sd dude

Re S2 E4 "Rogue": Started out confused, then when it was clarified that this was Room 104 in the future post some kind of apocalypse, there was potential. Then it ended and I was totally confused. Was the protagonist at the end the same age as she was at the beginning? She looked somewhat different to me. I started to wonder if she was actually supposed to be the other woman's baby grown up, which sounds absolutely ludicrous as it I read what I wrote back to myself. . . And that is where this series has led me.

Thanks, BeachDays, for the link. I did not know the shift was intentional. However, the fact that the inspiration for including more dramatic elements was based on "A Very Special Episode" of a classic sitcom is significant. If you make every episode of your sitcom "very special" there is no longer anything special about it. But to clarify, my closing comment was really more about noting how horrible The Bradys was, as an attempt to dramatize the The Brady Bunch. I suspect The Connors can do a much better job of integrating the comedy with the dramatic themes, especially since the format is still basically sitcom, while the Bradys moved to a one-hour family drama format, with the comedy being almost completely marginalized. That being said, I do get more pleasure out of watching old episodes of the first 9 seasons of Roseanne compared to any of the rebooted material. But this new season remains one of my season recordings for now.

I found the episode not very funny and not very interesting. Some humorous lines, mostly from John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf. Beverly's absence definitely noted since she tends to always bring the funny or at least triggers funny responses. Darlene struggling with which of her two secret lovers to keep and which one to dump is not funny. Becky struggling with her guilt about being inadequate as a mother is not funny. Both of the characters were written much funnier when they were kids. Mark's storyline about being out and PDA at school is not funny, however, I am very glad that the show and the network are telling this story in the fashion - his entire family being completely accepting and supportive of their gay child, his orientation being completely normalized (not by not-Kathy Bowman, obviously but by the Connors and the general tone of the script/episode); in essence, Mark being gay was not the point, PDA in school was the issue which is a fair thing for a school to have a policy about, and the gender of the individuals was really a secondary issue. For so many young LGBTQ people in 2019, still none of these things are the case and sharing who you are with those closest to you can be such a tragically traumatic experience, so for such a highly-rated show to portray this stuff in this matter-of-fact way is a very positive thing. Hmm. Is the transformation of Roseanne (uproarious sitcom) into the Connors (light-hearted family drama) twenty years later, the 21st century equivalent of The Brady Bunch (zany sitcom) transforming into The Bradys (light-hearted family drama) twenty years later? God, I hope not.

I assume those near miss auto collisions were God delaying Jesse just long enough to allow him to be reunited with Eugene and the Saint. Jesse knows that God is fucking with him all along. Does it not occur to him that every move he's making is basically playing out God's hand? Having read the entire comic series years ago, I eagerly await the actual confrontation between our hero and (if Jesse is the protagonist in our story, does that make God the) villain. I assume it plays out very similarly given the momentary teaser during the season premiere pre-credit sequence and the (inadvertent?) spoiler that is shown during this season's credit sequence.

Re: Jesus vs. Humperdoo Humperdoo is definitely meant to be Jesus's earthly descendant which began with a sexual liaison that Jesus had with a human woman before he was crucified/resurrected/ascended to heaven. After 2000 years of subsequent inbred generations, we end up with the intellectual moron that is Humperdoo, although since he is a direct descendant, he presumably contains that same divine spark passed on initially from Jesus's "dad". Apparently, the original plan of the Grail was dependent on the assumption that Jesus's descendant could successfully bond with Genesis, but we saw last season that was not the case. So, why is Humperdoo still important if Jesus is around? I can only speculate at this point but perhaps there being an earthly messiah, that is a human savior imbued with the essence of God, is an important part of the apocalyptic plans. Jesus has passed beyond his human stature and now exists as a celestial being, which is why he is representing heaven at the summit. He is more God than man at this point. Perhaps there being another man who is still a living breathing human being and can bridge that connection between heaven and earth makes Humperdoo essential to the bigger plan. It seems to be God and Jesus who are particularly interested in Humperdoo at this point so even Starr doesn't appear to understand what they have planned for him.

I want to believe that Len was simply playing in character as the cantankerous old judge and wasn't actually annoyed (although I admit I don't see him as the "high five" type). I think it was supposed to be funny but the timing and tone along with complete lack of audience reaction (no laughter at all) did make it an uncomfortable moment. We all bomb sometimes.

In the minefield episode, she mentioned that she had been on a journalist assignment in a war zone and had learned something at that time about defusing a land mine. I'm not saying that's realistic, but I suppose that is the in-story explanation about where she gets her survival skills.

