Maysie
-
Posts
628 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Maysie
-
-
I'm really late to this party . . .
I just finished the series and I went from really loving it to basically hating it. I think part of the hate came from getting tired of Jackie's shit (though I imagine that is probably realistic for living with an addict). And it would have been easier for me to deal with her shit but the last two seasons became "Jackie may be an addict, but she's an awesome, super-human, lifesaving addict!"
In the beginning, I really liked Jackie, despite her flaws, including the cheating and addiction. Early on, I watched and thought "damn! I hope I'm that lucky to have that nurse if I ever find myself in a hospital bed." However, I loathed her by the end of the sixth season and I basically quit most of the final season because I simply couldn't stand watching her game the system and everyone in it. I read the forums and knew she was going to die in the final episode which is why I watched it (plus, I got to see one more smidge of O'Hara).
I agree with those who say the writing went downhill after the fourth season, but I didn't mind the fifth season because I felt it was kind of fitting that we got to see Jackie try sobriety. But otherwise, the show became a mess after season four. I didn't like Roman and Coop together. The office sex with them was tiresome at best and gratuitous at worst. Characters went all over the place, such as Grace - anxiety-ridden child to drugging, partying teen to super student in the span of three short years. So much was unbelievable (such as Jackie's explosion of pills all over her car during the accident, yet nothing about that is at all questionable to anyone???). And I had the sense that the writers did stuff because they were propping up Jackie or painting a picture, basically sacrificing the character histories and storytelling for their own creative whims. This example is basically a nitpick, but it stood out in the finale because it bugged me so much: why was the hospital lighting so dim in the finale? Was the ER being run on generators or something? There is no good reason, other than the writers wanted it that way for dramatic effect (probably most especially for the scene when she bathes the addict's feet). Cheap stuff like that isn't arty and it felt like yet again, we were forced to be shown and told (literally) that Jackie is a saint as she washes the feet of an addict in some holy space (I guess it was the old chapel?) I got a headache from being beaten with those 2x4's the writers used so much in the final two seasons.
As for whether or not she's dead: in my mind yes, partly because I want her to be. Earlier posters noted that Jackie "shed her skin" by taking off her stethoscope, i.d. and watch. I noticed that there were (I think) two references in the episode to shedding skin (I believe O'Hara was one of the people that said something about "shedding skin"), so yes, I guess that's what she was doing. However, when we see everyone crowded around her as she lays on the ER floor, she still has her stethoscope around her neck. So in my mind, she shed her skin in her fantasy/death hallucination, but hadn't done so in reality. I don't know if it was an intentional overdose or not, however, perhaps because she gave up the tools of her trade when she began the hallucination it was a sign that she'll let go/give up.
Overall, I thought the show was very good. At some point I'll re-watch it but I won't go beyond the fifth season. I think, ambiguous as it would have been, it would have been rather fitting to see her as an addict for four years and then end with her at the one year sobriety celebration with her knowing smile as she gets her one year chip.
-
2
-
-
Well, obviously if she isn't being mentioned in the gossip rags about being fcuked by a different guy every other night, or posting on social media every other day about her latest hookup, then she must be gay. There can't be any other explanation.
Thanks for saying that. I think it shows how low the bar has been lowered for this family that if Kendall isn't engaging in what the family considers the normal behavior you mention that everyone decides something is "wrong" with Kendall - that there has to be a reason that she isn't out there with her sexuality, putting it all over the place. I have to believe that she's simply different than the rest of her family in that way. I also have a hard time believing that she'd be ashamed/embarrassed/hiding if she were a lesbian.
My mind didn't automatically scream "lesbian!!!" because Kendall is discrete. I just assumed she was living her life the way she chooses. If she's gay, straight, bi, so what? I don't care what she does or who she does it with, as long as it's consenting adults. I'm just happy it's one less Kardashian-Jenner to contend with in the day's headlines and trends. Props to her.
-
10
-
-
I don't want to get too much into the show Transparent here because it will veer too far off topic, but I have a hard time imagining what Jenner will bring to the table. I enjoyed the first season, despite the fact that I strongly disliked many of the main characters. I ended up having to force myself to finish the second season because the story, imo, had wandered too far away from the main premise. There was a lot of time spent on a lot of unlikable, unsympathetic characters that didn't relate to what I saw as the original premise of the story. So I have to wonder how they're going to shoehorn Jenner into this.
