proserpina65

I'd say it's at least as common as taking your shoes off at the door, if not more so. Growing up, no one I knew took their shoes off when entering a house (except for outdoor boots in bad weather), and most of my friends and relatives still don't.

No more of a stretch than calling Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons rock and rollers. There's some messed up stuff in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

I'm with you there. I gave up about halfway through the second part because there was just no charm or lightness there at all.

The vast majority of people I know who read this crap were attractive, professional women mostly in their early to mid-thirties, and I live on the East Coast, so no, they aren't the Mid-western hausfrau stereotype. But that is, of course, anecdotal. I'd love someone to do an actual study of this; I'd be interested to know how the readership actually breaks down. Movie goers will be a pretty diverse group, I think, at least for the first weekend.

I don't hate either one of them; I just don't care much one way or the other for either. I thought Seth Rogen was good in Freaks and Geeks, but haven't seen him in much else. I thought Jonah Hill was funny in Get Him to the Greek, but felt his Oscar nomination for Wolf of Wall Street should've gone instead to Daniel Bruhl for Rush. That's about it for them as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't rush out to see a movie because Seth or Jonah was in it, but I wouldn't avoid it for that reason either.

For me, The Tudors strayed too far from actual history to be enjoyable on that level, but not far enough to be enjoyable on a crazy "can you believe they did that?" level. And since my pretty in it was Jeremy Northam, once he was gone, so was I.

One of the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen is Master & Commander, and I remember thinking at the time: "There, Peter Jackson, THAT'S how you make something look fantastically real and immediate. By not using so goddamn much CGI." I was over the moon when M&C beat ROTK for the Best Cinematography Oscar.

I don't see it as some sort of feminist apocalyptic sign (I'm so totally going to steal that line, though). I just hope it tanks because it looks like it's a crappy movie based on a crappy book, and I still hope to see quality triumph over crap at the box office. And I fully expect to be disappointed in that regard yet again.

I actually don't find six-pack abs that attractive. Give me a man with a little bit of a tummy, and a fully crammed bookcase, and I'm golden. (Now a really nice ass? That's a whole different story.)

I've read those. And would also recommend them to others as being so vastly superior to FSOG that they hardly are in the same universe. Oh, absolutely. A lot of the stuff I read/write is historical in setting, so it works better because the main character is raised in a society where girls aren't supposed to think of themselves that way. But Ana wandering around in this decade acting like she's been raised in a convent (by wolves, apparently) is pretty ridiculous.

My TV UO: I've never thought Seinfeld was funny. Same goes for Frazier.

That little bit with Robert was absolutely adorable. He was just every doting grampa ever.

Which is hysterical, considering that I didn't think it looked good on her.

I thought that looked like James Faulkner. Yes, Doctor Clarkson was well ahead of his time. He could easily have turned Thomas in to the authorities. So Yay! Dr. Clarkson. As much as I dislike Thomas for his treatment of others, he doesn't deserve to be punished just for being what he is.

I wondered if some of Edith's reaction in that scene was an excuse to not go on the picnic with the rest of the family. We saw her making that phone to London last week; methinks her departure was already planned and she only needed a reason to stay home on Saturday while the rest of the family was out.

Having done some research into sidesaddles recently for something I'm writing, I discovered that there are special sidesaddles designed for hunting/jumping. Yes, it is still a bit more dangerous than riding astride, but for an experienced rider, which Mary is, there's not that much of a difference. It's more of a comfort thing.

That's pretty much the only thing which would redeem her for me. She's gone from being cold to being a stone cold bitch. And that haircut does not flatter her face. (Although the dress she wore to be evil to Edith was stunning.)

It didn't strike me as him making a move - more of a distraction or an act to convince someone else (Lord Gillingham, maybe?) that they were an item.

Shoot! I was out to dinner on Friday and forgot to tape Jeopardy. Now I'll never know if I would've recognized the picture of Rudy Guliani. (Hint - I would've.)

I don't mind that "innocent discovering sex" thing in and of itself, if it's well-written, the character enjoys it and progresses naturally to wanting to explore. I've written some things along that lines. But none of these things applied to the scenes I read in 50 Shades; Ana started out stupid and stayed stupid, and badly written stupid at that.

I surprised myself by getting the first two clues in that category correct, but tank on the last three. Math is not my friend.

I don't necessarily even mind singers who are nasally, but there's something about her tone that I really don't like.

Hell, I flipped through the first book and tried reading a couple of the supposedly hot scenes and realized I'd WRITTEN better sex scenes, albeit probably pretty vanilla ones. Whenever the women in the building where I work tried to get me to read these crappy books because "they're sooooo sexy!", I wanted to say "Sorry, I like my erotica with more sex and less shitty writing, thank you very much".

Really? Vom-it.

Yup, I'm with you on the pretentiousness and the face touching. She's got a really good voice and she can work a stage, but I'm afriad I just can't with her.