- Popular Post
Slovenly Muse
-
Posts
752 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Slovenly Muse
-
-
Ok, here is a half-baked theory I've been working on.
Forgive me, this show is so dense with backstory that it is hard to remember what we have learned already with regards to Elliot and his family's connection to ECorp. I'm struggling to recall details, but maybe you can help me put the pieces together:
After this episode, I kept thinking about the boardroom scene and asking myself, why a boardroom? It was such an incongruous setting for their conversation. Wouldn't Elliot's subconscious be more likely to place the projections of his family in a domestic setting? Does Elliot's family have corporate connections that he's buried with his memories? Why else would he associate his family with a boardroom? I started wondering about other things we've learned or revisited this season:
- Elliot's bedroom key is shaped like the ECorp logo
- Price was ECorp's CEO and Angela's father
- Angela and Elliot were very close childhood friendsCould Elliot's father (or mother - we know so little about her) have been a founder of ECorp? Was the computer repair business a stepping stone to a tech startup? Did Price and Alderson work together (one handling tech, the other, business?), and that's why Elliot and Angela met and spent so much time together? (Presumeably, Angela stayed close to the Alderson family after her father abandoned her for his work.)
If this is the case, then ECorp could well be named after Elliot. It would be right in line with the type of grand gestures that abusers use to make their victims feel "special." Then the substitution of "EvilCorp" in Elliot's mind would be an expression of the guilt, shame, and loathing (self-loathing?) that can come with abuse. It could also explain the shape of the bedroom key, as ECorp was used by Mr. Alderson symbolically as a tool to gain and maintain access to Elliot. Is this a show about Elliot's attempt to destroy his family's legacy, something that was done in his name? This would also mean the Aldersons likely have longstanding connections to Whiterose and her project. What happened in Washington Township must be related to what "he" did (whoever and whatever that will turn out to be).
Have we seen other details to support or refute this idea? What am I forgetting?
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 12/1/2019 at 11:12 PM, Nanrad said:
This was my favorite moment of the ep, BUT he pulled the defense out of his ass. Lol. Great thinking on your feet, Rome. It’s truly amazing that he came up with a compelling and solid reason that some took the heat off of Gerri. His reason for defending her is entirely centered around self interest, but personal and professional.
Yes. AND it goes to show how smart a player Gerri is. We don't know for sure how she feels about her and Roman's, erm... arrangement. We only see hints of her feelings, and the strongest hint was that it wasn't mutual. She didn't have to participate. She could have laughed it off and pretended it was one of his gross "jokes" and their relationship would have been fine, but by going with it, she cemented an alliance that is so much more than professional. A member of the family, who will probably always take priority over her, is now Ride or Die for Gerri. That is how you play the cards you're dealt to fucking perfection!
-
1
-
-
I agree about the time between seasons. I was lukewarm on the show in season 1, and every season I think I've appreciated it more and more to the point where I think I finally fell full-on in love with the show this season, but honestly, I start every new season with very little memory of what happened in the previous one, and it really dampens my enthusiasm. It's a bit slow-moving, its tone can be flat, it doesn't do the kind of splashy stuff that sticks in your mind, and I find it does kind of drift away as soon as the season is done. I'm not saying that's a bad thing: I'm actually really into its tone and the way it tells its story, but the long breaks between seasons do not serve it well. I'm planning to do a full-series rewatch leading up to the last couple of episodes to see how the whole thing holds together as one cohesive unit. I don't think I'll know how to feel about the show as a whole until I see it as a whole.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:
Reconciling Will's ethnicity and background with his supposed pro-German stance is a little harder, IMO. Maybe Will bought into the WWI German propaganda flier a little too hard? Still, he would have to be utterly ignorant about Hitler's attitudes toward racial superiority.
Was it ever confirmed that HJ was a Nazi sympathizer? As far as I can remember, they were only rumors. Maybe totally false, or maybe rumors started by Captain Metropolis to cement the idea of HJ's "whiteness." Because in the Minutemen, it's better to be thought a Nazi than a black man. Or perhaps his single-minded pursuit of the KKK was misread by his fellow Minutemen (who never got to see his folder and hear about his work on Cyclops, I assume) as interest, rather than antipathy. Because, why would a white man be paying attention to the Klan if not to join?
Or maybe they've just decided to do away with that little bit of comics canon. For an origin story this good, I'll definitely let them get away with it.
I loved this episode completely, and I love what this show is shaping up to be!
-
9
-
-
Damn, this show seems determined to go out with a bang, and I am here for it!
The last episode freaking HAUNTED me all week, and I was really hoping we'd get to see Krysta and Elliot in the immediate aftermath of Vera's death. I am so, SO happy that Krysta helped him and is still trying to take care of him, even after everything that happened. She's such a genuinely good person, and those little story touches, where Elliot is having a shutdown in the presence of someone who is willing and able to stave off their own impending mental and physical collapse long enough to reassure him, and protect him, and be kind to him when he needs it... those bright moments are such a stark contrast to the darkness and brutality and pain that suffuses this series that I find them profoundly affecting, and I'm so grateful that we got that one tonight, because I really needed it! (And the scene with Mr. Robot holding Elliot at the end - My heart!)
