Starchild

Not yet.

As I recall, when Harry first balked at killing people and said he'd just stop taking the pills and go back to his former mediocrity, Austin told him no, if he stopped taking the pills he'd lose all of his talent, and wouldn't even be able to write bad scripts anymore. His baseline would go from like 3-out-of-5 stars to absolute zero. So presumably Alma would not only lose the ability to play Paganini, she'd lose the ability to play violin, or probably any musical instrument at all. Looks like he thinks the permanent emotional damage she'd suffer from such a loss is worse than her becoming a murderous ghoul. Personally I'm not so sure about that. But then again, we're talking about a guy who puts his own fame and fortune above the lives of human beings so..

I love how Daryl is all "Carol's gonna Carol" now lol. She unexpectedly does something dangerous and instead of the usual pouty drama, he's like "yup there she goes, but I was expecting this, so I'm just gonna cover her ass like we planned this or something, no big whoop" I'm looking forward to their show.

Who knew that the ones who would come out of this the happiest would be Phil and his mom?

Knowing how TPTB like to fuck with fans, I have this sneaking suspicion that the Carol/Daryl spinoff is a red herring, designed to make us think they'll survive the mothership series, only to actually be killed off in the finale. Am I the only one thinking that could happen?

When is the finale being aired? Wasn't ep 5 just this Monday? I don't see ep 6 in the guide for next week or even the week after.

I suspect it's about changing her look (and her name) so she isn't immediately associated with the hit-and-run victim while investigating the crime.

Kurt seems OK. For now, anyway.

Just finished it. Like others, I really liked the characters, and I also laughed out loud several times (not as common an occurrence with sitcoms that one might think). I'm not super into punk, but I liked these songs. Maybe because of how earnestly the band performed them.

I've highlighted a few of your comments here, because it aligns with my own thoughts a bit. I think what I saw was a meta-commentary on Western society in general and its relationship with commercial entertainment. To me it feels less about what might really be going on in the head of one of these stereotypical sitcom wives, and more about what's going on in our own heads. Society in general, as opposed to any given individual. Individually, a lot of people don't really find these shows funny, but at scale enough people watch them (as distractions from real life problems, it's often said) to make them highly popular, which means the capitalist machine will churn out more of them. It's the "circus" part of "bread and circuses." In "Kevin", the sitcom aspect reflects the "circus", the place we go to forget our problems for a while. Allison's real-world experience reflects our own stressful lives when we're not willfully engaging in avoidance and distraction. She's neglected hers for 10 years, and when she finally looks at it, she sees just how bad it's become. What does it do to our lives when we repeatedly distract ourselves, doing the minimum to get along, instead of really engaging in some self-examination and engaging our lives in a way that would result in real improvement. For me, Allison's character isn't representing just those "sitcom wives"; she goes a level deeper and represents those of us who look away from the TV for a minute and think "what is happening to my life while I'm wasting time?" This may be a controversial statement, but I wonder if the divide between people who are seeing potential in this show, and those who think it sucks, is the difference between those willing to engage in deeper self-reflection and those who would prefer not to and just remain distracted. It could be an interesting poll result. I don't know, I may be reading too much into it. I know that I like this show so far, and I have never been a fan of the type of sitcom it purports to satirize. Make of that what you will. Perhaps an illustration of my point?

Well, maybe Michael Emerson.

I'm taking bets on when he'll get his own show on FOX News.

This point has been made a few times, but when did she previously go into a dangerous situation without backup? I can only recall the incident of Zabel's death, and that started as a simple series of inquiries regarding the various vans. They had no indication they were going into a dangerous situation when they knocked on that guy's door. They wouldn't have thought to ask for backup for such a routine activity. Am I forgetting something?

Can't figure out what kind of new world order Teddy wants though.

At the beginning of the series, I wasn't really feeling Mel and Harry, but they've really grown on me, and now I think they're adorable.

Why was Elektra arrested? I must have missed the reason given.

What a waste of an hour. There must have been a less pointless way to ensure the two actual plot movements: the baby's death and Riley getting the key. Instead, the episode was all about the emotional attachment between a character we've never seen before and a character we barely care about. Meh.

I don't recall any of the specific things Mary said about George in BBT (why I don't have large swaths of dialogue memorized by now is beyond me), but my impression is that she alluded to the same terrible behaviour that Sheldon did.

I liked this episode, it was a strong one, with lots to think about (both in-episode, and meta-wise). But... Park wanting to bail on a case because it's a kid? That's BS. I don't buy it. Park loves his son, but he's clear-eyed and pragmatic, not overly sensitive. A clear example of plot driving character, rather than character driving plot. It was all about setting up the breakup at the end. Which, as I noted a few episodes ago, was fated to happen, because he and Morgan just don't relationship the same way. If they do come back together, she will need to change how she interacts, at least with him, if not with everyone else.

I was doing some googling. Apparently the actor playing Wendell is on another show right now (one of the NCIS ones?) so he's being kept in the background here for now. Also, it seems Ginny's Pioneers had about a dozen settlements altogether, so I guess for now we're presuming that June, Sarah and Wendell are at one of those that we've never seen onscreen.

So it seems June is staying with Sarah, but at which community? They're not with Morgan or Sherry, and I didn't get the impression they were with Strand.

If it were objective criticism, you would be correct, and I've made what I think are some valid objective criticisms. But this one is purely subjective, and only needs to be valid to me. :)

I did too. Where did a box of doll heads come in? Or was there an oblique reference I maybe didn't get? I watched "Roseanne" in its original run, but I never rewatched, and there were a lot of seasons, so it's been a long time and I don't even remember doll heads in the original.

While I was mildly impressed that the writers worked an accurate use of "apocrypha" into the dialogue, I have to admit this show has disappointed me. The other day I watched the pilot of "Mare of Easttown", and I was so impressed by the depth and richness of the world-building, acting, writing and characterization there that when it came time to watch this episode, I knew it would be my last. I wasn't expecting a lot, but in comparison it is just so inferior I can't justify any more of my time. For those of you this show is important to, I hope it continues to meet or even exceed your expectations. Peace out.

Plus, he called her "Siobhan", not "Mom."