Bastet

There's a thread for discussion of who might take over as the show's host when the time comes; I've posted there to bump it up, but here's a direct link to the thread.

Regarding recent discussion about whether Ken Jennings's new role on the show may pave the way for him to take over as host when Alex steps down: I do not find Ken anywhere near as amusing as he finds himself, but sometimes his off the cuff remarks in a game crack me up. I have no idea if he has any hosting experience; I've only ever seen him as a J! contestant. So I'm certainly not rooting for him as host (I don't have anyone I'm hoping for), but I highly doubt he'd wind up turning me away from the show if he did get the job; Alex does a lot of things that annoy me, too, but I still watch.

That's certainly how season one ends, as they're on their way home to have all the sex. But in all the interviews with Gleason and other writers, I've never heard anyone say they actually intended to buck TV tradition and pick up in season two with them being an established couple who solve cases together. To the contrary, they've just laughed that, yeah, they kept writing episodes that would logically end in sex, then kept writing the next episodes as though sex had not occurred because that's TV - you draw it out until the end. Most of the writers were pretty young, and Gleason's experience was almost all with traditional storytelling (Peyton Place being a bit envelope pushing). So there's just no indication anyone ever gave any real consideration to dispensing with the TV conventions of the time in terms of if, when, and how you get the lead characters together romantically.

I forgot about this in all the wedding talk, but, no, you are not the only one. In my day, if you were dating exclusively ("going with") someone at the time of prom, it was a given you were going together and you just discussed the logistics; there was no asking to begin with. If you were going to ask a date or friend to go with you, yeah, it was along the lines of "Wanna go to prom?" That doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with any sort of gesture, like giving someone flowers and asking. But a "promposal"? Hell, I think marriage proposals are ridiculous, so that kind of production for one teenager asking another to a school dance?!

I would never not serve something - e.g. alcohol or meat - that's traditionally part of a nice dinner just because I didn't eat/drink it myself. But I agree, FAR tackier to charge your guests for anything than to not have something available; you can schedule and structure an event so it makes sense to only serve snacks, to not have a bar, etc., but you can never justify charging your guests. I've been to several receptions where the bride and/or groom were vegetarians, and one where both were vegans, and there were still meat options for dinner; I've never been to one where the whole menu was vegetarian. I've only been to one reception where the bride and groom who didn't drink also didn't serve any alcohol - the reception was in the afternoon though, so it felt more natural.

Well, The Thin Man burst onto the screen as an anomaly - in 1934 (remember, the Hays Code had just recently actually been consistently and strenuously enforced despite having existed for several years already) noir or screwball, marriage was usually something the characters spent a film trying to get into or out of. For The Thin Man to open a year into Nick and Nora's marriage and that relationship be this fun, flirty thing that just exists throughout but is not the plot was unusual. Audiences went wild, leading to five sequels, because of the chemistry between Myrna Loy and Bill Powell; the case may have been the plot, but Nick and Nora were why people wanted to watch. Gleason could have looked at that success and tried to make the TV version (to be fair, he didn't have the benefit MGM did with Loy and Powell - who'd already made a film together - of knowing his actors had great screen chemistry to which audiences responded), but instead he went with the traditional TV formula. Maybe not wanting to be accused of making a Hart to Hart knock-off? And I do give him credit for Laura being open to casual sex; she was such a "girl next door" character that it was lovely to see that be part of her. Also for recognizing a female character being written almost exclusively by men is problematic. Now, this didn't lead him to hire more women, so he was part of the problem, but he did at least listen to Stephanie when she said, "psst, this isn't how women think/talk/act", a simple thing far too many male executive producers still don't do. So in general I appreciate what he did with this show, especially the humor. There have been a lot of shows where audiences did lose interest after the characters got together, and certainly back in the mid-80s I can understand that being an even bigger fear for networks and executive producers than it is now, but I contend that's usually because of how they're written after getting together - as different personalities than what the audience had spent years falling in love with. It would have been great if Gleason had bucked tradition by early season four at the latest and put them truly together - but judging by how he wanted to write them if he got more episodes, maybe him playing it safe wound up better.

Were the cats only going to be in that room, or have the run of the house but have one room that's designed around them? If the former, I agree that's terrible. But the latter isn't uncommon; many cat owners with a spare room will put the cats' stuff (litter box, bowls, cat tree, toy basket, etc.) in there and create "runs" for them - things on the floor for them to climb/jump up on in order to access things mounted on the walls for them to run and perch on (all that stuff Jackson Galaxy suggests but that most people don't want to look at in their living room). It's a cat bedroom-playroom, like these (none of which are mine; I don't have a room to spare, so my cat just has to slum it with me).