I don't believe the young Elliot is the third alter. He felt more like a temporary visitor to help adult Elliot process what he was remembering. Beyond that, he has no reason to exist, and no agenda to enact through Elliot. Having it spelled out for us, where Mr. Robot came from and why he was created and when... that was really useful in helping us understand how Elliot's fractured mind manages reality. After episode 2, I theorized that the new alter might be Angela, since her death is the kind of massive, traumatic, triggering event that could cause an alter to form, and would give that alter a reason to exist and an agenda to accomplish: Avenge Angela's death in more brutal and devastating way than Elliot would be capable of on his own (the way Mr. Robot was attempting to avenge Mr. Alderson's death when we first "met" him). But since that episode there hasn't been a single reference to Angela (a small one tonight - hooray!) and I'm concerned that she really is gone for good. I still hold out hope, though. Darlene encountered the third alter after Angela's death, and I can't pinpoint what other big, life-changing event Elliot has experienced in the meantime that could cause another alter to either be created or step in and start taking control. (Though I can't remember everything that happened at the end of last season. I need to do a rewatch.) I don't think Esmail is trying to pull the rug out from under us by, say, having a character that's been on the show the whole time secretly be an alter - that seems like a cheap gimmick and the show repeating itself. But I am definitely on the hook to find out who it is!
-
3
-
-
On 10/14/2019 at 8:57 AM, Penman61 said:
Dad: You're not a killer. A killer is what I need.
Kendall: [Becomes a killer]
Everyone: Kendall FTW outfoxes Dad!!
Me: Um...that's not outfoxing. That's Kendall still playing Dad's game.
It's funny, looking through this thread that seems to be the general takeaway, but I had a totally different read on that scene. I thought Kendall decided to turn on Logan after the "killer" speech NOT because Kendall was becoming a killer himself, but because he finally allowed himself to accept that even though he was directly responsible for the death of another human being, he really was NOT a "killer." And he didn't deserve to go to prison and suffer for his dad's crimes because of what he himself had done. Rather it was Logan, who threw common people (entertainers, cruise passengers, caterers) to the sharks in droves to maintain his own comfort and shrug it off as "no real people involved," who was the REAL killer, and the one who actually deserved to pay.
I didn't think Kendall was embracing being the killer his dad wanted, I thought he was taking the first steps to heal from the trauma he experienced, and try to set things right. Whether he will actually take responsibility for his OWN wrongdoing and admit his part in the caterer's death remains to be seen, but acknowledging how deeply it's affected him, and how little the human cost of their business has affected Logan, is a huge first step in the right direction. Kendall didn't do this to be a killer like his father. He did it because he wants to be a better person than his father, and to see the REAL killer taken down.
Did Logan set this in motion? Did he want Kendall to fight back and turn on him? Well, to believe that, I'd have to believe that Logan would be genuinely willing to suffer the consequences of his own actions, rather than see his child suffer in his place, and from everything we've seen of him this entire series, there's not a chance in hell. Logan wanted a human shield, and while he might respect Kendall's play, there's no way this was his plan, or this was what he wanted. He's not capable of that kind of selflessness.
-
10
-
-
Wow, thanks @AgentRXS! I had no idea the characters were based on real people! That makes so much sense, and it actually helps a lot to explain some of the creative decisions that have confused me (see above). Appreciate the background!
-
On 10/2/2019 at 2:46 PM, Maysie said:
My take on the episode with Vince is that she was craving some sort of intimacy with someone and when Vince wanted the condom, that was ruined - it turned it professional (see above) and made her feel like a whore again. I think Lori is beginning to feel that her only worth is as a body for someone else to use or feel gratification with.
This is exactly it. That condom scene was brilliant, I thought. Previously, Lori was on set insisting her co-stars wear condoms because she saw them as prostitutes or porn actors who might give her something nasty they picked up on a "gay for pay" film. And when Vince asked her to use a condom, even though he was absolutely right to ask that, it made total sense for Lori to feel like he saw HER as a dirty prostitute/porn star who might give him something. Especially since she's trying to move away from that chapter of her life and be seen as just a woman who is valued and desired for who she is, rather than what she'll do for money. It was a reminder that she'll never be anything but a whore in some people's eyes. So, while Vince was right to ask, you can't say Lori was "wrong" to feel the way she did. It makes perfect sense to me, and people don't always FEEL in ways that are sensible or logical. I thought both of their actions and reactions in that scene were spot-on and perfectly in character.
R.I.P Frankie, I guess. Even though I never understood why his character existed in the first place, and never felt much of a brotherly bond between the Francos who never actually acted opposite each other because they're the same person, I guess he will be missed? (Seriously. I have not understood, even from the beginning, why the show would go to the trouble and expense of having Franco play a dual role, for so little artistic reward (and the detriment of distracting us from the story by making us wonder about how scenes were filmed). If they really wanted brothers, why not make them brothers who are NOT twins and cast different actors, so we could at least get some familial chemistry going on? The only reason the show has needed them to be twins, was so they could be confused for each other in the pilot and Vince would end up tied to the mob, but that could have happened regardless! Same with this hit, if maybe Vince was supposed to be the real target (just guessing), it wasn't really necessary for them to be twins. And, I know this is just nitpicking, and it always bothers me when I see one actor playing twins, but the Francos didn't look DIFFERENT enough from each other to be realistic twins. Very few adult twins are actually perfectly identical. They have slightly different facial features, not just different hairstyles. Anyway, I guess when I say Frankie will be missed, I mean... not by me.) But I'm definitely interested to see how these last few episodes play out without him!
