Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by BrindaWalsh

  1. I think they also need to consider the 4 gymnast rule and how they score.  And somebody please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of either:

    I've long said that the scoring is messed up - somebody as good as Simone can basically fall and still win gold because the degree of difficulty is so high. And as good as somebody like Simone may be, I've never agreed with that because it just seemed odd.  If I fall in competition, how am I on top of the medal podium next to somebody who is flawless, but had one less half twist or whatever?  But there's another side to that.  If people are noticing that somebody is starting to struggle, which now everybody claims they did (grain of salt there, but okay), but they knew that "hey, it's Simone, she'll pull it together, plus we even have some wiggle room because she can mess it up and we'll still come out on top, it's okay!" then there's something fundamentally wrong there.  If puts additional pressure on an already struggling gymnast and adds to the toxic environment of gold at all costs (if Simone hadn't advocated for herself, would she have been pulled out?  Imagine if she hadn't...).  For comparison - Vanessa Atler did not go to Sydney and in her case it was the mental games and they knew she couldn't do it on the world stage of the Olympics and in what was honestly a somewhat weaker quad, it was probably okay.  But if Vanessa had the talent of Simone, the current scoring system...I'm willing to be money that she would have been on that Sydney team and it would have been a horror show.  

    Which then brings me to the team of 4, 3 up, 3 scores count.  The team is too small, period.  For all the "it gives other countries a chance" talk, there are other ways to structure that opportunity without putting the pressure on the smaller team.  I'd love to see them go back to 7, or even 6.  7 and top 4 scores count, drop the bottom 3 or something.  Expand the AA or some such thing.  This 4 person team makes no sense at all and only creates a more cut-throat environment, not a better opportunity.  At least not from where I'm sitting.  

    Simone stepping down is probably the goatiest thing a GOAT could do for so many reasons.  I LOVE the support she is getting from the athletic community, it's amazing. 

    • Like 7
  2. AA selection is only based on performance in the qualifying round.  I remember this being a big point of discussion when Aly beat Jordan, everybody kept hammering home that unless Aly or Gabby dropped out or were pulled for "injury", there was no way to get Jordan in there even though she placed easily in the top 8 because of the 2 gymnast rule.  The team final doesn't impact who goes to AA at all. 

    • Like 1
  3. 5 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

    Reading these posts have made me see the Wolf turns so differently.  Now every time I see one, I roll my eyes.  Especially in floor routines…come on. 

    My least favorite gymnastics move is the weird lay on your back, put your legs in the air on the Floor.  They look like my four year old having a tantrum lol.  Give me some leaps ANYDAY!

    My least favorite is the weird side ariel with bent legs on the beam (I don't know the official name).  We hear all about clean lines, straight legs, pointed toes, yet somehow we have this clunky thing that looks like a mistake.

    Speaking of the beam, the Russian who fell, her mount and leap series was beautiful. 

    • Like 6
  4. I have never understood wolf turns.  Are the arms supposed to do something specific?  I feel like everybody waves their arms around differently.

    • Like 3

    53 minutes ago, AuntieDiane6 said:

    So?  I don't mind.  I would do the same thing if I was directing the show.  Explain what happened.  Everyone watching isn't an insider.  Most viewers have had no idea exactly what happened. I loved hearing the team cheering everyone on... 

    But that's not what they did, at least not IMO.  The switch is really clear - they lead up to her vault, without real explanation but instead false "prediction," then switch back to the original commentary where you can tell that they are somewhat stunned and confused by what was going on.  Yes, they can draw on past examples of the mental game and pressure gone wrong in the olympic games and draw conclusions about what happened, but they were quite finite in their mental game analysis, the "lost in the air" statements, the Simone blooper reel, the warmup predictions, etc.  Then they switch to "what's happening?" and "here is what usag says, a health issue" and "I texted the coach, it is not physical."  

    NBC can do what they want, it just feels gross.  

    Team USA was amazing.  After all the upheaval of the past years, after a pandemic -- they WON silver.  Go USA.  And I love the sportsmanship between all of the athletes.  I remember the Kim Zmeskal/Svetlana Boginskaya cold war, stretching their splits and deliberately ignoring each other in their own HBIC ways.  


    • Like 11
  6. Will we see anybody other than the Americans and ROC?  

    I don't get how NBC is so short sighted when planning their coverage.  And they wonder why viewership is down.

    This is the Olympics.  Every 4 years, the greatest athletes in the world.  Let us see them.  It is part of the fun and the culture and purpose of the games.

