WearyTraveler

Wow! Clean sweep with the jury! Congrats to the winner!! I won't say who because I know some people can't watch right away Looking forward to reading everyone's comments on the finale. IMO, the person with the best resume won

I will say this, Alex has been, bar none, the most entertaining thing to watch, for the hilarity of if all his actions being wrong 99% if the time 🤣

Go, Jaden! For a moment there, I thought Valeria might have been the one to flip, but it was Jaden all along. Quite a good move that he can claim all to himself later on, if he makes it further. He didn't discuss or plot with anyone beforehand and just took power when he saw a chance. I like that. The paranoia next week is going to be epic.

Oh, man! The diplomat got diplomated (😆), twice! First when no one followed his first attempt at getting rid of Caroline and his was the only vote cast her way and now. They didn't show anything in the edits, but Caroline seems smart enough to know that once your name is read at Tribal, something is afoot. Mark should have realised she would be suspicious after that previous vote didn't go exactly as planned. That's the problem with diplomats, politicians and lawyers (all useful occupations, in the real world) in shows like these: trying to keep all the options open and playing to several factions at the same time never works out. Other contestants are twitchy and a lot more unpredictable than what they are used to. Pity because I don't like Caroline much. And she didn't do much to endear herself to me when she got that smug look on her face when the votes were being read. I instantly dislike people who do that. It feels like gloating, and I don't like it. Meanwhile, Alex is turning into unintended comedic relief by always picking the wrong side of the vote. LOL! Players like him, who are initially secure in what they think is a strong majority alliance and then get blindsided tend to be very erratic after that. They overcompensate and scramble to try to play some big move and get in with whoever they think has power. Going to the majority alliance right after his former teammates had spoken to them and badmouthing them is not a good look. The women presented a good case: we know you have the power, we know you might want to use it to pick us off, one by one, but we want you to know that we can be numbers if you want to make a move and come merge, we have this alliance we can plug you into. That's a lot smarter and much more eloquent than: those girls are so stoooopid they are not even looking for an idol because I told them it wouldn't be any good, let me know which one of those you are voting for and I'll pile it right on (makes him look like a snake who would throw his teammates under the bus to save his ass, plus it doesn't provide any incentive for future situations, i.e. merge) I am not actively rooting for anyone just yet. Maybe one of the people who have been more in the background? The ones who take center stage this early are usually too aggressive, or too full of themselves (we are controlling the vote) to last long. I specially dislike the ones who think they are smarter than everyone else and are extremely sure they have this thing completely figured out. We'll see how it evolves. Glad to have this show back as I also think it's better than the current American version

Favourite line: "I'm still talking Oedipus!!"

I think that anecdote can cut both ways. Tobert either chose to remain a documentarian and not interfere or he actually did the opposite because he grew tired of not intervening. I can picture a scene where Mabel says to him "you did nothing for that elephant, but this time you chose to intervene, you chose to make the story instead of filming it because you knew this would be a better outcome for you; this would finally give you the story that would put you on the map". Or words to that effect. I think that anecdote can cut both ways. Tobert either chose to remain a documentarian and not interfere or he actually did the opposite because he grew tired of not intervening. I can picture a scene where Mabel says to him "you did nothing for that elephant, but this time you chose to intervene, you chose to make the story instead of filming it because you knew this would be a better outcome for you; this would finally give you the story that would put you on the map". Or words to that effect.

Is this show extremely good at keeping things under wraps that there are practically no spoilers at all? I like spoilers!!! 😂

After having watched episode 9 and seeing no suspicion thrown Tobert's way, I am more convinced he will be the killer. Also, Mabel saying she wouldn't want to do anything else for her 30th birthday than spend it with the boys doing the podcast, and not even thinking about having a coffee or something with her lover on such an occasion might be a sign that he is the killer. It appears the show is preparing us for the blow by showing Mabel wouldn't be too hurt about Tobert being a murderer. Another possibility, if Donna did indeed poison the cookie, is that Cliff did push Ben to his death. We might see a scene where Cliff is crying to his mom after Ben's first "death", lamenting that his play was now over. Donna would then tell him that he had actually been saved from certain failure, sharing with him the fateful review stating that Ben was going to be the reason the show tanked. Then Ben shows up, alive and well, and Cliff "saves" the show a second time. I previously thought people in the play would have no motive to kill Ben because it had been stated many times that he was the big draw that would bring the crowds to the play, so no one involved in it would want him dead. But the review does open up the possibility that someone in the play would have a motive to kill him. And, if that's the case, Cliff would be the one, as no one else was in a position to know about the negative review. I don't think Donna pushed Ben to his death, even if she did poison him, because I don't believe the show will reveal the killer until the very last episode, so that takes her out of the running. And I also still think that this season's killer will be a man, given that the two previous killers have been women. Of these two possibilities, I lean more toward Tobert because no suspicion has been thrown on him at all. Thus making the reveal of him as a murderer more "shocking". And because I can't get his first words on the show (which I quoted in a previous post) out of my head. That said, I will try to rewatch Donna and Cliff more closely in the first episode, to see their reactions and placement, given the new information we got on the last episode.

