possibilities

Maya Rudolph? Really? She was okay as the Judge, but what was special about it? I hope Tatiana Maslany calls D'Arcy and gives her an atta girl, since the rest of the profession seems to be stupid.

But then he wouldn't be EEEEEVIL! I do wonder if the show is going for a happy ending, and if they think that means redeeming everyone, or if they will do it via vanquishing the unredeemed. Keeping a "full zombie" supply in the basement to me suggests his intention is less than innocent, but I suppose he might be using them to prove a cure rather than saving them to unleash as terrorists. He seems to be allied with bad guys, though. And he flat out lied to Liv about whether he had records of his utopium experiments. If he was really trying to cure, he would be working with them, and he would have come forward to help a long time ago, I think.

But why did the girls need to pull the fire escape down? What good is a fire escape if you can't use it to escape through a window without assistance from street level? I guess I don't understand those kinds of fire escapes. LOL, AnimeMania, that is me. I have a friend who wrote a screenplay and I really liked it, but I kept trying to "help" her by pointing out implausibilities and she kept saying: "Have you ever seen a movie? People routinely ignore that level of detail." And she was right. It still happens in my head, though. Noticing things is a useful skill but only in specific circumstances, and there is a point of diminishing returns. I totally didn't get why the stuffed animal was called "Cheetah" until you explained it, though it didn't bother me-- I just found it funny, like a dog named Gorilla or a cat named Mao.

I don't think the girls went with him to the 2nd house. I think they were counting on dad thinking Robbie was asleep, and not checking on him for as long as it took for them to make the escape (a few minutes). So the girls take a taxi or the bus or train (lots of options in NYC) to Robbie's place. They help him escape. They said they knew that the van from grandpa's business goes to Rockaway twice a day, so presumably that's where the guy lives, or maybe there's an office there or something like that. Robbie stows away in the van and the girls go home. It's a lot of things that had to line up and work out just right, and also there was no way viewers could have put the clues together ahead of the reveal, because there really was no evidence to suggest any of that, and even the detectives had to rely on figuring out the right suspects and then them confessing. But a child-executed plan doesn't really have to make sense. They got lucky, is how they managed to pull it off. Dad could have caught them coming or going. Someone on the street could have noticed and made a ruckus. They could have missed the van or been caught in the van if the driver had looked in the back for any reason, or opened up the back doors to put something in or take something out.. It was basically a terrible plan, but they were little kids, and it was tv luck that made it work for them. -- The show also could have had the detectives make sure the dad and grandfather didn't run into each other at the station when the grandfather was brought in. All they had to do was communicate between the officers, and delay bringing grandpa into the room until dad was moved out. But they wanted the drama of a confrontation between the adults, and a way for Hunky Nebraskan to do a tackle, just like they wanted the drama of the kids succeeding at their stunt and the other cop wearing his bike duds half the episode. -- The thing I didn't understand was: why did they use that jump rope instead of the fire escape?

I thought for sure the godparents were responsible for the kid disappearing, and was shocked that the team didn't even consider them even when they got stuck. It never occurred to me that their daughters might be involved!! Hunky Nebraska Detective sure is earning his keep.

I really like her, though, and when there is news on the weekends, she does usually cover it-- like the Charlottesville disaster, and March for Our Lives. That's why I was so disappointed and actually surprised that they spent so much time rehashing at length the same three stories, when there WAS new stuff and it didn't get mentioned. It seems out of the ordinary for the show. I liked the Netroots coverage yesterday, and today 's show was pretty good. She had some panels talking about things in a hard-hitting way that wasn't happening earlier in the week. They talked about the ICE raids, and what people's legal rights are. Malcolm Nance was on, talking about an event he attended at Auschwitz, where survivors of Hitler, Rwanda's genocide, and other similar atrocities were talking about how "Never Again" is not being lived up to, including in the USA-- it was also the first time I've seen anyone name check the Never Again Action demonstrators in the USA who have been protesting and shutting down ICE with massive civil disobedience day after day in many locations. None of that was talked about elsewhere, at least on any of the other several shows I regularly watch. She has also been talking about the ICE raids in cities around the USA (and pointing out that they aren't happening in rural areas where there are lots of people doing farm labor, who may also not be documented) in greater detail than other places, which are focused only on the southern border. Her analysis is often a little different than other shows, even when they are all featuring the same topics. I sometimes miss it because I'm just burned out by the weekend and need a break, and I thought a lot of yesterday was dull. But today was worth the time (I thought), and I would hate to see her show cut in half; I think that she provides a service to people who have been too busy during the week to follow things closely, and also because the way she showcases things is often independent of the same old same old coming out of a lot of other mouths. I kind of feel bad for complaining yesterday. Today, one of her "Who Won The Week" panelists actually mentioned the story I had been wanting the show to cover yesterday. It's not nearly he amount of coverage I expected or wanted, but it was still something, and they talked about it in a fresh way, even if it was very brief.

