Slovenly Muse

Agreed, it's a perfect fit. Hey, with skills like that, he could be the next Aaron Echolls! This is really, really working for me. Most of the Anti-LoVe opinions I've read are from fans who don't like or trust Logan, or can't get over the messed up things he's done, or don't think he's stable enough for Veronica. He also falls into the trope of "the bad boy:" the violent, scary man that women are drawn to because of how volatile and therefore manly he is. But what I always loved about LoVe when they were together is how damaged they BOTH are, and how perfectly each understands and complements the damage of the other. Veronica puts up a tough-as-nails exterior after being raped and socially victimized, but she is powerfully drawn to someone who will beat the everloving shit out of anyone who looks at her sideways, making her finally feel safe. And Logan, with the shitty childhood he had, is magnetically drawn to the only person in his life who understood him and why he acted the way he did, offers him the affection he was starved for as a child, stands up for him, and loves him for who he is, not the fame and money that he brings. They were two very damaged people who just clicked, but it was never a healthy relationship, because it was built on dysfunction. Now that Logan is actually working on his issues, they don't quite click anymore, and if Veronica doesn't rise up to meet him, she'll be left alone again. I feel like this approach pleases both the LoVe fans AND the anti-LoVers. It acknowledges that Logan is too troubled to be in a healthy functional relationship with Veronica, and it emphasizes that the violent "bad boy" side of Logan is a bug, not a feature, but it also threatens to break them up NOT because they are bad or toxic for each other, but because that dysfunctional part is disappearing, and they'll have to build a relationship on what's left when it does.

Holy shit, I'm so glad this is back! I was so impressed with the first episode. As a Logan fan, the entire, "Hey, blue shorts!" scene had me rolling. I found his physical appearance in the movie a bit odd, probably because we first saw him in a uniform that didn't fit properly, but either I'm used to it now, or he's filled out more evenly, because: Yowza. I like the changes they've made, particularly the new chief of police! This show will be very different with someone in charge of the police department who seems AT LEAST minimally competent! I think it will open up some interesting PI vs police dynamics that the original run of the show suppressed by making Mars Investigations the only functional investigating agency in Neptune. The "cuss" thing is dumb, but hopefully they will scale it back a bit so it's not as annoying. It's too bad Hulu wouldn't let them swear, but I don't think lampshading it was the answer. Just not swearing would have been fine. The absence of f-bombs is less intrusive than the presence of "cuss." And as for the theme song, ugh. I love the new opening credits! But the song isn't great. That's not a knock on the singer, I just think it's an impossible task. I agree with the decision to not use the original song. As much as I adore it, it is a high school song, that perfectly suited the tone and setting of the show when it was set in high school, and now it's no longer a good fit. HOWEVER, I don't think any cover of it will ever be right for the show now, as a theme song (apart from the acoustic cover from the movie which was perfect for that moment, but would be weird as a theme song). Even the lyrics don't really fit anymore. As much as I liked the credit sequence, I wish they would give up on trying to make the old song new again, and just use a quick title card instead of a whole opening credits sequence, so they wouldn't need a song at all. Just like with the "cussing," I feel like the absence of the song would be less intrusive than the presence of yet another not-quite-right cover version that will set fans' teeth on edge.

I just saw this last night, and REALLY enjoyed it! I had been told it was very unlike Hereditary, but I actually found it to be extremely similar. Spoilers for Hereditary: But where Hereditary made you guess what the heck it was up to, Midsommar never tried to pull the rug out from under you, it just brought you along for the ride! I appreciated its more restrained storytelling, just as much as I appreciated Hereditary's balls-to-the-wall insanity. I loved this detail! Because this little distortion of reality clearly showed that Dani was under the influence of whatever they had given her, and was not totally in her right mind. You'll notice, at the END of the movie, when Dani makes her choice and watches the sacrifice, that same flower appears perfectly normal. Dani is completely clearheaded when she sentences Christian to death. I actually think it had more in common with Hereditary than The Wicker Man, but in any case, these ideas are definitely connected. I only saw the original Wicker Man (not the Nick Cage version), and what struck me about it (as someone loosely affiliated with pagan/wiccan circles) was that it showed a normal, accurate portrayal of innocent, traditional pagan celebrations, and then ended with the big twist: Human sacrifice! Pagans are evil! This is a terrible twist, because it's the same message that's been predominant since the rise of Christianity, hardly surprising or subversive (and totally false). I was pretty disgusted with it, actually. But this film corrected some of that by anchoring the sacrifices and the horror stuff in a very specific subculture, practiced by a small cult-like group, with some unique traditions AND some traditions informed by Paganism in general (which served more like a veneer of legitimacy than the root of the cruelty), so that the villains were the cult, and not an entire widespread religion. That said, I did wonder about the accuracy of the Pagan celebrations for Midsummer. It seems this festival combined some traditions of Beltane (May 1st), like the May Pole dance, celebrations of fertility/virility, and crowning of a May Queen, with traditions of Litha (Midsummer, June 21st), like the bonfires honoring the sun at its strongest time of year, celebrating the last phase of the growing season before the harvest, etc. I don't know if it's common practice in some communities to combine the two into one big festival, but I could roll with it. I feel like this could easily be reduced to a break-up movie. And it's unfortunate he said that, because I think it plants a seed of simplicity in the audience's mind. Yes, it is a break-up movie, when you consider how wholly inadequate Christian is for Dani, and how much of the movie she spent rationalizing those inadequacies, the end is inevitable, but I think the big idea of the film is the question that Pelle asked her: "Does he feel like home to you?" I saw this film as being about a woman who needed a home, finding one. "Breaking up" with Christian and selecting him for sacrifice was not just a rejection of him, it was a rejection of the whole outside world. She had chosen the community, who understood what she needed, gave her power, and experienced her pain along with her. They were now her home. However... The question of how these disappearances will be explained is a tricky one. No one knew EXACTLY where in Sweden they were going, and they are all adults who could have traveled anywhere from their intended destination without telling anyone. Presumably Pelle (and they guy who invited the London couple) still have their belongings, including phones, credit cards, and passports, and could maybe make it look like they were last seen elsewhere, or that they had decided to stay permanently, like I imagine Dani will be doing. But there's also the question of, what would have happened if Dani had NOT chosen Christian for sacrifice? Or if she had not been May Queen at all? (It didn't look like they rigged the dance for her.) Would she and Christian really have been allowed to leave at the end of the festival, after everything they'd seen, or were they dead anyway, and the choice was meaningless? I don't imagine it bears too much consideration, or perhaps we're meant to believe that "fate" (or "nature") arranged things exactly the way they needed to be. In any case, I can overlook a lingering question when the rest of the film was so well-structured. Final thought: I'm willing to bet that for everyone on set that day, that was the STRANGEST sex scene any of them had ever filmed!

