Infie

I actually went back and watched the whole battle. The ONLY comment that he made that even peripherally referenced race was in interview - not in front of Maneet or anyone else - where he said that "[winning] would mean so much to me and to [people] who look like me." Statements like this aren't game playing, they're just fact. There wasn't any 'playing of the race card' at any point by Tobias that I could see. I'm sad that you think there was. From my perspective, Tobias seems to be a lovely person and an excellent chef who is gracious in both victory and defeat. Now, it is possible I missed something. If so, please feel free to be specific.

Both sets of dishes looked amazing. I wanted Antonia to win SO much - I remember how lovely she was with Shota last year and similarly this year with Kevin. That being said, I could see how Maneet deserved her win. She's saavy and clever and plays to the natural weaknesses in the game. Taste and presentation tend to be more subjective and therefore less of a lever for a chef to pull to control their scores beyond cooking well, but use of the randomizer is like having an explicit rubric to the score, and she's very good at pulling every point possible out of that section. Of course, it wouldn't matter if she wasn't also an excellent chef with technique, taste, and the ability to construct a beautiful dish, but at this level really everyone can do those last three things. Congratulations, Maneet.

I was cheering so hard for Esther by the end, and she lost by just one point! Well done, especially given how the deck was stacked against her. I hope she gets to return as a challenger for second season. I don't think that the result was necessarily pre-determined - Stephanie Izzard won Iron Chef Gauntlet in its first season which had a similar (though one dish at a time) idea of beating all three Iron Chefs - but I think that she leaned away from the seafood a couple of times and that was what took her out. I enjoyed the Iron Chef teams vs each other episode! Maybe I watch for a different reason than other folks - I just really enjoy watching people have fun and being creative doing the things that they love, whether it has a specific narrative point or not. I roll my eyes at MD, but he's also clearly having a blast, so I say go for it. My favourite Iron Chef America episode was the one where the challenger did not bring sous chefs with him, and so Michael Symon decided to also cook alone, so his sous chef team got to drink and heckle him from the sidelines. So much fun! Anyhow - I loved getting to see Kitchen Stadium again, and I will definitely watch if they do another season.

So much fun. I loved pilot Tommy, and the whole Poseidon theme, and while I think they probably could have done it in two episodes, I do think that they wanted to switch networks with a bang and they did that.

I already want to fire everyone, even more after seeing this episode. I was sympathetic to Nick's frustration right up until he gave his reasons. Then, ARGH! Do the writers actually think this is GOOD behaviour to have in doctors, anywhere? I am out.

I was so irritated with Nancy Silverton being ... offended? that Karen did such a good job with the canned green beans, outright saying that she felt like Karen elevated them undeservedly. Isn't that supposed to be a plus in this competition? Taking a randomizer ingredient and making it shine? Nancy, your snobbery is showing!

The battles this week were fun to watch, but it weirded me out to see the editing the way it was. In at least two cases (Britt's battle and I think Jet's battle) they showed the chefs both with and without gloves in shots a few seconds apart. It was to the point that I was wondering if they'd re-done some of the shots later or if the whole competition was just faked - it was SO distracting.

Re: taking a job without telling your partner I think Meredith, Maggie, and Kai are all very different situations. Maggie's married. Her doing it was just completely outrageous. A marriage isn't something you ignore for your job. Meredith doing it was rude and dismissive of her relationship with Nick. While they aren't married or engaged, he had demonstrated his commitment to her by moving his life to Seattle when she asked him to. He deserved to be treated with respect, and their relationship did too. Kai, though, was in a long distance relationship with someone who they are not engaged or married to. The extent of their commitment was that they're exclusive while they otherwise live separate lives. I think it was insensitive to not disuss, but I don't think it was the offense that the other two were. On the Maggie topic - I am so annoyed that the writers somehow decided that this whole storyline with Maggie and Winston was actually about Maggie's empowerment as a woman. Essentially, she loves her job more than her husband, which is OK, you do you, but then she told him that HE had to love his job more than her or she couldn't respect him. More than that, when he said that he needed to switch so that he wasn't working under her because he felt the need to grow as himself, and that he wanted to be able to maintain the marriage while he did so, she completely lost it and told him that he would be wasting himself by not saving lives the way that SHE wants to save lives. So, I am all for female empowerment, and I am all for couples working together to have them both thrive, but I am not a fan of stories where it's so blatantly hypocritical as here. Maggie isn't empowered in this; she is a bully who flatly refuses to see any side of the issue other than her own narrow point of view, and who is judgemental in the extreme to anyone who doesn't completely align with that view. Just ... UGH. I am glad that the character is gone.