Exactly. I was about to post basically the same thing. Perhaps the character's mindset was that the "gay-for-pay" performer was high risk to be HIV+ and Vince insisting on using a condom with her was attributing similar risk to her, which she found insulting to be equated with the other porn performer who was doing gay porn. That might well have been Lori's mindset, but it is completely delusional. Especially since she gave in to the porn director and agreed to work bareback (he only agreed to condoms for anal sex) so if she thinks the "gay-for-pay" guy was high risk, then I guess so was she!

I thought it kind of odd in Ally's promo, that as she shared what a huge fan she was of Selena and how much Selena influenced her in her career, they only showed clips of Jennifer Lopez portraying Selena in the film, rather than photos or clips of Selena. Ah, you say, but this was movie night, and the point was to bring attention to memorable films. Aha, I say, but when Karamo was talking about how important and iconic Reginald Dwight, or whatever he calls himself nowadays, is, they showed pictures of him, not clips from the movie Rocketman. Just sayin'.

Dear former-Congressman Frank, When you come on Real Time, please don't be so shy and demure as you were last Friday. Feel free to speak up. Sincerely, Everyone who appeared on the show with you and couldn't get a fucking word in edgewise. --------------------------- I wish Bill could find a larger pool of guests as opposed to his semi-regulars who after so many years, I am rather sick of. I don't need to see Salman Rushdie and Barney Frank on this show anymore. I think after dozens of appearances I know what they are going to say next. I presume SE Cupp is on deck in the next few weeks. . . And as much as I do enjoy listening to Stern in Sternland (his own radio fiefdom), I am not looking forward to his appearance in a couple of weeks. He is so self-absorbed, I doubt he can say anything intelligent about anything political going on, nor is he able to open his mouth without turning the attention back to himself, which is not the job of the panelists on this show. That's what they have Bill Maher for. I've noted that that is the back up strategy for any guest who really has no knowledge or intelligent opinions about any of the political events going on, for example, I've never heard Sarah Silverman say anything the least bit interesting about any of the topics brought up when she is a guest, but at least Sarah is funny as hell when she does open her mouth, so I give her a pass. That new congresswoman who handed Bill's ass to him on the panel a couple of months back and then was an excellent opening interview guest a few weeks ago. . .make her permanent. I think she is from Santa Clarita, CA, no, which is just a few miles (and two hours during rush hour) up the freeway from me.

Regarding S3 E3 - "Itchy": OMG. It's just so bad. So far, out of 3 episodes this season, I rate the premiere as "watchable" just due to the background it gives regarding the entire series, and the next two as "abominable". Not an auspicious start. I assume this episode was called "Itchy" because it makes me want to scratch my own eyes out.

There's been a lot of back and forth on this but I actually made the original post that started this particular discussion point and haven't had a chance to jump in since so please allow me to say this: Yeah No is correct that I inserted the criteria regarding age and don't really have any definitive knowledge about whether Len or Bruno considered Mary's and Ray's relative ages in choosing Mary for elimination. Actually, I don't believe they eliminated her because she was the oldest contestant and certainly didn't intend to imply anything of the sort. I believe they eliminated her because they thought she showed less potential to improve over the next few weeks compared to Ray. That conclusion might be accurate or inaccurate, and it is possible that her age contributed to them drawing that conclusion, but I don't know that to be the case for certain. Regardless, I think they made the appropriate decision for the appropriate reasons, age not being the issue. Nevertheless, to point out that age is generally inversely correlated with physical/athletic abilities (on a population level) does not seem unreasonable, especially as the number continues to advance into, say, the eighth decade of life and beyond. OTOH, pointing out that individuals should be judged on their individual merit/abilities rather than be judged on generalized population level characteristics attributed to them is also reasonable. If Mary had danced well, I would have been supportive of having her continue on all the way to the finale, regardless of being young or old, but she did not. I believe being 75 may well have contributed in some fashion to her mediocre dancing, but I also believe she was eliminated based on her mediocre dancing, not how many candles were on her last birthday cake. In other words, she was judged on her individual merits/abilities. Her physical abilities are part of that judgment and one's physical abilities are not fully independent of age, among a whole slew of other predictors. What I didn't say about the contestant was recognizing her for her music legend/icon status, her wonderful attitude and effort during her short time there, and her grace despite poor scores and quick elimination. She raises the dignity and stature of the show by participating, especially in light of some of the other contestants this season. I'm glad the producers invited her and that she participated. She was a class act all the way. I also have no problem with her leaving the competition early.

