Ottis

I don't see how Nicholas can lie and carry the day. Both Glen and Eugene saw what happened, in the revolving door and at the van afterward. Both the Alex group and Rick's group lost someone, and Rick's group also has another member gravely injured. Meanwhile, Tobin stuck up for Abraham, and Abraham (who has found a purpose again) saved one of the Alexs. So for anyone to believe FPP based on the events of last night's episode would be plot wanking of the highest order. As for Pete, I don't know. Feels like a set up. I first thought the kid was after a gun for his dad, who wanted to shoot Rick out of jealousy. All we have to go on that Pete is abusive is Carol's assumption and the fact Pete drinks a lot and is a dick when he does. Last night one person who was killed was indeed black, and one was white.

This was the first episode of this show I have watched, and I really didn't get Louis. He is a crappy restaurant manager, and I'm not sure why he has such a themed restaurant (one that seems to doom it to failure). His poor work ethic doesn't seem to go with the rest of the show, which exploits stereotypes and the way people interact because of them. Much of the "pairing minorities with minorities" humor escapes me. Yeah, (usually) well-meaning white adults did that. No, it doesn't always work out. And so ... what? I'll try again because the commercials were funny, but I'm not sure I like it.

Lizzie has *always* sucked, so I'm not sure what you liked so much before. Everything else is largely the same, except that the black listers have become less about brains and more about ick.

That quote came from a post in the All Episodes thread, but that thread seems dead compared to this one so I'll try to bring it over, since the last ep of a season is often the thread that discusses the series. I agree with that post, and have struggled throughout this season on what exactly Frank is doing. He wanted power, he has it ... so what is his goal? In fact, aside from having power, I've never been clear on what Frank's long-term plan is. I don't understand his political beliefs, they seem to mix and match items traditionally viewed as conservative or liberal in the real world. He doesn't seem bent on something like American expansion. He doesn't want to be rich any more than anyone else who is in charge. What has been the point of all this? Simply to conquer and crush his enemies? I think maybe this issue is why season 3 was so odd. He won, and now neither he nor his writers seem to know what to do with him. So we turned to Claire and Doug.

In these last few episodes, the show should be about how our flawed and funny characters have matured and grown up. Some things should remain endearingly the same, but the more meaningful ones should indicate they are becoming fully evolved adults. But they are all as random and immature as ever, except perhaps for Grayson, who handled Jules deftly. I agree. Laurie is borderline indifferent to Travis now. I don't get them at all.

Claire's choice reminds me of the woman who wrote Eat.Pray.Love, and I dislike it just as much. When you go into a relationship with a shared understanding, and then you decide at some point you want something different, you don't abandon what you agreed to do without at least some discussion and compromise (barring abuse, of course). Claire has decided she took a wrong turn? Fine. But all she has, is due to the partnership she has forged with Frank. And Frank is currently in the middle of a finite event - a campaign. At the very least, help him succeed with reelection, then pursue whatever it is you feel you must pursue. The way she handles the whole thing is so selfish. I feel little sympathy for her. And that's without even getting into the things she tried to do and failed. She is responsible for where she is, too. It wasn't all "Francis" and taking a back seat to his desires. Doug's turn just makes no sense in the context of the season. His redemption, wasted. He is who he was. Oh well. I think HoC should spend more time with some other characters in S4.

And YMMV, but this is why I am close to stopping watching the show. It seems like so many of the discussions are about race, and those who are on one side of that argument are overrepresented. Once you acknowledge that racism does still exists - not everywhere, but in many places - and that those who are racists are wrong, and that we all want that to end, then where do you go? You either end up talking about examples of racism (we already know it exists), or ways we stop it (usually comedically violent, or government intervention). There is rarely talk about *why* it still exists, about why it so often seems targeted specifically to African Americans vs. other groups, about constructive ways to combat it or acknowledgement that in many places, people have worked hard to end it and it actually is minimal or nonexistent. In other words, it is the same discussion over and over. I don't care for the "bits" at all. I prefered the longer panels, with different voices. I think maybe part of the show's panel problem is that the panel discussions, and the audience, are so far over on one side of these issues that anyone who wants to appear and earnestly represent a different angle feels it isn't worth the abuse. For instance, in Ferguson, the police chief and town manager resigned, and then two cops were shot. If the result of months of protests and media coverage and government investigation resulted in clearly identifying racism among city officials and ended the careers of the two key leaders of the city, why is then shooting two cops an appropriate community response? But even asking that risks being attacked. When TDS covered the report/Wilson verdict a week ago, Jon Stewart dismissed the Wilson verdict (literally ... he said something like, "Forget about that ...") and focused solely on the findings of racism there. Which *should* be a main focus. But why dismiss the fact the Justice Dept. didn't charge Wilson? Why not talk about both? Larry's show seems to be following the same lead.

