SWLinPHX

How about a whole episode on Martha Washington, Mary Todd Lincoln and Melania Trump -- three strong and independent first ladies? 🙃

I think you and I must be the only ones. I've ready so many viewer comments about how terrible and asinine her portrayal was, but I knew what she was going for and the eyebrows and lips and style of talking very much reminded me of Michelle Obama. She definitely was a little old to play her at the time she was First Lady but it wasn't so jarring and I was able to lose myself in her performance.

Yes, I was growing weary of the Richard Wheatley thing. The infiltration of the Albanian crime family was interesting and the complex loyalties and betrayals within the Brotherhood was compelling too. Denis Leary is a good actor. I remember him back from his MTV promo days where he was smoking a cigarette and quipping some sarcastic line in that MTV spot. How long ago was that?

Ohhh, that exact song? Okay... I thought you were referring to another song that was ruined for you (maybe they used the Fleetwood Mac song of the same name).

Which song from "Big Love" are you referring to?

To clarify, it's not the alternate history in and of itself that bothered me. I think many of the examples you gave can be very intriguing if well-executed. But this just was not believable or realistic to me. It was more like a Disney alternate history and I simply could not suspend disbelief or be drawn in because it just seemed like Murphy putting stuff on the screen which he personally enjoys to see (gay men, naked men, his favorite stars, good-looking people, opulent lifestyles, bitchy women, etc.), as if it was made mostly for himself (and maybe a very specific targeted demographic) than for the public as a whole. It was so simplistic and unrealistic that my eye-rolling hit an all-time high. I would be all for an alternate history that shows events unfolding naturally and logically due to one or two turns of events, but not a fantasy which is just wishful thinking without substance.

They turned him into a big dumb bumpkin who was nothing more than a sweet oaf. He may have been naive with midwest values when he came to Hollywood, but he still had a chiseled jaw, deeper voice, dashing good lucks and obvious charm. This guy, very little (if any) of that.

Exactly how I felt! I did read the reviews beforehand so I wasn't surprised. Yes, Murphy knows how to write storylines many typical gay men will drool over and rub their palms together with delight and anticipation, but it felt like I watched Ryan Murphy jacking off for seven hours. To be fair a lot of his productions are like that: gratuitous nude and/or gay men, his favorite celebs making cameos for no reason, bitchy rich women, opulent sets, etc. He loves camp and fantasy. And that's just it; this was fantasy. Yet he had to throw in everything including the kitchen sink. I'm sorry but if you're writing a fantasy don't try to make it seem like it's what really happened by using actual dates, movies, and real-life stars and events as if this was based on reality (as was done far more effectively with "Feud"). Despite his intentions (which may be giving voice to the marginalized -- and as I said also self-gratification to display "what floats his boat" up on the screen), he actually did do a disservice as another poster wrote. What if he was depicting the mid-19th Century showing that slaves actually liked being on the plantations and were happy and were not mistreated, as if they were just employees? Nice notion but almost insulting. This self-indulgent dreamworld was so lite and breezy and schmaltzy where everything worked out perfectly for all in the end that I simply lost respect. It's hard enough to suspend disbelief when I can see Murphy's signature all over a movie (it pulls the viewer out of things when the director's personal fantasy stands out more than an actual compelling storyline) but making it way too light and warm and fuzzy was a bad mistake. It was all so out of left field when Rock Hudson is portrayed as a mentally challenged simpleton; a big oaf who fell off a turnip truck, instead of the dashing, deep-voiced, square-jawed matinee idol whose charm was quite magnetic, even if his acting skills were not top notch. A gas station runs like a modern-day drive-thru brothel for hot male gigolos who please old rich women and closeted homosexuals and is set right in the middle of town (would never happen then and not sure even today). The golly-gee squeaky clean lead is such a swell veteran that he wants to do right by his wife but realizes he doesn't even love her but would never tell her, and lo and behold conveniently she doesn't love him and the babies aren't his and she leaves and he is now free and off the hook. An overtly homosexual black man walks hand-in-hand and kisses a white man on the Oscar red carpet and the black lead female says "don't f#ck with me" and that is that. There's some public resistance and protest sure, but simply make a movie that is a hit (and honestly "Meg" didn't seem like it would be anything special) and suddenly homophobia is dying and interracial couples are no big deal for most. It's as if Murphy is saying that if only people in this day had a little more gumption and courage all of this could have been resolved; they were so close that all along they were only a hit movie away from breaking down all those barriers and long-held taboos. If only those people who suffered those barriers in the 1940's had just spoken up a tad more this could have been achieved 50-70 years earlier than it was (although still not completely today). Simplifying things like that and re-writing history just for your own gratification or fantasy-fulfillment is pointless to me at best, and irresponsible at worst. I liked some of the song interpretations on "Glee" but never really got into the characters or storyline of the series. I did really like "American Horror Story" the first two or three season, but that started going downhill progressively each season. I really enjoyed “The People Vs. OJ” and “The Assassination of Gianni Versace” and “Feud” (although there was plenty of his typical indulgent tropes mentioned above in the last two as well). But "Hollywood" was mostly Ryan's fantasy or vanity project -- very much like Quentin Tarantino, a great director whose own agenda and gratification often seem to be a priority over storyline and enthralling the audience, even if it means rewriting history. At least when Tarantino rewrote it the events weren't something that could never happen at the time, if at all.

