annlaw78

I thought the mom was being obnoxious to call Sarah out like that and make a big deal about it (and attacking Sarah's parenting AND the product of it, Amber, which is just nasty). I just mean while there are some shows I may let my (imaginary) teen daughter watch with her friends, I don't think I'd necessarily want to watch it with her. Like how I still leave the room when sex scenes come on when I'm watching something with my parents, even though I'm fully grown. It's just... awkward.

Ugh, Max was terribles, and I could feel for Amber's fear -- what if I have a Max? She's been in lalal land of cute, sweet, pink, cooing babies, without thinking that she's going to be responsible for raising, disciplining, and shaping a person into an adult -- and that person could have challenges. Or, just be a little jerk. The rest of it, though, Sarah was right -- Amber had planned too much, taking two kids (one being Max) to Alcatraz is a big day. The idea that Amber couldn't find the keys was silly -- check your bag, dodo. Was the car just unlocked all night? I don't get the whole "Joel needs to fight for his marriage" -- I think he's done that several times already this season. Fast Times is pretty racy. I mean, what's Judge Reinhold's character doing when Phoebe Cates is coming out of the pool (I think I"m remembering correctly)? Though it does have a good message that rushing into sex just to have sex is not satisfying, and there's nothing wrong with dating the nice boy and taking it slow. It's not something I watched with my parents! Seriously -- don't answer the phone for Drew, when you know he has to study and doesn't have time to gallivant off with Zeke. If something is happening to his grandfather, his mother will call. Zeke's not going to call Drew in a medical emergency. That said, hopefully Drew has learned to be less passive/passive-aggressive. If he has to study, his family (and friends, NATALIE) need to respect that. Don't give in to pressure to abandon necessary study plans -- be firm and get what you need done done so you have a GPA that renders you employable for your $50k a year education. But don't blow up at Zeke -- that was rude (especially the surly "just get in the car," given Zeke gave him the car!).

I think Drew's point is he wants to be employable in two years, not eight or more down the road after further schooling (and loans). I know plenty of people with business/finance/managerial science degrees who leapt immediately into consulting or the crazy (but remunerative) life of investment banking. A Russian lit degree, that his GF was suggesting? Not so much. Sure, he could go to law school and apply his general writing, comprehension, and analysis skills to that, but I don't think he wants that. And, really, unless you get an MD, a PhD in the sciences sadly is not very remunerative -- takes a long time to get your PhD, and then you're stuck in crap-paying post-docs for years.

Y'all in the UK need to DISH about what happens in the premiere!

Money on Parenthood is always dealt with rather haphazardly. Characters careen from financial ruin to opening up new businesses and paying out-of-pocket for Ivy League schools and semesters abroad to bouncing checks and not being able to afford car maintenance. Camille and Zeke "downsized" to a four-storey Victorian in the City. Julia and Joel were able to afford two households on Joel's construction draws alone. Jasmine and Crosby laughed off having to pay for mold remediation without insurance help. Amber lives this hip SF lifestyle on what I can only imagine is less than $40k a year salary, and no roommates. Drew borrows for room and board, rather than commute. This show would make a lot more sense if it were set, as the original movie was (I think) more in middle-America. And, even then, I recall the Amber-character and her husband lived with the Sarah-character. And the Crosby-character and his son moved in with his parents for a time. I've never met such a bunch of middle-aged "screw-ups," as Crosby and Sarah call themselves, which such impressive property portfolios.

I thought Sarah's reaction was fine, too. My impression was when Sarah became pregnant with Amber, things with Seth were rocky, but they were together and in young love, and I think married. Seth may not have been a great provider, or always there to help with the diapers and feeding, but he wasn't 1) completely absent, 2) suffering from severe mental illness, and 3) not providing any financial support. I don't think Seth's substance issues come to a head until later. So, yes, in retrospect, Seth was a terrible choice for Sarah to hitch her wagon to, but in the beginning, it wasn't quite as dire as what Amber's facing.