Yes! That's what I was getting at with "the sad state of the availability of female writers," but you put it so much better. If this is a reflection of WHO they could get when looking for women specifically, it says a lot about the kind of writing jobs women can get in the industry, and how few women writers there are compared to men. BUT, many of this season's writers worked on shows where Bruce was a producer, so it ALSO looks like he didn't cast a very wide net, but just picked up people he already knew. So it might be a little of this, a little of that.

Ok, I JUST started watching Season 3 about a week ago (for some reason I had a really hard time psyching myself up for it), and I'm all caught up now. My first impressions of the season were that the writing was VERY weak, full of holes and dumb decisions to the point of being nearly nonsensical. I did some IMDB research to see who the hell was writing this stuff, and I discovered a couple of things.: First, the season has more female writers credited than I expected. I'm not sure how this compares to previous seasons, but nearly all the episodes this season have at least one female writer credited. So that is progress! (But that doesn't change the fact that Bruce needs replacing ASAP, because he doesn't have the vision to continue this show.) Second, none of the writers I looked at had any writing credits for prestige dramas. In fact, most of the writers were fairly new to the industry, and had only two or three previous credits that were all mostly network popcorn-television aimed at teenagers, like "Supergirl," "Eureka," "The 100," "Alphas," and "Moonlight" (The vampire detective show, not the famous "Moonlighting"). Most, I assume, worked with Bruce when he was a producer on some of those shows. I'm glad female writers are being given this boost, and I hope putting Handmaid's Tale on their resume will launch them to better things, but no wonder this show is struggling to find nuanced messages, meaningful twists, and a consistent voice, when most of the episodes are written by someone who came from a kid-friendly kooky superhero-type show and was told, "Make this sound like Margaret Atwood." I have nothing against kid-friendly kooky superhero shows. Those are some of my favourite shows! But a prestige drama like The Handmaid's Tale, which has a responsibility to portray an extremely relevant, urgent social issue in a sensitive and realistic manner, has a whole different set of requirements, and it's obvious that most of the writers are out of their wheelhouse. I blame Bruce, of course, since it's his job to give the writers a strong and consistent vision to work towards, and plot-wise, this thing is endlessly spinning its wheels and gives them little to work with. On the OTHER hand, for a show that has received so much awards attention, I find it hard to believe they couldn't attract more established, experienced writers, who could craft a real point of view on these issues. Or maybe Bruce pushed to hire more female writers, and this is just a reflection of the sad state of the availability of female writers in TV. In either case, it explains so much about why this season isn't working for me (apart from the general lack of logical consistency with season one... you know: THE NOVEL). Part of me wants to see the show find its footing and recover, but most of me just wants Hulu to put this beast out of its misery, before it becomes too much of a punchline.

When did Jane say this? I don't remember hearing it at all. Was it something she was incoherently yelling at Mary Louise? If so, I could see her saying it out of spite (since it's total fiction), like, "I tried to give your son the benefit of the doubt in case he was the good man you say, but he proved again and again that he was a monster, and you're wrong about him and about everything!" Obviously not true, but intended to be hurtful. If this wasn't part of her rant, and was something she said calmly to a friend, I got nothing. In either case, I totally agree that it 100% sounds like a man wrote that line.

