Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

JessDVD

Member
  • Content Count

    712
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1.7k Excellent
  1. Bull's team said that the kid's prints were found on the poker, although they did say something like "Would it surprise you to find out that prints were on the poker that match your prints on the receipt at the coffee shop?", which in these shows often is just intended to suss out a confession, and someone on the team will say "It'd surprise us too because that didn't actually happen".
  2. That was the first episode in a long time that I didn't immediately pick out plot holes large enough to get lost in. I'm impressed. Chris Jackson is wonderful and I thought that the increased role of Chunk in this episode was really well done. A last minute plot twist that the daughter hired the son would have been good. As it was, I mostly just felt really really bad for the kid. I would have preferred that it totally have been an accident and they not leave it with him likely on the hook for first-degree. I hope the fictional daughter that we'll never see again, uses her millions to hire Chunk to defend the kid and get his sentence down to something small and get the kid's mom the help she needs. A possible plothole? Shouldn't the detective have found the kid's prints on the poker? Presumably the kid's prints weren't in the system, but it again gives a possibility that it wasn't the daughter. That detective seemed to have missed the innocent until proven guilty part of the justice system in America. But that's not new for this show.
  3. Flashback to 70s Ellie talking to her dad. Me: "I bet a million dollars she's talking to Gibbs". Camera turns. Yep. I also guffawed at McGee as the brother. I had a temporary out-of-body moment during all the mentions of senior and Ziva so that bit is now irrelevant to me. All in all, a good episode. The flashbacks episodes tend to be strong.
  4. Every reality show I've ever watched or remotely followed has begun as "Cameras follow us around doing the things we already do" and eventually become "Cameras record the obviously staged for the show and corporately sponsored fakery that we can only afford because of the corporate sponsors and our money from the show". I assume it's because the producers think they need to do this to continue the show and continue the show because it continues to make money but it's a real turn-off for me. I thought the pre-scandal Duggars were interesting when they were a mega-family and the show was really just showing us how they did things. Same for Jon & Kate Gosselin. But both shows lost my interest when they became a compilation of the fabulous toys, vacations, and other events that they can now afford with sponsors and show income. I still don't get UP, so I still don't get to actually watch the Bateses' show, but I still don't have any interest in watching a long commercial, even from people who I find interesting, so I can live with this...
  5. I think most people now, 100 years later, either don't know or don't care about the history behind 20s fashion (and a lot of other things, really) and just think the fashions are cool. But, everyone is prone in their own way to accepting the parts of things that they like and ignoring the parts they don't like, so it's unsurprising if the Bateses are employing that technique here. I did miss the part where 3-inch stilettos were part of the Gothard-approved wardrobe though. And bare shoulders. Of course Michael managed to make the look frumpy.
  6. 1) This is literally the first time I can think of, in 10+ years of watching crime procedurals, when a recovering-from-major-injury-or-illness agent, actually STEPPED BACK from a case, due to pain/recovery. 2) I've probably said it here before, but I can't stand it when suspects who have all the evidence pointing toward them, act all insulted when someone they love is suspicious of them. News flash, this is how people get away with heinous acts for years and years, when everyone around them ignores the obvious evidence because they just can't believe the person would do that. 3) Also, no way does a JAG lawyer agree to be interrogated without a lawyer present. Also also, making mental note to never, ever agree to attempt to obtain evidence for the investigating team, by trying to sneak something out of the suspect's house. But I did enjoy them discussing how they could obtain it legally, like that's ever mattered before. 4) Was it Vance who the team found on that match.com app? (Tinder? What do people call those things these days? I'm so glad that I'm old enough that I found my spouse the old fashioned way, meeting in college and relationship developing the way God intended, over AOL instant messenger) I thought they were talking about Gibbs but that didn't make sense with the end and I don't care enough to go back and watch it again.
  7. Pro tip: when paying off a juror to swing a case, try and pick one who has a better poker face. I continue to be underwhelmed by cases that hinge on such witness testimony as "Since you paid for the damage of your teen's dumb moves in exchange for the one damaged to not press charges, clearly you are also implicit in your husband's buying the son's college admission spot". Whoever strapped on Izzy's fake baby belly has obviously never actually seen a pregnant woman before because it was sitting way too high on her abdomen for someone who was past her due date. And if her contractions were only six minutes apart, they should not have been at the hospital. I also found her contractions to be a little unbelievable (they always told me, and I found it to be the truth for me, that a real, actual contraction, like the sort that you'd have to be having to be in a hospital gown, is so intense that you can't talk at all during them), like that weirdly long one where she was telling Bull to answer the phone. But at least the baby is here (were we ever told a name?) so maybe that plotline will be over for awhile.
  8. Yes! Him talking about how he hated the idea of perpetuating the black father abandonment cycle, like we all totally get that, but it seems pretty presumptuous to just assume that the bio mom and her husband couldn't possibly be able to teach the kid what he needed to know. I didn't think about this when I was posting originally, but your reply made me think - since you're right, no matter what, these couples are going to be spending their lives involved together, then why did bio dad start with serving them? Wouldn't it have been more productive to go to the couple with some kind of "OK, neither of us chose this situation but yet here we are so can we resolve this like adults?" and if that hadn't worked, THEN go with litigation? I'm only speaking for myself here of course, but I tend to think that if I were the bio mom, I'd be more willing to go along with it if I felt like the bio dad were coming at it from a "let's work together" angle, rather than "I'm suing for full custody of the child that is also biologically yours, whom you birthed". The show portrayed bio dad as a reasonable and non-asshole human, so this seems like a bit of a mis-step.
  9. That was really, really cringeworthy, listening to the lawyers bring up each couple's every "weakness" in some sort of game of, his anger issues mean he's more unfit (uh, that's not how that works), his hiring a nanny to take care of the baby means he's more unfit (what?). What's unfortunate about that is, this is really a legitimately difficult situation that I honestly don't know what I think is the right decision, and the lawyers being dicks about the opposing sides' supposed flaws (last I checked, being well-off enough to hire a nanny, and being poor enough to only live in a one-bedroom apartment, aren't actually commentaries on one's ability to be a parent), doesn't give us any depth as to the ethics of the situation, as well as either couple's legal right to custody. My question is, how did the African American couple get the other couple's info? I know it was his sperm, but shouldn't the white couple's info be protected under HIPPA? I've never used a fertility clinic but as best as we can figure, they should have a privacy policy, and while presumably the clinic notified the African American couple that his sperm had been used in error, the privacy policy should have kept the other couple's info from them. I did zone out a little during all the exposition so maybe this came up then... No jury. Did we even see Marisa? Different flow and feel to this one. The not-bio dad's line about God not giving you more than you can handle caused me to guffaw because that's been called out big time in Christian circles (or at least my circles...) as utter crap and not biblical. Good try there, guys. And finally, they played that ending like it was the Missouri Compromise, but I kept thinking that these couples barely know each other, and are agreeing to a very long time of being intricately involved in each other's lives without knowing anything about each others' parenting styles, convictions, religious leanings, life goals, etc. I know plenty of people end up in interesting custodial arrangements, but hopefully they've all had dinner together first.
  10. JessDVD