Millins Adams Griffith Yasuda Kwan I see what you did there, Grey's.

I was wondering that too, but Five's bangs were still hanging to the same side as always. So, not a reversed camera. Either the cars are imports from the UK, or it's about the hotel being a mirror image of Oblivion somehow. (In How to Get Ahead in Advertising there is a camera reversal which I think is accidental, and everything is mirrored. Also a partial scene in Mask where the same thing happens. )

Sadly, even if the original Babylon didn't exist in this universe, shootings at gay nightclubs remain all too topical https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/two-dead-several-wounded-norway-nightclub-shooting-police-say-2022-06-25/

Hmmm. I actually really liked the show as a whole (only watched ep 1 so far). I did keep trying to align this with either a re-do (like the US show effectively 're-did' the UK one) or a tie-in, but once I let those expectations go and just learned the new characters it became interesting. I think that the events at Babylon were an acknowledgement of the miasma of hate and violence that is occurring and the fact that those events affect the entire community all the time. It would be fatuous to have the characters existing in an AU without that environment, but it would feel unearned in-show to have them afraid without providing context. I think that they did a pretty good job overall, especially given all of the expectations that fans of the first two iterations would have going in, and I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Yeah, for me, I'm with Toby on this. Kate demanding to know 'the number' - If he'd responded to that WITH a number, there would be no path forward that doesn't end badly for everyone. Providing the number just leads to a deep dive on the details of the number. Now, maybe that's ultimately what they need - Kate has not shown any particular skills at money management other than not really graciously accepting other people supporting her - but in a fight is the wrong place to take that path. I've got altogether too much experience with people who argue just like Kate and if you hit the 'just give me your completely detailed example' stage then it's time to stop for a while. Toby could have taken out a spreadsheet with all of the miniscule details written out ad nauseum and Kate would have pointed to a single cell with $500 in it and said 'That is actually $495' like that changed the whole picture. I didn't feel that Toby was making an ultimatum. He was just being clear. If Kate wants to move ahead with the family together then it would have to be in San Francisco. Not because it gives Toby everything he wants, but because the logistical problems of being separated are not sustainable - which was what Kate initially said - and the only way forward right now that lets them plan to provide *together* for their son is San Francisco. Now, sure - Toby could stay in San Francisco and Kate can stay in Los Angeles and Toby can provide for Jack, but that would not be together. Toby can't quit his job and move back to Los Angeles and have the whole family live on Kate's part time teacher salary. Toby can't quit his job and move back to Los Angeles and have the whole family live on and provide for Jack's needs on Kate's full time teacher salary. If Toby quits *three months* into his job, his chances of getting hired anywhere else drop dramatically. That is a huge red flag on a resume, and he had already looked in Los Angeles for a long time before the San Francisco job came up. Yes, he got a job offer in LA - which he turned down because it wasn't enough to both support the family and provide for Jack's needs, and likely also because if you drop jobs three months in it hurts your credibility for a long time. What if the LA job didn't work out - you're usually on probation for a period of time - and he was unemployed again? He has to stick with the known option because he has a wife and two kids to support and one of them is special needs. Toby's job isn't like working in a diner where if you leave you can just get the next one. Being out of work in IT is a multimonth effort to get hired elsewhere, and that's if you look great on paper, and I know because I essentially have Toby's job. So frustrating.

Nooooooo Ginsberg!

I agreed with Kevin being upset about Thanksgiving, especially since they'd already talked about it and had made an agreement. I get that Madison is allowed (encouraged, even) to move on, but I also feel strongly that her being the mom doesn't automatically confer to her all of the rights to make all of the decisions about the kids. She should have discussed it with Kevin before discussing it with Kate, especially if they were going to exchange all of those meaningful glances right in front of him. I'd be pissed too if the implication was that my ex should get to move ahead with her life with a new man and our kids, and I should just ... what? Step aside and stop being a father to our children so that my ex can enjoy being in love with another man without having to take me into consideration? Kevin actually wants to be a dad - it is not reasonable to assume that he should give up his time with them for Madison to start her new family, just as it would not be reasonable if the situation were reversed and Kevin had a girlfriend and was making plans for himself, the girlfriend and the kids and just assuming Madison would be out of the picture. These people need a neutral third party to help them negotiate their relationship moving forward. I completely agree with Runningwild - those guys need a custody arrangement because it is clear they're not going to be able to just wing it like they're trying to.