Those are the people claiming they are owed $  That was my take. I don't know how bankruptcy works AT ALL, but I understood it to be that, since the court had seized all the Kleins' assets, anyone who was owed money by the Kleins had to petition the court to receive the payment they were owed out of what was seized. Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about can correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought Jane said in season 1 that she did bookkeeping from her home. I don't remember if she had a degree at accounting or not. I used to date an accountant that worked from his house and made a good 'California' living. When we first see her at the aquarium, I thought she was a volunteer. Maybe a 2nd job or did they explain it? Last season, they made a point of showing how poorly Jane lives compared to the others (sleeping on a sofa-bed in the living room of her presumably one-bedroom apartment), and, yes, she did bookkeeping from home. So she was definitely struggling last season. However, what was also clear last season was that the majority of Jane's problems were emotional (related to her rape, and Ziggy's troubles at school), rather than financial. Lack of money was noticeable in Jane's life, but it didn't seem to be a problem. What I also noticed (upon rewatch), was that last season Renata mentioned that she was on the board of the aquarium. I assumed that she had pulled some strings and got Jane a better-paying job (or second job) at the aquarium where she had connections. Furthermore, at the beginning of the season, Celeste was trying to send Jane child support payments from Perry's estate, but it sounded like Jane was not taking them. I believe the conversation ended with Celeste arguing that Jane and Ziggy were entitled to Perry's money and Jane should take the payments, and I don't believe it was followed up on after that. So maybe Jane is now receiving regular child support from Celeste on behalf of Perry, which given his wealth could be a nice chunk of change. I could buy that a relief of both her financial and emotional burdens caused her to free up more time to really enjoy life.

I hear you. I think my frustration really is that, while they may be unraveling, this is not translating to action. The investigation that could expose them has almost no sense of urgency. They aren't taking actions to cover up what they did, or respond to their fears and traumas in active ways. I want to see the psychological effects of losing an abusive father on those twins, and how Celeste relates to them now. I want to see how watching her rapist die in front of her has helped (or worsened) Jane's paranoid desire to sleep with a gun under her pillow in constant fear of an intruder. I want to see the classroom dynamics at school and how ALL the kids involved are dealing with each other. I want to see Madeleine realize that with all her prying and sticking her nose into other people's business, she never knew her best friend was being abused, and how that affects her pathological need to involve herself in every situation, since she obviously wasn't involved ENOUGH with Celeste. I want to see Bonnie worry that because she committed an act of violence, SHE might be turning into the violent mother she resents, and struggling even harder to relate to Abigail and Skye as a result. I want to see Renata in a position to lose everything she's worked for because of something SHE did (or helped cover up), not just something her worthless excuse of a husband did behind her back. Basically, I'm fine with a season about the "Monterey 5" unraveling, but I want to know what that MEANS, not just what it looks like.

This is my first time checking in on this forum, so forgive me if I'm just repeating everything you guys have been complaining about all season, but YEESH. With the news that broke this week about the behind-the-scenes drama of this season, I'm not surprised it's a mess, but there's more at work here than just stylistic or editing issues. The writing this season is TERRIBLE. I had the interesting experience of rewatching season 1 last week while on vacation with someone who wanted to see it, and it really puts this season into perspective. So much of season one was built on mystery, intrigue, and a sort of intensity that was genuinely difficult to watch at times. Celeste's scenes with her therapist were heart-wrenching, but also sensitive and nuanced, and one of the most human and complex portrayals of "the battered woman" that I've ever seen. That was all 100% Lianne Moriarty. It took Celeste all last season to come to terms with the fact that her husband was a monster, and he wasn't going to get better. This season, we're almost at the end, and it seems she's only now STARTING a journey of figuring out what her hazy healing/grieving process has even been. Last season, she wanted to go back to work and reclaim her life. But I guess the idea of her having a life outside her family was just dropped? Last season, Madeleine was a holy terror. She had a hundred projects on the go at once, to make herself feel better about being a stay at home mom. She was an insufferable busybody with her nose in EVERYONE's business. This is a woman who intentionally ruined a child's birthday party, because of a slight by the child's mother. She intervened to try and track down her new friend's rapist, even though no one asked her to, because she couldn't bear to do nothing and pathologically had to solve everyone else's problems. This season? She's spinning her wheels trying to convince her husband not to leave her and doing almost nothing else. Last season, Renatta was losing her damn mind being one of the most powerful people in Monterey who STILL didn't have the power to protect her daughter at school. Watching her slow but steady breakdown as she failed again and again to solve this problem through sheer force of money and personality, was a thing of beauty. This season? She hasn't DONE anything. Her husband did something (because he's now cartoonishly evil I guess), and now she's just caught up in the consequences, basically watching it happen. What a waste of an amazing character. Last season, Bonnie was inexperienced as a parent of a teenager, struggling to be a stepmom to Abigail and navigate the complicated boundaries involved in their step-relationship. This season? She's been looking sad a lot and remembering things that happened last season. Last season, Jane was trying to start a new life, but also try to track down and confront her rapist while dealing with her fear that Ziggy might turn out like his father. This season? She's dating a piece of cardboard who respects her boundaries. I'd be tempted to say all the action has shifted over to the men, but that's not true either! Ed, Nathan, Jane's new boyfriend... none of them have DONE anything, and the only one who DID do something is Gordon, and he did it off-screen, so he's now a passive spectator to the consequences of his actions. Even Mary Louise hasn't really done much, besides petition for custody, but that took 5 episodes! ALL the urgency, action, mystery, intrigue... all the layers of character development, and the sticky explorations of complicated family dynamics, the relationships between parents and children (and children/children, parents/parents), the reason the show existed in the first place, it has all been unceremoniously dropped for... a very thin courtroom battle of laughable realism? My expectations could not be lower for the finale, and that is a real bummer after enjoying so much of what the first season set out to accomplish. This dull, pointless season has absolutely no vision, and as far as I'm concerned it has long missed its window to justify its existence.

