ohjoy

(I don't know why I'm still trying to come up with a reasonable headcanon that makes sense out of all the insanity and finger-pointing going on with this ridiculous incident, but my current theory is:) This is going to be such a headache if it boils down to language barriers and cultural misunderstandings -- that these drunk Americans don't understand the difference between "stuck" and "locked" and break a door (among other things?) and can't differentiate security guards in other countries from the true police force (why would you expect them to be able to?). So they get back in the car expecting to be able to leave, but the norms of the location mean that the gas station people would not expect to just let people go without involving the police or at least getting retribution for the damages that the drunk Americans caused, so the security guards treat the Americans like people who appear to be refusing to listen to instruction and trying to leave the scene of a crime, pulling their guns and demanding that they get out of the taxi and sit outside the vehicle while the police are called (perhaps even going so far as to temporarily take their wallets from them to help ensure they won't try to run away). The Americans are suitably freaked by having guns pointed at them, but finally figure out that gas station people want money from them. They give them money and are eventually let go. So on the one hand you've got the local people thinking that they've done what's necessary to get the situation with the vandalism and damage taken care of, and on the other hand you've got drunk Americans thinking they've just been forced to give up cash to police-looking people pointing guns at them. Then the Americans go around claiming to have been robbed at gunpoint (because, not understanding the language and not being sober enough at the time to correctly read the situation, that's the story they're sticking with), and it takes a few days for the gas station people to realize "hey, they're talking about us." At which point they start going, "No, that's a lie, they weren't robbed, they're vandals," and chaos ensues.

My most generous self has come up with this scenario: they got back to the village (maybe still not completely sober) and probably half-told the story using a version of "we just wanted to use the bathroom, and things got out of hand they pointed a gun at us and demanded payment, and the only reason we were able to leave is because we gave them money," which Lochte's mom then synthesized to "my baby got robbed at gunpoint in Rio" and went to the media. By the time they sobered up and realized what the situation truly was, they figured they could just play it off in a way that didn't make them look bad if they stuck the original high points -- there was a gun, our money was taken, etc. (and being drama Lochte couldn't resist imbellishing a little because hey, spotlight!) and everything seemed to be going fine until the story started to unravel under additional scrutiny.

Taylor Schilling was in Argo, also starring John Goodman, who was Death Sentence with Kevin Bacon Next Up (since I missed out on on the previous avatar fun): Jensen Ackles

The whispered "first" at the beginning of the commercial got a huge laugh out of me.

My personal take on that is that both of those general "world/future save responsibility took focus off fun and characters" and "need to focus episodes on individuals or small groups within the team without having to focus on the whole team" resulted from one major fail: The Hawks/Savage characters and plot DID NOT WORK. The "save all of the present and the future" is usually not a problem in a time-travel show unless the impetus for needing to do is iffy (or in this case downright stupid and contrived on several levels). And they did great on the episodes that had most of the team in them -- until they had to go back to the Hawk/Savage tedium buildup that was supposed to make us care about the need to save the world/future. IMO the problem wasn't necessarily that a big "save all of time" arc doesn't work for the show; it's that a "the team is sucked into a four-sided love triangle/revenge plot that's going nowhere and they have to figure out how to save the world without just up and smacking team members upside their stupid heads" doesn't work for the show. Sure, go ahead and focus on a single, duo, or trio within the team for each episode, just as long as that single, duo, or trio has nothing to do with a centuries-spanning love triangle involving the least expressive people in the group. These problems are very easy to solve; hopefully they done so appropriately. [/rant] (Sorry, I do actually like the show. I've just been wondering what Guggie et. al. have deemed mistakes to be corrected -- I just wasn't sure they were the same massive failures mistakes I'd like to see corrected as well.)

Sarah Silverman was in A Million Ways to Die in the West with Charlize Theron, who was in Trapped with Kevin Bacon Next Up: David Harewood

If it makes you feel better @Starfish35, I made the same mistake you did, but didn't realize it until I saw your comment. That was totally my thinking as well, until I saw this and this, and now I'm cackling internally about how bad it would be. The idea of Oliver's musical Sad Panda face -- or better yet, rage-singing! -- for an hour should not amuse me as much as it does.

I'm remembering Jensen's description of himself while filming that Future!Dean episode -- and totally imagine that's how he is trying to figure out how he and his wife are going to do with a pre-schooler and TWIN babies. :-)

Yeah, so this pretty much my exact reaction! This was not at all on my list of potential fall shows (I'm quite picky about my shows - only so much space on the DVR) -- and then I saw the trailer and read a lengthy description of the show/pilot, and they got me. It's made it onto my short list!

And Jared with Jensen's face looks like Steven Weber. O_o

The Suicide Squad trailer set to "Bohemian Rhapsody" that I saw in theater was absolutely fantastic -- but even as I loved it I was still convinced the movie could not possibly be as awesome as the trailer was, so no dice there. (I might subconsciously be holding the belief that Arrow's Deadshot died so Will Smith could play him in the movie against the movie itself. But only subconsciously. ;-) )

My favorite part of this episode? Riley's sunshine sweater. I could never pull it off, but I still want one. My second favorite part? And then third was probably a tie between Maya asking Lucas if it was okay for her to join him in front of the fireplace, and Zay hurrying off to go "save a tree". That probably says something sad about this show (or my continued viewing of it), but I am taking the tiniest glimmers of fun where I can find them.

The thing I love about that scene is that I definitely hear Jensen's voice at the beginning of it (obviously he's pitched it differently, but the cadence is so him), but by the end of it I absolutely cannot picture anyone but Jason Todd. I'm completely engrossed in the scene. I also love the line about the crowbar. It causes inappropriate giggles every time.

