Francie

I just came here after seeing the twitter reaction. It's bizarre. I know there's a lot of paid guerilla social media marketing out there, and I have to wonder if that's what's going on here. It's either that or a niche of fans who are banging drums loudly so as to drown out any criticism or even thoughtful discussion. So much of the twitter "buzz" is all about Paramount Plus giving Matalas the reins -- and tons more money -- to produce even more Star Trek. It's an interesting common refrain. For every 2 "I Ioved this episode!" there's as least one "Give Matalas a new show or "sign this petition for more Matalas-produced ST.". Meanwhile, Matalas is on twitter mocking fans and correcting their spelling. Whatev, dude. The other thing I can't get over is how sophomoric the writing is. When it's not glib, it's superficial. And when it's not glib or superficial, it's just someone repeating the obvious. Or repeating what someone else just said. It is truly some of the worst dialogue writing I've ever seen written, let alone produced (let alone produced with a huge budget).

Am I the only one when Picard kept yelling "Ro! Ro!" to remember the fact that Laren is her first name, not Ro? I mean I suppose Jean Luc intended to call out to her by her last name. But, if it was Will Riker in that shuttle, I'd think he'd yell out, "Will! Will!" and not "Riker! Riker!" I'm not enamored with the running theme of this show revisiting characters from Jean Luc Picard's past only to kill them off. Q. Hugh. Now Ro Laren. This show certainly is in service to Patrick Stewart's vanity and his grappling with his own mortality. I prefer to leave Q as immortal and Ro Laren as the strong-willed renegade with a purpose who left us all in TNG's penultimate episode. Her death was senseless. The plot of this season is too light to have been served by it. And it remains to be seen if any information she transported was actually vital (and thus, did serve the "plot"), or if the information dump was just for show in this episode ("Look, everyone, her death served a purpose because we have all these graphics of information!" ... then, nothing that that they didn't already know or suspect). Wake me up when Troi and Geordi arrive, and then again when more than three of the magnificent seven that made up the core of TNG show up in the same place and actually interact face-to-face.

Wow, I thought I could do this -- watch the show. I honestly thought I might enjoy this. I couldn't help but feel that way. TNG is among my all-time top 5 shows. I didn't watch seasons 1 or 2 of Picard for a variety of reasons, although I did watch the Nepenthe episode recently to gear up for this season. I greatly enjoyed the scenes set on Nepenthe (the rest was meaningless to me). But having watched parts of this first episode, I'm gobsmacked at how amateurish the dialogue is. It's like reading a college freshman's first attempt at script writing. This passes for professional writing nowadays? Jokes about Enterprise-D models being unwanted because they're too fat ("You better leave the bottle"), and publicly shaming Geordi's daughter at work to make a crash joke (let me guess, there'll be payoff later on). It's all glib and superficial. It's all wink-wink. Overall, I hate, hate, hate, hate hate JJ Abrams' type "mystery box" writing -- dropping clues to whet the viewers' appetites, with no actual enjoyable plot. All set up and introduction and no realized arc from beginning to end of a single episode. There's no good reason to watch this episode, in and of itself. I compare these 45 minutes to, say, the 45-minute episode of Survivors from season 3 of TNG. That ending literally took my breath away, both when I first watched it as an adolescent and even on revisit. I walked away from that Survivors episode with something to contemplate, and it was the story that gave me feels. Meanwhile, with all this introduction signifying nothing, this first episode of Picard reminded me of season 8 of Game of Thrones. And the last thing I ever need to be reminded of is Season 8. Maybe I'll catch you all again around Episode 6. The only positive of this episode is that it killed my excitement and will no longer be a distraction. I got up extra early to watch this first episode. I couldn't help but be excited, even with some critics naysaying. My expectations are now tempered. The best bright side -- my love for TNG came flooding back these past few weeks, and going down that memory lane was thoroughly enjoyable.

