toolazy
-
Posts
1.0k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by toolazy
-
-
On 10/22/2019 at 10:34 AM, Umbelina said:
I happened across this, about the Coronation. It's quite a bit different than the show's version, but equally fascinating. I was most surprised that the Queen Mother simply would not move out, causing quite a bit of extra tension for Philip, because she definitely sided with "the mustaches" about Philip. The televised coronation was also more than a slightly different version of events.
Nifty, thanks!
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Popples said:
I had the same thought and I'm going to be bummed because I love that actor, but I knew it was coming.
SpoilerI'm virtually certain that the funeral is the Duke of Windsor's. The woman who tells Charles to watch out for his family is Wallis Simpson.
Edit: I stand corrected. I guess the funeral is Churchill's? But maybe also there's one for David? Because that's almost certainly Wallis Simpson, based on what she says about love being the most important thing and that he needs to be careful around his family. Paraphrased, of course.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/19/2019 at 6:11 PM, Haleth said:
Ok. Now I’m confused. Right now if I want Starz (the one that shows Outlander) I have to subscribe for $12/mo. That’s how it’s always been. (There are other Starz channels that are free.). So I’ll still be able to get it? This doesn’t sound like anything different for me. However, I do have Prime so I can always subscribe thru that, but it will be on my tiny monitor instead of my big honkin’ tv.
Are you sure you can't watch it on your television? I thought most TVs these days were connected to the internet.
-
5 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:
Jason at the Emmys
Dude cleans up well.
-
On 9/13/2019 at 8:58 AM, Nidratime said:
Maybe I tried to post this back in March above? But in any event, I don't see anything about these two actors who've been cast in Season 5 in feature roles. I'm putting it in the spoilers area since there's speculation on who they play, which obviously reveals some of the plot for the season.
http://www.outlanderlocations.com/news/new-cast-member-mark-barrett-joins-outlander/
http://www.outlanderlocations.com/news/leonard-cook-joins-outlander-in-featured-role/
My incredibly uninformed guesses are Buck for the first one and one of the Browns for the second. But who the heck knows?
-
On 8/29/2019 at 2:55 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:
Sam's wigs continue to be hideous.
His hairline is super-weird in that first picture.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, kieyra said:
I know very little about the modern Royal family (I’ve mentioned in another thread I’m a Tudor girl). But after watching the Crown I watched a house of Windsor documentary on Netflix. Ok, I just looked it up and it’s literally called “The Royal House of Windsor”. 2017. It does seem to insist that Charles was in love with Camilla early on but wasn’t permitted to marry her.
I do get that the documentary could just be modern propaganda. Like I said, I don’t know much about what’s left of the monarchy.
I don't think it's propaganda. Camilla wasn't suitable because she wasn't a virgin, though she was the one Charles was in love with. So he was pressured to marry Diana, and we see how that turned out.
The BRF have since learned their lesson and William and Harry were allowed to marry for love, even if one of wives was a commoner and the other an American.
-
1
-
7
-
-
7 hours ago, Ziggy said:
The details are completely escaping me (I only read Voyager twice). More details are revealed in little snippets here and there throughout the remaining books, but it really seems like the more we learn (about Frank and what he knew about Jamie and Claire's time away from him), the less we know.
I listen to the Outlander Podcast with Ginger and Summer. They interviewed Diana, who has said she hopes to one day write a book called "What Frank Knew." A part of me is seriously more interested in that book right now than Bees!
That woman is quite the tease.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, AZChristian said:
We didn't get Netflix until after the first two seasons of the crown were available. Do they release the entire third season at one time?
Yes, typically all of their shows are released a season at a time.
-
3
-
-
On 8/5/2019 at 2:27 PM, Kirsty said:
I'm watching and enjoying Season 3, having not seen the show for a few years when I watched half a dozen episodes of Season 1. And it's hard not to notice that in Scotland, Jamie has been hit on by a different person in three of the four episodes so far. Meanwhile in Boston, Frank has been shit on in every episode so far!
Jamie is hot and people find him attractive. Message received. It's a romantic drama and he's the male lead, so no complaints.
But in Boston... Why kill off Frank just when he was finally getting his chance to be happy with someone else? Is it not enough that Claire can't have sex with him without imagining Jamie? Is it not enough that their marriage never recovered and they only stayed together for their daughter? Frank is obviously no threat to Jamie so it just seems like overkill. I won't be surprised if in the next episode, Frank's girlfriend tells us that he was impotent -- even though the show has already killed him off! Stop shitting on Frank, show.
