MisterBluxom

Seems to me the answer to this must be qualified by the reminder that like many other characters, the NK is something conjured up by the author to complement part of this story line and cannot be analyzed in terms of anything real. I do not mean to insult anyone by saying this. I know you understand this. So why am I repeating it? Well, so many posts made here seem to be based on the fact the chars are somehow real or at least can be analyzed according to human psychology. But we all know they are not and yet, that just seems so easy to forget when discussing them - especially chars like NK because it's not even based on anyone or anything real. My reply would be the author invented NK because he needed some symbol of fear and terror to justify the development of the other chars. If the NK was real, I think the way it's been constructed just omits far too many human characteristics. Specifically, I don't think it has ever shown any sign of the ability to make complex plans or to think of ways to out-maneuver opponents. Apparently, that part of its mind died when the human part of this char died. There's almost nothing about NK that makes any sense to me. It wants "death" to prevail and all living things to die so that it can then rule all that remains. But everything that remains will be dead. How does that make any sense? It seems clear to me that a great truth has been made in this show. I refer to the truth, "nothing ever stays the same". So the condition where everything on this planet is dead and NK rules over all of it is impossible. Why? Because that would be a situation where nothing ever changes and there would be no point to that. There would be nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It makes no sense. It was never intended to make any sense. It is just an empty figment used to help make some sense of this story line and - IMHO - it is very poorly constructed. It's just one more external threat designed to set up yet another big expensive battle scene. Personally, I'm tired of all these big battle scenes. I know they cost a whole lot of money to produce and they are quite thrilling and make for stunning TV. But when you watch battle after battle, it doesn't take long before they become excrutiatingly tiresome. How many battles can you watch before you question the point? I understand that someone always emerges from these things as extremely courageous and a great hero. But this cast is just chock full of extremely courageous heroes. There comes a time when it all just becomes too tiresome for words. I truly do not mean to criticize anyone for believing it's possible to use human psychology to analyze chars created from the author's imagination. But after seven seasons, I just can't understand how the show runners expect to maintain the high quality of this entertainment. Like many others, I believe this show is quite possibly the greatest TV epic ever made and I've loved watching it. But, it's just becomes far too difficult for me to go along with it anymore - at least the parts of it like the battles. I understand that I can't speak for everyone. Many of you may have no problems to accept what is given to the audience. Perhaps I'm just getting too old for it any more.

How about Joffrey's face? Good for a laff?

I tried to find the proper place to post a recommendation for a new show forum (create a forum for a new TV show). I went to the main Forum section and found the FAQ forum. So, I opened that to see if I could find a FAQ that would tell me where to post a recommendation for creating a new forum for a TV show. I got confused because almost every thread in that forum was locked. I think there were only one or two threads that were not locked. That made me think I must have been in the wrong place. Can anyone tell me where the right place would be? Alternatively, there is a show called "Maniac" starring Emma Stone and Jonah Hill. The premise for this show is very unique and interesting. Two people engage in a drug-trial and most every episode shows them in a different life scenario in which the only constant is the two of them work through one hour drama together. It is extremely interesting and I really enjoyed. I'm hoping someone might be interested in starting a forum for this show?

Ain't it laffable that Probst invests all this time and energy in putting the EoE decisions (should I go home or should I go to EoE?) and every single person makes the same choice - just like we all knew they would. What is the point to it? Was it just something Probst felt was needed to heighten the drama? I doubt that anything could do that. I'm really sick of this stupid show. I'm even more sick of stupid Probst.