I can understand him being irrationally angry, even violently so, but this was not just beating someone up. Threatening to slice off a finger is maiming, which is torture, and it is a whole other level of awful. (Not to imply that beating someone up is fine. One punch can kill a man, and TV's insistence on portraying extended violent beat-downs as standard good guy behavior that does no lasting harm is really irresponsible.) Compounding this is the fact that Hopper is supposed to be "a hero," AND the fact that he was there theoretically in his capacity as chief of police, which adds up to a major problem, and goes back to my point about media pervasively normalizing our cops and our "good guys" behaving like out-of-control violent lunatics, simply because they are in a bad mood, with no expectation that they control their emotions. Besides the fact that it's a well-worn trope, there is a direct link between lazy writing like this, and the general American disinterest in prosecuting those responsible for the CIA's torture program (many who participated/oversaw are still happily making bank in senior positions), or preventing the torture of people in detention facilities within the US today. Are our standards really so low that we will see behavior like this as acceptable, so long as the character doing it has been framed as a good guy? I'm not squeamish about violence or gore at all, but the way this scene was framed was really disturbing.

Yikes! As intense as that final show-down was, I didn't find it nearly as intense and upsetting as Hopper beating up the mayor. I find it EXTREMELY off-putting when characters we are supposed to root for as good guys resort immediately to violence and torture to get their way. Beating someone up and threatening to cut off their finger is not "badass" or "tough;" it is psychotic! Not that it would make any difference, but what even were the stakes? It's not end-of-the-world stuff (or at least they didn't know it was at the time), Hopper just wanted the name of the guy who beat him up, and he already had a vehicle type and partial plate to work from. Why go to such extremes? Especially on a guy we haven't seen be any more evil or corrupt than your standard politician? What the mayor did to Hopper (keeping secrets and threatening to get him fired) was not NEARLY as straight-up evil as what Hopper did to him, and yet we're supposed to uncritically accept Hopper as the hero? I see this trend in American TV and movies all the time, and it really freaks me out. It has been soundly proven that torture, as an interrogation technique, DOES NOT WORK. It results in people fabricating whatever the interrogator wants to hear in order to make it stop, and prevents them from thinking clearly enough to give honest information. Effective techniques play on rationality or emotions OTHER than stark mindless terror. But studies show that when torture is portrayed as working on TV or in movies, the general public is more likely to believe it does, and will see it as a "necessary evil." This is disingenuous and dangerous. Whenever I see the quick and easy torture solution get results in media, I wonder if the writers genuinely believe that's how it works, or if they are not creative enough to think of ANY alternative solution. This is so pervasive I wonder if American audiences even notice it's happening. You watch British and other foreign crime dramas, and see detectives use their exceptional intelligence to gather conclusive evidence by coloring extremely carefully inside the lines of their rules and regulations to avoid any whiff of impropriety, and lean on suspects with the certainty of their conviction in order to get them to crack (and man is that ever satisfying). Then you turn on American cop shows and see one "good guy" look the other way while the other "good guy" slams a suspect's head into a wall a few times until the "bad guy" agrees to talk. I know neither of these is a genuine representation of a cop's real-life job, but it speaks to what foreign audiences and American audiences WANT to see their "good guys" doing in fiction. What they think cops SHOULD be doing to solve cases. And it also informs what kind of people will be drawn to a job when it is portrayed in certain ways. Careful, analytical, ethical types, or violent bullies who will gladly break a few bones when convenient? I've had issues with this show before, generally about their gender and racial dynamics, but that scene genuinely disturbed me more than anything else it's done. Not just because it was vile, immoral, and unnecessary, but because it was portrayed so lightly and easily, like we were supposed to be cheering Hopper on or finding it fun. I beg you, writers, strain at least ONE brain cell thinking of ways for good guys to get information from other guys that does not involve maiming! How about look to the real world for ideas, rather than the same tired stereotypes designed to normalize a despicable practice?

Hi, friends! Guess what? I FINISHED THIS BOOK! I finished it this weekend, and while the middle was a terrible slog, I actually really enjoyed the final sections and the conclusion. Some parts were so moving, I even shed a few tears along the way. It took me an entire year to read it, and it was not easy going, but in the end, I don't regret it at all, and I'm glad I finally did it! (Guess I can die now!) I wanted to give my brain a break and read something dumb and trashy next, but I found myself basically immediately picking up Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy to re-read before the HBO Miniseries premiers. It's been years since I've read The Golden Compass, and I forgot how much it packs into its premise right in the first few chapters! There is so much to chew on, and it is such an enjoyable ride, I'm really glad I'm revisiting this one. Happy reading, fellow bookworms!

I don't care what sort of negative consequences it sets off, Jessica casually tossing that pathetic psycho around the mats in front of his cheering students was my EVERYTHING. "Guess I lose." BAM!