Yeah, she was belly-cupping like a pro. I realize I've been kind of hard on the Amber character, but I think it's because the character is just drawn so improbably. I can't imagine she's ever earned enough at the jobs she's had to have her own large apartment in the City, with no roommate, let alone the upkeep/insurance/parking on a car. It would make much more sense, now that's she's expecting a baby, to move in with Sarah or even Zeke and Camille, or for her and Drew to share a place. Forget about stressing about not being able to afford automatically collapsing strollers -- that's the least of her concerns. I think Sarah would be more involved, if Amber didn't immediately take any practical advice from Sarah as an attack and criticism. Kristina is obviously not interested in any child other than Max. Jasmine hasn't been shown to have much of a relationship with Amber, though she'd probably be able to give the best advice, as she was pretty much in Amber's shoes herself in raising Jabbar. You'd think Julia, who was so baby crazy a couple of seasons back she went out and adopted a 12-year old, would be more involved, but I guess she's pretty involved with NotJoel right now. What Amber really needs is a partner to help with the demands of a newborn, and money to pay for basic necessities, and those aren't really things anyone in her family can give her. Drew's realizing this, and growing up quickly.

I realize this show isn't a workplace drama, and focused on The Luncheonette, but, geez, the Next Big Act is not going to just land in their laps. They need to be cultivating relationships, which I suppose we're need to assume is happening off-camera. But all I ever see is Crosby and Adam hanging around drinking beers in the office. I appreciate that Nepotist Extraordinaire Amber realizes now she needs to be making more coin, but she can't seriously think that she makes a contribution to The Luncheonette... which has been a ghost town for months, we're to believe. As others have said upthread, if she were really so "tuned in" to the business (pun!), she would have seen the writing on the wall. No recording = no income = depleted savings = no salary. Her attitude only solidifies that she's a complete flake about the business: I need more money b/c I'm in the family way, and despite the obvious decline of the business, I'm going to hit my uncles up for a raise because The Luncheonette exists to produce paychecks for me, and not, you know, music. I guess she's going to expect a full paycheck during her maternity leave? What is she going to do for childcare?

I'm glad that Drew has learned that college isn't necessarily just a giant, adulthood-postponing party, but rather is supposed to be preparation for a productive life. So glad Crosby shut down Adam's "oh, follow your dreams" nonsense, and Drew told WhatsHerName off about the reality of his life -- he's the only one in his little branch of the family tree that is in a position to be financially successful enough to "help" the others, who likely will need help from time to time. And he's not resentful of that, but wants to be able to do that. I was worried about Drew's maturity after his stupid "hey, you'll be needing your bong and vodka back in a few months" comment to Amber -- umm, no. Her life as she knows it, of being carefree and being able to get drunk or high on a random Tuesday night are over. If she's breastfeeding, she's off the sauce. And she can't be drunk or high and be the only one watching a toddler. I was so incredibly annoyed by Kristina. It was obvious that Dylan must have absentee parents or something, and being at the Bravermans filled some sort of void. Maybe, for a change, Kristina could think about a child OTHER than Max, and realize that maybe Dylan was lonely and was in need of some help, too. That confrontation of Dylan was totally uncalled for; at least it ended well. You'd think Kristina would realize it was a GOOD thing for Max to have someone who could tell him "no" or "not now," without Max's flipping out. Anyway, I didn't find the Dylan plot all that odd. My house in high school was always where my friends all gathered, and some would just want to hang out all weekend, just because their own home lives were not great. I thought she was Michael Jackson's daughter.

Yeah, that's ridiculous, especially since has the show even caught up to 2014 yet, or is it still lagging somewhere years behind? So, someone born in 1983 is going to be the head of the Cardiothoracic Department at a major research hospital? Also, that would mean Meredith was born in 1978... riiiiiight!

