BingeyKohan

Thanks for that earlbny. After reading it I'm going to optimistically disavow the mass shooter theory, but I still wonder if Jeremy will return to the set with a loaded gun of sorts. I think the 'Chekhov's gun' they have introduced is not the gun Jeremy used to shoot up Rachel's photo but his direct line to her mother. Maybe he brings her to set to have Rachel institutionalized. (Oh man I'm having anxious flashbacks to when Kirsten's mother made her choose between her and Charlie on Party of Five.) I would LOVE to see Quinn tear into Rachel's mother.

Commenters on another site are speculating that Jeremy returns as a mass shooter. Someone pat me on the head and reassure me that's not true. Not because I fear for the characters, but because I don't think that development belongs in the world or the themes of this show.

On a more superficial note - I like that they're keeping the tradition of Rachel in her high-top Vans. I noticed her wearing them with her gown in the wardrobe truck when Jeremy approached her. But surely she didn't wear them to the awards. Did anyone notice?

That is a bizarrely edited interview - you had to really struggle to first understand it was a Q and A and then to decipher what were the Q's and what were the A's. And I don't think I'd keep watching a Rachel wallowing in enough self-hatred that she'd take Jeremy back. That's not an interpretation of Rachel's character I can get behind.

Ha, yes, speaking of optics!

You're completely right although I can't help having the feeling the tone deafness about how bad that makes Darius look (to the audience of 'Everlasting') is sloppy writing on the part of the writers (of UnReal) vs. an intentional choice to show that Darius actually does have a personal integrity problem. With luck the terrible optics of what he's doing (again, as experienced by the audience of Everlasting) will be acknowledged and will be what brings Romeo back to provide the counsel he is missing. With no luck we'll just get a throwaway line from Jay observing that Darius might as well have 'bitch-pleased' her when he blew out her candle.

They were laughing at the 'shocking moment'? Was your take that the moment was meant to be shockingly funny, or was the humor unintentional (on the writers' part)?

I bet you're right about this (and Britney is the contestant you're thinking of last year). As for Carl Lumbly - I believe he was on Cagney and Lacey well before Alias, but I'm dating myself! Back to the Ruby-and-her-father interaction: I didn't know quite how to unpack Darius' indignant declaration that he made 40 million a year, by way of defending his own honor. It seemed of a piece with "bitch, please" in terms of not terribly well considered responses to having his performance or character questioned. Or maybe since I found it somewhat distasteful it was doing its job, making me see that I was just like Ruby, trying to force him onto a pedestal he didn't want to be on.

They rather quickly pushed the verb "produce" over the shark - when Quinn mentioned, while trying on gowns, that she was going to produce the new owner into giving her her own network I was like, nope, you've overdone it and already ruined what could have been their equivalent of Scandal's "handled."

My new speculative theory (or possibly just fan fiction): The reason Booth, the new network owner, mentioned his love for Beth Ann was not to show how granular his Everlasting fandom is; it's to lay pipe for a story where he turns out to be a Trump-like figure, seeking to play to the lowest common denominator. (I could see SGS wanting to take on Trump.) Possibly whatever happens with Beth Ann next week and the man who appears, in previews, to be on the attack could play into this. Maybe whatever happens, he insists to Quinn that it be edited to be favorable to the racist contingent and be falsified to disparage Darius. This will turn out to be the line that Quinn won't cross (perhaps putting her in mind of her father's values) and she'll enlist Rachel to go against Booth, bringing her and Rachel back together. (Or maybe I'm giving the show too much credit and whatever happens will be the Mary-suicide equivalent, just a late-in-the-season shock-value play.)

My only complaint (and it's no small one) is that by eliminating Ruby the show is totally punting when it comes to taking on race. Making her a prominent BLM activist then doing nothing with it makes the show suffer badly in comparison to this season of Orange is the New Black which tapped into the outrage so meaningfully, I thought. It can still potentially deliver on doing something timely and resonant linking Beth Ann in some way to the mindset of some of Trump's worst followers, the difference of course being we've spent maybe 10 minutes of total screen time with Beth Ann so nothing they can do will really cut very deep.