OMG!!! I just caught up with the last two episodes and was so excited when Dickie confirmed so much of my theories (quoted above because yes! I'm gonna brag 😜). That said, now that our fearsome threesome think it's Dickie, I am going to change my mind as to who the killer is. Way too early to have the murderer revealed. They will only do that in the final episode. So, back to the drawing board for me. Although I still have the satisfaction of guessing that Dickie was adopted because his parents thought they couldn't have children, then Ben was born (real bio son), then Ben got all the attention, nobody ever saw Dickie's contributions but Dickie took care of Ben all the time anyway, and Dickie has resented Ben all his life. It's nice to see that I can still read the unspoken nuances of a show. Now, onto new speculation! I am going to guess that it was Loretta who tried to poison Ben. That exchange she had with Dickie by the theatre 's staircase was pretty telling, IMO. Later, in a "blink and you miss it" moment during Loretta's "confession" she says she poisoned Ben's drink. I found that interesting because everyone has been talking about the cookies and how they could be poisoned. Obviously, all the attention the show put on the cookies in that first episode was meant to do just that. And here Loretta goes and says she poisoned Ben's shake. If you think about it that makes a lot more sense than poisoning cookies when there was no guarantee Ben would eat them and Dickie was always fussing over Ben taking care of him. Plus, you risk poisoning other people too. So, I think this is a big clue that Loretta did indeed try to poison Ben. I don't know for sure if she intended to kill him, or just temporarily neutralise him, or just acted impulsively because he made her mad right before the opening night show was about to start. From what we have learned so far, Loretta already knew Dickie was her son, and she even said in one of her voiceovers (internal dialogue) that she thought Dickie having a brother was a good thing. So, a part of me thinks she didn't intend to kill him. She was a bundle of nerves in the first episode when everyone thought Ben had died onstage. And later when resurrected Ben addressed her, she was pretty jumpy too. Perhaps she thought he had figured out that she had poisoned his shake as she was probably the last person in his dressing room before curtain call and she left him a convenient lipstick message on the mirror. But I don't think she was the one who pushed him downstairs. So, that leaves us with.... Tobert? I don't want it to be Tobert because I want good things for Mabel, but we are 8 episodes in, out of 10, and no one else has had enough screen time to be the killer. And no suspicious has been put on him at all. He's not the mousy introvert our last killer was, but he is being portrayed by the show like our previous two killers have been: non-threating, non violent people you are meant to sympathise with. The past two killers have been women, so I think this season it will definitely be a man. Except for Tobert, all the men who are left as possible suspects are all from the play; right after Ben's first death they were all pretty sure of the fact that their show was dead without Ben and they were all elated when he was "resurrected". So, motive is flimsy. No one from the play would kill their Broadway meal ticket, there was too much at stake. Tobert, on the other hand, was shooting his own documentary. The play succeeding was immaterial to him, he wanted Ben's life drama (the baby elephant struggling in the mud). Maybe Ben fired him and refused to give him any footage he had. Tobert did go to Ben's apartment to get something. We don't know enough about Tobert's career status as a documentarian. He's not famous (no one ever heard of him before on the show), so, this could have been the break he had been waiting for, and when Ben pulled the plug he got angry and pushed him. Also, during the first episode, Tobert's first words really struck a chord with me "It's Robert with a T. Hey Broadway! I am just an observer. This is literally the last time you are gonna hear my voice". I immediately thought: "opposites! That's a highly recognizable actor, this will not be the last time we will hear his voice and he is definitely not just an observer. He could be the killer." That's all I got.

I'll see your long lost mother and raise you a legitimate son. Here's the scenario: * Dickie's parents adopted him because they tried and tried to have a baby and couldn't * Dickie was the "star" for a while, enjoying all the attention and love from his new parents * As it sometimes happens, Dickie's mom eventually did get pregnant, even though they were no longer trying to have a baby. They thought she was barren or he was shooting blanks and were not using protection * Ben is born and is considered a "miracle baby". As such, he gets even more attention than a second child would normally get * Dickie gets sidelined hard. He's not the biological son and he's not special * The family's finances tank because they were not able to afford two children and had only been planning on having just the one * Dickie is old enough to understand the situation and perhaps interprets (or the parents outright tell him) that he (Dickie) is the extra burden. They can't send him back now and they will never give up their bio son (Ben) * Perhaps Ben is also sickly during his first few months (born prematurely of a womb that wasn't supposed to be able to carry him, maybe?). This adds to the amount of care and attention baby Ben gets, and conditions Dickie to always be watching over Ben, taking care of him, etc. * Ben eventually pulls through but mom is always worried for him and fusses over him constantly, adding more kindling to Dickie's resentment * Ben becomes a child actor and starts supporting the family financially. More praise, love and gratitude goes to Ben, while Dickie's contributions are ignored You get the idea. All of this is wild, wild speculation on my part, off course. If I end up being right, I will submit this post to a writer's room somewhere in the hopes of getting a job 😁