I think a rewatch will be very kind to Trish's arc throughout the series. She has ALWAYS had a slightly "off" perspective of Jessica's powers (and superpowers in general). Her drive to not be helpless, powerless, led her down a dark path, and I think that path was there from season 1. The through-line of the series is about trauma, abuse, and the cycle of violence. Jessica figured out how to break the cycle, accept what happened to her, and try to move forward. Trish never did. It doesn't mean they don't love each other, or that Trish was never a meaningful or worthwhile character - between the two sisters is a nuanced exploration of the lingering effects of trauma and helplessness, and the nature of power. I really enjoyed it. At the top of the hour, she was riding high on freedom from of her lawsuit, believing that Jeri had dug up dirt on Dominic and leveraged it against him. Forty-five minutes later, she'd been held hostage by the crazed psycho Jeri had sent to "solve" her problem by murdering it. What could be a clearer illustration of the fact that Jeri will never change, no matter how much BS she spouts about wanting to make things right? I am going to miss the hell out of this show, as imperfect as it was. I loved the way superpowers were present, but the real strength or weakness was in the psyche of whoever was wielding them. It kept the series very grounded and character-focused, and highlighted that Jessica's main foes were never really super powered villains that could be smashed into submission with super-strength, but real societal problems, like toxic masculinity, male entitlement, and the savage aftereffects of trauma. The fact that Veronica Mars is coming back helps a little, but really, no one else is telling stories quite like this, and losing JJ is a real blow.

There is no sum of money that could be equivalent to the 6-14 years of hell those boys endured, the years stolen from them. What strikes me the most about this story is its aftermath: More than one of the 5 used the money they were awarded to engage in advocacy and start foundations to help those who are in the same position they were. Meanwhile, the cops who were actually in the wrong have learned nothing, and Fairstein is WHINING like a BABY online about losing her publisher. (Truly, no one has ever endured more hardship than her.) It is such a mark of character that the ones most wronged are doing the hardest work to set things right. The only ones who ever learn anything from ordeals like this are the ones who never needed to. In a roundabout way, and stay with me here, this reminds me a bit of the anti-abolitionist argument that if the slaves were freed, they would immediately rise up and take brutal revenge on white people, so therefore slavery HAD to continue for the safety of the whites. That didn't happen - freed slaves mostly just wanted to build a life for themselves and find a way to be happy. But reasoning like this continues: "We can't release incarcerated people, even those convicted for low-level drug charges, because even if they weren't bad people when they went in, they sure will be after those years spent in prison, and we can't just let violent thugs loose on the streets". (Or how about, "We can't just 'believe women,' because then they could say anything and MEN will be in danger!") This sort of attitude and reasoning is never borne out by history, and says far more about the oppressors than the oppressed. They fear getting attacked because it's what THEY would do if the situation were reversed. Hell, it's what they already DID do. I see that pattern on full display here. Once again, the ones most victimized are showing the greatest strength of character, while those who were the most guilty are crying crocodile tears and slinging mud at their victims in an infantile attempt to protect their own hides. Yet SOMEHOW they still have all the power, and the only thing they're in real danger of losing is a job they were always unqualified for, and a publisher. Fuck this system all the way to hell.

Hmmm. I just finished the series, and I have some mixed thoughts. While I enjoyed the book "Good Omens," I didn't love it (the book) as much as I hoped to, given the authors involved. So, when I heard the series would lean heavily on the relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale, I was glad to hear it, because that really was the best thing about the book. And it worked brilliantly on screen. Sheen and Tennant were absolutely perfect, and every scene they had together genuinely delighted me. I do wish the other characters had had the chance to get a bit more development and get fleshed out into real people. Everyone was just kind of where they were, doing what they were doing, without much exploration into their inner life, or how they felt about it. What did Anathema want to do with her life that Agnes' prophecies were keeping her from? What was in Shadwell's background or upbringing that made him believe and behave the way he did? How did Madame Tracy feel about being a "Jezebel?" Was it something she did to pay the bills, or did she find it genuinely satisfying? Who are these people? The efffects were cheap-looking, some of the touches were too cheesy, and the characters and plot could have used more work... but some of it just WORKED for me despite that. Like the Queen soundtrack in Crowley's car. Sometimes, it was clearly what Crowley was listening to in the car, and other times it HAD to be the show's music cues because the car could not be playing the song at that moment, and it made no sense, and it was totally overdone and over the top, and I LOVED IT. But then there was the narration, and while I didn't mind Frances McDormond's reading of it, I found it REALLY confusing that she was supposed to be "God" objectively telling the story of how Heaven and Hell and humanity were struggling to interpret Her "ineffable plan" without actually making Herself a part of the story or speaking for Herself. The character of God and the narrator should have been two different entities, because combining them made no narrative sense. It was lacking in a lot of ways, and I have some criticism. On the other hand, Crowley/Aziraphale were so damned good that I think I might have actually found the miniseries even more enjoyable than the book! People are bringing up American Gods, and I think it's pretty clear between this show and that one that Gaiman is being a bit too controlling about his adaptations. I totally understand that no author wants to sign away the rights to their labour of love and watch a studio strip it, hollow it out, and mutilate it on the screen. However, I think that the best things about Gaiman's writing are the things that just don't translate to the screen. I love the worlds he creates, and the atmosphere. His prose is very absorbing and captivating... but the actual stories, the plots, never leave me on the edge of my seat desperate to find out what's going to happen next, or gasping aloud at a crazy twist I never saw coming. His plots, just the step-by-step progression of events from beginning to end, are, in my opinion, the weakest parts of his writing, and unfortunately they are the only part that can actually make it into a screen adaptation. If he won't let people more experienced in the visual medium make changes and explore the potential in what he has written, then adaptations of his work will always be lacking, and never really be showing off his work in the best light. (For example, the first season of American Gods made him look like a better writer because of its quality. The events did not follow the book particularly closely, but the atmosphere, the feeling, was there, and by straying off the path to explore the potential in the source material, Bryan Fuller made the source material seem richer. The quality was there, if not the exact story. Clawing the story back under control just ruined the whole endeavor.) The fact that a lot of what made the book enjoyable was Terry Pratchett's contributions, is a problem in the same way. Which is to say, the best qualities of Pratchett's writing are also difficult to translate to the screen! So, while there was a lot that was enjoyable here (and I really did enjoy it), I can't help but wonder what the series could have looked like with a stronger writing staff who were more willing to be bold and take big swings. Keep that sparkling Pratchett dialogue, and that immersive Gaiman world-building, and just go for it. But, in the absence of the series this could have been, I'll certainly take what it was!