Feeling more bullish after this ep. Pacing still felt off and above all I want more Rachel, but definitely held my interest and had the ability to surprise me.

Definitely hear you. I guess what I was trying to say was that it can feel like the effort to prove how ironclad her Bachelor contract was or wasn't is just a disguised attempt to punish her for letting us down creatively this season. I do agree she's under her own spell, thinking she has the magical ability to transform every complicated feeling she has about her employers into art. I've mentioned elsewhere I think Coleman is a Noxon proxy, an unwanted, network-mandated minder.

earlbny and Zuleikha I think you are both correct: a close read of The New Yorker article shows that the magazine's fact-checkers (who are rigorous; certainly more so than Cosmo's) must have had trouble verifying some of SGS's claims, hence the writerly distance DT Max created in a few spots (along the lines of 'that's her story, anyway,' when he wanted to suggest he wasn't sure whether to quite believe her.) But then I personally wasn't sure whether to always believe him: For example, when describing the pilot's opening scene he referred to Rachel being passed out in a limo - the beautiful shot of Shiri seen through the moonroof. I interpreted that as her merely laying down so she wouldn't be caught by the Everlasting cameras that were also in the car. Or that it had double meaning - she was also exhausted by what she was getting back into. But not passed out. But: the larger point I want to make is whether we pay undue attention to the likability, stability, and even credibility of SGS as a person. If you read profiles of Jill Soloway (Transparent), she doesn't sound very likable or stable either (to me, not that my personal opinion of her matters). Very unsympathetic people have made great art. I am tempted to say that focus is because she's a woman, but then many people speculated that True Detective got bad in season 2 because Cary Fukunaga wasn't involved and the male creator (also unlikable in interviews) was left to run it alone, same as we're now saying about Marti Noxon's missing influence. It's possible SGS said all she had to say about her Bachelor experience in one 20 minute art film and 10 hour long episodes and anything beyond that is stretching the concept too far.

I just saw the tweet from Emily Nussbaum (Pulitzer winning tv critic for The New Yorker, highly respected) where she admits she's not feeling season 2 so far - that's the highest-level critical confirmation I've seen of what a lot of us have been saying lately. (She thinks the structure feels off, doesn't like all the switching up of who's in charge, thinks Darius is weakly characterized, and that the contestants are cartoons.)

From the Vulture article we know the episode contains a funeral scene attended by Quinn and the new network owner, where they kiss. We also know there's a scene where Quinn, Chet, Coleman, and Rachel debate calling the police. Presumably, they are debating calling the police because Jeremy has attacked Rachel. A funeral attended by both Quinn and her new love interest would have to be one for Quinn's father, wouldn't you think? It seems early in their relationship (since at this point they haven't met yet) for him to go to her father's funeral. But I don't think anyone either in front of the Everlasting cameras or behind its scenes will die at this point since that would have to happen in episode 5 and it doesn't feel like they're building to that (yet). The only other possibility could be that the hometown visit is Chantal and they film at the grave of her dead fiance, but Vulture quoted Shiri Appleby specifically calling it a "funeral," and a graveside visit to a long-dead person wouldn't be a funeral. I don't think I've read any hints about who the hometown visit could belong to, but the most provocative one would be Beth Ann. The New Yorker article mentioned her story takes a 'tragic turn.' (A traumatic event and a tragic turn - what surprising plotting!) Perhaps her hometown visit sets that in motion.

OK, just saw the cast on GMA and they are so winning and so behind the show I feel compelled to amend my post above with some things that are purely positives: I did laugh out loud several times, especially when Quinn paid the ambulance drivers to take London around the block (although with back to back Everlasting episodes where a contestant tackles the suitor and an ambulance scene it sometimes seems like they are producing the Road Rules/Real World Challenge). I was glad to see Quinn developing other series (even if they sounded atrocious and meant for the D-List of cable channels). I think they are doing a good job of slowly building intrigue around Yael and what long game she's playing. I find the actor playing Coleman appealing. I think we're reaching the point in the season where real intent will kick in.