I am going to go out on a limb and say Dickie is the murderer. I have no specific evidence, only a sense, so far, that he has been under his brother's shadow his whole life. He's meek, unassuming, always in the background. I think we will come to find out that he eventually couldn't take it anymore and wanted to have his own independent career (and he got started quite fast getting Loretta that job). I guess the only suspicious thing we have seen about him in the show was him going to Ben's apartment all alone. One could chug that up to him finalizing the tasks after a family member dies, but he didn't do the typical stuff one does in that situation. No packing of clothes, no organising, no classification of stuff, no movers or boxes... What was he doing in the apartment? And Mabel was conveniently distracted from properly spying on Dickie. I can see a flashback sequence during the eventual reveal at the end of the season where we find out what exactly Dickie was looking for in that scene. (I reserve the right to change my opinion as more episodes air 😆)

A long time ago I was working on a project for an oil company in a beach town. I had to live there for the duration, I could go home on weekends, but sometimes the 4 hour drive was too much for just a day at home (I was single and in my twenties, so, it wasn't a big deal). Anyway, beach towns are great for vacations, but when you are working there, not so much (going to lunch at a restaurant dressed in office attire while surrounded by people dressed in beach casual clothes and flip flops is not pleasant); and after a few months, you have explored everything there is to do in a beach town. So, my teammates and I decided to take in scuba diving and went through the full PADI programme, all the way to rescue divers. All this to say, I have worn neoprene in tropical weather, and unless you're in the water or your suit is wet, it is extremely hot and uncomfortable. It's like wearing latex, only thicker. The neoprene is supposed to keep you warm when you descend into the water (which gets colder as you go deeper), while still giving you the flexibility you need to move around and not get your clothes tangled into something. You actually wear your swimsuit under the neoprene diving suit, so you can unzip it right away and get at least partially out of it the moment you get back to the boat. The reason you might not remove the suit completely is if you are going for second dive after the recommended rest period; neoprene is a bitch to get back on if they are wet. In general, no one is keeping those things on longer than you need to. It's not a breathable material. There were a couple of seasons where neoprene was all the rage, and I kept thinking to myself "Why? Who the hell thinks they can walk around in a neoprene garment all day?". They might have a thinner version for making clothes out of it (instead of diving suits), but still, it's like wearing plastic. That said, I did like Bishme's design, though I agree the anchor was too much. I also really liked Rami's and agreed with the judges that Anna was the right choice to go home.

So did I!! Maybe you and I should check sources?

It was fabulous!!!!

I laughed, but... The first time I broke a bone I was in my thirties. Never had I ever broken a bone before, even though I was a very active child. Crashed my bike once and went flying over the handlebars, flipped in midair and everything, nothing broke. Fell from a tree branch into a cactus (I kid you not) and the only injury was getting the needles into my skin (very painful, that one). Got stung by a scorpion and almost died because the hospital I was taken to didn't have the right antidote for it, and it had to be rushed from my country's equivalent of the CDC.... I can go on, but I think I made the point. Anyway, you know how I broke a bone in my thirties? I was walking out of my bedroom and my naked foot hit the hard plastic wheel of my laptop's carry case. Fractured my pinkie toe and the one next to it. All it takes is for a fall or incident to happen just so, at the right angle and boom! Broken bones 😂

Well, they need to get close to her, but once they do, if there's any suspicion as to the manner of her death (accident vs. murder), they would be some of the first people the police look at. So, if they go through with the parties and everything else, it gives them an opportunity to show that Tanya was wild and careless, and also a reason why the police might find drugs in her system, which would, in turn, support an accidental drowning proposition. "Oh, yes, we had a party with her and she kept going off into another room to do so much cocaine! She was high off her rocker most of the time we spent with her, and insisted we bring her to her hotel last night, which we did. She must have gone back into the water on her own after we dropped her off. I feel so bad, we should have insisted on accompanying her to her room. What a shame!"