I think this is sort of a chicken-and-egg situation. After all, the reason they want to challenge Roe is so they can enact laws like this. But what I find the most galling is ABSOLUTELY the way the men passing these laws have no understanding of how female biology actually works, how birth control works, or just what it's LIKE to be pregnant! What it's like to carry a life inside of you for 9 months, and the toll it takes on your body, mind, spirit, and entire way of life, to carry a pregnancy to term. Not to mention the horror of childbirth in a country with the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. For sure, there are a lot of anti-choice women out there, and I'm glad Sam doesn't shy away from calling them out. Yes, it's not as simple as "get more women in government" when the few women there are often cherry-picked for how little a threat they are to patriarchal rule. However, as Sam pointed out, all 25 of the "yes" votes for the Alabama bill were men. At least getting more women in government puts people in positions of power who understand how female bodies work, or have some personal experience with birth control, or who might be in a position to point out that, actually, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men, so maybe putting restrictions on women is not actually solving the problem? No one would expect the crusty old white dudes to listen, but simply speaking some things aloud can break a culture of willful ignorance, and put the indefensible on the defensive. Making government more diverse is not a solution in and of itself (of course, diversity of bodies but not of ideology gets us nowhere), but it's a hell of a good start.

I just finished the series. I agree that it was a bit too long, but I also kind of liked how involved it was. Not knowing anything about the case, it was interesting to be taken along for the ride of the investigation... what was done initially, how suspicion cycled through different suspects, what steps the McCann's took to protect their family and keep the investigation alive... then what came out later about the investigation and how it was possibly mismanaged, and what was turned up years later that hadn't been followed up on at the time. It's frustrating from a storytelling perspective, but absolutely true to life for how these things go. I LOVED that it highlighted a lot of the good that came from the case (not just that Portuguese detective losing his job, which couldn't happen soon enough), but the more stringent guidelines being put in place about what the tabloids can and can't say about private citizens, the other children that were found because of leads in this case, and I really appreciated that it didn't shy away from the reason so many children are abducted, and highlighting the efforts being made (or not made) to combat the rising.... ugh... "demand" for pedophilic material, or sexual access to children. It's a refreshing change from "We'll never know what happened to so-and-so" or a refusal to speculate. This is a problem that we have to acknowledge. We may not have to stare it directly in the eye (lest we all lose our souls), but we can't solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist. What I did NOT appreciate was the way it let some things drop without follow-up. Like the dogs. The trainer was exactly right when he said you can't put the dogs on the stand and ask them to explain exactly what they found: they only indicate where to look. So it seemed SUPER sketchy that dogs finding blood or cadaver scents in a RENTAL property, or RENTAL car, was seen as some sort of conclusive answer to what had happened to Maddy. People die on vacation. People use rental cars for shady shit. Even if the dogs were accurate, why did the authorities think this was related to Maddy? Did anyone ask if the resort have any record of a guest ever passing away in that room? What was the record of those dogs before and after this case? How accurate have they proven themselves to be in retrospect? And OF COURSE Maddy's DNA was going to be found in her parents' car (I was actually surprised it wasn't conclusive). I don't have a 3-year-old, but even I know they are DNA MACHINES! Her DNA was going to be on everything they owned, even months later, because no toddler can ever keep their fluids to themselves. Mom carried that stuffed toy around everywhere after the disappearance. How much drool and snot do you think was on it? I can understand the cadaver dog reacting to the mom's clothes being something of a "woah" moment, but didn't it also react to the spot beside her bed where a suitcase probably would have been kept? (And a part of the car where a suitcase would have been kept?) If a previous guest died on that bed, I feel like that would explain ALL that evidence more sensibly than this ridiculous "she hid the body and used the rental car to dispose of it 25 days later in the middle of a media circus somehow" theory. I would have liked some closer interrogation of the assumptions made by investigators and the press here. This is so true. And Maddy's case is about the most privileged it can possibly be. There was a ton of media attention, she was blonde and white and adorable, had parents with the time and resources to devote their lives to finding her... Not only that, but they had a MILLIONAIRE bankrolling their efforts and hiring PI's and PR reps, and following every single lead, and ensuring that the pressure stayed on in the public consciousness to find her... And how many years went by without one single police department actively investigating this case? With all the media attention, public pressure, lawsuits... no one in a position of authority was doing a damn thing. If Maddy, the most privileged case I've ever seen, gets absolute zero from the two police departments who should have been engaged in finding her, imagine what chance those kids have who don't come from such advantageous backgrounds. Overall, without knowing all the details of the case, I thought this was fair and well done, and I'm really glad I watched it, as upsetting as it all was.