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, justmehere said:
I'm intrigued by the way conversations with Elliot and Mr. Robot have been framed in these first two episodes. In the first, Darlene is talking to Mr. Robot in the middle of the apartment while Elliot is on the couch - and then she turns to talk to Elliot. We don't see him move from one place to the other, but her attention suddenly shifts, with no reaction to the location change. They did it again in this episode with Price talking closely to Elliot - in a near whisper - and then turning his attention to Mr. Robot who is several feet away.
Yeah, I'm also inclined to believe this is a stylistic choice made because we are seeing the scene from Elliot's point of view. Elliot sees a separate other person in the room that no one else does (Mr. Robot) and so his mind is making those slight changes to fill in the gaps and compensate for that slightly-altered reality. For example, even though Darlene is speaking directly to Elliot the whole time, his brain will generate an altered perception of her physically turning to address his different personalities, in order to make sense of the fact that Mr Robot is an established solid entity that is elsewhere in the room. This makes it actually NECESSARY for her to turn, because both Elliot and Mr. Robot would separately perceive Darlene (or Price) making eye contact and speaking directly to them. So, in order to make sense of the fact that they perceive each other to be in a different spot in the room, they MUST see her turn to address whichever one she is speaking to. Does that make sense? This is Elliot's flexible reality compensating for concessions he's already made.
5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:Ah-ha! Back to the Wellick-as-Elliot Alter theory!
37 minutes ago, Anela said:So Elliot is also his mum?
I don't know that the Wellick theory makes sense anymore. Certainly it COULD be his mom, and he is trying to reassemble his family in some way... but my theory is that it is Angela. After all, when Elliot's father died he created the Mr. Robot persona to process, and protect himself from, those feelings and seek revenge on the corporation responsible. It would make sense that seeing the picture of Angela's body caused a similar response... a sort of avatar of Angela being constructed in the back of his consciousness out of all the ugly things he wanted to do to the people responsible. An avatar who can eventually take control and take the revenge that Elliot can't bring himself to face. Plus, it would keep the actress around, and it GENUINELY surprised me that they seemed willing to write her out in the first episode of the season. While Angela's own journey might have ended the way we saw, Elliot's journey WITH Angela is still in need of closure. That's my best guess, but time will tell.
17 hours ago, Cardie said:I know there’s a lot of resistance here to Whiterose’s Congo project being a time machine or other sci fi tech. It is so central to everything that has occurred that I cannot imagine to being a red herring. So what do you guys think it is?
Yeah, this show is so grounded in the realities of what technology means for our lives today, I can't see them going the route of introducing a literal time machine or something else that is too far removed from current possibilities. However, I COULD see this project as being something of a Black Mirror-type supercomputer capable of, say, creating realistic simulacra of dead people in a virtual space, based on the data collected by E Corp during their lives. A "time machine" that could re-unite people with their loved ones ONLY in a hollow, digital way. But I don't know. If that were their end goal, I'd think Whiterose would say she was hacking "death" instead of "time." But I DO feel, given the themes of the series, that the answer is related to the massive amount of data collected by tech companies. Maybe it's a way to extrapolate backwards in time based on the sheer volume of data collected today, that can help us understand previous generations, or even civilizations, based on what current data is able to tell us about patterns and human nature? But then, Whiterose wouldn't be talking about reuniting people with their dead relatives. So I don't know! But I feel pretty certain the answer is somewhere between "absolute realism" and "sci-fi nonsense," rather than one or the other.
This show has surprised me every season but the first, so I'm not going to go too nuts trying to get ahead of it. I'm definitely excited to see where it's all going!
-
7
-
-
Woah, you guys! Luz is PREGNANT?! With Chester's baby?! What a shocking twist! She's come so far since the beginning of this series. A real whirlwind of a journey.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Great article on Vulture about the show, and how it was made, that answers a few questions that have popped up in this thread (confidentiality, compensation, cameras, etc).
https://www.vulture.com/2019/09/couples-therapy-showtime-cast.html
I normally hate reality TV, but I ended up watching this all in one evening. It was absolutely fascinating and so heartfelt. TV shows, especially ones like this without a direct narrative, like to clearly spell out for us who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are so that we have something to guide our feelings when we watch, and I hate seeing complex people and relationships artificially stripped down to "this one's a jerk, that one's a saint," etc, just so I don't have to put the brainpower into actually understanding them. So I was delighted to see what a nuanced, fair, and well-rounded picture they created of the people and problems in these relationships. I found myself basically on everyone's side at once, throughout the season. Well, everyone but Mau, of course. I have so much sympathy for what he has been through, and I can see where all his behaviours stem from, but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass for subjecting Annie to 23 years of bullshit. I was glad to see that he had made SOME progress over their sessions (basically making the tiny step from saying that absolutely everything Annie said was semantically incorrect and therefore invalid, to claiming the problem wasn't NECESSARILY 100% all her and some was "compatibility"), but until he decides to actually work on himself, I don't believe there is a sentient being in this universe with whom Mau could be "compatible."