I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, so I'll go ahead and post my theory on Greg. In S1 he was already taking weird calls and I found it weird that he didn't run away from Tanya after she basically stalked him by following him to the pool and he caught her. I mean, under normal circumstances, most people, would find that behaviour too clingy if not outright dangerous after one date. I also found it strange that he appeared to have a health issue related to respiratory problems (all the coughing), and yet he was able to swim laps upon laps without a hitch. This season two things caught my attention that no one else has mentioned. Greg said to Tanya, during their last breakfast at the hotel, that he'd already been married three times before, and Jack said to Portia, on two occasions, that his "uncle" and friends were always hanging around and partying with rich old ladies. Add to that the comments Cameron and Daphne made in the first episode regarding the European aristocrats having these luxurious estates and looking down on people when they had no money to even look after their properties, and the fact that the "gay mafia" only showed up after Greg left. Then, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Greg and his longtime boyfriend (since the days they met on the ranch) had been running a scam where Greg married the rich women, brought them to Sicily and then Quentin approached them, became friendly with them (as he did with Tanya because they would find him not threatening sexually or financially, as he appeared to be very rich), encouraged them to pour their hearts out to him (again, same thing he did with Tanya "tell me everything"), and then enticed them to have wild parties in his house where the women would be filmed having hard drugs and sex with someone other than their husbands (someone did mention in this thread there appeared to be a red camera light in Quentin's room). Greg would then use that evidence to divorce the women and get a nice settlement that would help Quentin maintain his luxury estate. Even Greg's illness could be fake, to get that extra bit of sympathy from the women, and he could have gotten "cured" many times, after fake going to the doctors his new wife could afford him to consult. With Tanya, one if two things could have happened, either her prenup was better at protecting her than his previous wives' prenups by stating that if she were the one having an affair Greg would still get very little compensation (seems likely that Tanya's lawyers knowing her would do something like that and there was a lot of emphasis on the prenup in the show), or Greg is tired of the game/thinks he won't be able to play it much longer as he is getting older and decides that instead of getting one slice of cake, they should murder Tanya and get the whole thing, thus allowing them to finally get all the money they need. Or a combination of both. Jack did tell Portia that Quentin was supposed to come into a windfall, and that his need to hang around with rich, mature ladies would stop. So, that's my Greg/Quentin/Gay mafia theory. Tanya was the one that would put an end to the years of setting up rich, lonely ladies so they could live it up in Sicily, and "retire", so to speak. Anyway, I decided to watch this show after hearing much hooplah in several podcasts about their season finale and binged both seasons in a couple of days. I think it's funny and entertaining. Nothing majorly groundbreaking, but entertaining enough to binge when there's a chance

Makes sense

Sooo.... Who do you all think had the biggest orgasm? Larys contemplating Alicent's feet or Otto watching his grandson being crowned? (I'm no good at capturing images from TV shows. Perhaps someone with those skills can put those two moments side by side, so we can compare and contrast?)

Don't be too hard on yourself, there have been many non-winners who have outperformed the winners, even some who placed lower than runner-up.

You're probably thinking of someone else because Carrie Underwood won her season of American Idol. ------------ I am ok with Yannick winning, as I thought he had the most artistic collection. As for wear-ability, I think fashion shows (from the big designers, anyway) are not supposed to be about items that one would actually wear. They are supposed to be art pieces that inspire a more wearable collection to later be sold in stores. As for the show, overall, I don't know, I don't think it's terrible but I am not on the edge of my seat watching.

The Lannister spear being the weapon that kills the stag... Cute?

As an aside to your aside, the series is based on a book by the same name by Ken Follet. He used to write spy novels and suddenly came up with that book, which is the best he's ever written, IMO. I didn't see the series but the book was excellent!

I try to give new shows the benefit of the doubt. Remakes, shows from the same universe but with a different story, spinoffs, etc. You never know how it's going to turn out. Could they be a big fail? Sure, but completely new shows with new premises and exciting PR campaigns have miserably failed too, and some spinoffs and remakes have been successful (or at least enjoyable to me) so, it's all a crapshoot, really. These are different showrunners with a finished source material, so, right off the bat the situation is different. I don't know if Sapochnik will be a good showrunner, but I can't fault any of his direction on the show before. In fact, his episodes were some of the most memorable of GOT. Martin will supposedly be more involved, and I think that will be a good thing. I don't like the fact that he hasn't finished ASOIAF yet, and I don't like the fact that his last two books in the series have, IMO, meandered quite a bit with characters and plots that take too long to accomplish their literary purpose, and extremely long, many times unnecessary, world building (geography, food descriptions, etc.). But, he is a good writer overall, and can create compelling characters and stories, so, I think his involvement may be a very positive thing. On the other hand, it will probably distract him from finishing TWOW, which is frustrating, but, if it wasn't this project, it would probably be some other project that distracts him from finishing. I don't think his issue is a lack of time, it's an apparent lack of motivation, for whatever reason, to just sit down and write the ending of this particular story. In any case, the promos look good and the reviews are positive, so, I'll give it a chance.

Some reactions to the screener here: https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/house-of-the-dragon-game-of-thrones-prequel-premiere-first-reactions-surface-online/