Sailorgirl26

That is completely against the character of this show. It seems as though every week, there's some sort of speculation that Tasha is using her disability to gain an edge, which isn't fair to Tasha or the entire tone and tenor of this show. We've never seen anything to indicate any sort of ableism this season, or any other season when they've had contestants with impairments. YMMV. I was surprised that Dan got star baker over Josh, but then another poster mentioned Dan's Thai (not curry!) inspired creme caramel, which was probably the tipping point -- it was definitely creative and unexpected and it worked, which likely put him over the top. Awww, Saku!! Just like with star baker, it probably came down to flavors, and Christy just had more than Saku. She has the best laugh of any recent competitor I can remember! What a great season this has been!

So now we've got Laura Benanti added to the list of Broadway stars in this show, AND a plot around an opera house -- if we don't get some sort of fundraiser where they all sing to raise money (and somehow figure out how to get Audra McDonald in there), I will be HIGHLY disappointed! And speaking of Laura Benanti -- her black and white dress when she and Larry returned to the house before heading to Cougartown was the winner of the week for me!

Am I the only one who thinks the plotlines take second place to the clothing and house porn??? Every week there seems to be one standout outfit--usually Bertha's--this week it was the blue and white "nautical" dress she was wearing in Newport when walking with Nathan Lane to go inspect her summer cottage. The way the navy blue pleats contrasted with the solid white of the skirt were incredible, and then the v strips meeting at the center of her breastbone with that amazing cameo brooch--I would kill to be able to wear that dress--without the corsets and waist cinchers and other beauty is pain foundational nonsense. But then I'm sure it wouldn't look the same, so....there's that. 😄 And what a great show on whic to be a location scout--this Newport Cottage or that one? Decisions, decisions!! Let's just use them all for different rooms and reasons!!!

I was really enjoying this, but I'm halfway through season 2 and am just over Simon. As much as he's giving Wilhelm a hard time about being open, Simon is completely disregarding Wilhelm's very valid concerns and role as the Crown Prince -- Simon is a toxic manipulator, not the tender, sensitive artiste they're trying to make him out to be. The only way this relationship can progress if it happens on Simon's terms. That's bullshit. He's whining because the relationship is secret, but literally the entire school knows, and right now at this point in their lives, that is everyone who matters -- its not like sixteen-year-old royals parade their flavor of the month at every -- or any -- appearance. The kids at the school keep things at the school (August releasing the video was a one-off as clearly Erik made it through his school years and his unroyal behavior was never leaked). There could be external public speculation, sure, but no proof. Nesse is right -- Wilhelm needs to find someone who understands the larger, national and international implications at play and that this isn't just a normal coming out situation. Based on the season 3 preview, I'm thinking that Wilhelm is going to step down as Crown Prince to be with Simon and then we're stuck with dipshit August. Wilhelm is friggin' sixteen years old -- sure, he clearly understands the implications of what he's doing -- throwing away centuries of monarchical succession for a first love.

I just binged this and am so conflicted. First of all, always been a Darryl fan. Second -- France. And I liked the changes with different walker variants, killer nuns, Paris as it fell, hell I even liked the Buddhist monk from New Jersey! There was so much good about this spinoff, except two things . . . First and foremost -- that kid. Ohmilord I have never wanted to reach through a screen and smack some sense into a child character like I did this one. The best thing that could have happened was for Stephane to shoot him and put ALL of us our misery. And it leaned too heavy on religion for me. If this becomes "Daryl finds his true self through religion" I will be fucking pissed. Daryl didn't survive because Sister Fleur and the most special snowflake who ever snowflaked prayed for him. He survived because he knows what he needs to do to survive. Pray all you want, but if survival comes down to praying or a 17th century French weapon, guess which one will help you live another day? Hint. It doesn't involved folded hands. Darryl belongs with his family -- Carole, Judith, RJ, CONNIE, and the rest of them. THAT is his home. THAT is his family. And he was on his way back to them. But because that kid was raised with no parental guidance -- only "he must be protected at all costs and no matter what he does or how much he doesn't listen we're just going to let him be that way because . . .reasons" -- now Darryl has to go save his ass -- again -- and miss his opportunity to get back to his REAL home. I would love to see that little fucker get eaten alive on that rock. Look, I know the reasons why this show is now based in France and they did so much good with it -- I just wish they'd come up with a different storyline other than Darryl has to save an ungrateful, completely unprepared-to-survive-in-the Zombie world, pretentious little French brat who, despite being raised by killer nuns FFS hasn't killed even ONE walker. The only thing that little turd is going to bring back is French entitlement and arrogance. Hopefully Carole will find Darryl quickly and instead of just telling a kid a story about how he'll end up one of the monsters if he doesn't get his shit together, she'll follow through on her threat and do us all a favor. And if all else fails, she can always take him out to look at the flowers. /Le rant fin

Paul specifically said it took two 45-minute sessions in the proving drawer and the timing allowed for that. Based on what they aired, most bakers did 30 minutes. So I don't think they shorted them on time, I think this was one of the technical components they got wrong.