    I love gymnastics.  I will cheer on team USA every day.  And I want to see other countries.  I assume I am not alone in that.

    • Like 21
  7. 4 minutes ago, Jenniferbug said:

    The nighttime commentary is very disingenuous. Acting like they saw this breakdown coming from months away, after hyping her up and calling the gold a lock with Simone on the team. 

    They re-recorded.  I'm convinced.  And they switched to their original commentary just a minute ago where they are expressing confusion over rules, will she stay on the floor, etc.

    • Like 6
    • Sad 1
  8. Wtf NBC?

    Did they go back and re-record the commentary?  That montage of her recent slips, Tim and his "lost in tbe air" comment.

    It is like in their effort to "explain," they are rooting for her to fail.

    She looks devastated.  


    • Like 7
    • Sad 1
  9. This show lacks everything that the OG had.

    The original show, especially season 1, was bright.  It had energy, fun, frivolity and dare I say it, charm.  This is just drab, unlikeable, and lacks any spirit whatsoever.

    In other words, they are trying WAY too hard to be...well, I don't actually know what they are trying to be.


    • Like 2
  10. On 6/23/2021 at 3:13 AM, Chalby said:

    I really liked Jackie and will miss her. What did Jackie bring to the show...? She's rich; the only Jewish woman on the cast; a writer; she's very intelligent, and she confronts people on their lies and/or bad behaviour. I believe Teresa doubled down on her attacks because she didn't like that Jackie was, and had attained, everything Teresa wanted, but will never achieve.

    "You will miss her" - is she leaving the show?

    Teresa would never tolerate sexual harassment in the workpalce but she tolerated Joe Giudice calling her a c*nt on national television, telling her he never wanted to marry her and got rid of her on national television, telling her to shut up more times than I can count.  But nobody would dare to harrass her because she wouldn't tolerate it.  Oooookkkaaayyy.

    Luis is skeevy and slimy looking.  That said, so is Tre a lot of the time. So they do match in that regard. Tre said on the reunion that he had watched every episode.  Of course he knew exactly who she was and her story.  He may not need her money but that doesn't mean he isn't an opportunistic sleaze.  


    • Like 4
  11. Once again, somebody gave the writers room a copy of Daughter's of Eve.  I think they had a similar revenge scene in the woods, although not ending in death because it was a tween/teen novel afterall.  

    I get why the went the route they did in terms of the revenge killing of Fred, but I kind of rolled my eyes a bit.  I actually thought, when June and Fred were having a drink, that she was going to slip him some of the poison that she used earlier in the season - dump it into the whole bottle to kill him the next time he goes to have a drink.  I was ridiculously tense during that scene.  Instead I found myself rolling my eyes at June somehow manufacturing this entire thing in 24 hours, right down to her kissing Nick in the woods.  Not because I don't think Fred deserves it.  But because I don't know that I buy that June has that much influence or that her alliances are that strong. 

    As for the final scene with Luke, we know from The Testaments that: 


    June becomes a full blown freedom fighter/terrorist depending on your POV

    So while we didn't have an explicit conversation where Luke asks June to take a more peaceful, play by the rules route and she instead decides that her commitment is 100% to revenge and hurting Gilead, and will sacrifice everything else to do so, I think that's what they were getting at.    But my issue with this is that Luke is choosing the life that June delivered to him - NOT one he chose or created for himself.  Let's not forget that he's raising the child that she insists was born out of love with another man.  Moira has come out and said that she wouldn't have chosen that life, that she did so out of guilt.  Did Luke really have any choices there about raising Nicole?  On paper yes, in reality, not so much.  So why does June get to decide to abandon her role as Nicole's mother, when Luke isn't her father and never had a choice to become one to Nicole?  Because he got out and she didn't?  

    I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, and again, given what I know about the future of June, at least as far as the Testaments go, this falls right in line with what happens down the line.  But the steps for June to get her justice, do it her way, make her point, whatever it may be, just creates more victims along the way.  

    Can somebody please explain Lawrence to me?  I just. don't. get. him.

    • Like 13
  12. Quote

    I find myself wondering why Nick didn’t take that chance to escape to Canada? Why does he want to stay in Gilead?

    I'm not sure Nick necessarily wants to defect.  As others have said, he's essentially a war criminal.  However, pre-Gilead Nick was "a loser."  Couldn't keep a job, wasn't respected, short tempered, a nobody.  Gilead Nick IS somebody. He is respected, trusted, and whether it is warranted or not, he has power -- even if he doesn't agree with certain aspects of Gilead (and people can justify a lot in their minds when they need to), I'm not convinced he thinks going back to "freedom" is better.  