I cannot imagine what Alexis could possibly do for more than just a day or two in the Galapagos with Ted. IMO, the only way she could ever maintain any interest in anything is with her romance with Ted. If the writers play true with this character, she should rapidly become very unhappy in the islands and will need to return to some civilization. I may be wrong. But I cannot imagine how her romance with Ted could ever satisfy her needs for the several months they are planning to stay there. I cannot imagine Ted maintaining any kind of interest in her for more than a week or two if they were to really spend that time in the Galapagos. In this episode, we (the audience) were given a preview of problems to come. At one point, Alexis spoke of her vision of life in the Galapagos and it was quite different from most any reality that I have ever heard about that place. Alexis spoke of drinking My Tais (or some such tropical drink) but Ted knew the odds of them getting some fancy drinks were extremely low and I suppose we may see one scene during the next few episodes in which Alexis is shown to be very unhappy due to some kind of her own foolish behavior. My guess is that their experience in the Galapagos will not be shown on-air, but that some of the other characters will receive letters from them and they will appear in flashbacks or some other kind of scenes where they do not have to actually appear in any studio. This entire sequence of events promises to be a huge disappointment. My guess is that neither of those chars are equipped to handle more than just a day or two living with each other in the Galapagos and "roughing it", so to speak. Maybe they will inform us that one of them has been bitten by a snake or something similar and they will only be shown to us in tiny snippets for the remainder of this season (or is it next season? There may be some secret reason why they do not want to show Alexis for the next few episodes. Perhaps the actress may be have some condition that prevents her from appearing on-air. I'm just guessing about this. I have no reason to assume she may have any kind of condition. I just can't visualize how the character could ever hold any kind of interest in the Ted char for more than just a day or two if they were all alone in some islands like the Galapagos. The Alexis char is portrayed as a vapid dopey girl who just seems to make lucky choices that always seem to provide her with strange but successful outcomes. IMHO, I believe this is one of the worst aspects of this show. IRL, Alexis would have found herself kicked to the curb many times over by now. She just does not appreciate the consequences of her decisions. The audience is given the "message" that things work out well for her due to some kind of lucky breaks. The more I think about this, the more I find that char and her story line to be awfully repulsive. Lord, please get me out of here? Thank you.

Off Topic? Excellent! I wish every show had an Off Topic thread. I searched long and hard to find an appropriate thread in which I could make some comments about Jennifer Robertson (who plays Jocelyn Schitt) and also about Annie Murphy (who plays Alexis). So, here goes: I will begin with an off topic remark about Jennifer Robertson. Several times, I have read that Vivian Vance (who played the Ethel Mertz char on the TV show "I Love Lucy", was always horrified they cast William Frawley as her on-screen husband because he was 20 or 30 years older than her and she felt completely repulsed by him - both the character as well as the actor. I believe it's very likely that Jennifer Robertson (who plays Jocelyn Schitt) feels the same way about her on-screen husband played by Chris Elliot. After all, who wouldn't feel that way? It's just a guess, but I'd be willing to wager that she likely feels repulsed by both the char and the actor. I can't think of a single movie or TV show in which his participation was not completely terrible (sadly including Groundhog Day which was an excellent move - except for this strange char played by Chris Elliot). And now for an off topic remark about Annie Murphy who plays Alexis. There is a bridal studio on Dufferin St. (near Briar Hill Ave) in Toronto. It is right next door to 2700 Dufferin which is the "Service Ontario" office where people go to renew their driver's licence. Its address must be close to 2690 or 2694 or something close to that. Why am I telling you this? I was going into the office to renew my drivers licence when I saw a huge picture of a lady in an elegant outfit that appeared to be Annie Murphy. The picture was about 6 feet tall and I could swear it was Annie Murphy. If any of you are ever near this location, you might like to take a look at this picture to see for yourself. I'd very much enjoy hearing from anyone who has seen it and can say whether they think it is really Annie Murphy who posed for that picture. There is nothing special about the picture aside from the fact that it's about 6 feet tall and is very likely Annie Murphy. I just thought some of you might enjoy seeing it. If you are interested and you take a look, I'd love to hear if you agree that it was really Annie Murphy who posed for that picture. Even better, if your phone has a camera and you could take a photo of this picture and post it here, that would be just terrific. Unfortunately, I've never tried to do that and don't know how to get my phone to do that.

I know that many of you love this show. I have also enjoyed it very much - but not so much this season. There were many good parts of this finale. It was a real treat seeing Emily Hampshire perform in a role that required more than just her usual introverted self. It was wonderful to see her deliver a performance that was truly excellent and I'm glad they gave her the chance to show what a great actor she is. So many of the other major characters had almost zero participation in this episode. I felt very sad for Jennifer Robertson who plays Jocelyn Schitt. The look on her face when she delivered her single line during David's speech seemed very bizarre to me. It reminded me of a toddler and seemed like a sad way for her to end this season. My main point, however, is that after watching this episode, I have no further interest in either the Alexis or Moira characters. I have never been interested in the Roland character and for the longest time, I had hoped they would retire him or greatly reduce his role. In this episode he seemed even more repulsive than his usual self. What was it in this episode that caused me to lose interest in the Alexis char? I have finally concluded that most all of her expressions and body movements were the same few expressions and movements. I finally decided that after watching her perform a few times in this epi, the character is extremely boring and she is not a very good actor either. I listened to her lines and found they were delivered with a terrible lack of emotion or expression. There are several other reasons why I don't want to ever see her again. But I fear people here would not enjoy hearing those reasons. I tend to feel the same way about the Moira character. Catherine O'Hara is a much better actor than is Annie Murphy. But after five seasons, I find her character ridiculous. I have no interest in ever seeing this character again. I know that many of you love both the actor and the character and I'm sorry if what I'm saying rubs you the wrong way. This opinion just came to me after watching this last episode. I've spoken about my opinion of the Roland character several times before and I'm guessing that many of you understand what I mean and I don't need to repeat myself.