In any event, I won't be watching. The show lost my interest and putting Caitlyn on it is about the last thing it can do to get me back. In fact, it's even more incentive not to watch. The one thing it had going for it at the end (for me) was good acting and somehow I can't see Jenner rising to the level of Jeffrey Tambor. I mean, even if she plays herself, as the trans advocate (!) she's going to come across as stilted.
-
1
-
-
Just chiming in to say that as far as the nude selfies go, it's worth noting that when Kim was challenged (and as I see it, given the opportunity) to do something good as a result of all the hullabaloo of her last nude selfie, she went dead silent. Bette Midler did her one better and offered to double whatever Kim was willing to donate to a cause after the last dust-up. Kim didn't respond, let alone actually part with any of her hard earned money, and I think that says a whole lot about Kim and her "empowerment." The minute she gets really challenged on it (meaning beyond "mean" hater comments, but basically asked to pony up some cash), she retreats, scurrying away like a cockroach when it's exposed to light. If she was really empowered by her nudity I don't think she would have run and hid quite so fast.
And I think it's interesting that she has a friend posing topless with her in this instance, which imo, is kind of cowardly and again, not really all that empowering. And flipping the bird? To me it's the grown up version of sticking your tongue out at someone. Again, it doesn't really strike me as all that empowering. Saying "fuck you" doesn't empower you. It shows you know how to swear. And an endless stream of (often photoshopped) naked selfies doesn't exactly say "I'm comfortable in my own skin." Maybe I'm old or not hip enough, but really, all I get is "I'm really hot. Like really hot. Like, I've had two kids and I'm still really hot. Please tell me how hot I am. LOOK AT ME DAMMIT!"
Empowered people don't beg for attention.
-
17
-
-
Even if the truth about the transplant line-jumping gets out and Doug falls on his sword, it'll probably do Frank's and Claire's campaign a lot of damage. Many people probably wouldn't believe that Doug pulled those strings without their knowledge. (Frank may have an out since he was unconscious most of the time but it could still stick to Claire.)
I kind of go back and forth on what the fallout would be if it becomes known that Frank took someone's spot on the list. My cynical self says "well of course the PRESIDENT is going to bump everyone off the list because it's the PRESIDENT." His medical care is much different from my medical care. If we both get caught in the same burning building, I have a pretty good idea of who's coming out first. So there's part of me that would expect that the president is going to get the first available match, no questions asked (it's kind of like, "what list?")
However, my idealistic self would like to think that he can wait it out just like everyone else. I have a friend who's on a transplant list and I have to say, it would be really hard to take knowing anyone could leapfrog over her in line because he/she is perceived to be more valuable/important than my friend.
I kind of think that the public's reaction would depend on how they feel about the Underwoods - you know, the supporters would be all "of course he gets the liver - it's the PRESIDENT" and the haters would be "Underwood stole his liver! Murderer!" (if they only knew the half of it . . .) But I agree that Claire would probably take the burden of the blame given that Frank was unconscious.
-
2
-
-
As far as the kidnapping vs. 9/11 comparisons, I don't think those are at all on the same level of terror, nor do I feel the 9/11 attacks felt random. They were unexpected and shocking, to be sure, but I never thought they were random. But that's me.
I felt 9/11 was random and unexpected. although perhaps I don't see the functional difference in the words. And I think the terror that the situations created were the same. You had two events with graphic images designed to inflict terror as to the randomness of the targets. The idea that you could go to work, or just go about your day minding your business and be killed in such a horrific way would make you just not want to go to work or not want to go out and do your business out of fear. If a person can find a reason behind something than they can find a way to avoid it (at least in their own minds), but if you have no rhyme or reason for an act, you can't know how to avoid it, which makes it, to me, an effective act of terrorism. The same way 9/11 just demonstrated for people that you could get on a plane, or go to work and randomly be targeted for death with no way to avoid it, nothing you could do could make you feel any safer besides simply to avoid flying.
