Pindrop

The last two episodes have been fun. Sadly this show is better without Decker or Dan, and when they try to insert them into the plot it is hugely detrimental to Lucifer as a character.

Why are all these people calling the police all the time? First of all, the MC wakes from a nightmare next to a woman on a bus and lets out a shocked gasp, so the woman on the bus phones the police (?????), who then turn up - not knowing that she is a fugitive - with guns drawn, and start storming the gas station the bus had stopped at. All because someone had a nightmare??? What? Then, a woman overhears someone in their apartment watching something with the sound of a woman in distress (a movie or a TV show, maybe?) and also phones the police, immediately??????? I am glad my neighbour wasn't listening to me watching this show or I might have been swatted during that scene. Seriously, wtf is going on? I find this show relentlessly serious and I am constantly wishing for a little levity.

To use the term, you must first admit you are a hypocritical sexist who impugns others based on their gender, which makes you a piece of shit. So the only way you can use it is ironically.

Ugh, Dynasty. They unironically used the term “mansplaining” in the first five minutes of the first episode and I immediately turned it off, never to return. I haven’t been watching Designated Survivor since episode 2 of season 2. I might jump into an episode to see if it is worth returning, but judging by the chat on here, I doubt it. I am intrigued as to the nature and content of those Netflix contracts, because euthanasia would be the kindest response in both cases.

I have just caught up with season 3. Lucifer remains my light-hearted escapism go to, especially since iZombie jumped the shark last season and lost all levity in the process. I am surprised by Superman. I used to hate him in Superman: The Wonder Years, or whatever that show was called, but probably due to the angsty, self-obsessed pseudo-psychoanalysis that formed most of the jaw-clenchingly awful script, rather than his acting ability. He is actually good in Lucifer (and I assume will turn out to be this season’s big bad). It is also nice to see the Cylon return. All in all, it remains as enjoyable as ever.

I heard rumours that the second season would feature a sub-plot about some black-ops experiment, which involves transplanting a serial killer’s brain into a dolphin. The dolphin escapes soon after. One particularly harrowing scene will involve Holden running into the sea, desperately trying to save a therapy group.

I would like one set somewhere like Egypt, and the MC would be a young man played by Tom Cruise. The antagonist could be a mummy.

All my questions will be left unanswered, like:- How did this crap ever get made? Did anyone read the script before green lighting it? Had anyone involved in this show read the book or seen the film? Did they all get their jobs through nepotism?

I get the impression that they had become so lost in the labyrinthine incoherent mess they had created that the only choice they had was to revert back to the only few plotlines that were a constant throughout the seven seasons (although they did add the twin reveal which was pure horseshit). With regard to the social issues, I have no problem if Marlene (or whoever else) wishes to tell a story where happiness is found in traditional gender roles, just as I have no problem if someone wishes to tell a story that rails against traditional gender roles, or a story where (please God) this simply isn't an issue. I certainly would not seek to impose my views on either party, and I wish more people would refrain from doing so. Personally, my larger concern was the justification of the teacher/ student abuse of power in a show aimed for a generally young, female demographic.

Time for predictions: - I give The Perfectionists two seasons. Marlene is terrible when it comes to consistent characters and character arcs, plotting, pacing and basically all of the fundamentals of creating a coherent story about compelling people (she must be great at delivering on programme and to budget because there are no other strings to her bow). As such, I assume this show will be an incoherent mess, however, it will probably be crazy enough, and unintentionally, jaw-droppingly awful enough to be must-watch TV. I give The Heiress the pilot, after which it won't be picked up. If it is picked up it will limp through a season before it is cancelled. Shay Mitchell was the weakest actor on PLL and I simply cannot imagine her headlining a show like this. I do not understand who the anticipated audience is, outside of the most diehard PLL fans.

What follows is actor talk, rather than character talk, but it seemed the most appropriate place for something I have to get off my chest. I enjoy this series, but there is one actor who almost single-handedly destroys it for me, namely Steven Strait. He is beyond awful. He chews so much of the scenery they must have to rebuild the set after each take.

Good question. I think it was strongly implied, particularly given that it was all shown from Holden's perspective, and at that stage he was essentially an audience surrogate. It certainly seemed to be a level of intimacy beyond friendship. If they were aiming for shades of grey(i.e. She was seeking solace elsewhere due to Holden's misdeeds) they were no more successful than with the tickling episode, in my view.