    My first thought was June would be an invaluable source of info, remember she and Serena wrote things for the council while Fred was recuperating after the Red Center bombing, she was taken to DC and had front row seats to a lot of things, she was overly involved with Commander Lawrence, dug thru files and saw where the original Handmaids kids were and knows key players in Mayday and the Martha network...why hasn't she been talking about all that to Truelo?


    I had forgotten all about that.  The show writers probably did as well.  

    But this is another place where I think they did a disservice by killing Alma. She also seemed to know a lot more than she should about how things work in Gilead.  


    • Like 4
  13. I think it is entirely possible that Nick was able to step "away" for a bit.  He is essentially a high ranking general and also an eye - an intelligence officer.  He knows how to work those situations without raising suspicion and the people around him probably don't bat an eye.  He could have told his superiors that he was meeting an informant whose identity was known by very few, maybe just 1 other, or perhaps a new informant who had just made contact recently.  He could have told his subordinates he was going somewhere else.  People like Nick are trained to be able to do this kind of thing.  And people in the military are trained on a "need to know" basis.  

    It even happens here.  My mom's brother was in the military, he was in intelligence.  That's all I ever really knew, it never occurred to me to ask anything, I just knew he was in the army.  At his wake, I met some of the people who served with and for him.  They told me they had no idea what he did, but if he was in the field, it was important.  That was it.  

    I don't think June wearing red was anything character driven.  I think it was the show doing a poor attempt at symbolism.  It reminded me of season 1 when June and Luke are meeting in some cafe and there are these little girls playing in the background all in pink while 2 older women in long coats watch on.  That was effective.  June in a red coat as some kind of symbol of either empowerment OR her inability to let go of her past as a handmaid didn't really work.  It was too in your face.  

    This episode had me going "huh" like a lot of episodes this season.  It is weird.  A lot has happened this season but it feels like not much has gone on at all. Huh.  

    • Like 6
  14. 3 hours ago, Pepper the Cat said:

    She updated all her books. I have them all on my Kindle. She did a good job I think. I have them all on my Kindle.

    They were updated?  Fascinating!  I will have to check them out again. My favorite two were Down a Dark Hall and Stranger With My Face.  I don't think I fully understood Daughters of Eve as a teen, it can be hard to grasp the concept of a group mob/cultish mentality for violence and harm when you are 15 years old.

    I brought up the question of June's return to Canada lacking poignancy, and somebody pointed out her stepping onto Canadian soil, and other scenes.  It is interesting, I didn't find myself moved in that same way.  June is out for blood - justifiably so - and so as these moments go, I am tense x 1000.  Unlike the relief I felt when Emily crossed over and realized the officer was a canadian, unlike the tears I cried when Rita stepped off that plane and was so happy to meet Luke, or the happy tears when Luke went to find Moira.

    And I don't mean this as a criticism of June.  I just wish we could have a moment of true happiness for her, somewhere.  Just a moment, please, then we can go back to where we were.  

    • Like 6
  15. Was anybody a Lois Duncan fan growing up and if so did you get Daughters Of Eve vibes to the nth degree in those therapy sessions?

    Speaking of therapy, what is this group stuff?  Every single one of these ladies should be inextensive private counseling, group led by a trained psychologist and some likely on a prescribed anti-depressant and/or anti-anxiety.

    And as for June, I know why the show is going in this direction but honestly the show is so dark, I was hoping for some moments of light and love for June.  Remember the beautiful reunion of Moira and Luke, that he had listed her as family?  Yes, it is a dark show, but where is the poignancy?

    Who in their right mind in Canada would be fans of the Waterfords.

    • Like 14
  16. Quote

    But the bigger question I suppose is whether Luke considers it rape. If he doesn't, then there will be no complaint filed. My vibe on watching the scene was that he was surprised that she wanted to have sex, but wasn't actually against having sex. He seemed to be on the "you're damaged so I will be the good guy and go at your pace rather than assume you're ready to resume our marriage" train, so June initiating sex surprised him but I doubt he considers himself a rape victim. 


    In this scene, she didn't want him to talk, she didn't want his hands to make her decisions.  She "had her way with him" as a damaged victim of the five years of hell she's been through.  She didn't want Luke to say things like "Are you sure you're ready?" or "Are you OK with this, maybe we should wait?" or any of that.  She didn't want his hand guiding things, so she pushed his arm down.