I'm sorry that Lamar was not the first contestant eliminated. I'm sorry for Lamar, I'm sorry for Mary, and most of all I'm sorry for myself and all other viewers who now need to watch him stomp around like Herman Munster for at least one more week. He was unquestionably the worst dancer. Yes, even worse than Spicer. And Lamar looks soooo unhappy and soooo uncomfortable, sending him home would have been a mercy killing. I'm officially not upset that Sean Spicer is on DWTS. I'm not a fan and he is not a good dancer, but he is infamous if not famous, and I don't think anything that's occurred with him over the past 2-3 years disqualifies him from being on the show. His attitude on the air seems perfectly reasonable. I hated his "campaign" intro, but of course he didn't come up with that, anymore than any of the other contestants come up with their own intros/promos. I think the judges save is a worthwhile experiment. It can't guarantee that the worst dancer goes home, as last night proves (neither Lamar nor Sean were in the bottom two), but it at least helps them ensure that the better couple out of the bottom two gets another opportunity to dance, which in theory should make for a more entertaining or competitive next episode, then if the worse couple of the bottom two moves on. It's incremental improvement, but it could prove to be an improvement. I was glad that Len chose to save Ray/Cheryl over Mary/Brandon, and don't know what Carrie Ann was thinking choosing the opposite (but when do we ever understand what Carrie Ann is thinking). Neither of them is dancing very well, and Mary was definitely a more likeable contestant than Ray, but that is exactly the issue the judges vote is supposed to hopefully counter - the popularity vote. I think based on Mary's age and her first two performances, her potential for improvement was poor and less than Ray's. (I also would be less than rigorously honest if I didn't admit I would rather see Cheryl dancing on my screen for a few more weeks as opposed to Brandon, but that would be demonstrating my own hypocrisy. . .at any rate, it doesn't invalidate my prior analysis.) Finally, what is with not using the pros' last names when introducing the dance. It sounds so awkward, I'm thinking this may be the first season this has ever happened. Who thought of this groundbreaking switch in production? How many more seasons will we have now that the pros only have first names? I mean, what's the difference, really? What's the intent of making such a silly and trivial (yet annoying) change?

Thanks, grawlix, for parsing it out for me. That all makes sense. For me, I think it might have been a plot pacing problem that caused the confusion. The amateur porn beef hadn't been brought up since the last episode. Then after nearly a full episode dealing with Frankie's drug business followed by the poker, Rudy shows up right near the end of the episode (clearly tracking Frankie down) to have it out with him again about a beef that we saw happen how long ago in show time?

Okay, like I thought. But then what was the reason for that argument between Rudy and Frankie at that particular place and time? Wasn't Frankie running some kind of poker or other gambling table where he cleared the five grand? Was he supposed to be cutting Rudy in on that? Seemed like that was just Frankie gambling on his own, but maybe because it was taking place in an establishment backed by Rudy, it was by extension Rudy's game, and he expected a cut based on protocol. Sorry, I'm handicapped in two ways. 1. I'm a bit rusty on my mafia protocol. 2. Even with closed captions running, I still can't always figure out what the hell is going on in some of these scenes/interactions. So, when Rudy walked up to him at that moment and said he must be braindead, what was he referring to? And if he was pissed about the money Frankie had on the table, why not take his cut (or all of it) as was offered? I know there is this whole honor thing with the mob and I suppose only offering the boss his cut after being confronted face to face might be the height of disrespect, or at least that's the way Rudy might have interpreted it. He already knows that Frankie is not treating him with proper respect due to someone of his stature, so perhaps being addressed like he's some charity case and Frankie is doing him a big favor is pretty much the last straw. Personally, I've always thought that one Franco character in the series is more than enough, so I was kind of hoping that Frankie would make Rudy say no one more time. . .

I like this series. I've seen every episode. But mostly, it seems like very little happens in each episode. I'm sort of torn between loving it and wanting significantly more. I was confused by the confrontation between Rudy and Frankie as it would have made more sense for Rudy to react that way last episode when Frankie was so disrespectful about doing business with the underage porn producer. I sort of got the sense that Frankie was distributing the drugs as a side business that was between him and Rudy's muscleman (whatever his name is). I remember some line about the muscleman trying to get the disgruntled dealer to keep the whole situation on the QT so I figured this was something Rudy didn't know anything about. I could be totally wrong about that.

S3 E2 was almost unwatchable, yet I watched it. Feel my pain.

Poor Jamie Neumann. There is typecasting and then there is typecasting. She goes from playing a streetwalker on The Deuce to playing a streetwalker on Jessica Jones. I wonder if she is a method actor.

Yep, I know her only as a blonde and I like her that way very much. I'm not saying the dark hair looks bad, just that I need a couple weeks to get used to it. She'd probably look great bald. (note to Emma. . .no need to prove it. . .)

