Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

10.2k Excellent
  1. Yeah that whole plot line fills me with dread because: The cop is an idiot for getting involved with an informant / girlfriend of a drug lord and You just know that at some point Frankie is going to get out and then he's going to punish Renee for "cheating" on him with the cop (even though he told her to do it.) As others have pointed out, there is literally no one likable in this show. I've got tons of time on my hands now but I don't think I can be bothered to watch another episode.
  2. I'm allowed to talk about anything in this thread, right? If so, RANT MODE ON: I was totally jazzed to discover that the Broadway musical, Hamilton, is going to be broadcast on July 3rd for the first time ever. This is not a movie based on the Broadway show --it's an actual taping of the theater performance (actually an edit made up of two or more tapings of the show, captured early in the run when most of the original cast was still performing.) Oh. My. God. I was so excited. I really, REALLY wanted to see that show when I lived in NYC but my last year there was the year Hamilton hit Broadway and there was no way I was EVER going to get a ticket. So here we are, some 7 or 8 years later and I'm finally going to get to see it. What channel? Disney Plus. . . . WTF is Disney Plus? Long-story-short I had to sign up for a new monthly streaming service just to see this show. But okay . . . I am literally 10 days away from retirement and I can treat myself to a new streaming service. I'm going to have a lot more free time on my hands, right? (And I'm probably not going to leave my condo much for the next several months due to the Pandemic so what the heck, here we go with a deep dive into the Disney library (which includes Star Wars among other things.) What's not to love? Wait, what's this? They are offering a bundled set of Disney Plus / Hulu / ESPN? I don't really care about ESPN but Hulu did The Handmaid's Tale and that was excellent so . . . okay, sign me up. Now all I have to do is sign in to all three services. They're all linked so one ID/Password should work for all three right? RIGHT? What's this? ESPN won't work? Damnit. Okay I'll call customer services. Scroll scroll scroll (no I am NOT going to read about it or try using your damn trouble-shooting 'bot) scroll scroll scroll (where is the damned customer service phone #?) Long story short I finally got a human on the phone and they got me access to ESPN. (Maybe it will have something worth watching if/when we ever have an Olympics again.) All that drama happened on my desktop computer in my office so, now I just need to log in via the laptop that sits by my TV so that I can stream content to the big screen. What's this? Now HULU won't let me log in? I have to call them AGAIN!!!!!???? Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ! I cannot believe how fragmented and fragile and cumbersome TV-watching has become. Yes, I am awash in content (that I pay for) but you need a freaking degree in electrical engineering to manage all that content. I'm pushing 60 but imagine how my mother's generation must struggle. I am now feeling particularly grateful for my younger sister. My mother lives with her and my sister serves as her on-site tech support. Thankfully, Mom's more into the Hallmark Channel than exploring the depths of Netflix, AmazonPrime, Hulu, and Disney Plus. RANT MODE OFF Okay, I'm done. What to see something cool? Here's a link to SGN (Some Good New) -- an online show that John Krasinski's been doing during the pandemic. Episode 1 was good but Episode 2 (below) was AMAZING because THE CAST OF HAMILTON SHOWS UP!!!. Enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oilZ1hNZPRM&fbclid=IwAR1DYQ5xf9cPJNJ6J-qP0ZPAZxyLsFCDeEsjpsd8GCDXGqF4sNdP0ePAByc
  3. Well I finally got around to seeing Sam in "The Spy Who Dumped Me." I'm not gonna lie . . . some of the slapstick humor by Mila Kunis and especially Kate McKinnon made me cringe but I don't care because the rest of the movie had me laughing out loud, all alone in my socially distant living room. And Sam . . . Sam was a revelation. He looked amazing and dashing and so YOUNG (with short hair and no faux gray.) And he was FUNNY. But he also did all the James-Bond-ish spy stuff amazingly well. The stunts were especially well done. They faked continuous shots in a manner that I still haven't figured out -- shots in which it was clearly Sam at the start and the finish but it HAD to be professional stunt man in the middle because there is no way the insurance company would led a lead actor like Sam DO that stuff. Ah, that was a fun ride
  4. So today I decided to take a look at RottenTomatoes.com to see how the film industry is coping with the Pandemic. Bizarrely, five of the movies listed as "Top Box Office" this week are Jurassic Park, The Goonies, Jaws, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those movies are are clearly NOT in theaters so I guess that website is now also tracking the revenue from rentals of old movies that become available in Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon. Whatever. The thing that brought me to THIS board was that Rotten Tomatoes really panned Bloodshot, which is the most recent movie that Sam appeared in. I read the review and then I clicked on the link to go read Sam's profile. It talks about his theater education and his having been in the touring company of Batman the stage show. It mentions his sponsorship of My Peak Challenge and his support for Bloodwise. It talks about his gig with Barbour and his work for Cahonas Scotland. You know what it doesn't mention? At ALL? OUTLANDER. WHAT THE FUCK? I then wondered if maybe there was a rule on Rotten Tomatoes that they only talk about movie credits and ignore TV gigs, so I looked at the profile for Michael J. Fox (what with the link to Back to the Future being so handy.) Nope, it talks about his "star-making role as junior conservative Alex P. Keaton on the long-running sitcom Family Ties." Can anyone explain to me why Sam's profile on RottenTomatoes does not mention Outlander? It even mentions the fact that he "auditioned numerous times for Game of Thrones, but was never cast in the series." THAT gets a mention but his multi-year starring role in a hugely popular, award-winning TV series gets no mention at ALL? I say again . . . WTF? Does Sam even HAVE a publicist? If he does, they suck.