The long-term girlfriend is an invention of the TV show. In the books, Claire suspects that he's had a number of affairs but according to D. Gabaldon, it's ambiguous whether or not he did. Regardless of what she says, there's evidence in the text - in the scene where he tells her he's leaving with Bree - that there actually were affairs.
The only narrative purposes of the long-term girlfriend, to me, seem to be 1) it makes Frank a little more sympathetic if his relationship is love-based and 2) to tell Claire something that I believe spurs her towards going back to Jamie. She says something about wasted time and opportunity to be with the person that you love. Other than that, I don't see the point of the change.
-
1 hour ago, Blakeston said:
It's funny to think what the Scottish motorist who encountered a disheveled Claire on the road must have thought of her.
A woman with a posh English accent, demanding that he proclaim the winner of Culloden Moor? It probably seemed like she was taunting him - like an American tourist showing up in London and yelling, "Who kicked your asses at Yorktown?"
Dear god, but I hated that scene.
-
On 7/26/2019 at 3:58 PM, Blakeston said:
He was failing to get hard before she started laughing. Her laughter was a response to his impotence. If she had been laughing from the get-go, that would have been more clear.
If "equal-opportunity sadist" is what they were going for, I think it was a mistake to reveal his impotence with Jenny and his desire to screw Jamie so close together. Judging from the internet's reactions to the episode, a lot of people took those two plot points, introduced almost simultaneously, as proof of him being gay.
Wasn't he on the verge of raping Claire when Jamie showed up to break her out? Also, he was on the verge of raping Claire when the McKenzies intervened in the first episode.
-
Randall isn't gay - he's an equal opportunity sadist. The reason he couldn't get it up with Jenny is because she wasn't showing any fear of him. Instead, she was laughing, which is not a turn-on for our BJR.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:
Thank you Ziggy for the suggestion. I didn't know Amazon rented seasons that way, I'll look into it. I also didn't think about watching it on my pc which is in my bedroom so that might be an option too. Thanks again 🙂
Amazon doesn't rent the seasons - it sells subscriptions to premium services like Starz & HBO, so you'd have access to everything on Starz for the time that your subscription is active.
-
The reason that Jamie tracks Claire's menstrual cycle is because he is very young who wants to get laid. Those two go at it like bunnies so he's going to know when she has her period and when she doesn't.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 6/28/2019 at 4:54 PM, Cdh20 said:
At first I laughed at that but then I realized how much Jamie wants a child, & it doesn’t seem so weird!
I just figured he was keeping track of them so he'd know when he could and couldn't have sex with her. He's a very young man.
-
On 6/15/2019 at 9:53 AM, Pegasaurus said:
Re-watching the whole series. I love the 1960's era clothes, hair styles, make-up, etc. I see Diana G. was born in 1952, same as me. That's why the era looks so authentic. I remember the 60's look very well.
I thought "omg" when Claire walked into the office w/ Joe and asked him if he thought she was sexually attractive. If that was today, he'd better get to the authorities quickly. And video the exchange to clear himself. But then he kindly answered "you're a skinny white woman with a nice ass"! Haha - how would that go down in our society in 2019? Not well, I think!
They are friends, not just colleagues, so I think it would be fine - even today.
-
On 6/5/2019 at 4:44 PM, Darian said:
I'm weak. I'll probably be back. But I get why others won't.
I will be, but I'm only in it for Elliot and Margo.
As for the episode title, IMDB is still showing "The Seam" but the Magicians wiki has the new title and a mention of its original title.
-
51 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:
Jason attended the Met Gala with his wife Rachel Brosnahan. I haven't found any pictures of them together on the red (pink carpet). The closest I was able to find was this (and I think that might not be Jason anyway):
Rachel on the red carpet
Richard Madden on the red carpet with Rachel in the background (notice the color of the socks that the guy with her is wearing)
Rachel and Jason arriving at the Gucci after party (again, notice the color of the socks of the guy right behind them)
ETA: the guy on the red carpet is definitely not Jason. It's Erdem Moralioglu who designed the dress she wore.
He looks all growed up!
-
16 hours ago, Miles said:
I love, love, love the show, but I have a lot of problems getting into the books. Im' currently at the breakbills south part of the first book and I'm just so bored. It seems like boring Harry Potter that tries to be edgy. But even the edgyness is way too tame to be in any way interesting. The show did a much better job at that.