Portion sizes is a reflection on culture and lifestyle choice. No one is forced to order or eat large portions. They can share, take it home, etc. And the excuse that poor people have to eat lots of fattening food or else starve just doesn't hold water for me. I just lost 60 lbs. in 4 months by eating cheap food, not going to Whole Foods or buying organic or gourmet. The reason for the majority is change in culture, technology, lifestyle, etc. All things anyone can change about themselves if they want to and are dedicated. I think we need to drop this subject as it is not about the show.

Apparently you didn't read my previous comments because I already said shaming an individual is never okay. Saying we must all accept our body weight like it is just the same as our race or height or other fixed trait is disingenuous and a product of political correctness gone awry and ignoring an epidemic all experts agree has happened in the past 20-30 years. That is what has changed. The majority of Americans weren't overweight in all the history before that. Again, for the very vast majority it is today's lifestyle and culture that is to blame.

Then explain how for hundreds of years people under those same conditions where not fat. Or even after fast food became popular people remained trim until about 20-30 years ago. Giving into temptation of eating too much fast food is not an indicator of not being able to eat less or better. It supports what I (and most sociologist and dieticians) have said -- it is lifestyle choices and today's culture. I see a lot of people making excuses (often those who themselves are overweight) in order not to face the real issue in the vast majority of cases. Sorry but "calories in/calories out" is indeed the solution for the vast majority and works for most people. I see people where looking for an exception and trying to apply it in cases where it's just not the case. Professional sociologists, dieticians and those in the medical field can tell you today's lifestyle and culture is to blame for the vast majority of obesity and the fact that the average American is considerably overweight. It's just a fact (that some people go to great lengths to excuse or skirt).

Again, my point was clear. If a sudden unhealthy epidemic plagued 80% or more of all Americans (measles, cancer, polio) as extreme weight or obesity does today like never before, we would be alarmed and want to do something about it. But with obesity political correctness says we must accept it lest we be labeled insensitive. And to answer your other question, yes. In one photo of a morbidly obese woman in a tiny bikini giggling with rolls and rolls of fat spilling all over her people were attacked for commenting that this should not be celebrated. It was all "celebrate who you are and accept your body". Or "you go girl!". That is what I'm talking about. Would you say "right on!" to having a disease or being unhealthy in any other way? Anti-shaming and bullying became "love your body the way it is and have no shame". That was Maher's point. Once again political correctness over-correcting.

Of course it's NEVER okay to actually shame anyone individually and I don't think that was what Maher is saying, although his approach and wording on the surface may seem like it. He is saying not to pretend like extreme obesity is okay and something everyone should accept in order to be politically correct. There are photos of morbidly obese people in bikinis and people having to give a thumbs up or approval lest they be considered judgmental or horrible people. The fact remains U.S. citizens ARE indeed fatter than any time in history and it is an epidemic. The majority are overweight or extremely overweight, making a healthy ideal weight more of a rarity. You can't deny a statistical fact. It is unhealthy and an epidemic and the majority aren't due to complicated health issues for which they have no control. It's due to diet and lack of exercise. It is a lifestyle many have adopted in this day and age, and again if you look at any other time in history Americans looked far different and being considerably overweight was the exception, not the rule. Maher's point is not to ignore or even glorify an epidemic for the sake of political correctness. If suddenly most Americans had diabetes or cancer or measles or anything else we wouldn't praise it and say it must be accepted or else you are insensitive. An epidemic should be addressed and given the serious attention it deserves. It is a known and proven national problem. That is NOT the same as shaming an individual, which is where the resentment is coming from.

Check this out (he was bold enough to say it but got a lot of heat for it!):

Do most people know that Scott is gay in real life? It isn't mentioned as much as it has been for openly gay actors.