For teens/adults in pools, no. Kids in pools, yes. Anyone out in the lake or ocean if there's no lifeguard, yes. I know two colleagues swim in their pools every morning (well, most mornings; even in L.A. sometimes the weather interferes) as their exercise, and they both live alone, so I highly doubt they're hiring someone to come watch them every morning on the off chance they trip, hit their head, and become incapacitated. So I don't think this poor author or her husband did anything wrong.

He was in a vest, and was outside the pool when her husband found them shortly after; I'm not sure whether a 14-month old made his way out, or whether they were both already out and she fell in after injuring herself - the tragic accident happened because she slipped and hit her head, which is of course possible to do from within a pool, but more common outside the water. When I was growing up, I don't remember hearing anything against swimming alone in a pool (in a lake or ocean, yes, if there was no lifeguard) other than about kids who needed adult supervision. We didn't have a pool, so as a teenager most of the time I was with a friend when swimming because I was at their house, but sometimes I was using my neighbor's pool (with their permission; their kids were grown by then, and they didn't use it, so they invited me to let myself into the yard and use it whenever I wanted), and I was alone then - if they were home, they might briefly stick their head out the sliding door and say hello, but mostly they gave me privacy. Anyway, yes, terribly sad; she was so young, and her son won't even remember her. But this is lovely:

Yes, about five years ago, and I think once before that. (And yes, they still did FJ.) The rule book states if all three are in the red at the end of DJ, there will be no FJ played, but as far as I know that has never happened, and I don't know what they'd do to fill the time - have Alex explain the rule and talk about how this is the first time it's ever happened, I guess.

I agree the delivery on "Judy" is quite funny on its own, but the commercial as a whole is one of those things I just can't find humor in; poison is an unnecessarily inhumane way of killing mice and rats, and can also turn animals who eat the poisoned rodents in the several days it takes them to die - unlike Judy, they don't actually keel over shortly after their first ingestion - into collateral victims (even the "better" ingredient d-CON changed to carries some risk of secondary poisoning, and we don't yet have enough data to know how much).

I've seen it once and wouldn't make a point to watch it again. I didn't dislike it - and I loved the "La Marseillaise" scene as much as everyone else who's ever seen it; I get chills if I just come across it online - and it has clever dialogue (not to mention being a frequently-quoted film, often by people who don't even know what they're quoting) but I just don't care about Rick and Ilsa's relationship.

I love Katharine Hepburn, but I also completely understand her acting style rubbing someone the wrong way. Indeed, I most love her subtle moments in dramas (yet also love every frame of Bringing Up Baby). I'm more drawn to a natural style like Myrna Loy's, but Katharine Hepburn is a huge exception to the rule.

Since you've seen season one, you will understand: "I tell you what, let's forget the fact that you're coming a little late to the party and embrace the fact that you showed up at all." And now you'll be able to fully appreciate why Richard Schiff and Allison Janney doing a walk-and-talk in Bonnie's White House fantasy at the end of "Pure Evil and a Free Piece of Cheesecake" is so delightful.

I change the specifics as needed to paraphrase him whenever I hear someone essentially say we should be tolerant of intolerance: Also, should I somehow ever find myself pissed off while holding a cricket bat in my hands, I'm sure I will declare that I will kill people today.

Yes, he talks about that in one of the DVD special features. But Steele wouldn't be secretly employing Laura to solve the cases, he'd be surreptitiously working the things he couldn't figure out into supposed casual conversation when they were at home, and then use her responses to solve his case. So, I don't like it, because he's using her, and I'd prefer them working together. It also regresses him, because he had picked up investigative skills from her over the years, and would be able to solve at least some of his cases without her. I either had forgotten or had repressed the idea about they got interrupted once again, and the show/novel would continue with them still not having consummated their relationship. That's just ridiculous; even if they did get interrupted again, they'd simply get it on as soon as they resolved whatever it was. Good gods, 15-year-olds with no homes of their own, no cars, and no credit cards with which to secure a hotel room can find ways to have sex. Two mature adults with their own business can certainly figure out how to carve out some time for themselves.

The actors said they figured the characters were in their 60s when they took the roles (given their own ages and the title and pitch of the show), but then scripts would age them down (which is true; for example, in early season one, Dorothy is stated to be 55, but that makes no sense given she'd married Stan almost 40 years prior, and she wasn't 15 then, she was just out of high school) and then later scripts would age them back up. Also, the ages of their kids and grandkids never comport with the characters' supposed ages. So between the disconnect between actor and character age, total lack of logic and/or continuity in descendants' ages, and the characters' hairstyles and wardrobes, they always seem older than they're stated to be the few times a specific age is mentioned. The only thing consistent is Rose and Dorothy are always written as about the same age and Blanche a few years younger (who thinks she's quite a few years younger). And I don't think Sophia being 80 when the show starts is ever terribly tinkered with, although they do shave a few years at one point. Anyway, terrific cast for this Zoom event! It sounds like they'll be re-imagining an existing GG episode, but it doesn't say which one.