  5. I'm binge-watching this now and I have not read this board. I will do so after the binge is done. But can I just say OH MY GOD CAN NO ONE KEEP A DAMN SECRET!? Admittedly this pair of families has more toxic secrets than your average pair of families but that's not the thing I'm starting to hate about this show. It's the completely unprompted confessions that people make. Up until now those confessions have usually had a legitimate reason -- people spilling secrets in anger and for vengeance and whatnot. But the episode I just watched -- in which Alan tells his new wife one incriminating story about the death of his son-in-law and Alan's daughter tells her new "friend" an entirely different story -- one where she flat-out confesses to murder (albeit with the extenuating circumstances of battered wife syndrome) is just making me CRINGE. Why? WHY would anyone have those conversations? I don't care HOW drunk Alan's daughter was. She would NEVER confess all that to a woman she's only just recently met and who she HATED when they first met. I'm a person who can engage in some major league willful suspension of disbelief but damn, this show is testing me. The only thing keeping me going is that I heard that this show is based on a book that was, in turn, based on real events. I'll keep watching (I'm stuck at home for the Pandemic so I might as well stick with it) but I will be VERY interested to see what is here on this board when I've finished my binge.
  6. "Oh sons of dogs! Of dogs of the BREED! Oh COME! COME HERE! ON FLESH TO FEED!!!" Yup. That's what I call some fine family entertainment. 🙂 (Seriously though, I can't wait.)
  7. Sam and Graham have got a new gig on STARZ -- something called "Men in Kilts," which appears to be a travel documentary series with Sam & Graham running around Scotland together. I'm never 100% sure if linking to Facebook works but I'll give it a try. https://www.facebook.com/OutlanderTVSeries.starz/posts/3105216442870877
  8. I'm pretty sure that was the Bates Motel so maybe everyone knows to stay the hell away. As for the rest of the episode . . . jeez what a hot mess. Color me shocked that there is another season planned. Oh. Right. I had forgotten that colossal plot hole. Like I said . . . Hot. Mess. And unless I am mistaken, Serac ended the episode alive. Why? WHY? Maeve was standing right there with free will and a perfectly good sword. Why on earth would she not take that opportunity to END that megalomaniacal MoFo?
  9. Yup. I've made this point before. The books are HUGE. There are enormous swaths of bucolic, slice-of-life stuff that gets cut in order to condense them into the requisite number of TV episodes (a number that keeps shrinking -- and now they've even shoe-horned bits of the next book into THIS season.) Unfortunately the BIG DRAMATIC EVENTS all need to be kept in the show because so much of the plot hangs off them. So (for example) the Gathering that kicks off this season's source book (which goes on for pages and pages and PAGES) was completely skipped and Brianna & Roger have a fairly uneventful wedding ceremony at the Ridge (instead of the rather complicated series of events that led to Brianna and Roger's unexpectedly Protestant wedding ceremony during the Gathering in the book). But the attack on Claire, and her rescue by Jamie & his tenants (and Roger's decision to fight alongside Jamie), is a tentpole moment in the book and it really could not be skipped any more than the kidnapping of Brianna could be skipped. So yeah, the TV show does seem to careen from crisis to crisis to crisis while the books have a much more leisurely pace. That said, since there is so much book material to fit in the season, the totally-off-book trip to the stones that Roger and Brianna took is really weird. The only explanation I can come up with is that they decided to get the whole will-they-won't-they-go-back issue out of the way now and (unlike the book) Roger and Brianna are now completely done with their time-travels (which would imply a HUGE amount from the books will be completely ignored.)
  10. My interpretation was that she was reacting to Jemmy's extreme sensitivity to the gemstone. It was not just hot to him -- like Brianna and Roger -- it actually cracked when he held it. So I thought they made the connection that his extreme sensitivity to the stone meant that he had a double-dose of the time-travel gene and thus must be Roger's son. I actually think that's a bit lame but I totally understand their desire to NOT have to shave both actors' heads (to see the matching birthmarks) in order to follow the books.