The characters all seem so flat compared to their show counterparts. Being in the protagonists head worked great in Harry Potter. We still got a sense of what made all the characters around him special, but here it seems like the Quentin Coldwater show with minor bit players occasionally popping up.
In the second book, they switch up the POV a bit. I know that at least Julia gets her own chapters.
If you're at Brakebills South, have you gotten to the part where they change into foxes? Things get a little bit lively there.
-
1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:
I like that analogy, but I don't think it ever came to the place where the media turned against her. What happened that night in Paris was simply a road accident just like the ones that kill so many other ordinary people.
At the time of her death and until this day, with a very few exceptions, the media still adores her and is still her purring lion. Never before or since have all TV stations talked about nothing else for weeks after a person's death, all of it worshipful. Mention of Tina Brown reminded me of how she practically lived on CNN at the time. She, Andrew Morton and many others made a fortune writing books about Diana. Books that were careful to show lots of glossy photos accompanied by nothing but glowing words. Anything she ever did that might look immature, or self-centered was always blamed on others.
She was a grown woman when she died but still never held accountable for her own actions, it was always blamed on "those around her." Dodi Fayed may have been just using her on his father's orders, but it was Diana's own choice to date him, to party around Europe with a known playboy, just as it was her choice to choose sports stars and actors as lovers and to stalk a married man just because she found him attractive.
I've read a lot of things in the last few years that tell us that Diana was not an unalloyed joy to be around. She was initially immature and unprepared for her new position but she was also mentally and emotionally unstable, throwing regular tantrums and basically freaking people out. She was just clever enough that this was never made obvious while she was alive.
There's a reason that William and Harry sponsor mental health charities - they know that their mother needed help she did not get.
My take is that she was a human - lots of good, some flaws, but basically a decent person in really difficult series of situations. She was also a pretty good mom, from all indications. Her sons were raised to be less snotty than their father.
What I've let go of is my sense that Charles was the bad guy. Charles was a victim, too. He wasn't allowed to marry the love of his life (because she wasn't a virgin, FFS) and was railroaded into marrying someone like Diana. Maybe he should have either not cheated with Camilla or at least been more discreet about it, but he's not the first person ever to be in love with someone other than their spouse.
What all of that trauma and heartache has resulted in, however, is younger generations being allowed to marry whomever they choose. Thus William married a commoner (with whom he'd lived in sin!) and Harry married a biracial American divorced woman. Will they both stay married forever? Who knows? But they had a much better start then poor Charles and Diana.
-
16
-
-
I think the point was that they were supposed to marry virgins so that there would be no question of paternity should she turn up pregnant. It wasn't about morality - it was about succession. At least, that's my reading of it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, rwlevin said:
Interestingly enough, Lev Grossman tweeted that he'd been getting a lot of angry tweets and said he was only a consultant and it wasn't his choice to kill Quentin. He completely ignored the part where he said it was a good idea when the writers asked him what he thought about it.
To be honest, it was the producers who described that phone call (or meeting or whatever.) It's quite possible that Grossman wasn't as enthusiastic about it as has been reported but can't really say so in public.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, treasaigh said:
Here's what I want to know. Now that the dust has settled a bit, is the story from the producers/storytellers/actors changed? Are they seeing or feeling any backlash? I don't read too many interviews so I don't know.
I don't expect them to resurrect Quentin next season, but maybe... I don't know... something???
That being said I'd totally take a Quentin fighting his way back story. I don't want a repeat of the ripping Buffy out of heaven storyline. But a Quentin deciding he isn't done? I'd take that.
My feeling from the actors is that they are also upset and sad, but there is a limit to what they can say in public. As for the producers, to my knowledge, they haven't said anything public that indicates that they think that they made a mistake, though it surely must be clear to them by now that they did.
I'm not sure that resurrecting Quentin at this point will get them off the hook and I'm not sure that I'd welcome it. Maybe by the time next season starts I'll have worked through this, but I doubt it.
-
2
-
S04.E13: Man of Worth
in Outlander
There are story-related reasons to keep them in the south. For one thing, they were in the west indies and that's literally where they washed up. Also, going to New England - or anywhere in the northeast - would land them smack in the middle of the Revolutionary War. The thinking was that they would be safe from it in their remote mountain hideaway.