    S17.E14: On Fire

    This is why I've wondered. I've followed TV forums for over 10 years and I don't think I've ever seen someone in a comments section say "(Insert name of lead of procedural) going rogue for the 97,000th time? I am LOVING this!". Yet every procedural Mr. DVD & I watch (which is many) inevitably, a couple times each season, has someone on the team go all batcrap and it's the same story every time, nobody talks them down, nobody benches them, they just barely squeeze by with not being completely illegal, but even if they don't, it's OK because it was ~personal~. I find it boring and cringeworthy and sloppy writing, and I feel like the majority of the internet sentiment is the same, yet the writers of all these shows continue to do it, so are they getting positive feedback from some other section of the internet? Or do they just love it themselves and force the viewers to deal with it, even though they know we all hate it?
  11. I don't particularly care for the conceptual choice of ending the show with, heaven is a big party and when you get bored, you can go home. (It's like when my kids ask how long we're going to stay at something and I say, until we're not having fun anymore. It worked great until the time when we were at someone's house and it got to the point where it was socially necessary to leave, like they had invited us for lunch and it was getting close to dinner, so we announced we were leaving and the kids all loudly protested, but we're still having fun! Whoops) Anyway, but I could deal with that being the ending, if maybe we could have explored that concept for a few episodes instead of basically one episode with a long epilogue. Instead we had the never ending tale of Brent that went nowhere, and sped through this part, which actually could have been interesting. I find it disappointing that the show of twists and turns, 800 reboots in one episode and now off to a new unexpected thing, did basically exactly what I would have predicted. They introduced the door option, the characters all went though it. No twists, no nothing. Michael becoming a human was sweet but not a huge surprise either. If I remove the death and afterlife implications from the show (which is dumb, because that's the whole point), it is a nice ending. Everyone from the series comes back, everyone gets their resolutions, everyone reconciles, it's great. I thought during Donkey Doug's speech that it would be interesting to have your funeral before you did, so you can hear all the (hopefully) nice things your family and friends would say about you. I like the idea of a celebration of life send-off. All in all, my mixed feelings on the ending notwithstanding, watching this show has been a forking amazing experience, and that my phone's swipe/autocorrect still won't recognize forking as a word despite my daily use of it, is clearly evidence that we're in the Bad Place. It's been a great ride, y'all. Thanks for sharing in it.
  12. JessDVD