Oops. Seems to correct correction. Very sorry.

Perhaps Probst is trying some kind of Coup to take over the entire TV world and have Survivor run 7-24 forever. If Probst succeeds, there will be nothing else ever on TV except Survivor. Maybe he will have to rerun some past seasons. But eventually, I'm guessing he plans to hire a harem of beautiful women who will act as his minions and they each will host continuous shows - one in every country - until every country has only one TV channel and that channel airs Survivor episodes 24 hours per day - 7 days per week. Enough Probst! Enough! Get some help you crazy motherfucker!

I have no idea how he would do this. But every other sentence out of Probst's mouth is about how this show is just the greatest and most fabulous experience in Human History. I wouldn't be surprised if Probst got into an argument one day about Creation versus Evolution and said that the creation of Survivor was greater than the creation of the entire Universe .... blah blah blah Survivor ... blah blah blah Fantastic ... blah blah blah Survivor ... blah blah blah the Greatest There comes a time when listening to this just makes me puke.

Agreed. Worst twist ever. Your getting really stupid Probst.

I agree. In addition, this season has been the worst I can remember. This Extinction twist is completely stupid. Of course everyone will want to go there instead of going home. What a waste of time showing us each of them deciding what to do. It's so stupid. The only entertainment that may come from this is when the first lady voted off (the one who complains all the time) is eliminated in two seconds during the competition. Can you imagine what she will have to say? I'm hoping that will provide some entertainment. There has been precious little else.

Ugh! It seems to me this show has been going downhill fast for a long time now. Here it is two days after this episode aired and there were only two posts besides mine and the moderator's. The previous episode, "The Parents" was almost equally bad. I really enjoyed this show for the first two or three seasons. I've always enjoyed all of the actors - except for the one who plays Roland. I would tell you why I think it was a mistake to ever have Roland in this show but I'd get banned for bad language if I tried. Let me just say that I don't think he has hardly any talent and I don't think he brings anything of value to this show. If anyone from the CBC is reading this, please put this show out of its misery and cancel it. It should have been cancelled after the 3rd or 4th season.

You never understood why parents who cared more about money than their kids would allow M. to see their kids after receiving a cash settlement? I think the answer is so obvious I would fell silly spelling it out.

That is just LOL funny. Thank you for the good laugh!

There have been other cases in this industry where someone with a pronounced lack of talent is kept around because they supply others with things not usually available to most people. This could be almost any kind of product or service. It could even be something as innocent as emotional comfort or the fact that he just makes people happy or that people just like him. Go figure. The only production I ever enjoyed on which he was an actor was "Theres Something about Mary" which I thought was a terrific film.

Beautifully said! Excellent post. "the ugly within him is finally radiating out" ... I will remember that line forever.

I don't think I'm understanding you. Why does this horrify you? There may be more than one way to look at that. By having two women present, their thinking may be that makes it safer for the children because there are multiple eyes on the kids and if anyting "untowards" happens, there is a greater likelihood they will catch it before it becomes a real crime. Don't you think? In case you have not seen the interview that Gayle King conducted with R. Kelly, here it is: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r-kelly-denies-sexual-abuse-allegations-in-explosive-interview-2019-03-05/ I thought it was very bizarre that Kelly would complain about Gayle King "double joepardying" him because he seemed to claim that by being acquitted of one case he could no longer be charged or even suspected of any other crimes. But that is not what double jeopardy means at all. I'm just saying this from memory (and everytime I do this, a lawyer comes on here and shows me up by explaining that I don't know what I'm talking about). But as I recall, "double jeopardy" means that if you are charged with one specific crime (related to one specific set of facts), you cannot be charged again with the same crime covering the same set of facts. But, you certainly can be charged (and possibly convicted) of the same charge (like "attempted murder") as long as it covers a different set of facts. If I am wrong about this, I certainly hope some lawyer will come on and explain just why I am wrong and explain just what "double jeopardy" really does mean. In other words, the fact that R. Kelly was acquited of some sexual assault on one person on one specific days just means he cannot be charged a second time with the same crime covering the same victim on the same date and time. But he certainly can be charged and convicted of any number of other sexual assaults as long as they were different "events" (meaning they happened to a different victim or happened in a different location or happened at a different date and time). It seems to me that R. Kelly seems to thing that because he was acquited of one sexual assault, that means he can go around sexually assaulting all the young girls he wants to now and he cannot be charged just because he "beat" one charge from a long time ago. That is not only crazy. It is also very stupid. Of course he can be charged for any new crimes he commits. If he really and truly believes that is what "double jeopardy" means, he is in for a very rude surprise. A very rude surprise that he will certainly deserve. In case my feelings about this are not clear, I want to make it clear that I hope he winds up spending the rest of his life behind bars and the sooner - the better! IMO, he is a crazy monster and a stupid monster as well. Can I say "F" Kelly? I hope I can because that is exactly what I want to say. To Hell with R. Kelly and in addition to that, "F" R. Kelly as well!