Not to get too far astray - the attacks on 9/11 were a surprise but the actual targets were far from random. The WTC and the Pentagon are both symbols of the US's wealth and power; hitting targets like them accomplishes two goals: it meets the symbolic element that terrorists aim for (we'll destroy what you stand for, what guides you, what protects you) and shows that even the strongest hard targets are vulnerable. As well, it makes a statement to the world that the group can hit the biggest power of all, in a big way, in its most vital areas (Wall Street, Pentagon and Congress, if the one plane hadn't been brought down). Destroying large buildings, including a country's military headquarters and seat of government is pretty much asking for war. I think the implied terror/randomness for the victims becomes an added bonus for the terrorists.
I feel like the kidnapping on the show is random and this is a different kind of strategy - you go about your business and you don't know when you're vulnerable (such as taking a bus ride or dining in a cafe in some places). If it happens enough, then people may start to adjust their behavior. For terrorists, this is more of a mindgame, I think, putting out the "nowhere is safe" idea.
Killing a few random American citizens on American soil is vastly different than a coordinated attack, such as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Tragic, to be sure, but it's really dicey to consider a single beheading a declaration of/provocation for war. In my opinion, it would have to be something that's not only occurring regularly, but would have to be "owned" by someone so that there's actually something/someone to declare war on. 9/11 hit all the markers: an organized group (Al Qaeda) coordinated a multi-pronged attack on two government buildings and the country's financial center. That's a pretty blatant provocation to war, imo, which is why it was easy for Congress to okay the use of force in Afghanistan. Much beyond that, it gets to be a slippery slope . . .
I don't see how the Underwoods make a war out a beheading. Drone strikes, single use of special forces, maybe, but not an all out war. Of course, realism hasn't been such a strong suit this season, so who knows.
-
3
-
-
-
I guess part of my problem with the show is that these two are supposed to be in their early 30's, is that right? I think I heard reference to one of them being 35. Anyway, I'm not the one who's going to say "shouldn't they be thinking of settling down and having a family" blah blah blah because that's just not for everyone. However, there is a point when you grow the fuck up and quit playing dating games. I think that's what got me the most - they behaved like a couple of college kids. The tide really turned for me after their date when Mickey was basically a bitch the morning after (for what reason?). And of course, he had to build on that and ignore her. And so we end up with her basically stalking him at work (which, really?) and The Big Throwdown.
I know love is messy and it often doesn't make sense. That it happens just because and all that stuff, but hell, I don't even get the sense that these two even really like each other at this point. Yes, when they were riding in the car they got on great, but really, I don't remember watching and thinking "well, they've got some great chemistry!" Gus thought Mickey was hot and I guess Mickey thought he would be a reliable backup plan? I never really did get what she saw in him. We all know that everyone thinks Mickey is beautiful, cool and awesome (I seem to remember several references to that), but what did she see in Gus? Why would she run out and kiss him in the first place, other than the "nice guy" thing. Is that it? It seemed she had a nice guy already (the one she ran into at the party that she cheated on), so what is that thing that made her even consider Gus?
I initially liked Gus because I thought he might be kind of a sweet, homely dork. But by the end I feel like he's a manipulative prick who thinks only of himself and is not really all that bright. Mickey was hard to take right out of the gate: cynical, abrasive, self-absorbed and willing/able to lie in a heartbeat if it serves her purpose. Perhaps it is true love after all.
-
3
-
-
Yes, this is the episode where I got the fake nice thing from Gus. It didn't take a genius to figure out he ordered a dish he had no intention of eating so Mickey could have the sauce. Pointing out his own generosity is condescending and makes him look like he wants a big ol' reward for being so nice.
Really, they were both assholes during the course of the evening. I don't fault him for wanting to have a great, special date, including one that includes magic!, though it's a risky (kind of bold) move. He made sure it would be memorable, which could be good or bad. Mickey behaved badly at the Magic House,, imo. I thought it was a bit condescending of her to think it would be okay to spend the evening watching someone else be amazed. (I know that if my honest delight of being entertained was used for someone's amusement, I would not be amused.) And I cannot believe that Mickey didn't understand the card trick. FFS, she knew enough about magic that she didn't like it, so I have to believe that she knew she ought to remember the damn card. And her running commentary during the magic show was disrespectful all the way around. So, points lost on all that.