-
5
-
-
On 9/17/2019 at 5:23 PM, vibeology said:
Brainwashed feels about right. I think he's been re-programmed in some way. I was reminded of both very "happy" $cientologists and people in the sunken place in Get Out.
I'm glad you brought up Scientology! Everything I know about MLMs has come from the people on the bottom of the pyramid sharing their experiences, so I don't know what kind of lunacy happens nearer the top (but I'm not surprised that it's more poverty), so maybe this is genuinely a portrayal of an MLM scheme, but Obie Garbeau is giving me serious L. Ron Hubbard vibes. Just the way he swans around the place like an unhinged person who should not be trusted about anything ever, the way he somehow convinces people to throw their money at him hand over fist in the thin hope that they might be able to eventually buy what he's selling, the way people will literally get down on their hands and knees to clean up his messes out of desperation because they have nothing left in their lives but what he's offered them, and his "affirmations" in the recording booth seem modeled specifically on the set of bizarre affirmations that L. Ron Hubbard wrote for himself, including statements like, "You have no fear of what any woman may think of your bedroom conduct. Some women are not capable of pleasure," and "Snakes are not dangerous to you. There are no snakes at the bottom of your bed."
Even in the next episode,
Spoilerwhen Cody reveals that he was let in on information about the system that only a privileged few are privy to (that the system doesn't work, but sales from the books and tapes are what make Obie and his inner circle rich) reminded me of a) the books and tapes that Scientologists are required to buy, and b) the way the story of Xenu is revealed to Scientologists in a highly strategic fashion only after they've sunk years and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars into the "church," because by that point they psychologically have no choice but to believe it and stay, because admitting they were wrong after everything they've sacrificed and how high they've climbed in the system is impossible.
I generally think of MLMs being sold to people as a money-making opportunity, but the show seems to be merging that with ideas of "faith" and community, such that Garbeau is both a con artist AND a cult leader, and they've chosen to model him directly off Hubbard. It could be that MLMs really are very similar to cults, I'm not sure how much faith typically factors in, but I really like the way they are hitting this angle as a way of explaining how people get roped into these scams, and why they stay when nothing seems to be paying off.
-
2
-
-
Ok, last season, my biggest criticism of the show was that the historical and supernatural elements of the story did not seem to mesh very well. In fact, they seemed to dilute each other. If they had invented a fictional expedition and had the sailors encounter a supernatural force, and just committed to the fantastical, it would have been better. OR, if they had done a straightforward dramatization of the Terror and Endurance's expedition (and terrible fate) and made it a full-on psychological thriller, it would have been better. Instead, we got this mishmash of "man vs man" and "man vs evil spirit" and also "man vs nature," which did not work for me at all. In the wise words of Ron Swanson, "Don't half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
I feel like the same thing is happening here. A historical drama about the Japanese Internment during WWII would be awesome. Or a supernatural story about a demon haunting its ancestral bloodline preying on children could be awesome. But in this case, the two seem to distract from each other, and neither one is achieving its potential.
And, yes, I DO have to be this person, but my second-biggest complaint about season 1 is how poorly its female characters were treated. And yes, I know, a story set on a historical ship crewed exclusively by men leaves little room for female characters. I totally get that. But the show seemed to also get that, so they invented a female character to become an integral part of the story, only to render her mute and sidelined halfway through the series. (Again, a product of half-assing the two stories.)
NOW, we have a story with many more female characters in it, and yet the problem persists. Luz is apparently the female lead, and was only important to the story when she was pregnant (and once she lost the babies she went cuckoo-bananas baby-crazy with grief and seems to have been shuffled off elsewhere out of the way of the real story), and in the VERY NEXT EPISODE we discover that the demon is actually the spirit of a woman who died without getting to be a mother, went cuckoo-bananas in the afterlife from, presumably, chronic lack-of-child, and is now back from the dead to haunt her bloodline and try to steal babies to take back to the other side with her? (The other side, where she had previously met ANOTHER spirit who was a mother gone mad in relation to lack-of-child/presence-of-dead-child?) Is there NO female character this season who is important in her own right, and not just in her capacity as mother/wife/girlfriend to a man?
I'll finish the season, but honestly, this show loses me more and more with every episode.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, tennisgurl said:
I love watching how freaking hard working and competent that Karen and Grace are, just checking out leads and doing the leg work and just making all after call, plugging away to find connections between all of these rape cases. Watching the story with Marie is so sad and anger inducing, so its extra fulfilling to see them kicking ass and working to get justice.
It is so damn satisfying. And a welcome change from those "genius man detective" shows that are all about showing up, looking at the evidence, and having the sudden stroke of brilliance that solves the whole thing. It's not about being a genius, it's about doing the work. (Something that is presumably not beyond the capabilities of the male detectives in ep. 1, btw.) It's wholly satisfying, realistic, and illustrates better than probably any crime show I've ever seen what makes your average investigator "good" or "bad."