Wet blanket alert. Being a huge TNG fan back in the day, I had started to get excited about season 3. I only watched the Nepenthe episode of Picard so far, at least all the way through. The rest of Picard is not my TNG (it may be others, just not mine). I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate JJ Abrams' "mystery box" writing. All secretive and whetting appetites that'll never get satisfied. That's my fear as to what's going on here. Here goes my speculation, based on the trailers, interviews & reviews (and why I'm going to hate it). Episode 1 as Riker and Picard hook up for the "Butch Cassidy" moment. Except Picard and Riker were never Butch Cassidy type buds. Early on, Riker and Worf were the closest to the best buds each had, and in the later seasons, Riker and Troi were confidants and besties ("I'm closer to her than I've ever been to anyone") and so were Beverly and Jean Luc. Even though Picard warmed up to his crew more toward the end, it wasn't until All Good Things that he even joined in their reindeer, err poker, games. So already, I'm not going to buy into it. We're told early on there's trouble in the Troi-Riker marriage. I've waited years to see those two settle down. Nepenthe was a good place for them, even with the grief for the son they lost. They didn't need to upset the apple cart about that, though I think it's been done as a plot point. Episode 1, and likely carrying over to 2, because who doesn't love a dragged out plot, starts with Riker joining Jean Luc as he and Deanna are on a break, and just like the opening of Wrath of Khan (I can hear it now -- "It's AN HOMAGE""), upon a routine ship inspection of the Titan, Jean Luc receives the "don't trust anyone" message from Beverly. Jean Luc takes the controls from Saavik, errr, Titan's non-woke captain, whose purpose is to deadname Seven of Nine and probably dramatically die later after a slight moment of realization, and travels off to find Beverly. What he finds instead is an angry Jack Crusher. I wish I could tell you no, but my guess is that the dude with gun to Riker's head is Jack Crusher, born during Beverly's second season absence from the ship. For reasons that'll never make sense, no matter how hard showrunners will try. They'll go full Season 8 David and Dan from Game of Thrones and blame the fans for not accepting their vision before they admit that it doesn't make sense. Have they ever seen Attached? Or will they conveniently explain that away? OMG, tell me they're going to claim Beverly had the baby and didn't even know? Ugh, there's no good scenario to come of this. The two main plotlines of this 10-episode drip, that might converge, is that Amanda Plummer is the daughter of Romulan Admiral who was the Defector (TNG, Season 3). Right before he committed suicide, he wrote a letter to his daughter, which Picard hoped one day will be delivered. That letter will get delivered in episode 9 or 10. Meanwhile, the Federation is being infiltrated by a parasite, just like in the Conspiracy. (It's an HOMAGE!) That'll bring us back to the Troi/Riker woes. Troi's estrangement from Riker is due to a parasite. And Picard and Riker will discover that she's been infected, and that just might be their Crimson Tide show down. The convergence of these two plot points could happen in that Plummer is using the parasite to exact her revenge. Worf'll be there, playing mentor to Picard's version of Kill Bill's Uma Thurman, Raffi. And, in the closest thing to being original, it may be that Picard will come to realize he can't trust any living being, so he'll have to call on artificial life forms to defeat the parasites. Enter Lore and Moriarty. Let's see how I do. TLDR: Season 3 will be Conspiracy meets the Wrath of Admiral Jarok's Daughter, with a side of "Jack Crusher" being Beverly & Jean Luc's son and the ret-conned reason why she was missing from Season 2.

I do.

Just hopping off the barge, and procrastinating on my own work. Ingo's lawsuit is still ongoing, and scheduled for trial in May of 2023. Lots can happen between now and then, though. I'd expect a motion for summary judgment to be filed a few months before the trial.

But that's also when she thought she was going to be performing for a crowd that already loves her.

She's probably used to be hired and fired and re-hired and fired again. Maybe Alice was called "Weed" because she's constantly getting pulled out, but pops back up again.

Going old school to add to your list: Long before Dr. Monica Quartermaine was Dr. Monica Quatermaine, she was married to one Dr. Jeff Weber, but in love with his brother and her former boyfriend, Dr. Rick Webber. Going old school to add to your list: Long before Dr. Monica Quartermaine was Dr. Monica Quatermaine, she was married to one Dr. Jeff Weber, but in love with his brother and her former boyfriend, Dr. Rick Webber.