I've noticed the past couple of eps -- there is a really strong resemblance b/w Zeke and Joel, and Joel even has some of the same mannerisms, ways of speaking. Freaky -- Julia married her dad! I know the ring stuff was supposed to be romantic, but come on, Zeke and Camille. Y'all are smart enough to know that if they need to take Zeke in to radiology in a hurry, they don't need to be worried about taking jewelry off him. I was so distracted by Amber's crossing state lines with her brother apparently sans-bra. That whole storyline sucked. To just drop in on Ryan like that was a pretty crappy thing to do. He had a point: it's not exactly fair of Amber to say he doesn't have his paternal act together when he just learned he was a father two minutes ago. Drew's also right -- in all likelihood, Ryan is never going to be dad material. But Amber's handling of the situation wasn't optimal. I'm not sure what, exactly, qualifies her to be super-judgy about parental qualifications, as she doesn't exactly have it all figured out or all together, either.

Why is Mer being portrayed as the wicked witch? What was with Jo's ridiculous, professionally fluffed side ponytail? She's a surgeon, not a Wakefield twin. How did Maggie's parents not think the singing telegram would be undermining and embarrassing? Why are surgeons doing genetic tests? I don't get that -- isn't that what, you know, geneticists do?

I think she initially does acquiesce, then realizes she'd made a terrible mistake [/GOB] (Seriously, I can't make a post tonight without including a quote from some other entertainment product).

I especially liked the decision to try to imbue the line "if I need guidance, I'll ask" with some confidence, rather than what I assumed when I read the book was more of a joke. The previous joke about one of them knowing what they're doing aside, he wanted Claire, in the moment, to think he was manly and whatnot. That's why it was a bit disjointed and disappointing to see Jamie seem more like a lovesick puppy than an equal/partner this past ep, and I can't really see how THAT GUY transforms into someone who thinks he's entitled to corporally punish Claire. Rapeville -- to quote Karen from "Will and Grace," it's funny b/c it's true. Nothing's been developed between Claire and Jamie that would lead me to believe she'd acquiesce to being punished by him. I'd expect ShowClaire to blurt out that she's from 1945, the concept of his punishing her is insane, and she hates Jamie and his a** face. Right now, Jamie and Claire's marriage is just about convenience, with sporadic nookie (interrupted by arrows, rapists, Rupert/Angus trying to sneak a peek), and Claire's not so young or inexperienced that she's going to put up with being beaten, or "submit to her husband" because the sex is good.

Yeah, that's my recollection of the BookFrank and BookHoneymoon -- Frank really just wanted to dig around in the dusty archives and wasn't exactly attentive to Claire or all that interested in reconnecting with her. The honeymoon for Claire was about reconnecting, but for Frank, it was a research trip. I think the Frank scene at the stones would have been just as powerful -- perhaps more so -- if the episode hadn't been so Frank-heavy to begin with. By the time that scene came around, I had serious Frank-fatigue, and really just wanted to cut back to the action in 1743. I don't see Heughan as a weak link, acting-wise -- in fact, I think the show is somewhat banking on Heughan's "like-ability" factor in his portrayal of Jamie to fill in a lot of holes/blanks with the Jamie character. Jamie comes across as so earnest, gallant, affable, etc., and casts such a long shadow in an ep, it's rather shocking when you actually tally up his screen time. It's not all that much.

I think that they probably should have broken the season up unevenly, giving 10 eps to the first half, and six to the back half. I have really no complaints about the pacing of eps 1-7 (though I think there should have been the inclusion of a bit more rapport/friendship-building between Claire and Jamie). I think the post-wedding period, leading up to Jamie's appearance in the window of Fort William, should have had some more screen time. I don't need to see Claire and Jamie shagging all over the Highlands, but some scenes of them talking, of Jamie not acting like a lovestruck puppy dog/teenager, would have laid the groundwork for him actually being seen as an equal/mate/partner for Claire. It would have been nice for them to have built a foundation of their young marriage on some pleasant events, without having every interaction interrupted by violence/threats. And I don't think Jamie's anger at Claire following his springing her from Fort William is going to play well, with the limited relationship we've seen between them, and her rape/near-rape.