As for Gus, if he was really a nice guy at heart, he would have offered up his jacket immediately. And when they got caught he would have said "of course we'll leave." If he was super-nice, he'd have said they'd leave the minute she said she was too cold. Points lost on that.
I don't know why he came back in the house after that disastrous date, but it seemed to me that Mickey had the last word with the vibrator. Passive aggressive much?
-
3
-
-
Justin Devillier of Top Chef New Orleans is also a finalist. I think he made it a bit past the halfway point in his season, but I can't remember exactly how far, since it's been a while. His restaurant is probably our favorite in the city (which is a tough call to make down here).
-
Has Kim responded to Bette Midler's challenge? Is she ignoring it? Has she made a statement or a donation? Or is she just continuing to post vapid pictures?
And if she's ignoring it, I'll hand it to her for having big, brass balls after posting/bragging about counting her 80 million from her game or app or whatever it is.
-
1
-
-
I would have loved the Secretary of HHS to stand up to Doug. In the real world, and even in the HoC world, I can't imagine it would go unnoticed if the Dept of HHS burnt through a Secretary a day until suddenly Underwood got a liver.
And here's the thing that I didn't realize until I read your post, micat. The way I was taking it, Frank was going to be dead within days if he didn't get the liver. It's not like they can just go out and grab someone to fill that chair - there has to be some vetting, some research, etc. And I don't see how Doug would be in a position to remove that person from the post - seems that would have been Blythe's job (It is a cabinet post, after all). I think that was bad writing and honestly, it would have been more believable to have Doug kill liver recipient number one. Of course, that the secretary even had the list, let alone showed it to Doug, strains credibility, imo.
-
1
-
-
I'm going to have to get the tiniest bit political here and say that I think the sole reason GW got a second term was on the strength of a war he pretty much pulled out of thin air.......after a terrorist plot was executed on US soil........much like FU is going to likely pull a war out of thin air......after a terrorist plot executed on US soil.
I agree with that^. But it could go the other way, too. I remember during the Lewinski scandal, Clinton did some air strikes, which if I remember correctly, turned out to have been an effort to kill bin Laden (so they were legitimate, if not also opportunistic). At the time, the film "Wag the Dog" had just been released (rather unfortunate timing for the president) that centered on a president who creates a war to distract from a scandal. The accusations that Clinton was "wagging the dog" were everywhere. And though the phrase has kind of dropped out of usage lately, I can see where it could be easily resurrected by Underwood opponents.
Televising the execution of a terrorist, imo, would also prompt at least some segment of the population to make accusations of exploiting terrorism for political gain. However, I can see how the media would jump on the bandwagon, especially since it's more about "news" than actual journalism any more (which is why I root for Hammerschmidt, the journalist). But there's something about an execution as home theater that bugs me - "get out the popcorn Grandma! There's gonna be a shootin tonight!"
After the episode aired, I did google televised executions and came up empty, other than pros and cons of doing them. I vaguely remember the execution you're referring to RCharter, and I can't remember if it was released on Al Jazeera America, the website or what. I do seem to remember a great deal of controversy however.
-
2
-
-
Do we, who watch Top Chef -- and especially if we have ever entertained or even voiced thoughts like, "I'll eat at Isaac's restaurant! He was so hilarious on the show!" or "I would NEVER grace Marjorie's restaurant! Her vocal fry annoys me to no end!" -- really have a leg to stand on in terms of objecting to the trend of chefs-as-entertainers? It seems to me that the episode and Padma's spiel was just making explicit something that has always been intrinsic to the show.
For me, liking a chef's personality doesn't have that much to do with whether I'll dine at his/her restaurant. Frankly, I don't give a shit if Marjorie can pronounce duck ala orange or not, so long as she can cook the damn thing. And Isaac can crack wise all day long, but if he can't pull his flavors together in his dishes, I'm not inclined to eat there (fortunately, my experience at his restaurant did not disappoint). Unless someone is an unredeemable asshole, I'll give anything a try if I think the food will be good.