I feel like the person in each timeline who makes the decisions for him becomes the person who makes all of the decisions for him moving forward, and that makes them (except Amy, who genuinely seems to make him better) dictatorial with him. In Cop!Verse, that was his Uncle, who stays in the police force and not only shadows but shapes everything in Joe's worklife, injecting himself into every situation. He's Joe's superior officer, his training officer, his union rep, the person who gets his Dad's badge number for him - he's dictating almost everything like he has the right to. In Nurse!Verse, that was Jenny's father - I have the feeling that when they found out that Jenny was pregnant her father simply told them what was going to happen; they were getting married, Joe would become a nurse and work at Jenny's father's hospital... Just as he tried to manage Jenny's birthday by setting up the dinner and the present from Joe. In Rock!Verse, that seems to be Amy. While she definitely makes him better, she's also the one who has shaped his whole career and kept him doing it. She's not dictating to him - she genuinely seems to be trying to keep them a partnership, but I feel like he doesn't really express opinions beyong the children thing. Rock!Uncle is a part of Joe's life but not running it. Nurse!Uncle hasn't been shown yet I don't think. Cop!JDad is still doing extravagent presents, but he wasn't dictating about it, and Rock!JDad was pretty easygoing and wasn't trying to run anything. Nurse!Amy is making the best friend the best he can be, and Cop!Amy is making the Congressman the best he can be, and in both cases she's a strong presence. I think she's the most consistently portrayed across the universes. I'll be interested in how this shakes out.

re: Kevin being abusive physically hidden through the sitcom filter. I'm surprised no one has mentioned when they had sex in an earlier episode, and Kevin mentions (if I am remembering right) 'doing that thing you don't like to do', or 'doing that thing you never want to do' - something like that - right before they start, and then the cut to her in the bathroom, breathing hard with her makeup all smeared and looking like she wants to throw up. I have the feeling that while there might not be outright violence there is still plenty of cohersion in play.

I thought it was a good episode and that the actor who played Abby was phenomenal. All sorts of people fall through the cracks of the system. Just because white babies usually end up adopted doesn't mean that they all do; if they were then orphanages would never have any white babies in them. Michelle Forbes will always be the Admiral of the Pegasus to me. 🙂

I think that the issue is that it isn't what 'parents' do in this case. If it were about what parents do, then we wouldn't be seeing this set of conflicts. Instead, what is really being said is 'that's what BETH should do'. Beth flat out told Randall that she disagreed on his pursuing the job in Philadelphia because it was the wrong time for him to do it, because she could see coming down the pipe the issues with timing and commutes and their kids really needed stability, and Randall completely ignored her and continued anyway. Now that those issues have come to fruition, Randall is still taking the position that his decision takes precedence - as it always has. Beth is saying no - marriage is a partnership and it is his turn to make the sacrifice, and Randall is completely unwilling to do it. By deciding to pursue the councilman post against Beth's wishes and by breaking his promise to her, Randall is forcing her hand. They are only looking at having both parents being MIA because he broke his promise and because he put his own wants above his marriage. From that perspective alone, Randall is in the wrong here. It is interesting to me how many posters are taking the position that it is in fact Beth's role to acquiesce because she's a parent, and not Randall's because HE's a parent. Doesn't the argument apply equally to both of them?