Emma has been blonde for every prior season (as long as I have seen her) so I actually had difficulty recognizing that new brunette until she was the last pro standing and process of elimination made it obvious. Does anyone know if she is naturally blonde or has she gone back to her natural dark hair at this time?

Perhaps time to bump up this thread, although since no one else has commented on the season 3 premiere which aired a couple of nights ago, I may be the only one who saw it. Re: "The Plot" - Roma and Remus? So, this motel is owned and operated by the Rat King? Is that supposed to be the origin of all the fucked up shit that goes on in the establishment? And does that mean that there is crazy shit going on in all the rooms or just in 104 since that is the part of the floor plan where all the murder and mayhem went down? I didn't hate it and I appreciated the creative way they stayed consistent with the basic premise - all the events of the episode did take place in room 104 in a sense, even if there were no walls, door, or ceiling at that point in time. (Compare the finale of season 2 -"Josie and Me" - where I think the premise was violated significantly for perhaps the first time - all the historical events recreated clearly could not have taken place in room 104 although they were all portrayed as having happened there.) As much as I enjoy the Twilight Zone and anthologies with similar conceit, that has never been my understanding of what Room 104 was about. The idea I got from it based on season 1 was to create interesting short films of virtually any genre (as long as the story kept to the boundary of seeing events occurring only in the motel room), not simply science fiction, horror, suspense, fantasy, etc., although the usual twists that go along with those sorts of stories do (should) often lend themselves to more interesting payoffs in the brief time available to tell the story. Perhaps that is why many of the episodes veered in that direction, but there have also been several "slice-of-life" episodes that have stayed more in the straight drama or comedic veins that really would not relate in any way to some rodent demon being behind the scenes and involved in the hospitality industry. That said, although much of the acting is good, most of the scripts are mediocre with pretty weak payoffs. Nevertheless, I find myself willing to devote 22 to 26 minutes each week out of the hope that maybe "this one" will be better than most of the others. I enjoyed watching "The Plot", with the extra hook that this is in a sense an "origin" episode, but again found the payoff on the weak side as it left me with more questions than answers. I'm kind of curious why this has been renewed for a third season, and why HBO has so much confidence in the series, when they have so much other original content airing and in production. If this is the last season, maybe the Duplasses will try to tie some of this together so there is a conclusion as well as an origin?

I thought the same immediately = "I am the mighty Mississippi" or something along those lines. Would that lead to disqualification by any chance, since that would be a list of names of rivers (which is technically not the category) and perhaps not more generically what any or all rivers might say? Note to self: Saying "rub-" when the category is "Things Made of Rubber" probably not the way to go. "Band" is not a good clue by itself. Automobile tire is pretty good. Add in pencil eraser with the other two and that might have cinched that category. Super-bouncing ball? Condoms? Surgical gloves? Would the word latex be allowed (Latex condom, latex gloves) or would that be considered using a synonym for rubber?

Honestly, I suppose for 24.95 it would be kind of cool to have an actual deed to an acre of lunar surface, but I'm still not clear where the authority comes from for this guy to lay sole claim to real estate sales for the all the heavenly bodies in the solar system other then earth. Did the UN just humor this fellow as a mascot/village idiot, or is there some kind of interplanetary law giving this whole thing legitimacy? Since all the nation members of the UN are on earth, how can they make decisions for the other planets? No other planets or any subdivisions of them belong to the UN. So, I'm presuming the whole thing is just a meaningless novelty, but if that's the case I can print my own deed from my own computer for 2 1/2 cents rather than pay $25 for the same worthless piece of paper. If this guy actually has millions of clients like was claimed and is a multimillionaire as a result of selling unenforceable land deeds, he's not the idiot - everyone else is. Furthermore, does anyone own the Andromeda Galaxy yet? I may get on the horn to the UN. "For sale - one galaxy, like new (only 10 billion years old), offered in whole or in part at only $1 per star." If Andromeda is similar in size to the Milky Way, which is estimated to have on the order of 100 billion stars, I should be able to put the kids through college.

Fair enough. Or I could simply borrow the missing episodes from Netflix as I do continue to subscribe to their DVD.com service so its already paid for. But TBH, even more frustrating then the fact that there are a few episodes of these TVLand mainstays that I never get to see is the mystery of WHY it and similar channels have this "no holiday episodes" policy in the first place. I just don't understand it from a business model perspective. It's kind of made me a little bit crazy that no one else seems to know the reason either.

You're not the only one, Jadzia, although for me the snark was expressed as, "America, again." Although, your version is definitely better if one actually would want that clue to be helpful to the receiver.