Feb. 25, 1992 was Tristan Rogers' last air date. Finola didn't return for that day, and there was no flashbacks of Anna. Finola was already working on Jack's Place at the time. Finola getting the Jack's Place offer is what caused the bad blood between Finola and Gloria Monty. Finola had long planned on leaving when her contract was up on Dec. 31, 1991. Gloria was supportive of Finola moving on, to the point where Gloria set up meetings for her with various execs. Both Finola and Gloria expected that Finola would finish out her contract and start auditioning in the 1992 pilot season. Unfortunately, from Gloria's perspective, no good deed goes unpunished, because one of the execs Finola wanted her to start right away on Jack's Place, which was supposed to be a mid-season replacement show. Because that was an ABC show, ABC could let her out of her GH contract a few weeks early. Finola gave two weeks' notice when there was about 6 weeks left to film. Gloria was irate, and didn't let Finola finish out her two weeks. Meanwhile, I'm still bitter we didn't get Finola to play out the scene where she realizes she's been tricked and comes face to face with Faison. Anyway, back to the episode. There were lots of references to Anna, but no Finola, no Camila, and no flashbacks. Just two Robin/Robert flashbacks. I had totally forgotten that Gloria had rewritten history and made Holly's childhood nanny, Nanny McTavish, Faison's mother. Don't ask, it makes zero sense. You'd have to think the UK has a population of 12 to make the logic work. Nevertheless, here's the Robert/Holly/Robin/Faison portions of that episode:

She'd qualify for a homestead exemption. In California, a single person can keep up to $600,000 in equity in their house when they file bankruptcy.

I think Deborah is suing Ava as a warning shot to the show runners who have the e-mail. Since the suit is now public, the show runners have notice* that they are basing their show on material they received in violation of a contract. Deborah could threaten suit against them for tortious interference with a contract, if she wants to claim they enticed Ava to send her the e-mail. I'm not saying Deborah has a great suit, but showing she's litigious, and perhaps threatening to seek injunctive relief in the form of not being able to air the show, is not a bad move for someone with as much money as Deborah. *Ava telling them was notice, too. In fact, better notice. But people's versions of events can change, and the public filing of a lawsuit cannot.

If there's any truth to that -- ugh. Instead of having successful middle-aged professional women going back to school to learn, why not have them go to school to teach?

You're right, Slovakprincess. At first I thought that $25,000 is way too high a ceiling for small claims matters. And it is. But there's a court of limited jurisdiction in between small claims and where Ingo filed for matters where the claimed damages are between $7,500 and $25,000.

I don't think Tom was the mole all along. No one who thought he was in Logan's pocket would have been prepping for prison like Tom was. The man ate diner food, for goodness sake. Multiple times! That's a man without options or hope. We saw a man beaten down over the season. There was Shiv's lack of concern for his predicament. There was his realization or at least his articulation of the realization, when meeting with Kendall, that Logan never loses. Very importantly, there was that critical moment earlier when Logan squeezed Tom's arm and said he'd remember. That moment, along with Logan choosing him to escort him to the bathroom and the intimacy they shared in Tom helping him gave him the courage to even approach Logan directly. Those two moments -- especially Logan's declaration of remembering -- emboldened Tom in a way that never would have occurred to the Tom we met in the series premiere who was wracked with anxiety at buying Logan a birthday present. It wouldn't have even occurred to this season's premiere Tom, who had to run to the bathroom and secretly call Shiv. Tom would have been too scared to approach Logan directly, at least until the shareholder's meeting. My theory on who tipped off Logan about the four kids meeting is Willa. There was one reference in season 2 -- I think it was the MoLester funeral episode, where Willa mentioned that she had been talking with Marcia lately. And, then, in this season's finale, we have Connor telling us he learned about the maca root from Willa, whom Kerry told. Following that, we have a specific moment where Kendall or Roman calls Connor from the car on the way to meet Logan. You know he told Willa about it. Just like he would have told Willa he was going over to Kendall's wife's townhome back in episode one. It was Tom in the final episode, but it wasn't him who ratted out the kids in the first episode.

He's asking for attorney's fees on top of the $25,000.