-
10
-
-
It also sounds like the distinction between "business partners" and "romantic partners" could have muddied things, since only one of those was disclosed to the parents, but the concepts can sound so similar in conversation. For example, if Patrick was saying things like "My parents are so glad things are working out for us," or "My parents are so happy we met, they love you" then it would be reasonable for David to interpret this as meaning romantically, and Patrick to mean it as professional (and lean in to romantic undertones when relaying their comments out of fear of having to tell David that his parents only know about their business relationship and friendship).
You'd be amazed. I have had conversations with people about a "friend" or "partner" of mine, trying as hard as I could to tell them without directly saying it that we were together in a gay, romantic way, and people DO NOT hear it if they don't want to or don't expect to. David could have told Patrick's parents basically anything on the phone, and they would likely rationalize it as being friendly, or David (who they likely know or suspect is gay) just teasing or flirting without it even entering their minds that it might be a two-sided relationship.
I have to say, I think this episode is the greatest coming-out story I have seen on TV. I really admire the approach of the writers to eliminate homophobia from the storytelling. It may not be the most technically accurate coming-out story by averages, but the lack of homophobic blowback makes space for a more meaningful message about autonomy, dignity, and the kind of support people need and deserve when speaking their truth. It's an inspiring picture of how things can go, and should go, if we don't make room for bigotry in the real world. I absolutely adore it.
-
21
-
-
Glad to see some discussion of this movie! I had heard good things, and finally checked it out. I enjoyed a lot of it (especially the performances), but the ending was a miss for me. I think I see what they were trying to do, in a "be careful what you wish for" way, but I think framing Ingrid's sudden social media fame as a sort of happy ending for her was a mistake. It seemed to sidestep its opportunities to delve into the power of real human relationships, contrasted with the Instagram faux-relationships she seeks. (And I never quite understood what point they were trying to make about the power of inauthenticity (like Elizabeth Olsen's character) to bring fame online, AND authenticity (Ingrid) ALSO bringing fame on the same platform - is there a judgment being made about either method?). And by giving her the followers and influence she wanted, this ending does nothing to help Ingrid really heal or find meaning in her life. I find it tragic, actually, that she is left just as adrift as ever, but in much higher waters, and not understanding what this means for her. Besides that, what are the lessons we can take from this? That the cure for desperately wanting social media followers to drown out your loneliness is GETTING social media followers? That if you feel like no one loves you, publicly attempting suicide will solve your problems? It just didn't click for me, and didn't leave me feeling like I appreciated the takeaway. It could be, too, that it's been long enough since the movie came out that the social media landscape has changed in the meantime and the movie's ideas no longer quite match the reality of the issues with social media today. In any case, I'm not sorry I watched it, but I do wish it had been a bit more pointed and purposeful in what it was trying to say ABOUT social media as a way of connecting with people.
-
12 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:
Scenes with crying babies are kind of mixed bags for me. On the one hand, such realism in handling a screaming child who wants to get away while you're trying to talk. On the other hand, the screaming child isn't acting and following direction - he's really struggling to get out of their arms. So it bothers me some.
Yeah, it provokes a totally automatic emotional response seeing and hearing a baby screaming, and knowing that it's not acting - it's being held by someone not its parent and it's genuinely upset. However, the good news is that the vast majority of that is an illusion. There are STRICT rules about using babies on set. Mom or Dad is right there off camera, and in the majority of the crying baby scenes I've seen, the baby's face is pointed away from the camera, or else the facial expression and/or body movements don't match the screaming we hear. I strongly suspect that, for the most part, the baby onscreen is calm or just a little bit upset, and the unholy shrieking is a separate audio track used to make it sound like the onscreen baby is screaming its lungs out. The alternatives are that the production team is provoking a screaming tantrum in an infant (not ethical and almost certainly against the rules), or waiting around all day for a baby to have a screaming tantrum on its own (which no director would have the budget or patience for). And in either case, imagine the poor sound department, trying to mix the audio of adult actors talking while a baby screams over them the whole time. Way easier for all involved to mix in a separate "crying baby" sound at an appropriate level in post. In this episode, it's hard to tell, but the baby is facing away from the camera, and the one time it looks towards the camera it does look upset, but I sincerely doubt it's really making the sound we hear.
Those scenes with crying babies are so distracting, for exactly the reason you say, that my automatic response to them is to look at the baby onscreen and ask myself if I couldn't hear the crying, would I still think that baby was upset? It still pulls you out of the show, but at least it makes you feel better!
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, AllyB said:
That's exactly what she tried to do with the "Freaky Tuesday" stunt. She got everyone to switch roles so the show would be a disaster in front of Sandy and she'd rescind her offer to extend their run. Debbie didn't want to do the show past that week and she tried to ensure that nobody else could either. It really was a despicable move on her part and it's why Bash was so furious. And the other women should have been too.