Add me to the table of people who think the wrong baker went home. But, we don't have the tactile understanding, so.... I noticed this week that both Saku and Nicky have the best laughs--Saku at one point gave what I can only describe as a cackle but it was absolutely delightful. So glad our beloved GBBO is back to form!!!

Here's a Salon article that perfectly sums up what we've been saying about how wonderful the return to classic GBBO format is: https://www.salon.com/2023/09/30/with-buttercream-bits-and-beavers-the-great-british-bake-off-is-finally-back-to-prime-saucy-form/

It’s not so much that they were particularly unlikeable or unkind, more that they were bakers with a schtick (Kim Joy comes quickly to mind) who just weren’t at the level of previous seasons and were characters in the vein of other cooking shows that just don’t have the heart of GBBO. I know Kim Joy was a good baker but she was more of a quirky character. And the lady with the purple hair. The goth woman too, etc. It’s not that they were unlikeable, it’s just that they weren’t as talented as those who went before and seemed to be cast more on their “brand” than their skill, and I wasn’t as invested to care when they went home or won challenges. I want the warm fuzzy when they win challenges, and I want to feel the “aw” when they get eliminated and I hadn’t had that for the past few seasons. The Chigs, Lottie, Giuseppe, et Al season is the last really enjoyable one I remember. Just give us good home bakers preparing real recipes without all the added quirks, both people and challenges. That’s what made this show so wonderful, what they got away from, and what they seem to have gotten back to.

I went to the school of “Men Very Early Make Jars Stand Up Neatly, Period.” alas, poor Pluto. We hardly knew ye.

Only two episodes in and this is already a better season than the past few. The return to "basics," Matt leaving, and Allison as a new host are working well. I'm glad they paid attention that the changes to try to make it more "flashy"(?) weren't working and were smart enough to change it back. Just because you've been doing it a certain way for a long time doesn't mean its bad. This show works in large part because it is so comfortable -- trying to make it more "edgy" by adding the ridiculous challenges was awkward and uncomfortable. I love all of these competitors -- this is going to be a rough season of goodbyes!

Has anybody watched season 2? Parts were interesting and parts were just weird filler. They computer-generated reenactment of the crime was educational (not sure what word to use that doesn't sound morbid) and gave a very good visual of how it happened. When they played the video of Paul with the dog and then Alex's voice in the background--that was chilling. Paul was such an arrogant entitled little shit--two years after the boating incident, still under age, he gets busted in a boat with alcohol? But according to his friend, he was sorry for Mallory's death? Give me a break. And the whole auction scene was just--bizarre--especially the vacuum cleaner lady. A bag full of their vacuum lint is eerie? WTF is wrong with you lady? Trying to imply that somehow there might be some evidence or clues in there amd you're now a part of this story? Okay crazy. Those turtle lamps were tacky as hell, and the literal wall of rifles and shotguns reflected a whole other host of issues with this family. Just because you can have them doesn't mean you should, and what is the need for all of that? That one wall could have been a commercial for responsible gun control.

A single woman's decisionmaking--right, wrong, or otherwise, is not responsible for the wreckage of a home that is not hers, nor a relationship in which she is not a party. She is not responsible for his bad decisionmaking that caused his relationship and home to dissolve. We very clearly disagree--you're comparing apples and oranges--and it's time for both of us to move on.

Again, not about her decision making. She did not wreck the home. He did. It was his home, his relationship. He wrecked it, not her.

For the last time, while I recognize the point you are trying to make, the point I'm making is not about Noreen's decisionmaking. It's about blaming a woman for wrecking a home when she wasn't the one responsible for keeping that home and relationship together. Those are two different things. We clearly disagree. Best to leave it at that.

Fixed it for ya'... 😅

For the heck of it, I looked up Gramercy Park listings on Zillow. There's a 4 br, 4 ba for $7.2M close to the park. Bigger properties, as one would expect, are much pricier. So you're pretty close on the price -- and I'm sorry but that place she bought is not an apartment -- its a house, or maybe a townhouse, but definitely not an apartment.