    S17.E14: On Fire

    I've wondered for years who, exactly, is in all these focus groups or whatever, that just looooves the leads going "rogue" to "avenge" that which has wronged them. Normally I hate Sloane, but she was the only sane person here, rightly identifying that Bishop was having PTSD and needed to be off the case. Duuuuh. Also, they were going slightly off the rails for just some random jackhole. I mean, yeah, the guy was a complete and utter jackhole, but nobody important died, Torres became (implausibly) fine in about 8 seconds, there wasn't really "NOW it's personal" aspects to this. And again, yes, the guy was a total jackhole, but I did rather enjoy his not giving any effs while the team was trying to get him to talk. Could not have rolled my eyes harder at Bishop's "too late" to Gibbs telling her to not be like him. Could not possibly care less about whether or not Bishop and Torres are going to hook up but AT LEAST they seem to be a reasonably sane, balanced, functional relationship, as opposed to the hot mess that was Tony and Ziva.
  13. Right - but the school offered them a settlement that would have given them that - I don't think $500k is "never work again" in any part of the country but I'm fairly sure in most if not all parts, it would allow a family to take a couple years totally off of work, or pay off their house/other debt which could allow them to work fewer hours or have more monthly wiggle room. But they chose the litigation route. That's what I was wondering about. After litigating, they now have $5.3 MILLION, which is probably "never work again" in most parts of the country - and if New Jersey isn't, certainly gives them the ability to start over someplace where it is. So, was it worth it? Life of ease, never work again unless you want to, financial issues all solved - but only because your kid died. I'm ABSOLUTELY not making a judgment call on anyone who has done this IRL. It's just that in these TV shows, they always make it seem like the money they get from litigating, brings all the peace they need from the loved one's passing, and I wonder if that's really how it pans out in real life.
  14. I feel like the concept of "Coach pushes kids to keep weight down to stay in lower weight class" is used here like "I don't know anything about wrestling or human development or really much of anything but I remember once or twice my high school BFF's boyfriend not eating much lunch because he needed to drop a pound before weigh-in that day". Pushing the entire high school wrestling team to be what I'd guess is effectively malnourished (growing FIVE INCHES and not gaining any weight?!), does not seem like the path for young men to be able to wrestle at their peak capacity. I'm SURE that sometimes tactics like what was shown in the show are used in actual wrestling teams, to get the actual # down enough for weigh-in (sorta like how I, on a program similar to Weight Watchers, only weigh in first thing in the morning, after working out and using the bathroom, before eating, taking out all jewelry, etc), but I don't think they thought through the logic about that whole thing about all the boys on the team getting taller but not gaining any weight. I assume they were intending that to draw suspicion on the coach pushing the kids to stay in a weight class, but they missed the mark there. (I know, unprecedented activity for this show) Apparently not-Cable went to some sort of extra fancy prep school where German I-III classes included vocabulary in medical terminology, including such oft-used phrases as juvenile mitral valve murmur, conveniently so that not-Cable (I know she has a name but it took me two seasons to learn Danny and Cable so here I am) would be able to read through Fancy Doctor's reports. Hopefully she also got hazard pay for translating all that German that never ended up being used. Normally I look at these cases of parents suing or litigating after a child died and thinking, I understand where they're coming from (at least in theory) but I'm not sure if it'll get them the peace they're looking for. In this case (didn't I see another kid in their living room?) they can provide a significantly improved life for their other kid, but is it worth it?? I won't presume to conclude how other people would feel in a situation I've never experienced, but my gut level reaction is that I would feel horribly guilty, living a life of ease only given to me on the back of my child's death. It's one thing if the litigation is to pay medical bills or cover funeral expenses, but as far as I could tell in this one, that didn't appear to be part of it. So while I'm glad for these fictional characters who appeared once in a TV show and will now disappear into the writers' room Bermuda Triangle... I wonder if $5 million is really worth it.
  15. The Janet(s) episode was absolutely top three of the whole series. SO great. And that takes us up to this week last year, when the s3 break was over. Marginally interesting generally related mostly self-indulgent anecdote: my husband and I (Americans) were in Costa Rica this week last year and he (a tech guy) performed some interesting technology feats to allow us to access our cable at home so we could watch the next episode live. We tried to explain the concept of the show to our hosts (also Americans, but have lived FT in CR for the last 13ish years), and ended up landing on, they're actually finally IN the good place and we don't want to wait until we get home to see what happens.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size