alphacat

So glad to hear that they have reversed course with regard to Mike. My suggestions to those in the hiring process: Option 1 - hire Buzzy (or Ken) for this coming year and then decide whether to make this permanent or start the process again next year. PRO: people liked his hosting, they were considering him anyway and we can move past this whole process; CON: not sure there is one. Option 2 - have a limited number of guest hosts who are serious candidates go through an audition process that is the same for everyone and that is clearly intended to end in signing a permanent host. PRO: gets away from the confusion of this past process, puts everyone on a level playing field, and ends with a result; CON: many are sick of this process and this won't help. I don't particularly mind having people "audition" but if they are going to do that they need to be clear about how they will be choosing and how the auditions factor in. If I were part of the hiring process, the auditions would be helpful - e.g., I expected Levar Burton to be better than he was. Serious candidates would be able to leave their current obligations and commit to Jeopardy! full-time and would really be interested in taking the job vs. bucket list/tribute to Alex. Give them two weeks - really two days of shooting - and find a time where they will have equal footing on the schedule, so no holidays or special events. In other words, try to have as level a playing field as possible and see how they do. TPTB need to focus this list on candidates who would be able to bring a balance between enthusiasm and respect for the show, ability to read the questions clearly and move the game along, and ability to engage the contestants.

When I heard that it may be Mike, I was ... disappointed. I liked Mike - he did a fine job, was professional, moved the game along, had good game-show patter, etc. But choosing him just feels sort of unsatisfying. I can't really remember him, except to say that he did a good job and was a little bland. Along with Ken, he's the safest of the safe choices. Until I read his name as one of the finalists, I was ambivalent. Once I read his name, I was a bit sad that Jeopardy wouldn't take the opportunity to bring in some new talent. I also am a little bothered by the fact that Mike is the executive producer, which affects the process of selecting a host. Yes, people move around in companies, but it is challenging for those in the selection process (been there, done that). Sometimes these things work out and everything is fine; other times there are subtle or not-so-subtle negative feelings (again, been there ...). When he initially stepped in, I thought it was great that he was able to do that and that contributed to my positive opinion of him. Now that I know he was auditioning, it makes me less enthusiastic about him. I'm glad they are still talking with Mayim and Buzzy. I preferred both of them to Mike. They brought a new energy to the show and would be terrific. While Mayim had a little work to do, e.g., losing the randomly placed laughing, I think if she was the permanent host she would work on that and gain confidence in hosting. Alex frequently talked about wanting a woman to host the show - I think it would be a nice tribute to him if that happened. I don't know how Alex and Buzzy got along, but I can't help thinking Alex would have been proud of the way Buzzy stepped up to the plate. Buzzy was my favorite guest host (surprisingly) and could step in on day one.

I rarely watch CTM, but really like John Dickerson and thought he was terrific on FTN. I've only watched occasionally since he left and I'm not fond of his replacement. I think he's going to 60 Minutes, which will hopefully be a better format for him. His Whistlestop podcast (at Slate) is very entertaining. I think he likes that "storytelling" aspect of history and maybe he can bring some of that to 60 Minutes. I'm not fond of Gayle and don't really have strong feelings either way about Norah.

Note: potential spoilers. Over the past few weeks, I watched all three seasons and have mixed feelings about this show. I really like the relationship between Grace and Frankie and the idea of the show. Frankie is unevenly written, IMO and alternates between being warm/quirky/fun and childish/irritating/difficult - this latter just seems out of character. I know it's supposed to be comedic, but at times it crosses the line for me. Grace seems more believable as a character, as I think her choices, etc. seem to fit her personality. I'm so glad to see her trying to loosen up a bit and am sad that all of her efforts to keep things on track (business, home, marriage and kids) seem to be devalued by her family - though maybe they (especially Robert) are starting to realize how challenging it has been for her. It's great to see Grace and Frankie help each other deal with the changes in their lives and become true friends. Robert and Sol are problematic, as they have no chemistry and their storyline is all over the place - the play, really? Robert is certainly not my favorite "person" but I can at least understand most of his decisions and reactions. Sol drives me crazy, though, and some of my criticisms are the same as I have about Frankie. I really think they need to get a writer who can better bridge the more laid back, free spirit aspects of Sol and Frankie with their approach to challenging situations. These are all terrific actors and have enjoyed them in other things. Robert and Sol as a couple need some work. I feel like all of these characters need something to do - the play was at least Robert trying something new and, while I thought the protest was ridiculous, it made sense that he would try something he enjoyed and I could see him being involved with the theater as an ongoing thing. Sol and gardening didn't make sense since he didn't seem to enjoy it - having him volunteer legal services might be better. I wish that Grace and Frankie would each find something that didn't involve lube, vibrators and relationships with men! I understand that they want to say that older women can enjoy sex, but it would also be great to see them branch out a little more. Frankie initially had the convicts and painting classes; then she had the exhibit and was focused on that. Grace and the mentoring was a potentially good story and I enjoyed seeing her get excited about running a business. It was fun when they went out to the bar - not everything has to be a big story arc - or they could do a book club or try some new hobbies or take a class or volunteer, even if these things sometimes happen off-screen. These characters are smart, capable, curious people - it would be nice if they were also well-rounded. When everything turns to focusing so much on romantic relationships (Robert and Sol; Mallory and Mitch; Bud and Allison; Brianna and Barry; Frankie and Jacob), I usually check out of a show.