I said from the beginning it looks like an unaccredited school, but it could just be limited set space/poor design. Certainly the way her squeaking into law school after initially being denied even by the school that took everyone also spoke to a strip mall school rather than simply an unranked one, but the opportunities she's had since make it seem like an accredited school. So I have no idea (and wouldn't be surprised if the writers don't, either); I'm just saying if it is unaccredited, that's even more reason for her to transfer to a better school if that's the storyline they come up with to explain her moving away. Yeah, I suppose they could take that very narrow path, but I'd roll my eyes pretty hard, especially since she's halfway through law school; I definitely prefer the transfer.

As long as it's water-based paint, yep, you can use sawdust or litter to help solidify it, and then just toss the dried paint ball in the trash (in most places; you have to check your city/county). And then if you're able to properly rinse the can, you can recycle that -- well, in theory, but of course reality is most municipalities are now just throwing it away.

To get a lawyer job, she needs to pass the state bar exam, and to take the exam she has to graduate law school. So if she's going to leave for an attorney position, they're going to have to fast forward since she's only finished two years of law school as of the end of the season. If she transfers to a better school, no need for a time warp. And it would make perfect sense as the reason she'd move away despite her support system in Napa, especially if she's in an unaccredited law school -- graduates of such schools have awful bar pass rates, so if she's able to transfer to a better school somewhere else in CA, she'd be wise to do so (graduating from a better school would also improve her employment opportunities).

Aw, Mack; I saw him on stage in L.A. a few times over the years, but he'll always be Mack to me (Knots Landing).

They had eggs, French toast, and sausage. I think the lumberjack breakfast was described by Katie as some sort of eggs, some sort of meat, and some sort of carb/starch, and that's what comes up when I look at examples/articles (now that I'm less lazy than I was last night), although several have multiple meats. Bobby's was lumberjack on steroids, but so is that Denny's example, so I guess his more in line with what one would traditionally get. (Which I can't imagine eating as anything other than a drunken clubber stopping off for food before heading home, so the above personal example makes sense!) Thanks for the info on Heidi Gardner; I looked her up and I've never seen any of her credits, so I'm not sure why she looked familiar to me (kind of like a blonde Kristen Schaal, but the voice was way off).

Does anyone know who the woman who was guest judge along with Katie Lee in the two against one (what wound up being the lumberjack breakfast challenge) episode is? She's blonde and looks and sounds like an annoying teenager, but I missed her introduction and she looks familiar; a Google search is not helping me because my program guide put up info for an entirely different episode, so I have nothing to go on but "lumberjack breakfast" or "two against one" and it's not happening. I'd never heard of a lumberjack breakfast, but I am not much of a breakfast person and could definitely never eat that much food before afternoon. Both dishes looked way too carb heavy to me, but that's just personal preference. Well, wishing the challengers used just half a slice of that giant bread is personal preference; finding Bobby's waffles AND potatoes excessive, that I stand by. The flavors in the "Culinary Caribbean Queen" team's dish sounded better, and I think if they hadn't burnt the sugar they'd have won. It was a nice story the challenger who'd worked as one of Bobby's sous chefs related, about him coming up and introducing himself, "Hi, I'm Bobby". It's a simple thing, but I can see why she took note of it, as a lot of people that famous wouldn't bother naming themselves.

I remember Tiffani being dislikable during her original season of Top Chef, but I don't remember actually disliking her. And I liked her during the all-stars season (or whatever it was) for which she returned. "I'm not your bitch, bitch" was never funny, or anything other than sexist and inappropriate, so it's despicable producers made a t-shirt of it at the reunion. I haven't seen much of this Chopped contest, but from what I have, she doesn't bother me here, either. If she did, I'd stick to what she says and does rather than dragging her irrelevant gender into it. Stephen is an annoying jerk. I figured he was going to win, but I still groaned when he did.

I have no idea what's for dinner, but I just had a BLT for lunch that hit the spot perfectly. I always love them, looking forward to tomato season every year, but, man, this one really did it for me. Especially after my usual two Bloody Marys for Sunday breakfast. 🙂 I got distracted by a phone call and toasted the bread a bit more than I normally do, but I think I'll do it like that from now on.