also allows the actresses to interact far more, which was probably the correct trade-off given the star-power caliber Kelley was working with. Renata also gets much more development/back story in the TV series vs the book which, of course, Laura Dern played the heck out of it.

I was reading something about the finale and it struck me that, for those that think it's too neat that Perry is also Jane's rapist/Ziggy's father, which I do know is canon from the book, there's actually another way to look at that perfectly shot moment of recognition between the women in the finale. They could just be a group of women in the world, all of whom have experienced abuse, in some form or another, from a man, or, at the very least, seen other women endure it. That they are just recognizing the universal "this is an abuser" and women all know what that is on some level. Perry's mask fell off and he couldn't hide who he was, especially from women, because WE KNOW, and he knows we see him. Again, I'm aware the more literal interpretation, which I do actually think the show meant to convey, is that they all see/realize that Perry IS Jane's rapist AND a beater of his wife, Celeste. But, I think the way it was shot and edited allows for either interpretation and, on a lot of levels, I sort of like the idea that these women can silently come together with just a look simply because THAT'S WHAT WOMEN DO. We bond. We nurture. We protect. And when we have to, when we're pushed too far, we fight back. Together.

Yes, of course, tons of it. And if this was a community in the midwest or south, or a religious private school or something similar, I would have totally got it. But liberal, hippie coastal Northern California, with a bunch of Silicon Valley parents? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me, and I live in a very Red State, but have also lived in both Northern and Southern California. Make that father of three.

I didn't read the book, nor have I done a rewatch, but I didn't see any of that either. Early on there were some looks exchanged around the kitchen island when Madeline was going off, but I took those as, 'Here she goes again,' shared glances. If anything beyond that was there, or meant to be there, I missed it. One of my petty gripes with the series is the idea that a liberal NorCal town would actually petition against a production of a Tony-winning musical like Avenue Q which, by the way, looked like a shockingly high-end production, especially for a small theatre. Oh and, yeah, I also commented that it was super weird that Celeste was wearing surgical gloves to assemble furniture and my husband and I both laughed out loud at the idea that she was able to not only assemble all that Ikea by herself in a short amount of time -- she would have had only the hours while the kids were in school, and she had to buy it all first -- but that she would be so calm afterwards. Has any real human being ever NOT become enraged or disgusted while assembling Ikea?

Yes, Perry had locked them in, but Celeste unlocked the door herself and jumped out while he was distracted. I think it was supposed to be obvious that Celeste absolutely felt the intense danger she was in, but unclear whether she could have saved herself without Reneta's unintentionally life-saving interference.

I saw Renata as deeply, deeply insecure; to a debilitating degree that would make trying to befriend/reassure her torture. (Gordon, jerk that he is, must be a saint as a husband.) Madeline's petty drama could be exhausting, but she was loyal and willing to reach out, which made her infinitely more approachable/relatable than Renata, even if a very good argument could be made about Renata being the "better" person. Kudos to Laura Dern for willing to go there as an actress, because I found myself just HATING Renata as I watched. So much whining, and why me and a certainty that everyone was out to get her for her success, while at the same time obsessively reveling in it. From the pretentious name to the even more pretentious birthday party -- which had ZERO to do with a 6-year-old, and everything to do with her mom's raging insecurity and world-class snobbery -- I just despised this woman. While both women were deeply flawed, I'd have picked Maddy in a heartbeat. Her fierce loyalty to her friends, and her immediate and sincere embrace of Jane, a woman far below her in "status," in a community where it's clear that status is everything, makes up for a lot of the other petty nonsense. I do think Renata was redeemed in the end -- from the knock on the window forward -- but it took that level of shared, life-and-death (literally) intensity for it to occur. Honestly, I know Kidman's portrayal of Celeste is getting all the attention -- and, don't get me wrong, she was very good --but for me the standout acting performance in the series was Dern's messy, off-putting, but incredibly real-feeling, embodiment of Renata.

Yeah, I'm not one to cry sexist on a whim, but some of these are just ... weird. I mean, Rorke says of Episode 5 when it's unambiguously clear that Perry & Celeste's relationship is abusive. "Instead, we’re subjected to scenes of the S&M sex games played by Celeste and her husband, Perry (a one-dimensional Alexander Skarsgard), which feel like the Sunset magazine version of Kidman’s other sex game movie, “Eyes Wide Shut,” now nearly (gasp!) 20 years old." "S&M games"? Seriously?!? Talk about your wrongest of wrong takes.

Yes, to be clear, I am not the one saying that about the show, LOL. I'm quoting Tim Goodman's published review. And, yes, it's worse than I remember, and doesn't get better from there. While there is undeniable affluence on display, to dismiss spousal abuse, as "rich white people's problems" is ... troubling. I tried to see if there was a male-dominated show corollary, but the only show that came to mind was Billions, and the other Hollywood Reporter TV critic, Dan Feinberg, reviewed that one. Anyway, that one stood out for me, because I had crossed it off my list after hearing Tim Goodman dismiss it. It was only after hearing good things from many other sources that I went back and watched the series over three days this past weekend.

Tim Goodman of the Hollywood Reporter was not a fan either. Very dismissive. Said something along the lines of it being a soap opera pretending to be a prestige drama and not to waste your time. EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, Goodman definitely was not a fan (from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/hbos-big-little-lies-review-972805) ... "If you want to watch more of this calculated, phony kind of confrontation, which usually entails a detailed monologue of ridiculousness, then definitely keep watching because you're going to get a lot of it. If this is the kind of red flag that scares you off, congratulations, you just saved seven hours of your time. "Big Little Lies revolves around a big hot mess of "issues" that adults face, painstakingly acted out in ways that don't have much connection to reality, whether it's how people talk to each other or act around each other. By shifting the story out of Australia and to the swanky seaside town of Monterey, the production ratchets up the Rich White People Problems factor that dominates the story." ... and so on.