I'm afraid that Lifetime execs greedily saw that they had an Empire or a Shonda Rhimes show on their hands and pressured SGS for moments that would play on Twitter. That might explain the pacing of this episode - the moment when London tackles Darius resulting in the back-killing dogpile would have been the end of an episode on some shows. Part of me admires them for putting it in the middle but the show never really regained momentum after that. They seem to think every outrageous one-liner of Quinn's or dastardly play by a producer carries the same weight. On Twitter, it probably does. I am starting to wonder if Sherri Appleby is vaguely embarrassed by some of the material she's being given this season. Or maybe I'm just projecting; I was embarrassed for her in the scene with Tiffany where Rachel hummed the wedding march and pretended to carry a bouquet. If she meant to convey Rachel's self-consciousness I only saw Sherri's, and it didn't really make sense on any level - Rachel knows that Tiffany is a little ambivalent about the wifey thing. I also don't find the actors playing Darius or Romeo to be very strong scene partners for Appleby, but I don't think, as written, they are very nuanced characters in general. What are their flaws? For Darius, the deception of concealing his injury so he can continue supporting people in his life? If that's your biggest character flaw you're either boring or humblebragging. None of the four new Everlasting figures (Darius, Romeo, Ruby, Tiffany) seem to have more than one dimension, which makes me almost hope that Ruby did set Darius up, at Jay's urging. The most charismatic newcomer is Yael, which probably means that SHE'S the secret terrorist (only partially kidding). I also think that in introducing the Coleman character, installed over Rachel and Quinn by network meddling, SGS is working out her feelings about Lifetime bringing in Marti Noxon at the show's inception, motivated by their doubts SGS could handle it. I doubt that bodes well for the Coleman character - we've seen what she's done to Jeremy, another note from Lifetime she was forced to accept.

I think I had a more visceral reaction to this episode than anything I've ever seen on television. My heart was still pounding when I went to bed that night. The power and importance of the episode aside, can I just say: What a f***ing p*ssy is Caputo?

Yikes. you might be right. Haven't there been rumors of a shooting? I don't think the show would make the shooter an African-American character, so your scenario would fit.

Eric/Earl has pointed out elsewhere that we are 3 episodes in out of 10 and have not learned much about the suitor or the contestants, compared to the similar stage last season. Given that the New Yorker piece mentioned "something even worse" than a contestant's suicide happens this season (difficult to imagine) I wonder if this season will even give us the making of an entire season of Everlasting. Season 3 (of UnReal) might pick up with the same suitor and remaining contestants, or the Darius season of Everlasting might not even complete production, depending on how disruptive the 'even worse' incident is. Just a thought as we pass another week with not much development in making the Everlasting contestants stand out.

Ha, totally! And I feel like I'm being nitpicky about the 'we did that in s8' thing' - but I also forgot to nitpick the network exec speech where the camera is trained (just like Everlasting producers do to set up contestants in for a downfall) on either Quinn or Rachel looking smug until they realize he's praising Coleman rather than them. I guess the writers did that for some kind of parallelism between Q&R but happening in back to back weeks it just looks lazy and repetitive.

I will be heartbroken if this show disappoints all the way through the season but I am not encouraged. Some things just seem sloppy to me - like when Quinn tells Rachel to put Brandi in the hole and Rachel asks, 'didn't we do that in season 8?' If you think about it, this makes no sense - even though they filmed her in the 'hole,' I highly doubt they used that in the show's edit - they would look like monsters for putting her in a serial killer looking room. More likely it was just a psychological tactic to get her in the right frame of mind, meaning they could do it every single season and it wouldn't matter (it only matters if it's repetitive to the viewing audience). I also have a lot of trouble believing Quinn would, at this stage in her career, get so in the weeds as she is w/producing individual contestants, etc. She has an overall development deal, she should be visiting different sets and have different shows in stages of development. I think we're supposed to believe she is a badass exec but there's part of the network guy that is right when he suggests she is not performing like someone at her level - if she's running around and doing things junior producers do, she's not a high performer. The only character justification I find compelling as a reason to still be on that set is Rachel, explaining how she fought for the first African American suitor and wants to stay to make sure the story is told correctly.

An article on the show's production design on The Awl hints that a location in the finale (communal apartment in Russia) could mean the return of Martha. Just spec (not confirmed) but... Plausible! https://theawl.com/useful-things-6749f978b037#.ns2rr2mor