Yay, Ann Dowd! Always so great to see her, even though her role on The Handmaid's Tale has been branded so indelibly in my mind that when she pops up in other places, it always seems somehow menacing... Fortunately, that doesn't override my happiness that she's there! Some good stuff going on in this episode. I agree with the poster upthread who said this season hasn't been quite as strong as the first. There have been enough solid episodes to keep me on board, but I'm a bit disappointed to see the show leaning in to some of the things I liked least about the first season. I know it's just a matter of preference, not quality, but I'm never really a fan of using cruelty as a source of humour. It just never makes me laugh. I think Amy is at her best when she is good-natured, but out of her depth dealing with the absurdity of the wacky characters around her (Like when she's trying desperately to carry on a cheerful, pleasant conversation with the knife guy, and his every response just gets darker and creepier), rather than when she's unfairly berating her underlings or acting nastily egotistical. I'm disappointed to see that Amy's mean streak is getting a bit more play this season - it really kills the comedy for me, and it makes it hard to figure out how we're supposed to feel about Amy as a character. Chassie Tucker's been off this season, too. I simply don't see the humour in having her come in, act openly resentful or hostile about being there, and then leave. What's the joke? I'm glad, though, to see her getting a bit more to do these past few episodes, which will hopefully help to give her character some more clearly defined sense of purpose. (By the way, am I overthinking things, or is her name a joke on the fact that her character is played by a man? Given that a "chassis" is a sort of undercarriage or foundational structure of a vehicle, does this mean that Chassie Tucker is someone who... tucks? Her... undercarriage?)

Wow. I just watched that Living with Michael Jackson documentary, and holy hell. Not that I didn't already 100% believe the accusations, but his comments on children were really quite damning. And the way he and Gavin were leaning on each other and holding hands in that interview... it was really chilling. What's more, and I almost can't BELIEVE this hasn't been brought up previously in this thread, but in that documentary, he denied anything inappropriate happening with children in EXACTLY the same awkward, emphatic, mounting hyperbole way of speaking that he used IN THE SAME INTERVIEW to deny that he'd had ANY cosmetic surgery or other work done to change his appearance (apart from his nose so he could breathe more easily while singing), and that his change of skin colour and entire facial structure had been the result of... puberty. In his 20s. (But he hadn't really changed that much, that's just "ignorance." 🙄) How could anyone find his word on ANYTHING credible after that? It was actually eerily reminiscent of listening to Trump talk about his crowd size. Dude, we can see it with our eyes. I was a young teenager when all this went down with MJ, and I wasn't familiar with the case or really with his music, but I do remember feeling profoundly affected when he died. His was the only celebrity death that really hit me, and I barely knew anything about him. The problem was, I think the public didn't quite believe he was innocent of the molestation charges, and couldn't quite embrace him fully... but also didn't quite believe he was guilty, and couldn't really condemn him. So the world was living in this weird grey area, where the only thing we could figure to do was to ridicule him for his appearance and turn him into a figure of public mockery. Nowadays, we tend to be a bit more sensitive to body dysmorphia than in the past. For example, most people know now that if someone is suffering from anorexia, the worst thing you can do is tell them they're too skinny... they don't need to reinforce the idea that their body is wrong and they need to change it, this only makes the problem worse. But in the 90's it became almost a trend to joke about models and actresses needing to "eat a sandwich" as some sort of fucked up way of combating eating disorders. My impression, when MJ died, was that he had been mocked, ridiculed (seriously, I remember some of those comedy bits, and they were savage), and driven deeper into the grips of the personal, psychological issues that had caused him to alter his appearance and behave so eccentrically. In a way, I felt like the world mourned him so affectionately because we were afraid WE had killed him, and we had never, and would never, get closure on the accusations against him, or be able to see him come back from the brutal treatment he'd received from the media, and it really kind of felt like we had ridiculed this sensitive, damaged man until he retreated into an addiction that killed him. This hit me hard at the time. I have a great deal of empathy for the suffering MJ went through as a child, and the suffering he went through later in life as a cultural punching bag, but it is absolutely crystal clear to me that he sexually abused those children, and got away with it through sheer starpower. He needed help as a child when he was being abused, and people were too enamoured with his talent to do anything. He needed help at so many points in his life (including help with his impulses to engage in sex acts with children), and everyone who could or should have intervened decided to bury their heads in the sand and just enjoy his music. It's too late for Michael, but we can still intervene to help his victims, by believing them, by not ignoring what happened to them and blindly venerating "The King of Pop," and by giving them the space and respect to heal in their own way, in their own time. We can let others who may have potentially been victims control their own narrative, rather than rampantly speculating and hounding them about what may or may not have happened. We can watch for the signs of grooming, especially when we see red flags with celebrities, and we can remind ourselves that no one's talent is greater than another person's life. If the documentary made anything clear, I hope it's that. So much love for James and Wade, who showed incredible strength coming forward. I hope they inspire others to do the same, even if only to themselves or their loved ones.