Oh, I see what you mean! I can respect that reading. Did Debbie know Sandy was going to be there? If so, I did not connect those dots. That wasn't my read on the episode, though. The Freaky Tuesday stunt wasn't Debbie's idea, and once she agreed to it, all the choices she made seemed to support the stunt being a success. Unless I'm misremembering, she didn't try to put anyone in a role they weren't suited for, give deliberately bad advice, or generally look unhappy when things were going well. She seemed to enjoy it along with everyone else! I thought she was just trying to foster that "end of run" silliness that always bubbles up when productions are wrapping up, to get everyone feeling like they were ready to say goodbye to the show. After all, everyone knows the show so well by now that switching characters is hardly a recipe for disaster, just unprofessional. It also seemed to be a move in the power-struggle with Bash, from the way she taunt-flirted with him as Zoya, rubbing his nose in the fact that she and the other wrestlers are a close unit that can make big decisions without him, and making him feel like an outsider to his own production.
I just figured the character shake-ups were the most jarring for Bash, who is not an experienced performer and not used to improvising so wildly. He was not happy about not knowing what was happening, and he did not cover for it well in his announcing, making him look like the weak link in the cast. He had to accept the offer unilaterally to get back at Debbie, mend his wounded pride, and assert his control over the production.
-
6
-
-
On 8/17/2019 at 9:08 AM, AllyB said:
I really don't buy the way everyone reacted to what happened at the end of the last episode. These are jobbing actresses, with the exception of Debbie, this is the best job acting they have ever had. They would be ecstatic to have the show extended and if they were annoyed with anyone it would be Debbie. She tried to sabotage their chances of continuing employment just because she wanted it to end. She could have left the show as a wrestler and even found a way to continue as a producer back in LA while Liberty Belle was recast. Instead she tricked them all into trying to tank the show and their chances of 9 more months of work. That's pretty despicable. Bash might have been an ass about it all but he blew up at her because she tried to underhandedly ruin their run. In real life most of the women would have been on his side.
But the point was, he didn't give anyone a CHANCE to be on his side. Debbie wasn't trying to sabotage the run, she doesn't have the ability to unilaterally do that. She wanted to talk about the offer with everyone before accepting it. If they had talked about it, then yes, everyone probably WOULD have been on Bash's side. Because that is the right thing to do: Extend the run, sure, that's the best business/career decision, but talk it over with the performers. Find out who is willing and able to stick around and who will need replacing. Give everyone a sense of accomplishment that their show, that they work hard on every night, is successful and they get to keep doing it. Instead, Bash decided to announce the extension in the most dick-swingingest way possible, specifically to punish Debbie and establish unilateral control over a show that has two other producers who are entitled to a say. His "my way or the highway" approach undercut everyone's sense of accomplishment and made them feel like they were being held hostage to a show that they created and have suddenly lost the illusion of control over. Of course they felt slighted by Bash! His actions are understandable, considering his identity crisis, and yes it was the best business decision, but reasoning out his actions does nothing to invalidate the feelings of the people whose moment of triumph he stepped on, and whose good news he co-opted for himself.
Bash is typically very warm, open, and collaborative. You can't blame the performers for being surprised and dismayed at his sudden turnabout.
-
8
-
-
I'm so happy this weird, wonderful show is back. I hadn't realized how much I missed it until the episode opened with that bizarre plane sequence and I just couldn't stop smiling. There's nothing else like it on TV right now!
I'm so glad Liz is out from under that debt, and even though she's still recovering from what it did to her life, she's taking steps to get out there, find work... it must be incredibly daunting and demoralizing to consider building up your entire life from zero, after missing out on so much. I'll be interested to see her journey this season.
And Dud! It's so refreshing to see a protagonist who is so open and optimistic and unapologetically good-hearted. I just love him. I think he tried to offer his services to the new family because he was so pleased to see that they were using his old space to run another family-owned pool shop, and expected it to be, well, just like what he had with his dad. A warm, intimate family affair in a place he belonged and with work he cared about. Without having met the new family previously, he had no basis for expectations besides his previous experience. But boy, that family! And Booie (yes, that really is his name. I had to check IMDB to confirm!) ... holy cow, that character was amazing. Exactly the right balance between comedically apathetic and sincerely repugnant! It's hard to believe anyone would rather have him than Dud clean their pools, so Dud's little startup operation has that going for it... I can't imagine it will be smooth sailing, though! And I don't have a great feeling about this lawsuit... unless you really CAN sue a shark, I can't imagine any wrongdoing on the part of humans would be easy to prove. And if it were, couldn't they have sued after their father died? I guess there was no PROOF it was a shark. Still, this seems a bit sketchy. But, hey! It got Liz her TV back!
So happy to have this show again. Bring on next week!
-
4
-
-
Is Fred stupid enough to cross the border and try to meet with the Americans with whom he is at war? Well, he's pretty stupid, but probably not THAT stupid. Is killing (or incapacitating) someone with a pen feasible the way it was shown? Was the writing super great and tight and made sense? HELL, NO!
But did I care? Also no!