Disagree--the only way the blame is equal is if both parties are involved in other relationships. In this case, only one person was in a relationship. The other was not and thus is not responsible for "wrecking a home." The blame belongs on the cheater. The single person is not cheating on anyone. Cheaters are going to cheat. If it wasn't this character he would have cheated with someone else. And probably did. Who cheated and wrecked a home boils down to who was in a relationship and who was not. He was; she wasn't. He cheated; she didn't. She didn't wreck a home; he did. I repeat my original comment. We need to stop blaming women for the bad behavior of men. If men care about their marriages and relationships, then don't cheat. That is 100% on them, not the woman they cheat with. Why is it the woman's responsibility to keep his behavior in check? We have got to stop perpetuating this "boys will be boys and it's a woman's place to keep them in line" nonsense. No. Just....no. Women don't "ask for it" with what they wear. Being nice to a man is not "flirting." Not all conversations are invitations to sex. And even when the flirtation is real, men have agency to say no. Whether they choose to walk away or pursue is, again, 100% on them. What do women need to do? Step up and call out this patriarchal bullshit. That's the story we need to see told in shows like this. And every show. And it could be argued that we did see it in this show because Maddie realized Bill would have cheated with anyone, Noreen was simply the one who fell for his nonsense, just like she did. And instead of blaming Noreen and holding her responsible for his behavior, she blamed the actual person responsible. As she should have.

The puffiness is from being on high prednisone dosage -- my cousin had lupus and when it was at its worst she was on very high levels. It does go away pretty quickly when you start scaling the dosages back down. Lupus is horrible and if Selena was acting during a flare up, that's beyond impressive.

My response was directed toward the "she's a homewrecker" comment and the blame being laid at her feet and absolving the married male character of any responsibility or accountability for the breakdown of his relationship. This is not about her decision-making process. No matter what decisions or choices she made, she was not the one "wrecking the home." That lies solely with the person who was in the home. To blame her for it is wrong. She was not the one betraying vows, nor was she cheating on a partner with whom she was involved in any way, shape, or form. The blame needs to be put where it belongs. Full stop.

Can we PLEASE stop blaming single women for married men's bad behavior? (Or any woman for any man's behavior for that matter?) The ONLY person who "wrecked the home" was the person living in it with his spouse. I don't recall whether it was the premise here, but men--married or not--will say whatever they need to if they want to get laid. Bill is a slime. He probably told her that he was separated, getting divorced, etc., and most young women who haven't had a lot of life experience will believe it. She didn't tie him up and force him to have sex with her. She wasn't the married one. She didn't lie and go against promises made to another person. Women. Are. Not. Responsible. For. The. Decisions. Of. Men.

so your post sorta touches on what I was thinking. . . In the real world (and I know, this show isn't that, nor is it supposed to be), if for whatever reason I might need to borrow a friend's apartment/airbnb for any length of time, they would likely be cutting me a deal on their normal rate or I'd be helping them out b/c I knew they were hurting financially. Even for one stay but definitely if I knew I was going to be staying there off and on, its not unrealistic to think that I would buy some kitchen items or hangers if they weren't in the space. Because that's the kind of things friends do for each other. Especially if one is hurting for money. BUT . . . I would hit up Target, not Williams-Sonoma, Sur la Table, or any other high-end kitchen store. And I would also let the owner/real tenant know I was doing it and that items would be left for other Airbnb-ers. And while this show isn't supposed to be real-world, they could have brought in just a few elements of how the real world approaches things to make it just a bit more believable. But we could say that about just about every scene of this entire mess. Remind me again why we're all watching this??? 🤪

Oh. My. Lord. KELVIN!! KEEF!!! And I cannot even remember the last time I literally had to pause a show because I was laughing so hard -- the opening of Uncle Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers is just . . . bonkers. An Iliza return! Aunt Tiffany is now officially a national treasure that must be protected at all costs. Can we PLEASE just give Walton Goggins all the awards now? He is so long overdue!! This one is going to be on rewatch for a good long while. . . I legit do not know how they get through any of this with a straight face. And of course a swarm of locusts!! PRAISE BE TO HE!!

I'm loving every second of it. Boyd Holbrook was the unknown for me because I only knew him as a good guy from Narcos. I was doubtful he was going to convince me he could be play a believable bad guy, but he is nailing it. I would not have recognized him as the actor from Narcos, and to me, that's the sign of a good actor. I'm liking TO's daughter in the role -- I'm quite sure that some of the "frustrated dad" looks he gives her are a carry-over from real life, and the meta of it gives me a giggle -- the OG Justified was good like that too -- just those little passing moments that were giggle-worthy. Raylan Givens on my screen -- in any city -- is just never a bad thing. And while I doubt Primeval characters will ever come close to the richness of the Harlan County world -- Boyd Crowder as acted through the gift that is Walton Goggins was lightning in a bottle -- I'm all in for every second of this ride.

John Goodman acted the hell out of that scene -- he played the combination of heartbreak, disbelief, and anger so well.