I agree, Absnow. I always got the feeling that Claire and Frank had grown apart during the war. They each had his/her own experience during the war, vastly different. I think some of the Frank stuff, making him more "action man" rather than "scholarly professor" serves to muddy the difference between him and the Highlanders. I got a sense from the book (the parts I read) that there was a certain amount of excitement that Claire thrived on during the War, and life as a wife-and-womb for Frank maybe was not going to meet her newfound expectations.

When was the Jamie ep? I feel he is most woefully underdeveloped, which is a shame. To quote the great Aurora Greenway, "pretty isn't everything." We need to know more about him, rather than the broad strokes we've gotten so far (Chivalrous! Brave! Gallant! Dreamy! Human Golden Retriever!).

Best wishes for a swift, complication-free, and comfortable recuperation!

I agree -- this is a show that dedicated an entire episode to the developing sexual/romantic relationship between the two leads (ostensible leads -- poor Jamie is still mostly a side character) over the course of their wedding night. A forced wedding night, no less, because of Reasons and Plot, I mean, because of totally internally consistent legal and political reasons that weren't proven to be completely fallacious the very next episode. I like the show, but I like it as what it is. It doesn't need to throw in rapes, assaults, etc. to be "Game of Thrones"-lite. I can't for the life of me understand the change in tone from The Wedding, which was leisurely, lovely, and charming, to Both Sides Now, which was disjointed, rushed, distracted, and nasty. As one poster noted, Jamie-Claire scenes were few, and each interrupted with violence, and then an abrupt cut to Frank.

I think women just had sanitary belts (like garter belts -- women's underthings were like tap pants) and sanitary napkins that you had to WASH and REUSE, argh! The Cazalet Chronicles, set in that time period (great series about one family during WWII, especially women) had a rather fascinating (and obviously, memory-searing) paragraph about that. I just read the spanking section in the book. I get Jamie's supposed to be a man from a different time and all, but I'm still troubled and grossed out by his entirely high-handed, domineering, and condescending speech to Claire, let alone the physical abuse. Frankly, it makes me query whether Claire is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

And I was spanked as a child in the 80s, yet I would never accept the proposition that an adult man has the right to physically discipline me. Obviously a parent spanking a small child and a husband spanking his wife are two very different things.

Well then maybe he needs to be strong, show some leadership qualities, and tell his comrades that he's not "disciplining" his wife, given what's she's been through, and they can just piss off. I get what you're saying, that the Jamie character would purportedly think spaniking is totally legit. But even were we to assume all men back then believed they had the right to physically discipline and dominate their wives (and I don't think that's historically true), surely given what he knows that Claire has been through/suffered, he would not think THIS would be a good time to pin her down, raise her skirts, and beat her. I'm fairly familiar with that historical time period, though granted more as it relates to the ruling class, and this is really the first time I've heard of a systemic expectation and rigid protocol for husbands using corporal punishment on their wives. I don't necessarily take this as gospel. A d the "rule of thumb" thing is an urban legend, though, yes, he olden laws did allow husbands to "discipline" wives. I've just never encountered a historical precedent to this scene.

I love that suggestion! It's going to be quite tonally "off" (and character-assassinating) in having Jamie not stand up for his wife, thinking as he does she's been raped at least once, and very nearly another time. Both of which he witnessed. For him to ever put his hands on her, ever force her physically -- there's just no way they can make that palatable to the show's audience, coming as it does immediately after our seeing our heroine's skirts raised and body bared violently at the hands of others.

To be fair to Jamie, they were BOTH satisfying THEIR sexual desires. Claire has been established as a sexual being, not just some passive partner who has to close her eyes and think of England while fulfilling her wifely duties. She was fully enjoying herself and glad to have snuck away with Jamie, up until she wasn't.I get the idea that she's a basket full of raw emotions after what I perceive was a rape, albeit a perfunctory one (sorry, show, I'm going to go by what is shown, not what people say in interviews). And I do understand that those we're closest to may bear the brunt of our emotional upheaval at times. What I don't get is how or why, after what Jamie clearly thought was a traumatic rape, he's just leaving her. It's just too disjointed, and there was enough going on in the "honeymoon" period that all the cuts to Frank were a disservice to developing all that was happening with Claire and Jamie.