I watched the Netroots coverage-- let's have more of that! I ff almost all the rest of the show today because they were saying things I've already heard elsewhere.

I'm sure he plans to keep humans in a factory farm type set up and breed a steady supply. You don't become a world domination evil plotter without being truly evil and truly plotting.

She doesn't have to be oppositional in order to be substantive, though. I've seen more substantive questions asked by "average people" at various "town halls" with constituents. I really don't know why she's failing so hard with candidates. I just think she is. An I find it hard to believe she's afraid they won't come back if she does more than fluff. SHe's the highest cable "news" show-- they need her more than she needs them. And they go on more challenging interviews all the time. LOD, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Ari Melber all ask more probing questions of candidates. I've seen late night hosts go deeper. I really think it's strange. She's CAPABLE of doing better; I have no doubt of that. So why isn't she?

It was badly framed. If Joan had said: "you're impressed by her" or "you respect her" it would have been a better set up for the comparison to Moriarty; the way she framed it as "you like her" leaned into Sherlock's personal, not professional, feelings.

I was skeeved that Sherlock thought it even made the vaguest of sense to suggest a minor "was no Moriarty" as though there was any possibility the comparison would be made.

I do think Rachel does things solely for the ratings, like calling things exclusive that really aren't, and teasing a "breaking news" story coming up later in the show without hinting at what it could possibly be, and never forge that whole over-hyped "I have his tax return!" (but not really) fiasco. I've seen several interviews with Rapinoe and Rachel's was by far the least interesting. The questions everyone else is asking, and the answers she gives, are way more substantive than what Rachel did. I think fanning does in fact get in Rachel's way. She is so concerned with thanking people for showing up that she doesn't really like to push them for substance. It's getting more and more noticeable as other -- even less supposedly journalistic-- venues do a better job. I think no one is really interviewing the candidates in an effective way, though. Everyone is just chasing the talking point of the day. Some of the candidates themselves are actually going out of their way to bring up less talked about issues, despite the media only asking them about the hottest headline of the moment! It's pathetic. Our media is pathetic. I still like that Rachel doesn't have people on to shout at each other, and I like that sometimes she does in fact do a more well-researched and lengthy exposition than anyone else. Her "expert testimony" guests generally do a decent job because she lets them talk and doesn't interrupt them and feel obligated to change to a new shouter ever 7 seconds. She will ask them questions I am wondering about and I appreciate that. But that's a situation where there's no fear for her of losing her "nice" reputation. Her expert guests aren't running for office, they aren't accused of anything bad, and there's no reason to challenge them, so she's okay. She also doesn't have to research anything to figure out what to ask them, because they're there to TELL her, and all she has to do is act like she doesn't know the answers herself. She's a lazy interviewer and it's getting more and more obvious all the time. Jimmy Kimmel did better with Rapinoe, for godsake! He's not even pretending to be a new organization and they talked about more issues than Rachel did. And when Rachel herself needs to be probing and informed and challenge anyone, or seek information the guest isn't already itching to tell her, she's a total failure most of the time.

I enjoyed the "Chasti-HE belt" skit.

I wanted to hear more about Lights of Liberty. I was glad she mentioned it, but it went by so fast it's like it almost didn't happen. We spent more time on LOD fluffing her about reading transcripts.

Hooboy. The show is going for a real tonal shift in its final season. We didn't get to see the shenanigans Sherlock had to do to pay Everyone. They haven't done a single thing to follow up on Gregson's shooting or Odin's vigilante initiative. They had the expected arrivals from the opening scene turn around and go home without ever showing their faces. It's like they want to introduce but not follow up on anything, and instead are introducing this nonsense with Cassie and Sherlock bonding in a heartwarming manner.