    Luke wasn't objecting to the sex, his concern was all about June, and if this sex would make it worse for her.  June was trying to be her old true self, and block everything out but that.  



    We actually have no idea if Luke was objecting or not.  She stopped him from saying what he would have said.  She covered his mouth, held his hand down.   

    If a woman is sleeping, and man starts to move on to her and then starts to have sex with her, and she says "wait wait," and that man covers her mouth with his hand and disregards that statement and keeps going, that is not clear consent.  Furthermore, the man would know exactly what he was doing.  He was having sex with that sleeping woman and still going - despite clear signs and words that were indicating a wish to stop, or at the very least, slow down.  

    Luke was sleeping.  June started to move over him and then started to have sex with him.  He clearly said "wait" and she covered his mouth with her hand and disregarded that and kept going.  There was no clear consent, and she knew exactly what she was doing.  She was having sex with Luke, despite clear signs and words that were indicating a wish to stop or at the very least slow down.

    It doesn't matter if June didn't want to hear Luke ask her if she's okay.  As callous as it sounds, it doesn't matter if she is a Gilead survivor.  It doesn't matter if she was raped repeatedly and is trying to take back her power, her sexuality, her womanhood.  And who knows, Luke might have said okay let's keep going.  We'll never know.  She did not allow him to express hesitation during sex.  

    Honestly, credit to the actors - the scene left us confused as to what just happened.  There are layers upon layers to peel back here, this is even really just surface stuff - and the actors portrayed that beautifully. 

    I said this during the similar scene with Nick - I don't find these sex scenes to be empowering at all. I find them to be the exactly opposite, quite frankly. They are driven by rage, desperation and sadness.  Nowhere in them to I find empowerment.  While we were cheering her on for her rage at Serena, it was that rage that fueled the sex with Luke.  I don't find that empowering.  

    Maybe nobody noticed this but me, but there was a scene earlier in the show where Luke announces to Tuello that he is taking his wife home.  Luke taking charge and telling June where she was going, what they were doing, etc.  In his eyes, "protecting" June who is still incredibly vulnerable.  We then got long shot of June absorbing that moment.  I don't think she was looking at Luke with gratitude or admiration.  I think she was taking in that she was "free" and yet it was another person taking charge of what she was going to do, just in another kind of way.  And I think that also played a role, on a subconscious level, of June not acknowledging Luke's hesitancy.  

    I suppose one could argue that if Luke had really wanted to stop her he could have but given the situation he may just as easily have felt that if he HAD forced that stop it would have caused greater problems.  That's why it was even more important for Luke to not have his voice silenced.  

    June was doing what SHE wanted.  She was not necessarily what Luke wanted.  And if you don't allow that person to express that, then what are you left with?






    • Like 8
  17. Interesting debate on rape or not.

    Food for thought - exact same circumstances, except reverse the roles.  If it had been Luke in the June role, June in the Luke role. 

    Rape or not?

    • Like 6
  18. There is an article out in People right now where Teresa talks about always being under attack and this time she showed her true self and did what she had to do and is proud of it.  "I did what I had to do" - referring to the reunion

    Does this that all this time we've been seeing a "restrained" Teresa?  Sweet jesus.  

    I guess we will see tonight.  But I have no interest in seeing Teresa the bully on steroids.  I mean, she's bad enough as is and it reaches a point where it's not entertainment anymore.  

    • Like 12
  19. 8 hours ago, SourK said:

    In the earlier seasons, I had a real problem with the way the characters would each act like they were the only ones who remembered what the world was like before, and everyone else had somehow grown up in Gilead. At points, it was even hard to remember, as a viewer, that this all happened pretty recently.

    That's because they were playing closer to the book then - you were forbidden from talking about the past, it didn't exist.  And you had no idea who would report you if you did, everybody could be a spy.  So it wasn't mentioned.  That is why Emily talking about the former ice cream shop in her early scenes with June was so jarring and shocking. 

    Can I ask a question?  Why do people like the Bradley Whitford character?  I can't stand him.  Even his alleged remorse seems doused in greed and selfishness.

    • Like 4
  20. This season was so unmemorable.  And it isn't like there wasn't drama.  There was plenty.  But it was unmemorable.  I guess Jackie doesn't have tobworry about Evan's reputation, it was the most dramatic storyline of the season and completely unmemorable.