For instance, I'm not inclined to try Man Bun's food because, well, gloopy whipped potatoes do not appeal to me, nor does that horrendous rice pudding he failed so miserably at making. Giving his restaurant a pass has nothing to do with his douche-like personality but is based only on the fact that nothing he made appealed to me. (I have to admit, and I'm a little embarrassed to even type this, seeing him act as a prep cook for Amar, I did feel kindly toward him. I don't think Man Bun is a bad guy; I just think he's one of those unfortunate people who takes himself way too seriously).
I know some people like the idea of chefs as entertainers, and there is a place for that, I suppose. I respect and adore Emeril, and his restaurants are fabulous, however I'm sure he gets a boatload of business based solely on the personality he's built on television. But that's not why I go to his restaurants; I go because the food is excellent. I don't think that commenting on Isaac's personality quirks or Marjorie's speech patterns is quite in that realm. They may be entertaining qualities, to be sure, but they don't affect whether I want to try their cooking.
-
8
-
-
That whole dish presentation/showmanship thing was odd. Though the only criticism directed at Amar was for his "lack of showmanship," his presentation was the only one that didn't feel awkward or forced for me. I was a bit surprised that Padma noted Marjorie's great showmanship because Marjorie looked very uncomfortable to me. (And did I see something strange or did Marjorie really start to serve them something like steak and Other Food and then pull it away to finish prepping the duck dish? Did I imagine that??? I cop to some fast-forwarding in this.) And despite a legitimate magic trick, no one looked real at ease with Isaac's bit either. And I guess that's where I have a problem with it: chef's doing "bits" to present their food. I don't know why they couldn't just leave the challenge at a basic element of surprise with the actual dish, something I think all three of them did.
After all the discussion about whether Marjorie is respectful of Isaac and his talent, it was kind of great that they were eliminated together. I also thought it was kind of nice that Amar got to move onto the finale and have his moment alone. Amar for the win!
I really noticed "duck a la orange", too. Odd, for a well trained and experienced chef!
I cannot resist: not very refined! ;-P
-
13
-
-
Why was Tom - the guy that writes speeches - in the Situation Room watching the execution? Just in case the three of them want to discuss it during breakfast the next morning?
And not only was Tom there, but Blythe was nowhere to be seen. In fact, where the hell has he been? I know he's not on the ticket, but come on, he's still second in line should Frank's liver give out (as they've telegraphed a couple of times this season).
So, I was glad Hammerschmidt's story came out, and it's surely nice to see the Underwoods squirm a bit. And I guess it's good that there's a bunch of different ways next season could go . . . will the Underwoods have won the election based on fear and terror? What impact did the article have? What/who else has been exposed? Is Frank's liver going to give out? Is he for real with his support of Claire? Is Claire's support of Frank real - and if so, only enough to get herself into the presidency?
On one hand, I am disappointed in the season. I feel like the writing has been uneven and often strained believability. However, I have to hand it to the writers: I want to know what happens next. I hate pretty much everyone involved right now and think I need to watch so that I can see someone go down. Someone, please. Anyone, really . . .
I know that the norms for what is acceptable on television have changed dramatically over the years. However, I can't imagine that an execution would be televised, at least during prime time. As a citizen and a voter, I think I'd be switching parties or staying home on election day because between the Hammerschmidt story, Claire's insertion into sensitive situations/presence on the ticket and then the hostage situation, I can't imagine voting for the Underwoods under any circumstance. As well, the whole "IT'S WAR" scenario smacks a little too much of a "wag the dog" scenario.
-
2
-
-
So the guy that Doug and then FU threatened, the "Here's your magnet" guy, the one they want to do something that'll hurt Conway... Am I forgetting what he did that was so wrong that FU can now blackmail him or did they say it and I missed it?
I think this is one of those things we were supposed to fill in the blanks on. I filled in the blanks to get that the congressman has an important medal (I am not savvy enough about the medals to know what they're for) that implies he lied about his service record to get said medal. Of course the Underwoodlings know all about this and conveniently played it close to the vest so they could whip out this card right now to blackmail him with it.