For me, I didn't find the anxiety attack comment nearly as gasp-worthy as it seems so many others did. I live with someone who has PTSD and a child with anxiety, and it is fucking *exhausting* being the rock. It's not a blame thing - it's just a fact. You can't blame the person for their brain chemistry, and you have no choice but to accomodate it, because it's not a choice that they are making to be that way. But the accomodation is one-way only. My family will occasionally acknowledge this - 'you have to deal with a lot', and they lament that it's not different, but until either their brains spontaneously repair themselves or I decide that they aren't worth it - neither things that will happen - not a damned thing will change. Beth *has* had to be the one who bends, and Randall can't see it because from his perspective he keeps saying - 'no, go do it your way' - but in a way that makes it clear that he's hurt, which puts the onus back on Beth to make him better. Randall demands the truth and then withdraws in hurt when he gets it, and that makes Beth have to chase him to soothe his damage. I actually thought her demonstration with the nachos was brilliant, and what was Randall's response? 'I'll never eat nachos again, then.' God, Randall, way to miss the fucking point. And what did Beth have to do? Take his hand and apologize and lead him upstairs and gloss everything over again. Which is exactly what he did when Beth pointed out that she actually hasn't had choices for the most part. She said it bluntly, but it's true - Randall is the one with the anxiety attacks and the breakdowns and so she is the one who has to bend. Again - this is a fact. It doesn't have to be a hurtful fact, if the people involved are willing to admit that *it is the case*. It's not an insult. Sometimes it's just true. If Randall didn't see his anxiety as a negative, as a weakness, then the discussion could have continued. "Look, Beth, I know that you've had challenges that I didn't, like dealing with my anxiety, but that doesn't make everything bad, does it? Do you really think that you've had no options at all? Haven't I always been open to talking?" -- or "That's a low blow, Beth, you know that isn't something I can control. Can we fight about something I can control, maybe?" etc etc. Instead, when she points it out, he's horribly insulted and leaves, back into his martyrdom, because she's making a point that he cannot actually dispute or rewrite in his own head to his personal narrative. I love this show for being real, but sometimes it hurts to watch. ETF: one doesn't 'each' nachos

I cannot disagree more. I've been in business for over 30 years, and the absolute fact is that the executive decision-making is almost always done socially. Golf, drinks, lunches, etc. The decisions are communicated in emails and boardrooms, and the facilitations are performed in offices. But the decisions? Those are made in social situations.

Personally, I don't think that should matter, because it implies that Randall deserves to judge the relative value of Beth's decisions. *nosewrinkle* I feel like I just said that badly, but it's something that drives me absolutely crazy in real life - the idea that when a person wants something or makes a decision, that they then are required to justify that decision to other people, and that those other people have to agree for that decision to be considered valid. Beth's decisions are valid without requiring Randall's agreement of their worth, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that they're always right or that they're always going to agree - but it means that the validity of their choice is not subject to the other person's bias. So, Randall believing that this dinner for him is important is valid, and his believing that the results will be better with Beth there is valid. And so is Beth's belief that her attendance at the drinks meeting to discuss the future of the dance academy is important for her future. She shouldn't have to sit Randall down and tell him that it's important to her over and over so that he can verify her reasoning. The relative value of her choice against his is not up to him to evalute. I've never understood this concept - I can understand talking through competing requests to decide jointly which is more important, but I don't understand when someone says 'I have X to do' that I get to say 'well, your X is unimportant and my Y is important, therefore my Y wins.'. You don't have to explain why you like X. X doesn't have to be your lifelong passion for me to accept its value to you. I believe that Beth chose to go to the dinner because it *was* an existing commitment, despite what it would cost her in terms of involvement in the next steps of the dance academy. And I've been to those kinds of meetings, and absolutely the critical decisions are made there. I believe that she was running late, and that there was an accident, and that her phone died, and that she listened to the message after she arrived but before she sat down to dinner. I believe it because I have lived it. And I suddenly feel like a unicorn, because I do not have a car charger. 🙂

I acually find Randall's behaviour pretty plausible, if I take the position that This is Us is trying to show people as they are instead of idealized versions of what they 'should' be. People are assholes sometimes, and unreasonable sometimes, and hurtful and thoughtless sometimes, even if they're otherwise good people. In this case, Randall's tired and has been running non-stop because he's trying to be everything to everyone, and yeah, he has the same sort of internal attitude to Beth's dancing as Jack did towards Rebecca's singing, and he was stressed and frustrated and angry and he lashed out - which is what stressed, frustrated angry people do. This does not in any way excuse his behaviour, but it makes it more realistic to me that if he had been sweet and kind and supportive in that voicemail. That being said, what a terrible voicemail to leave! If I were Beth I'd be just as furious and I'd be considering ending the relationship. Respect in marriage is not optional, and showing that kind of contempt for your partner is the height of unacceptable behaviour.

She started off talking to her younger self, which she saw as a reflection. Then, as she resolved her internal conflicts and decided to become her fullest self, she was left facing her own mature reflection - it was HER in the driver's seat, not her younger selves.

I thought it was ok, but I won't be watching. The main thought in my head as she was talking about the plethora of spies in the country was 'Really? Does the media really need to be showing yet another TV series with the main plot driver being generating fear of the people around you?"