Even the faint idea of the return of the shirtless episode count for Arrow is the only thing remotely exciting thing I've heard about Season 5 so far. Definitely, lets get back to what made this show great. ;-)

Yes, totally. That was precious.

Wow, this show made me feel bad for Lucas. (LUCAS of all people!) Nobody actually cares about his voice. Weeks of "CHOOSE! CHOOSE! CHOOSE!" boiled down to "Oh, you didn't really have a choice to make even if you thought you did, so now nobody wants to hear it." The less said about the Disney Channel version of Shawn's life and history, the better. I've decided that GMW exists in an alternate reality from the one in which BMW exists. (Because you can't convince me that the Shawn in the BMW episode "Angela's Men" and the Shawn in this episode are the same person. Nope. Not buying it.)

This will forever and always be the "I swear to God, Larry" scene to me. Can't watch without laughing. (And I watch it a lot more now than I would otherwise.)

That explanation is the exact same reason I could never get into SkyeWard back when AoS started. Just wigged me out to no end how people wanted them to be together. Her complete and consistent disgust with him after he was revealed to be Hydra was a big factor in my ability to like her character.

I saw exactly one Harry Potter movie, of which I remember approximately 10 minutes, and I've never read the books. My feelings basically stem from not being wow'd by any of the other casting notices, and wishing that Arrow wasn't adding people left and right when I'm not getting enough story for the established characters I actually care about. One solid addition with more focus on the people I'm already there for is more appealing to me than half a dozen random new characters. (I'm just selfish like that. :-) )

I admit I'm stumped as to how he would show that in a way that's different from what he did in 4x01-4x07. That was what their relationship was like before BMD, right? I supposed he could wait for the next crisis to hit and then bring her in immediately on that -- but the whole problem was that just because he includes her the next time doesn't guarantee that he won't decide to leave her out again at a later date. They have a legitimate issue (regardless of how the writers chose to portray it), but how do they have a legitimate resolution? Honestly, I wish this was not the issue the writers decided to develop in Oliver for the purposes of relationship growth. Because the only response I can see being used to move them forward is Felicity basically admitting that it's on her to take Oliver at his word that he won't shut her out again. That's not a visually or emotionally compelling resolution to the very visible disaster the BMD was to precipitate the breakup. At this point I'd almost rather see them going, "What were we fighting about? I don't remember."

The breathy voice, the weird stare, the odd reactions and facial expressions -- this is confirmation (at least to me) that KCcan act, she just was acting according to the headcannon she'd designed for her character and her character's arc on the show (back when the show first started) without deviating from that headcannon at all regardless of what was going on with the other characters on the show. It's impressive in a way.

Season 2a flirting and tension I can handle. Season 3a misery and longing I cannot. Neither one of them need to be dating anyone else.

Aaaagghhh that first rooftop scene -- I remember the discussions I read of how utterly ridiculous the blocking and dialogue in that scene was. It might have been the deathknell of O/L for me personally -- up til then I figured it was just boring/stupid but inevitable, but I cringed and groaned so much at that rooftop scene that I knew I'd never be fully sold on their pairing.

So I just quoted myself from back during late season 3a (around episode 6 or 7 I think), because apparently I got exactly what I asked for, I just got it in season 4 instead of season 3. But I went back on my own word, because they broke them up and I haven't quit the show yet. I might be the type of person feeding the showrunner's delusion that their contived angst antics (angstics?) have no negative impact on their viewing audience. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment -- unfortunately I think my "walking away from this show" is going to look a lot more like "recording all the episodes until O/F get back together, then trying to watch all the good parts to catch up." O/F and OTA are pretty much the only things that interest me on the show anymore, but -- how does the song go? ".... you just keep me hanging on...."

I agree with just about all of your points blugirlami21. Yes, the show was using a term for grade transcripts that's normally used for punishable offenses, but in this overly-sanitized Disney Channel landscape that's not out of the norm. I thought this week was better than last week, which honestly might be the only bar I've got set for this show atm. (It's Friday night after a long week; I don't mind to turn my critical tv mindset off for 20-30 minutes, give or take commercials. Also, I've realized that I've significantly tempered my expectations of how this how presents tv reality in general and the Matthews family in particular based on the fact that it's on the Disney Channel (and 201x Disney Channel at that), rather than anything that the original Cory and Topanga were on. It's really helped me to enjoy the show, and Riley's growth within the show, without getting (as) annoyed or frustrated my actions and mindsets that would have no place in real life at that age.) I'm also noticing the Riley/Farkle individual scenes. They just seem so... intentional. The end of last season drove me to wish for that pairing as an option, but I figured that was just my raging triangle-hatred, not that I'd thought the show would actually go there. But now -- just seems on purpose that this is the second (third?) Riley/Farkle alone scene this season, but we haven't had any Riley/Lucas scenes like that (or Lucas/Maya scenes, for that matter). It's probably because they've put Lucas in a position where he can't be the platonic emotional support to either girl right now (unless he is equally to both at the same time -- STUPID), and Zay is essentially Lucas' friend not really Riley's, so that leaves only Farkle for those types of scenes. But there's just a different quality to those scenes to me. Can't put my finger on it. Anyway, Iiked the episode. And Smackle's continued "flirtation" with Lucas. That's a fun trait that's been carried through pretty consistently since her first major episode. Go ahead and let Zay join in the fun. ETA: Also really liked Maya & Zay's new handshake, and Riley's Chewbacca conjugation. (Like I said, Friday night on the Disney Channel. It works for me.)