Danielg342
-
Posts
3.9k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Danielg342
-
-
This show likes talking about bringing the fire...
...well...
Manny really brought the fire. So did Paola Nunez, Gabriella's mother Roberta. I could totally buy they were once young, passionate lovers whose love fizzled out because they were both impulsive, pushy, intense and awfully stubborn. The kind of people who'd fall in love with each other instantly and go all-in, only for that spark to fizzle out when they realize they both drive each other nuts.
It was fun, all of it, and I think I'd be down for more of it.
I also want Luke vs. Manny in Hell in a Cell. Make it happen, WWE...
The rest of the episode was rather uneven. I mean, it was great seeing everyone- especially Gabriella, Roberta and Sharon- dressed to the nines, though I wonder why the Three Rock inmates couldn't have been given some nice threads so they don't look out of place in their jumpsuits.
Alix West Lefler did great as Genevieve, and Jordan Calloway sold Jake's awkwardness. They also have a cute handshake.
We also got some rousing speeches from you-know-who...I have to wonder if a speech really would sway a Governor, but this is Hollywood, after all.
The big letdown was Vince.
OK, Vince has his reasons...they're actually good reasons in that tremors and a heart condition would be the end of Vince's firefighting career.
...but...gosh...it still felt like Vince was being stupid for the sake of the plot.
I know there's stubbornness...but this is next-level stuff. Stupid stuff. Vince could have died, and playing with the heart is no joke. It's extremely risky of Vince to say "just shock me and I'll be OK", because there really is no guarantee that he will be.
Again, I understand that Vince was worried about his job if he went to the hospital, so his actions still made sense...but that doesn't mean he still wasn't acting incredibly stupid and being reckless with his life.
I also don't buy that whatever heart condition Vince has that Sharon wouldn't know about it. They've been married for too long...even if Vince is undiagnosed, he said the tremors and the arrhythmia happened before, so I doubt Sharon would never have noticed it before.
Regardless, it's Vince's turn to be stupidly hiding something from his wife, just like Sharon stupidly hid something from her husband. Full circle, but...
Episodes like this display the frustration with this show- they can make some real magic sometimes, especially when they let the characters drive the story (as what Roberta did tonight).
They just fail to find it, mostly because they force it too many times.
-
2
-
-
The Hicks/Buck/Mumford fight did produce a touching moment.
Emily Alabi also did well as Olivia. I'm glad she's decided to stay...and judging by the muscles she's got...Olivia should join SWAT.
I also thought Zoe Powell was a bit more likeable in this episode than she usually is. Maybe Anna Enger Ritch is cut out for the main cast after all.
Nichelle and Hondo also displayed some great teamwork too, though a home break-in will be tough to overcome in one night. Walter Fauntleroy did pretty well as the unhinged Bruce too.
That's about it for the positives.
It was a pretty rote case, and it succumbed to several cliches, like the British bad guy and the first guy to die was the black guy. I also have to ask questions about why important newspaper material was kept at a vault in the same place that hosts a swanky ball.
We also had S.W.A.T.'s usual quick pace in its usual attempt to establish urgency...oh, and bad guys who are dangerous who will stop at nothing and kill whomever is in their way to get what they want.
I've heard of shows having formulas but...this is over the top.
No Deacon in this episode.
Two more episodes to go...
-
59 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:
I do think that he preferred "Hollywood hot" type women because there are some men who judge their success by how hot the women they can bed are.
The other part of that is what Harvey Weinstein would consider "Hollywood hot" is not what someone else would consider "Hollywood hot". Some may want Kaley Cuoco. Others will want Amy Farrah Fowler. Others will target someone else entirely.
There's no "foolproof" look.
Looking at those who have accused Weinstein of at least some kind of impropriety and I don't really see a "type". There's brunettes. There are blondes. There are people who are not what you would consider "Hollywood hot" on that list. There's young actresses and old actresses. Most are, admittedly, white but you still have Latinas (like Lina Esco) and you have Rowena Chiu and Lupita Nyong'o.