  11. Okay I'm writing my immediate reactions without looking at what anyone else has written. My first reaction is that my being a reader is really getting in the way of this episode for me. There are so many things that are different and they bothered me -- not because the changes are wrong per se, only that they were not what I saw in my mind's eye. For example, in the book Claire accompanies Jamie when he returns the body. Everyone see's how badly she was beaten. Furthermore Jamie tells them that not only was Claire assaulted, they also assaulted "the daughter of my house who is with child" (Marsali). I always understood that those two things -- SEEING what had been done to Claire and hearing of the assault of a pregnant woman -- are the reasons the Brownsville squad does NOT seek vengeance in the book. But in the ep that vengeance is practically promised. I don't like that change. I also really missed Roger striking terror in the hearts of the kidnappers when they hear his Highland battle drum (the bodhran). That's the sort of thing that probably works better in the book than it could on screen but I'm sorry not to have had it. I also was sorry not to see the scene where Claire asks to bathe in a stream. I get why they changed it (and I'm sure Caitriona was glad not to have to have to go into a freezing mountain stream in the nude) but that desire to be immediately cleansed was really visceral in the book. The scene in the bathtub by the fire didn't really have the same resonance. Another moment from he book that they chose to cut was Jamie's request that he should make love to her that first night -- so that if she falls pregnant (unlikely, but possible) there will always be the possibility that it is HIS child. Then again, I guess their having made love is implied by that lovely shot of them on the bed at the end. And whoa, Marsali. Well, I guess that guy just learned the hard way that you do not mess with a daughter of Laoghaire MacKenzie (especially one that is full of pregnancy hormones and you ESPECIALLY do not endangered her unborn child.) This is a really tough part of the book to read. All things considered, I think they did a good job of it. So . . . about Roger and Bree . . . I have a theory. But it addresses future books so I'll put it behind a spoiler screen. Regardless of the reason, color me SHOCKED when they saw Ian. That was a plot twist I did NOT see coming. But now that they are back on the Ridge it makes their tender goodbye scenes from the prior episode something of a waste, doesn't it? As for Claire's disassociative reveries with Jamie, Fergus, Marsali, Jocasta and Murtagh all in the future (and Murtagh alive!) -- well that was really interesting. If only I hadn't been spoiled for it (damned people talking about it and posting clips of it on Twitter earlier today!) Oooooh, good catch. But unless I'm mis-remembering, he didn't give it to her -- she helped herself to one before curtseying and leaving. I always rather liked that little moment.
  12. Ack! I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry!
  13. Random Outlander-related thought of the morning: Lizzy's expectation that she would be leaving with Brianna is less touching when you recollect that she's the reason Roger got sold into slavery and had to be rescued from the Indians. Brianna may have forgiven Lizzy but I'm betting relations between ROGER and Lizzy are, and always have been, a wee bit tense. You can ignore that kind of tension when you're just crossing paths with someone from time to time -- even tip your hat to them as you pass them in the yard while doing your chores -- there is room for that kind of "social distancing" on a large estate. But the notion of Lizzy accompanying Roger & Brianna as their servant for . . . well . . . forEVER (even if they hadn't been planning on going back to the future) would simply be a ludicrous idea. Roger may have forgiven Lizzy but he hasn't forgotten.
  14. I LOVE this idea. Oh PLEASE let that be the case. I assumed that was the other reason Roger asked Ian to go with them -- for help finding the stones (Ian having much better woodland skills than Roger.) Well, that was a lot to take in in one episode. I hate the Claire-gets-kidnapped plot line and this time she's kidnapped not by a group that was raiding the still but by a shitty guy who has a personal grudge against her for giving his wife birth control advice. The kidnapping in the book never made sense to me and this one makes even less sense. What is he planning to do with her? I don't even want to imagine. I love this show. I really do. But right now it is stressing me out. Or maybe the pandemic is stressing me out and that makes me less open to these kinds of action-adventure-women-in-peril story lines. I think I need a dose of Call the Midwife now (though actually that show goes pretty damned dark from time to time as well. Okay, reruns of The Big Bang Theory here I come!)
  15. This show has always been a mental challenge, what with William's two time-lines playing out in season 1. I still remember the thrill when it was revealed that young William was the genesis of The Man in Black. It made me want to go back and re-watch the entire first season, looking for clues I had missed. I'm not getting any thrills with the reveals lately. I don't even UNDERSTAND the reveals. I think we just learned that Caleb did, in fact, kill his best friend but only because they were both manipulated by the people who hired them, with each receiving "kill" orders on their phone and each distrusting the other just enough the feel certain they were in a kill-or-be-killed situation. And then after that Caleb was reprogrammed to forget he had been a hired killer who murdered his best friend was and was dumped in a construction job (but still occasionally picked up criminal jobs on the side)? And now he's the key to the robot insurrection, or the overthrow of Serac, or whateverthehell Dolores is up to now? Okay. Whatever. I'll watch the finale but I kind of feel like it needs to be the series finale, not the season finale. Everything seems to have gone off the rails at this point.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size