I will take it, you guys! Do you know how long I've spent waiting for a rapist to get murdered on this show? Now THAT'S the kind of "man pain" this show should be focusing on: The bleeding, writhing around on the floor kind! Talk about something worth tuning in for! And yes, the pen was a stupid weapon, but I also appreciate the poetry of an editor being forbidden from using a pen for its intended purpose, and using it to kill her oppressor instead. As much as there is to complain about this season, the show HAS been bringing in more female writers, and while the particular writers Miller has hired are not qualified or experienced enough to take on a project with this magnitude, one positive consequence of having more women in the writers' room is that I don't think we've been subjected to ANY gratuitous rape scenes this season. Even in the last episode, we got all the dread of "The Ceremony" without actually having to watch it. And now, we get an almost-certain rape that ends with the bloody bludgeoning of a commander by his victim? YES, PLEASE!
Sure, it wasn't actually GOOD, and yes, it was a total waste of Meloni's character (and never got to pay off or explore the insinuation that he was not heterosexual), and all the complaints about lazy writing and plot armor and everything are STILL every bit as relevant and annoying, but add to this glorious killing the fact that Fred has been arrested (which actually did surprise and delight me, even though I'm not convinced they'll follow through on it), and this is the very first time ALL SEASON that I have actually felt rewarded for tuning in.
I'LL TAKE IT!
-
12
-
-
Public Service Announcement:
I was delighted to discover today that Phoebe Waller-Bridge has revived her one-woman play "Fleabag" (that the show is based on) for a very limited run in London, AND that National Theatre Live will be broadcasting it to cinemas! So if you live somewhere where your local movie theatre sometimes broadcasts the Metropolitan opera or other live events, you might have the chance to see the original play performed by PWB herself in London's West End! I checked, and it's playing in my town for one screening only later in September, and I live in a small town in Canada, so chances are good it's coming to your town too! Don't miss out!
The link to NTL is here, and may have more information about where you can see the show!
-
2
-
4
-
-
So, "the vow" is being rolled out across Gilead, but on a voluntary basis? Suuuuuure. Probably in the way that being a Handmaid is considered voluntary. As in you can volunteer for it, or else volunteer for the colonies.
I bet this dumb "vow" system lasts as long as it takes one pregnant handmaid to get morning sickness and choke to death on her own vomit, killing a fertile woman and unborn baby in one fell swoop. The veil on its own does the job you want. The rings are nonsense.
1 hour ago, Ariam said:What happened to Aunt Lydia telling June that she was going to be moved to another household in episode 8? I was expecting that after the hospital she would have been placed in another house. Lydia talked about it with the other aunts too.
Did the writers just forget about it???
I was wondering this too, but I think she had said she wanted to move June because the Lawrence house seemed to make every Handmaid that went through it "trouble," and therefore the household might be the problem. When June decided to stay with her walking partner even after the baby was saved, I think we are to assume that Aunt Lydia's worries were assuaged, and that she now sees June as appropriately obedient and cooperative, not influenced by a dysfunctional household. Especially now that she "knows" the ceremony is happening properly, I don't think she has a reason to go through with taking the extreme step of denying a Commander a Handmaid, when there is no concrete reason to do so. However...
I have this sign, something I look for that tells me when it's time to quit a show that is not up to snuff. I look at the forums, and I see fans putting a lot of effort into imagining interesting twists and turns that the story could have up its sleeve. Are the Swedish only pretending to negotiate while they plant spies in Gilead? Is Nick secretly working against Gilead and that's why Sweden didn't want to meet with him, because they wanted to preserve his cover? Is Serena manipulating Fred and planning to betray him to the Americans?
Here's the sign: If the answer to these fan theories turns out to be "yes" or "actually, it's even better," the show deserves my time. But if the answer is "no" and the fans are putting more thought and effort into crafting a intriguing season of supposedly "award-winning" and "challenging" television than the professional writers hired to do specifically that, then I know the show is no longer worth putting MY mental energy into.
I want some of these awesome twists to pan out, and I hope the show pulls it out at the end and proves it was doing more than wasting time for the first nine hours of the season, but I suspect that what we see is what we are going to get.
-
7
-
-
4 hours ago, Melgaypet said:
You'd think the fact that Aaron himself was killed right after his acquittal would be fodder for the murderheads. None of them brought that up.
You know, it's funny. Whenever I think back on that plot point, I think I remember that Aaron's death was set up to look like a suicide to satisfy those who thought he did it (he couldn't take the guilt), and those who thought he didn't (he despaired that his reputation would never recover), and that's why it's not considered a mystery in Neptune, and why we don't hear people going on about the "unsolved case" of the "monster" who murdered "beloved" movie star Aaron Echolls.
But I just had another peek at the episode to confirm this, and Weidman is definitely standing BEHIND Aaron and shoots him in the back of the head. No way would it even remotely look like suicide. So I've been wrong all this time, and the murder of Aaron Echolls IS an unsolved case, and a loose end for this show! Maybe it comes up in season 3, and it's just been so long since I've watched it that I've forgotten what was said, but it seems crazy to me that a high-profile movie star recently acquitted of murder was executed at Millionaire Central Headquarters (the Neptune Grand), and it made no lasting splash in the community. Can anyone who saw season 3 recently remember if it ever came up? I assume nothing was ever linked back to Weidman or the Kanes, if the "Murderheads" still think Keith was wrong to investigate Jake.