I couldn't resist reading the complaint. He's in state court, in Los Angeles County. He's not alleging employment discrimination. I mean, he mentions it, but it's not his cause of action. Rather, he's making a single claim that the vaccine mandate is an invasion of his right to privacy under the California Constitution. He's claiming that private entities operating in California can violate a constitutional right (I hadn't heard that before) and that ABC does not have a compelling interest in having the mandate because there are effective alternatives to a vaccine mandate. He claims the mandate is "irrational." I don't know how Ingo will differentiate between a privacy right in being vaccinated from Covid and and a privacy right that children or their parents can claim so as not to be vaccinated for measles, etc., before going to school (California eliminated personal belief exemptions back in 2015). If Ingo were to, theoretically, win, public schools could no longer mandate any vaccine. If he's relying on "well, the Covid-19 vaccine is really, really sketchy (which he does kinda say in a horribly conspiratorial kind of way), but other vaccines are good," he ought to get laughed out of court. He also claims to have been on GH for 25 years without acknowledging that's been and on-and-off kinda thing for a lot of that. And he's asking for "at least $25,000" in damages due to the termination of his contract. Yikes, really, that's it? I would imagine he wants to stay under the $75,000 cap to stay out of federal court, but, buddy, really -- just $25,000? That's all your contract is worth? Link to the lawsuit, which includes his religious exemption note as an attachment: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ingo-Rademacher-lawsuit.pdf

Dammit, I wrote a long ass post that I didn't post about how ridiculous Ingo's lawsuit would be. It was about how every employer has been advised by their labor and employment attorneys to skip the first question asked in any religious accommodation case (whether the belief is a sincerely held religious believe), and to assume that -- no matter how convenient the belief is or how recently the employee started to believe it -- it is a sincerely held belief. Instead, all HR Directors -- at least the ones following their attorney's advice -- move to Step 2: Is there a reasonable accommodation? And for vaccination exemptions there is not, except as someone put it well above, the employee can work 100% remotely. Because employers have the right to impose mandates it judges to be best* (no matter if the employer is wrong*) and the responsibility (unfortunately to a limited degree) to keep their employees safe. And then I mentioned how Ingo's case, if federal, would be brought in the Central District of California, and any appeal would be the Ninth Circuit. And those are aren't courts that'll lean Ingo's way. The Supreme Court just denied an appeal of New York's law requiring health care workers to be vaccinated, so even that Court wouldn't rule Ingo's way. So, I concluded, this is all idiocy. Because Ingo has a better case of fraud or malpractice against his attorney than he has a meritorious case for religious discrimination. Or this is a grift. So, look who's trying to sell monavie juice to the fans now. *Employers in the 38 states that haven't taken state-level action to ban employer mandates. **Employers are not wrong.

Yes, because it's definitely women's fault for men sending them unsolicited dick pics. Changing topics, perhaps the biggest thing that bothered me about this episode? That Kendall had a bottle in the pool. It's poolside hangout rule no. 1: no glassware.