I probably split the difference between the two of you: - 1) If I had been in a car accident and a loved one refused to pick me up, I would be a little miffed. 2) When I first watched the scene of her getting a lift home from Patrick, I thought Holden was irrationally jealous. It then turned out he wasn't, which I thought shifted the blame over to her in a manner that undermined the slow decay of their relationship i.e. that entire arc would have been better without her cheating. 4) I have always thought of the sexy underwear moment as the death knell of a relationship. It's that point where you are a bored of each other and just going through the motions, and you have to turn things up to eleven just to illicit any response in the bedroom. I am torn between whether 1) he should respond as she expected to show some appreciation for her efforts, and 2) why the hell he should be expected to respond a certain way and his failure to do so should be cause for an argument. However, this scene was symptomatic of the larger schisms in their relationship. I found her irritating, patronising and occasionally passive-aggressive towards the start, and I found him selfish, self-obsessed and occasionally passive-aggressive towards the end. Without the cheating, I would have had a lot more sympathy for her, but this somewhat undid any moral high-ground she might otherwise have occupied.

I concur with several others here: - 1) The girlfriend also irritated me at first. I wish writers would realise that no-one likes relentlessly quippy clever-dicks and that being a constant pain-in-the-arse is not how banter works. This may just be me, but it is an issue I have often found with US female TV characters recently; rather than flesh out a character, writers tend to make them abrasive smartarses, and I do not understand why this is a thing. The character grew on me a lot as the show progressed and her role expanded, and in the latter episodes I came to like her, because the irritating quips were gone and we actually had a fully fleshed out character. 2) They need to give Wendy more to do than be the constantly disapproving mother figure. Her character became a bit lost and surplus-to-requirements as the show progressed. 3) The stars of the show for me were both Tench and Edmund. These performances were superb.

I would say that the first episode is slow and a little heavy in exposition and character introductions. The show steps up several gears in episode two, so it might be worth pushing through until then.

My God, I actually nodded off halfway through the synopsis.

Roanoke for me. I was always underwhelmed by AHS. It promised this subversive, psychosexual drama that would push boundaries and test its audience, but in reality it was all rather safe, pedestrian and trivial. It is also left wanting when compared to shows in the same vein, such as Black Mirror or Twin Peaks, which have a purpose and are constructed with affection; rather than this gratuitous corporate pseudo-shocking imagery thrown into a banal story. Roanoke was the first series with a plot that raised some interest in me, although ultimately it was handled poorly.

I heard that they were considering a procedural buddy cop show with Brienne of Tarth and Bran the Three Eyed Raven. Essentially she was going to be the no-nonsense, straight talking, abrasive tough cop, and Bran was going to be a cross between Ironside and the quippy comic-relief character, which suits his natural comic timing and jovial disposition. Essentially each episode would involve them receiving news of a murder, at which point Bran would consult his general omniscience and reveal the name of the culprit. The show would be approximately two minutes long, including adverts. The Westeros Wing was another show they were considering, about the inner political workings of King's Landing, with Tyrion Lannister played by Martin Sheen.

It's lonely in here.

I agree. I think he is bad in this, but he is working with terrible, terrible material. As to why does he take these roles? I would posit two reasons: - 1) He is an Executive Producer and (although unravelling as this season progresses) it was doing good metrics. 2) It probably strokes his ego. The show has been created around him in the role of an idealised, selfless, Mary-Sue of a President (who actually comes across as smug, self-satisfied and self-righteous due to the absence of any subtlety or nuance in the writing or his character).

I've just finished it. Overall, I thought it was superb. It is nice to have a well paced and believable character arc over a series; this is so seldom handled well. That said, the final panic attack and the concern over the methods he had been employing was not adequately established for me. Like others, I did not see any shades of grey with the principal; he should not have been touching the kids. I realise that times were different when the show was set, but under the lens of now (when we are watching it) it is difficult to have any sympathy for him. In terms of the tuna, my sense of it was the following: She was using a carrot (or, more accurately, tuna) to entice out something she expected to be there (in accordance with her pre-conceived notions and confirmation bias); but it turned out that her preconceptions were wrong and all she got was some maggoty tuna (see any parallels?).

I loved the dark comedy in this episode; it expertly balanced bleak drama and levity. This series is getting good.

I enjoyed the first episode. I found the lead character (fish out of water, aloof, inexperienced intellectual who butts against the salt-of-the-earth street cops) a little on the nose and trope-ish. The lead actor/ performance has actually grown on me in the second episode and it is helped no end by the more abrasive and direct presence of Tench.

That was a strong opener, I hope they keep it up.

Yeah an odd mistake when a passing knowledge of the Bond franchise would correct this. The reason I turned off this episode was the needless exposition regarding the ear identification at the start, which made me assume either the writers are morons, or they think their audience is.