However, Aaron definitely DID brag to Veronica about killing Lilly. He did it, and that's confirmed, even if only Veronica (and we) know(s) for sure. So if there is a twist about it coming down the pike, it would have to be about who people BELIEVE killed Lilly, rather than who actually did. Maybe someone will be falsely accused or arrested?
-
4
-
Tiger King - General Discussion
in Tiger King
I hope so! I have to say, the treatment of Carole was one of the things that really bothered me about this series. The show seemed to want to draw a comparison between what she is doing and what Joe and Doc (and others) are doing (I guess in the interests of appearing balanced?), but it completely fails to explain the details that would clarify how Big Cat Rescue REALLY compares to Joe's operation. From what we were told, it seems like she really is running a legitimate sanctuary that provides a home for big cats that come from places like Joe's zoo, and protects them from abuse. Those tigers bred and born in captivity CAN'T be released into the wild, so where else are they supposed to go? Yes, tour groups can see the cats, but not nearly as intrusively, and we know how much it costs to feed and care for animals like that. Many animal rescue and rehabilitation centres charge admission and let visitors see the animals (from a non-intrusive distance) for just this reason.
In terms of treatment of the animals, Joe's zoo breeds and sells cubs. It has cub-petting and has humans interacting with the animals. Carole is leading a political campaign to nationally BAN cub-petting, breeding, and other abusive practices, and her sanctuary does not allow any interactions between humans and cats. From the framing in the series, they are made to look comparable, but the show has really failed to explain the conditions in which the cats were kept in the private zoos versus Carole's sanctuary. We didn't see or hear much about the specific acts of abuse taking place, or about cub-petting and why it's abusive, but surely taking wild animals to shopping malls and government buildings (or in suitcases to visit luxury hotels!!) is OBVIOUSLY more abusive and exploitative than the tours happening at Big Cat Rescue. The fact that the series failed to adequately explain these details, but just framed them side-by-side to make them look comparable was unfortunate.
Then there's the treatment of the employees. Doc Antle is running a sex cult, where he ropes in attractive teenage interns and "marries" them, then uses them as practically slave labour. Carole has a staff of volunteers who she doesn't even really know (and is clearly not extorting work or sex out of them through use of manipulation or drugs). How are these things comparable? Yes, big cats are exciting and wonderful, and people are passionate about them and WANT to work with them, and will make personal sacrifices for the chance to do so! But Joe and Doc are using this fact to exploit vulnerable people for cheap labour (and sex), while Carole has volunteers - people with free time who DO NOT depend upon her at all for income and basic needs, and whose treatment by her is never shown (or even suggested) to be unethical. This is not the same thing in the slightest!
Did she murder her husband? I'm inclined to say no! It seems preposterous to me to say that Carole killing him and feeding him to the tigers is the simplest or most likely explanation. The man was involved in the illegal world of international exotic animal breeding/buying/selling, he flew a plane without a licence, and had Alzheimer's. She was the LEAST dangerous thing about his life. Not saying she definitely didn't do it, but I'd need some MUCH more compelling evidence to believe there is an argument to be made that she did it. Besides, it is very difficult for one person to kill a grown man, then move and dispose of a body, even with tigers conveniently nearby, all on her own, without leaving any evidence. I don't think the practicalities of this were considered at all in the series, which just seems intentionally misleading. It was all gossip, based on speculation and VERY thin circumstantial evidence. Did she take advantage of his disappearance to take charge of his estate, enrich herself, and cut off family members who might be entitled to a share? Sure looks like it! But that's a completely different issue from MURDER. I needed more than salacious gossip to make that idea seem legitimate.
Not to mention, her comment in the article linked above that she was misled about the nature of the documentary (that it would be primarily about animal rights and exposing abuses in the animals-for-entertainment industry) COMPLETELY tracks with what the filmmakers have said they wanted this project to be about, before Netflix pushed them to recentre on the outrageous personalities involved. Why do we not consider her other comments credible?
I finished this series feeling like Carole was a wackadoo, a bit self-serving (or at least not as altruistic as she wanted to appear), something of an egomaniac (nearly everyone we see in the big cat world is), and potentially greedy and opportunistic based on what happened with her late husband's estate, but at least it seemed clear that she was a genuine advocate for animal rights and was actively working to ban and criminalize operations like Joe's. I've found it quite shocking, actually, to come online and see that so many people's takeaway from the series is "Carole is the worst person on this show," or "Carole definitely killed her husband," or "Carole is as bad as Joe if not worse." I find all the vitriol surprising and perplexing! And it's definitely a failure of the filmmakers if the audience spends nearly seven hours watching a man hurl misogynistic vitriol at a woman, abusing and SHOOTING a blow-up sex doll stand-in of her, and comes away thinking, "SHE'S the real villain of the story!" especially without any concrete evidence that she is acting wrongly.
If I were her, I would sue Netflix for failing to include clarifying details about her life and work, as much as for framing what they DID include in such a way. I'm really appalled by the viewer reactions to her portrayal, and I really feel for her, and especially for the cats in her care and the legislative work she is doing to protect animals, because they will surely be impacted by the hit her reputation has taken. As much as I enjoyed the series, seeing these comments online has really ended my experience of Tiger King on a sour note.