Kendall's not dead. The showrunners are playing Lucy with the football again. Kudos for the observation that Kendall was seeing how long he could hold his breath. My other random thoughts of the episode: 1) I hope the writers at least paused and had some heartburn when having Roman write Gerri's name in the text. Who does that? They had a text string going. I hate cheap, convenient plot devices. He at least should've written "Ger-Bear," and then get Logan's reaction when he's told or figures out Roman means Gerri. 2) Both Kendall and Roman had opportunities for good comebacks with Logan. Kendall could've stopped Logan shot with a cut about the waiter wouldn't have been in the parking lot in the first place if Logan hadn't gotten flustered and lost on him. Roman could've, and ordinarily would've, come back with a far better retort as to why he sent a dick pic to Gerri. Even, "Jesus, it was just a joke, lighten up" would've been better. Roman could've easily adopted a 'I didn't do it because I think she's attractive - she probably hasn't seen a young dick in 40 years and you know how fun it is to be gross to women and make them uncomfortable' attitude, and given who Logan is and who he hung around with for decades, he'd get that. But I don't think of either Kendall's or Roman's ability to defend themselves or mount a counterattack as the writer's fault. Those are the characters who are unable to process when on the receiving end of their father's attack. They falter. 3) Did anyone else get the vibe that the show was hinting that Shiv was pregnant at the beginning of the episode? Yes, she was playing hooky from the meeting, but she also looked and acted ill. Then she refused the first glass of alcohol. I wonder if the show was going for a fake out -- have the audience think it was going for surprise reveal that she was pregnant, and then pull the rug out. 4) That freezing embryo talk is the least romantic "should we have a baby" conversation I've ever witnessed. Run, Tom, run. Or maybe I should go back and watch an episode where I have no sympathy for Tom, so that I can feel less sad for him. Tom keeping Logan's "I'll remember" arm squeeze under wraps from Shiv, I bet. Given how awful the kids are, he's looking more and more viable as a candidate. 5) Caroline exists so that we can understand that there's a worst parent in the world other than Logan? That "I should have had dogs" line is the coldest line, ever. That was not self-reflection. She intended it as an insult -- "I would have preferred a dog to a daughter" -- and it hit its mark. 6) Logan will be tempted to remove Gerri because he can't get rid of Roman. But Gerri's the one with the inside track to the DOJ. And she's the most competent of the bunch. 7) Greg with the watch. And already trying to trade up for the Countess. I know many who watch the show are supposed to, and to, idetnify with Greg as the outsider looking in. But, to me, he's not anyone I can relate to. He's an opportunistic schmuck who's trying to coast on his white male connected privilege. Though I agree that it's puzzling the Roys think Comfrey is out of his league. She's just a pr staffer. No wealth or family connections of her own. It's not like she's chasing away throngs of gorgeous, rich suitors. I guess I have to go with that the family likes to kick Greg so much they can't see him as a moderately good looking human being. All in all, this episode felt a bit forced to me. A bit square peg in a round hole, where the writers were pushing through ideas that didn't jive with what's on screen.

I love that the season began with suspect doughnuts, and now Logan actually uses his grandson as a food taster.

I've assumed it's "Pinkie," like she's a pinkie commie. Logan started it as an insult, and then he used it so often it morphed into the closest Logan gets to showing genuine affection. Speaking of showing genuine affection, I'm convinced Shiv and Roman would have gone to Kendall's birthday party even if they hadn't learned Skarsgard was going. It's the Roy family way to pretend they had to go for some ulterior motive. It's just like Logan not wanting to actually miss out on his daughter's wedding. They latch on to some convenient reason to go (not to say the meeting up with the techie wasn't important, it was; they lucked out with a good excuse). Roman indicated he was planning to go, anyway before he learned the technie would be there. For Kendall's sake, I wish he had realized that. They all doth protest too much. Shiv also should have been more suspicious of Roman's claims that he and Logan had worked out the offer to Kendall together. Understandably, she's still reeling from the recent Logan slights and can't see straight. I'm still getting vibes that it's Naomi who's going to go over that balcony rail. She and Kendall are functioning drug users, and while Kendall has her to rely on, I doubt he's there, or will be there, when she's hitting a low. Total co-dependents, those two.

Beaker doesn't deserve to be dragged down to their company!!! Meep. Meep.

I suppose there’s a case to be made that Tom became an accessory after the fact. I’m not going to look up whether the statute of limitations on the original crimes impacts on whether one can be an accessory. [Probably will look up that exact point of law within the next 12 hours] Tom’s not guilty of conspiracy, at least for conspiracy to commit the original crimes. He would have had to form an agreement with one of the original wrongdoers to enact some sort of illegal goal. His only co-conspirator is Greg in destroying information long after those crimes were committed.

Yes, they clearly were going for Cheryl's child (Lucas) to be Robert's. It all had to do with Cheryl running away and having the baby, only to be told that it had died. They showed her crying for Robert at the time. But, of course, the baby didn't die. Instead, the doctor (nurse?) snatched the baby for sale on the black market. Bobbie bought the baby, and then had Robert be named the godfather. That seemed kinda random, given taht while Bobbie and Robert were friends, they were definitely in different circles. Bobbie had her Brownstone and hospital crew, and Robert had his police work and secret agent friends. But Tristan had no interest in Robert having another child and, as you said, threw his weight around, and TPTB were forced to rewrite that Cheryl had somehow hooked up with Julian -- again. It made no sense, but there you have it. For selfish reasons, I'm totally fine with Ethan not being Robert's. ;)