ITA, and Claire is dangerously close to becoming the stereotypical "woman who doesn't know what she wants and makes people around her miserable as a result." I'd prefer she had a clear thought on her ultimate goal, so we can decide whether we admire her or not. Is this a realization of the hollowness of her life so far? Or is she just mad because life isn't giving her what she wants? Or ...? I actually pity Francis, because he doesn't have a clue about what's going on with her, either. This whole development rang so, so false. Tom would have to be a complete idiot to think that his attempt to write something he feels is good would have any appeal to the guy who hired him to write it. I get it, he is an artist. But even artists know the difference between the hack jobs they do to make a living and the true pieces of art they create. Shoot, the reporter who hates Frank understood that. I assume this is going to lead to either a threat to Frank and Claire or a bad end for Tom, but other than it triggering thoughts in Claire's head, it all seems so wasted.

Jackie pledging allegience to Heather after that debate would make no sense to anyone who watched the debate. Jackie would have to apologize for her attacks, make some kind of statement that Heather is the moral leader she respects despite her debate comments attacking Heather ... it would all look very weird. Some would see it as a "girl power" kind of thing, which won't play well with many. Unless Jackie explains the whole strategy with Frank publicly, which seems unlikely. I've often wondered over the years if the opening montage of shots of DC as shadows creep up the sides of landmarks is an attempt to indicate that, which makes me wonder where the whole series intends to end. Is Remy sporting a cheesy moustache this season? I am watching the show on a Kindle and never can see him well enough to tell (this whole show is so dark -are there any lights in Doug's apartment?!), but it looks like a thin moustache.

Quite a few lines stolen almost verbatim from the Batman vs. Joker movie a few years back. .

To be fair, I don't think most people are accusing her of being stupid. They are saying she is *annoying.* Which she is. Within 10 minutes of the first episode, Mrs. Ottis said to me, "I can't stand that woman's voice." By the end of the episode, she said Hayley annoyed her. And in a later episode, when Hayley wouldn't stop talking about how she was right at the zip line challenge, Mrs. Ottis said, "Let it go already!" None of this has anything to do with being stupid. It has to do with behavior and an unfortunate (at times) voice. As for Blair, he may well end up liking Hayley after he gets to know her for more than we have gotten to know her for. Because she most definitely isn't stupid. She may well be a very nice and admirable person who he finds he cares about.

This thread has become the online equivalent of the cocktail party to me as Sasha. I don't know what this episode was about. Rick and team seem bound and determined not to fit in, and I get the difficulty in doing so. But having secret meetings and making plans to take over because ... the people there are weak? So the lesson is, our guys have gone hard? OK.

I'm convinced that the goal of the show now is to provide increasingly disturbing blacklisters and then have Red act like he has no care in the world. Because no one else on this show is developing except the blacklisters. I had to replay Lizzie punching in the random code. I was sure she knew something, and was shocked when upon replay I realized she was doing what any 6yo does when faced with a code lock. I did not recognize Dale. I did recognize Bishop from Alien. And the fact someone thinks Millenial was that long ago distresses me. :-) Add: Now that I think about it, the way the Kings operated - especially after losing a "bet" - would translate nicely to Celebrity Apprentice.

I thought Kate's Hillary veered toward Oprah too much. It's best when she does the serious aside, such as Clinton's plan to be president from the womb. The chicken sketch is an instant classic. Definitely a call back to old school SNL. I don't think most of the live audience does, either. It felt like the actors were trying so hard but no one had enough context to understand the jokes. I had to read three comments here about "The Acting Coach" before I could remember what the skit was - and I actually had watched it! It needed to build more on absurd 70s acting choices, and as another post mentioned: How can you possibly mention George Jefferson and acting and not do the walk? That's the main think that character is fondly recalled for.