And I'll confess that I did not read every word Moby Dick had to say about sperm! 😉 Thanks for the words of discouragement! I am determined to finish, but I know it is crazy. When I started Ulysses, I didn't tell anyone I was reading it, A: Because it's impossible to say the words "I'm reading Ulysses" out loud and not sound like an asshole, and B: I wanted to read it for the pleasure of experiencing the so-called greatest work of English literature, and not for some empty reason like bragging rights. But now that I'm this far in, I'm seeing how much of an achievement just finishing this book really is! Like running a marathon - regardless of what I thought or felt along the way, I deserve a T-shirt just for reaching the end, damn it! Those bragging rights are starting to look pretty appealing. I understand Finnegan's Wake is even worse for that. Joyce really did love his nonsense! I love The Dubliners so much, learning about (and experiencing) his novels is a hard pill to swallow. There exists a photo of me affectionately cuddling the statue of Joyce in Dublin. I may burn that picture before this book is done! It's a... ugh... "comedy," supposedly, covering one full day in Dublin (mostly one specific person's day, with a few other POVs), and everything that happens to the main character over the course of the day is intended to mirror or parody a chapter of the epic journey of Odysseus. I can't say it's not brilliant, but I can say it's extremely frustrating. I'm doing it, though! I've come too far to give up now!

Whew. Well, friends, ever since I saw it listed as #1 on a list of greatest works of English literature back in high school, it has been my personal goal to read James Joyce's Ulysses before I die. I'm not intimidated by big books, and I've studied a lot of classic literature (I didn't major in English Lit, but it was close). I'm 35, so I've had this goal awhile, and I recently finished Infinite Jest, so I felt ready to take on a new challenge, and I decided to give it a go. Man, oh, man, this book is unlike anything I've ever seen before. I realized right away that it is not the kind of book you just "read." I did a bit of research, and now I'm reading Ulysses in one hand (a 700 page book, thankfully on my Kobo), a book of annotations in the other (another 700 page book, thankfully on my phone), and the SparkNotes summary/analysis of each section cued up on my browser. Yep, reading this book in any meaningful way means reading 3 books at once. I am committed to finishing this book before I die, even if I have to live another hundred years to do it! Seriously, I can see why this is the book with one of the lowest reader completion rates... it's hard to keep going! Each section is long and difficult, punctuated by flashes of brilliance that make it worthwhile, but depending on the section, those flashes can be very far apart. Each section is written in a unique style. Some are beautiful, poetic, and absolutely a delight to read, and others are a completely interminable, impenetrable slog. The delight one feels in finally finishing a section is matched only by the dread of beginning the next. I've been reading it for months and I'm about a third of the way through. I'm not letting myself read anything else until I finish this, because I know if I start another book for casual reading, I'll get distracted and never pick up Ulysses again, so of course, all I want to do now is read something else! But I'm gonna do it. I'm going to finish this book! Has anyone else climbed this mountain? Any words of wisdom for me?

I wasn't really a fan of ANY of the songs this year, but I will speak up in defense of "poor" performances. Yes, Jennifer Hudson and Bradley Cooper, and perhaps others, did not sound their best, but they were performing live under stressful conditions... We don't realize how many performances we see (even at live concerts & events) that are pre-recorded to perfection and lip-synced or artificially enhanced (like Mariah's high notes during that New Years debacle). Hearing someone sing in a way that is natural and not produced or touched-up in studio is always going to sound rough compared to the way we are used to hearing those songs. Kudos to them for doing it the scary way. The Best Picture win was thoroughly disappointing, but I agree with others that it often is. For my money, a "Best Picture"-calibre film leaves me walking out of the theatre feeling impressed by what was accomplished, like my horizons and preconceptions about what cinema can be, and what depth or nuance of stories it can tell, have been expanded. Films that I maybe thoroughly enjoyed, but that leave me thinking more about what I WISH had happened, or what could have been improved, are not Oscar-worthy in my mind. This year, The Favourite, Black Panther, and Roma were the nominees that wowed me (First Reformed actually hit that same button, and I'm amazed it wasn't nominated considering what was). BlacKkKlansman really impressed me, but I had a few issues with it. Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody I had a LOT of issues with, even though I enjoyed both films. I think more often than not, an enjoyable film I have notes for wins BP over something that truly dazzled me, sorry that this year fit the pattern. I am glad Alfonso Cuaron won best director, even though it was from a selection of STILL all-male nominees (there were several female directors who had films nominated for Oscars this year, but none of them for best director. Hmm.) And I'm happy for Ali, but I was pulling for Adam Driver in the supporting actor category. He never seems to get the recognition he deserves. I thought best lead actress was Glenn Close's for sure, but I'm glad it was Olivia Coleman she lost to, as her performance was very deserving. Overall, a pretty unremarkable ceremony.

Hi there! When I go to "Manage Followed Content" in my account, I can only see the topics I follow, not the forums. When I click on the "forums" button, I get this screen: Sorry, there is a problem Something went wrong. Please try again. Error code: EX1054 (I'm using Firefox on Windows 10, and I use a Javascript blocker, but even when it's disabled the problem persists. Any suggestions?)