What happens when she gets her real period a week later? Or at any time that isn't close to 28 days? I suppose it doesn't really matter. She could probably think of a good cover story and not have much of a problem. But it would have been a lot easier if she just thought of a different story that wouldn't have any danger of a "bounce-back" later on. Like maybe she scraped herself. I doubt any of the other players would demand she show them her scrape. If she did get her real period a week later, I doubt anyone would demand she prove something - one way or the other. So, I guess I have to agree. It was good thinking on the spur of the moment.

As far as the challenge liability goes, I seem to recall that swimming challenges are kind of rare. My memory tells me that very few seasons have more than two swimming challenges. Of course, I could easily be wrong about that. Also, this season could always be an exception and it could have a bunch more swimming challenges. You never can be certain about those kinds of things. But, at the risk of breaking the trend by speaking about it, I would guess we will not see many more swimming challenges - or if we do - there will only be maybe one or two. So I doubt that swimming challenges will be much of a factor. But, I suppose anything could happen.

Excellent point! In the 1950s, people got used to TV shows broadcast once per week in the same time slot. But things are very different today. There really is no good reason for presenting a show like Survivor broken up into weekly chunks just because, "That is the way it has always been done." That has to be the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard. Some people may argue that presenting a season of Survivor in that way adds to the excitement somehow. But when you think about it, there is absolutely no good reason for showing one episode every seven days - just because of the way things were structured when TV was first introduced into our homes in the 1950s. I think things are similar - in a way - when it comes to explaining why a TV show like Survivor should be structured in the way that it is. I'm not talking about showing one episode per week. I'm referring to the way the entire show is organized - everything about that - like having two tribes and voting off one person each week. I think that when you reflect on the value of organizing this show in that way, it becomes kind of obvious that is done only because it is the way it has always been done and once you accept that, the whole premise of the show just kind of falls flat. Once you accept there are almost an infinite number of different ways to present this show, the possibilities grow in endless varieties. You may ask, "Well, OK. How would you do it?" and there are thousands of different ways to answer that. Surely the exact way it is currently being done is not necessarily the best way to do it. There are many exciting possibilities that could make this show (and many other shows) far more entertaining and fresher and more exciting, etc. Of course, all of this is only my opinion and I must admit there are many other good opinions. But, I thank you all for listening to me. The possibilities are endless and the only thing of which I am certain is that the worst way to do things may well be the way things are currently being done.

I want to make it clear that I have no strong opinion on this. My post was more of a question than anything else. I have an impression of her and I wanted to check in and ask if other people knew something that I did not know. I am mostly just wondering if there is some other reason for her popularity. Thank you to everyone who has answered so far.

'"?@^|/\[]{}<> `~!#$%&*()-_=+;:,. I remember way back when at Season One when every episode seemed important to me. I was very invested in who would stay and who would go. I know many other people felt the same way. But how do you feel today? Is it still important to you? It is no longer of the slightest importance to me. In fact, the show has now become like one big long "Click Bait" ordeal where you have to click and click and click week after week to see who the next one voted off will be. It's just not worth the effort any more. I didn't even watch the first two episodes until yesterday. In previous seasons I was waiting on baited breath for the premier to start. This season I couldn't care less and I missed the premier. Isn't it time for this show to be cancelled now? It sure does feel like it's run its course. Survivor? Bleh!

Is there anything more to her game play beyond being a pretty blonde girl? I get the feeling the main reason for all the interest in her is because she is a pretty blonde girl. I cannot see anything particularly high quality about her game play. She is not particularly physically adept. She doesn't make clever alliances. She sort of just goes with the flow. In other words, she is a very average and ordinary player - except for her exceptional good looks. Am I missing something? Is there any special reason beyond her looks to take much interest in her? IMHO, she is exceptionally nice looking but extremely average in all other ways.