While I completely agree that inflammatory and condescending responses don't help foster a discussion, the challenge is that some things that "actually happened on the show" are interpreted differently and sometimes people get very invested in shows/characters. I'm always interested to see how other people interpret things in different ways! I rarely take this show that seriously (Sherlock is where my irrational side comes out!) and my opinions on the crazy storylines are not all that strong, so hope I don't tension to the conversation. At the risk of wading into deep water ... I have sympathy for Edith and Mrs. Drewes. Mr. Drewes is the one who irritates me. IMO, it was really his "backstory" for Marigold and his ongoing lie to his wife that laid the ground for the failure of the arrangement. If Mr. Drewes felt he couldn't tell his wife the truth (for whatever reason), then I think there needed to be a strong connection to Edith in his backstory - maybe the child belonged to a former employee of DA of whom both he and Edith were very fond - something that would make it seem reasonable for Edith to be engaged. Also, had they set a schedule for meetings and had Edith work through Mr. Drewes if she wanted to see the child more often, maybe it would have cut down on the annoying and random visits. Just because she wanted to be able to see Marigold, disrupting the rest of the family's routine on a whim was not optimal. He seemed to think he could control the actions/responses of both his wife and Edith when in reality he couldn't control much of anything! I lean toward seeing the attachment of Mrs. Drewes to Marigold as being odd in that it was so intense and possessive. Of course, it's reasonable that she would love the child, but her reactions just didn't seem quite right to me, particularly given that they are tenants and her husband works for the family. Perhaps that's how she might respond today but back then, she should have been more deferential to Edith, IMO - hard as that might have been. On Edith's side, she is very indecisive and doesn't really seem to have a plan, which drives me crazy. I can understand her not knowing whether to go to London or stay at DA, as it's really only been 9 months (?) since Gregson died and she inherited - that's a big decision for her and I'm guessing she is not used to making big decisions. She really wouldn't have to be alone in London. She would need a nanny/au pair to look after Marigold and maybe she could find someone who could live in and do light cleaning/cooking - not sure how big the flat is, so maybe that wouldn't work. And Rosamund would be around. I don't particularly like Mary, but I'm not really "Team Edith" either. Both have their moments, good and bad. I wouldn't really want to put up with either of them. I'll invite myself to tea with the Dowager, Rosamund and Isobel!

This is what I thought, too. Add to that, Sherlock was focusing on so many things (Moriarty, other cases, etc.) that maybe John thought he was distracted from his focus on Mary and therefore hindered Sherlock's ability to keep her safe. On the "affair" - maybe I missed something (I was watching with someone who wasn't following at all so had to translate here and there, so I was a little distracted) but it seemed to me to be ill-advised flirting that was setting up something to come. I'm not sure that I would call it an emotional affair - he and Mary were exhausted, Sherlock was hyper, lots of changes, Mary's past (already a sore spot) was coming back to haunt them and he was angry, etc. Sometimes people do things they wouldn't normally do and it contributes to his grief and anger at the end. Now, if he actually cheated or if he was more emotionally engaged than it seemed to me, I'll take back all my rationalizing! However, I do think, on her part, she is setting something up. In preparation, I re-watched many of the past episodes over the weekend, so I'm very happy to have the show back. My concern is more about what they will do with the baby - while Sherlock the babysitter was fun, I'm not sure I'm excited about a baby in the mix.