Yeah I was confused as well. He's a congressman on the Intelligence Committee (I think?). Conway and his military VP candidate got info from the congressman and lied about it during the debates. Because Doug & Frank have dirt on everyone they're now pressuring the congressman to expose Conway.
And I think they're using the service record (or lack thereof) to do the above. Tank the party or tank his own career with the lies about his service record. (though I would argue he's fucked either way because leaking the information to presidential candidates would seem like pretty bad stuff to me).
In addition to fuckbuddy, Tom can sit around the White House and "read" people (we know how good he is at doing that), such as the Conways and offer interpretative services to Claire.
I, too, did not buy that the Conways had to bunk down in the private quarters of the White House, however it did give us Claire's zinger "Do you regret having your children?" As someone who is childless by choice, I do understand the annoyance with people who assume I should be regretful that I didn't spawn. Kids will be kids and all that, but watching the little Conway jump on the bed didn't make my ovaries ache one bit.
Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug. What the fuck?
That "group" debate was ridiculous. Really? I would guess the Underwoods demanded it to make Claire seem more presidential. And the fact that she was involved in the situation room aftermath was just as ridiculous - she is still the first lady; she's not the VP yet! Hell, Conway had as much right to be there since the terrorist demanded to speak with him instead of Frank.
And from out of nowhere, I love Hammerschmidt. In my fantasy world, the finale is the Underwoods waking up to his story on the front page and the next (and I hope, final) season is Claire and Frank dealing with that piece of business. I guess I need to watch the final episode to find out . . .
-
5
-
-
To be fair, shouldn't Bette Midler be matching Kim in the selfie department?
This sloppy photoshop effort shows an eye, and probably someone else's backside.
I'm pretty sure that's the point.
-
10
-
-
I liked Freddie's overdue, loud, well-deserved FUCK YOU to Frank. For a guy who seems to be a very astute observer of human nature, he totally misjudged Freddie, as well as underestimated his impact on Freddie.
You know, the whole Tom, threesome thing . . . I know it's an open marriage, but during Frank and Claire's conversation I felt like Frank's setting her up for the long game. I don't know why, but I feel like he's going to use this against her, perhaps because he's still pissed from last season/the start of this season. Frank does not forget slights, and I don't think even Claire is forgiven her transgressions against him. In the end, Frank is all about Frank and I can see where taking Claire on as a running mate might have happened because he thought it might help with his re-election (though I still don't really see it) and then he could dump her when the time is right. Just a theory.
As for the Tom thing, as they all three sat there, eating their meager apple slices off their giant plates (????!!!!???? - I laughed out loud at that because it was so ridiculous!) I had to wonder what it would be like for Tom to just loll around the white house all day, "writing speeches" for Claire, waiting for whenever she feels like getting busy. Really, that's his idea of a great life? Basically being the fuck buddy of the First Lady? Because to my mind, that's all it is and it's creepy on every level. What kind of self-loathing would that lead someone to? It'd be one thing if he left and did his thing and they got together periodically for the booty call, but this has a weird overtone of being a kept man to it (in the White House!!). As well, it seems incredibly risky. And when it's exposed (because it has to be; secrets like that have a way of getting out), Claire is going to take the brunt of it, being exposed as a fraud after traveling the country and talking all about how she rediscovered her love for her husband, how committed they are to each other and the country, etc. Bad move, Clair. Bad, bad move.
-
4
-
-
Does anyone have any ideas what the research guy taking his shirt off, donning headphones, and getting down had to do with the story?
Oh good grief, THANKS for that. I had no idea what that was. It was like a strange hallucination.
-
1
-
-
That's what frustrates me the most about Underwood and Stamper's bullying. They are just seriously the least intimidating people on TV. It's like getting threatened by a couple of 5 year old girls. And particularly wimpy and petulant 5 year old girls at that.
Oh good grief yes! Look what happened when Seth grew a set and basically called Doug on his threats. I'm neither here nor there with Seth but I almost fist-pumped when he told Doug that, no, he would not go back to Doug's room at that moment. Doug responded by going to the men's room and knocking the shit out of a stall door. And then when Seth did go to Doug's room, he totally owned what he did. Doug didn't know what to do; Seth owned the moment, the situation and basically disarmed Doug so that threats of violence and career damage were meaningless. Doug was deflated and it was interesting that he didn't bother to read the Telegraph story, but instead, skulked around the losing liver recipient's memorial site. Who'd have thought that dull Seth would have been the one to figuratively toss Doug around?