    Jennifer was fantastic this season.  Tre has to go, at this point she is nothing but nothing but a bully with the maturity of an 11 year old, Dolores is boring, Melissa is boring, Jackie is way too private and not nearly as exciting as she seems to think she is, and Margaret is well into bully territory as well.  They are lacking the fun factor.  I love RHONJ and I actually really love this cast.  But they need shake it up a bit.  This 3 and 3 thing is done.  

    And call me crazy, but aside from Jennifer's pool, there is nothing about their lives that I actually envy.  They are really just basic bitches.  

    • Like 5
  21. I came out of this episode torn on how I felt about where June started the episode and where she ended.  On the one hand, I thought June was getting a little too "big for her britches" - to quote my mother - and positively hateful in some of her interactions with others. However I absolutely HATE that they used rape and oral sex as the mechanism to bring on that self-reflection - it was completely unnecessary and the end result could have been achieved in so many other ways.  I really liked Janine pointing out that she might not have made the same choices as June.  Okay, yes, we all know she would have if it were Charlotte in that glass box, but her point is that there are heroes all around them.  Janine has "saved" June plenty of times, as well.  In the hospital when June wanted to kill her walking partner.  When she was laying dead in the forest.  This episode with the Resistance Rapist.  Saving and heroics doesn't always come in the form of big grandiose moments.  For example, we had June snarling in Janine's face that she should have left her behind a long time ago, or something along those lines.  Well, had Janine left JUNE a long time ago, June would be dead in the forest - for example.  Does Janine turn to June and say "what do we do next??" plenty of times?  Yes.  And while June may not show that level of vulnerability or uncertainty in the same way, lord knows, it's clear that she'd be nowhere if not for the smarts, wit and courage of others.  I just hate that it took her being unable to blow job to get her to that realization.  That sucked.  Literally, for poor Janine.  

    Where this episode came in so strong was the fact that it wasn't All June All The Time.  Janine held her own, we got more Rita, Serena and Fred (my god, Serena and Fred have a real talent for distortion).  We were introduced to an aspect of the Handmaid's Tale that I'm eager to explore.  And we even toughed on some other aspects of the book that go beyond June as well.  For example, at the very end they talk about how some women, once liberated from Gilead, had a real struggle assimilating back into "normal" life.  I like how we keep getting little glimpses of that along the way, most recently here with Rita.  Although I do wonder if her deference to Serena and Fred was intentional at first, out of "habit" and fear, Stockholm syndrome, or if she went in there knowing exactly what she was going to do and how she was going to act around them?  I mean, with the commander, she went in there with a clear plan.  But did she go in to meet with Serena being all "yes m'am" intentionally?

    • Like 9
  22. 8 hours ago, Hiyo said:

    Having husbands/significant others on the show is a good way to get extra income from this show.

    So with that statement and the 3 "contractors" on the show the most is it fair to say that they need the income more than Evan or Tony the Turk?  Just an observation that aligns with my theory that Melissa, Dolores and Margaret are living in a house of cards.  


     I personally place the blame of this dynamic on our TV screen on Satan Andy, who seems to be much more invested in the misogynistic stylings of real house husbands of NJ than the central female figures.

    Every time I watch this show and see something that makes me mildly sick to my stomach, I get all pissed off that Andy Cohen is basically profiting off of the worst of women.  But then again, I keep watching, so I suppose I'm part of the problem.  

    • Like 2
  23. To be fair though, Dolores is the cast member of the show, not Frank.  We see Dolores' life, and Frank through that lens, not Frank's life.  It is entirely possible that other women have been around - we just don't see or hear about them because they don't fit the narrative.  Maybe.  Other than knowing that Frank had a girlfriend her first season, and then they broke up which prompted him to move in with her in her second season, that's all we really know about Frank and his personal time. 

    I think we are overthinking it.

    I think Dolores gets what she needs from David on a physical level when they actually are together.  I think she gets the social/emotional needs covered by Frank.  This of course assumes that Dolores and Frank aren't boinking on the side and I'm not sure I believe that.  But let's just say for the purposes of this discussion that they haven't crossed that line since hey split.  I simply don't think she has found anybody who gets it all done for her and so we wind up here.

    I also don't think David is ever going to marry her (he is married to his job) and I also think he wants absolutely NOTHING to do with RHONJ.   And to be fair, can you blame him on that last point?

    ETA:  I just googled to see if Frank has a girlfriend however instead found out that Frankie has a girlfriend.  And there is definitely a Gia resemblance.  Perhaps it's his type, or just a common "aesthetic" but to me it was pretty obviously Gia 2.0.  



    • Like 3
    • Useful 2
  • Create New...

Customize font-size