I missed the first 15 minutes of this ep, and when I saw Simmons' reaction to aliens I thought for sure she was pretending to hate them as part of a deep cover action initiated by Coulson with only her. That is how far out of chatacter her reaction was. Also, she immediately saw that something was wrong with the blood results Fitz brought to the group (I'm guessing something related to the age of the sample). So she knows something is up already. I have no idea who is fighting who anymore, nor who is winning. Hydra seemed to be on the run this ep from basically Coulson and May. And then there are the mutant/inhumans. But whatever, I'll stay with it.

The only episode I deleted as soon as I saw no panel. I don't need to hear propaganda. I like the panel format. Larry just needs better panelists, and more POVs.

I think the argument is that many (most?) people get out of those programs far more than they put into them, and feel entitled to do so, hence the label. I wonder if the show realizes it has a shelf life? Because I agree, the beauty of much of season 1 and some of season 2 was that while the Underwoods were manipulators, they were usually subtle (not when desperate, poor Zoe). This season they both feel like they are losing it and acting more and more out of character as they struggle to control events, and it makes them, and the show, less interesting. Why have Claire immediately insist that Frank name her ambassador, waking him up to demand a recess appointment? Given the overall political climate at that moment, the odds of that being beneficial for the two of them in the long run are low. And yet she demanded it, of the one person in the world who is her true partner in ambition. That felt wrong. I half expected Frank to kill the former special prosecutor in this ep because of the runaway train pacing.

Thank you for mentioning that. I thought I heard that music starting, but it didn't become louder and I assumed it was just me. I read it a little differently, because I first thought I heard it before Rick said they would just take this place, so I wondered if it was a cue that Alexandria itself is another crucible regardless of what Rick & team choose to do.

It may be that HoC is going a little Boston Legal here, i.e. it isn't so much meant to be realistic as it is channeling the view of someone behind the show. No, real life wouldn't work this way, but you could argue that it should. I actually enjoy that take on the show. It further exposes the foolishness of our political system - including many of the voters.

The location is a spoiler? Can't you tell what a lot of locations are from the opening credits? I'm not sure how knowing that they will go to, say, Japan vs. Kenya, spoils anything.

I think *all* of Rick's group are measuring the town, looking for threats, weighing options and creating contingency plans. Constantly. That was the theme of the episode: At what point do you relax and revert back to civilized ways? Especially after you tried that before and it failed, at great cost? Carol is playing a role. No way she reverts to den mother that quickly. Darryl can't revert because honestly, what he was before the ZA was so much less meaningful than what he is during the ZA (that was explored in past episodes). Carl is just starting to remember what it was like to be a kid again, but his sense of responsibility as oldest son (he grew up as a survivor and a protector) is making him think about every step toward actually becoming one (and his admittance that he killed his mom was his matter-of-fact way of viewing the world as a survivor/protector). Glen and Maggie just seem uncomfortable, caught between options without being any one of them. Abraham is so one-dimensional I'm not sure he is anything other than stubborn and resistant to change, as always. Anyway, they all are in the point between survive or proper, and none of them knows exactly what to do, yet.

Maybe he is a reasonable Democrat. :-) I don't mind it. I could see, in a better world, someone who believes what he believes regardless of his party. In some ways, i view this as the show saying, "Look, this is what good government *should* be like." At least when it comes to ideas. Not so much the killing and manipulation.

Except what usually happens at this point is the character finds out that because of the new powers, he/she is facing death (i.e. powers are wreaking havoc on his/her body) or putting others in danger due to lack of control. Wil be interesting to see if they go the way of that trope. Juliette with powers is the only Juliette that has ever interested me. Her inability to communicate in a timely manner drives me nuts. Wu rules, as we all knew he would. He's the Velma.

That's why I find it scary. Also, I don't think Ford had that as his strategy, like Frank seems to. Hold elected office but get there without being elected.

I didn't watch this episode - a weird storm froze unexpected snow on our dish, which is too high for me to knock off without a ladder, and the signal went out. I read the summary and most of these comments. Basically, the gang made it from outside DC to the gates of Alexandria? And beat back zombies along the way, and we still don't know whether to trust the new guys or what their settlement looks like? Are those the main points? Just want to be sure so I am up to speed for Sunday. Assuming it doesn't snow and then freeze again. In which case I need a flamethrower. But I'll jump into the baby conversation ... I hate it when shows fall into the trap of "babies mean hope." Sometimes they don't, they actually mean vulnerability at a time when you can't afford it. But anyone who espouses that second view always turns out to be evil, so you end up back at "babies mean hope."