I'm not this far yet, but I think the public perception of Claire has never been something they've handled particularly well or even coherently?
Yeah, that's where I am on all this. Claire's image has been all over the map, as far as I can remember. Granted, it's been a while since I watched the first three seasons, but I seem to remember her favorability ratings have been volatile. There was the abortion stuff and then the ambassador stuff and I can't remember what else. And though I know the President and Vice President are two different posts and they often don't get along well or even like each other, I have to say, having a husband and wife team such as the Underwoods hold office together wouldn't make me feel comfortable, particularly after her speech where she admits they almost called it quits. It's one thing to have that honest insight from a husband/wife on the campaign trail, but when they are going to hold the highest elected offices together in the country . . . I'd need convincing that it's a good strategy. Of course, we know what kind of scheming went on back and forth between the Underwoods, which the general public wouldn't know, but if I were Frank, I'd be sleeping with one eye open.
I'm really bothered by Claire's mother's death. I know she's the first lady and I know her family was very well-connected in the state of Texas, and I feel like those are the only two reasons Claire's not leaving that house in handcuffs or at least getting a visit from local law enforcement. Claire asked the hospice worker about how much time her mom has (a common question, in my experience) and the hospice worker says it's really hard to know (a common response, in my experience). Then the hospice worker says "WE can make her comfortable so her body basically slips away." From there we go to Claire actively overdosing her mother with morphine. Last I heard, Texas is not one of those states that has any kind of death with dignity law. I took the hospice worker's statement to mean "we'll keep her pain-free with morphine and she'll starve to death within days, but she'll be comfortable because she'll be zonked on morphine."
I don't want to get into a moral discussion about death with dignity and doctor assisted suicide, but I found Claire's actions to be a huge leap from that conversation with the hospice care worker (whom, I don't believe, was advocating that Claire overdose her mother). I understand it was a plot point so that Claire could go give a (not so) rousing speech for the VP nomination but I think it was unrealistic that Claire could suddenly overdose her mom on morphine after that. The other part that was odd was that her mother's body stayed in the house all night while Claire and Tom got busy. I told myself they carried her mother out of the house as Claire was leaving to keep her mother's death out of the news, but really, if Claire can get away with assisted suicide, they could have kept that little bit of it secret, too.
Perhaps I'd have less of a problem with it if Claire's mom had overdosed herself. I understand it was the one, final compassionate thing she could do for her mom, one loving gesture in a complicated relationship. And as much as I dislike Claire, I think it was about honoring her mother's wishes and not about making a speech. It may be that I recently re-read "One True Thing" and am telegraphing that onto this situation (the daughter goes to trial for overdosing her terminally ill mother with morphine).
-
3
-
-
Wait, I don't understand the confusion. Cathy didn't drop any IQ points because she was in fact playing the president. The whole conversation was made to look like Frank was again just manipulating another person and they were falling for it. When in reality Cathy was playing him the whole time by pretending to play into his trap.
Well, I didn't know she was playing him until the end; up until that point I perceived her as just another dumb politician who was taking whatever Frank was doling out She acted incredibly naive and it didn't alarm Frank at all. You are right that the people who don't fall for the Underwoods' schemes are either benefiting from them or powerless, which is the one reason the Conways make a good plot point. The Underwoods have met their younger, better looking match. And though there's something about them that isn't quite working for me, it is a nice change of pace (perhaps one of the few benefits of an election year).
I don't think Frank is very beloved at all; in fact, I seem to remember Conway mentioning that Frank lags behind him by 15%, which is a significant lead. I think it's even more significant given that Frank had an assassination attempt on him - people often get sentimental/forgiving when someone almost dies in the line of duty. I know we're supposed to think that Claire is well-regarded, but in the real world I don't know how that would be given how she forced her way into her diplomatic position and then made an absolute mess of things.
I'm unspoiled so I have no idea how this plays out. However, if the Underwoods pull out the victory they want, then something big has to make it happen because it's hard to believe that the addition of Claire to the ticket is going to give Frank that much of a bounce.
-
Wow, the only way I could watch that Cathy/Frank convo was to assume that she was playing him, that she couldn't POSSIBLY be as credulous as she seemed. It seems obvious to me that anyone so out of touch with reality couldn't possibly function at a cabinet level position. Did she really think Claire's role at Brandenburg wouldn't come out? I hope she's at least starting to remind people of Claire's disastrous ambassadorship.
Thank you. That entire conversation was ridiculous. "Why, Claire would make a wonnnderfulll vice president. You'd keep lil ol me on as Secretary of State???" It's part of what has bugged me about the show from the start: everyone seems to drop about 30 IQ points when they start dealing with the Underwoods.
Part of me expected Doug to kill himself so that a liver would be available for Frank...He is obsessive in his devotion to Frank.
Well he did offer up his liver to the doctor but his alcoholism presented a problem with that little scenario.
I absolutely refuse to believe that Doug is feeling any qualms about bumpiing Frank to the top of the transplant list, no matter how worthy the sacrificial victim was. He's committed murder for Frank, and ruined people's lives, so this is ridiculous.
Yeah, that made no sense at all. Perhaps when it's all said and done and Frank has done something to finally disappoint/disillusion Doug (though I can't imagine what that would be, but maybe it's connected to Leanne) it would make sense for Doug to go look at the innocent bystander he basically signed a death warrant for in his pursuit to serve Frank. Doug killed without remorse for Frank's political life so I have a hard time believing he'd feel guilt over manipulating the transplant list to save Frank's actual life.
About the Conways: They are too made for television. If they were real lifers, I'd be giving them the side eye because everything they do seems to be done with the eye for the camera - playing on the bed with the kids, grabbing his wife and giving her a kiss in the crowd, propping the kid into the video chat. Attention whores get on my nerves and that's what I'd call them if they were real. However, that conversation between Frank and Mr Conway (wth is his first name?) was probably one of the most interesting scenes of the season for me. It was two very ambitious, power-hungry men letting their guards down because they know themselves, and subsequently, each other so well. So while I find the characters kind of empty on one hand, it is appealing to see Frank have a worthy adversary (and I do think that the Conways are worthy adversaries). It's dull watching Frank and Claire run over everyone else (and try to do so with each other) so this was much more interesting for me.
I can't tell if this show helps or hinder the organ donor movement . . .
And add me to the chorus of naysayers about JK playing Conway. He isn't doing it for me. I don't see any charisma there and I agree that his speech pattern is strange. Of course, I don't see anything especially amazing about Claire, so maybe I'm picky about my politicians. If this was a real election I think I'd be sitting it out.
-
1
-
-
I had to come in here after seeing this stuff in my Facebook feed. It's not the nude selfie that gets me (though that seems a desperate attempt to get some attention, imo, but as others are saying, been there, done that with naked Kim). Kim's responses are really tone-deaf, particularly the one where it sounds like she's sitting there counting her millions and transferring money to Kanye's account. I don't know, but I bet most of her followers aren't wealthy and it seems that lording her huge bank account over everyone is questionable; it smacks of privilege and disdain for those who can't keep up. There's a wee bit of a Marie Antoinette vibe going on here and I think it might backfire on her. It's a mistake to take on Bette Midler, who is far smarter, quicker and more talented than Kim could ever hope to be. And she also happens to be right because how many nudes can we see of Kim? What's left that hasn't been shown? I'm sure she'll instagram her first colonoscopy photos.
I think Kim and Kris believe there is no such thing as bad publicity, and in the age of click bait, that has some merit. But Kim is coming off as vindictive and petty in this and (I'm a little surprised no one here has said it), in this case the emperor truly has no clothes.
-
13
-
Kim Kardashian Thomas Humphries West
in Keeping Up With The Kardashians
Well, her face seems to be tying into the theme because it sure looks lifeless to me. I had to come here because I started scrolling through ET's slideshow and in the first five pictures - Kim and Kanye, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga and Madonna - Kim by far was the most attractively dressed. However, there are more than 60 pictures left to peruse and I expect that will come to a screaming halt soon enough.