If that doesn't reinforce the idea that predators are opportunistic and will target anyone if the mood suits them then I don't know what will.
-
12
-
-
4 hours ago, JH Lipton said:
Our company makes sure that there is no vegetation around the wires and shuts the power if there is a chance of a wildfire. We even have goats keeping brush down. Safety is the number one concern .
Did Southern California Edison change management recently?
I ask because I understand your company did have to settle numerous lawsuits related to allegations SCE equipment caused forest fires. Maybe it's due to my own cynicism having worked for a big company in the past that was completely profit driven, but my guess is that SCE only really started caring about safety once they realized negligence is going to cost them, literally, a lot of money.
-
1
-
-
It's common on police procedurals to portray the departments the heroes don't work for as nothing but obstructionists who do what's needed to hinder the heroes in their plot (think pushy FBI guys, procedure-obsessed bureaucrats, lawyers...etc.). So it doesn't surprise me that Fire Country resorts to the same storytelling tactic.
I didn't have too much of a problem with how the electricity was portrayed in the episode, aside from the air of "things are happening because the writer needs them to happen that way for the plot". Of course, I don't know that much about electricity in the first place, so I likely missed some of the details.
My guess is that the electricity storyline was written by someone who didn't have any knowledge about how it worked and simply read some things about it, applying what little they learned. It's understandable given the time constraints surrounding a typical Hollywood season, but it's also on the showrunner to better organize the writing so episodes are not left to writers who don't know what they're writing about.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:
Not the cops, but:
Yeah, it doesn't matter what time of day or where they are or what condition they're supposed to be in...in Hollywood, everyone is always dolled up, especially the women.
Step by Step kind of parodied this in an episode. Carol spots one of her kids (I believe it was Karen) going back into her room after she had just snuck out of the house. Carol asks Karen what she was doing, and Karen tries to fool her mother by saying she was just using the bathroom.
Carol then asks rhetorically, "you put on mascara and all this makeup just to use the bathroom?"
Karen seemed to understand her fate by asking how long she'd be grounded for and I forget what Carol responded with but Karen sure was benched for a while.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:
I think what finally turned me off procedurals was ones like Bones or Hawaii 5-0 where they are clearly solving a complicated murder in one day since they don't even change clothes during the episode.
Criminal Minds is pretty bad with this too, as often the agents will work deep into the night and forgo sleeping just to catch their killer. Now, the agents of CM were supposed to deal with really "dangerous" killers who were almost always at risk of "devolving" into spree killers (which also doesn't make any sense, as that's now how real serial killers act) so you could justify the sleepless nights in order to catch the killer, but the show wasn't always consistent with the need to forgo sleep (the need for rest was even a plot point in S5) and I sometimes wonder if the stakes were really that high many times. Sure, the town might be on edge because they're dealing with an active serial killer, but it's not like the killer was always operating- there would have been times the agents could have slept.
1 hour ago, Annber03 said:Will he sleep on his right or left side? Or his back? Will he snore? Tune in to find out!
LOL.
Well, Jack Bauer not sleeping isn't totally inaccurate- lots of people go without sleep, especially special operatives.
What gets me about Bauer is that we never see him having to use the toilet or eating or drinking. He's in a highly stressful situation, he fights off sleep, he routinely exerts himself physically...that makes me hungry thinking about it. How Bauer doesn't need to eat despite all that is beyond me.
Besides, they could have easily filmed him having a breakthrough while having his lunch or sitting on the toilet. I can do a lot of good thinking during those times, and Bauer could have too.
-
6
-
-
10 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:
As @Quof says above, due process requires that even a scummy jerk like Harvey Weinstein get a fair trial.
The reason, if nothing else, is for precedent. All court systems use previous rulings to inform and influence future rulings, but this is especially important in the North American law system which is based on common law. Precedents allow the court system to clarify points government laws don't cover and can become just as strong as actual government legislation.
Which is why getting the ruling right is so important. As much as many of us want Harvey Weinstein to rot in jail, we shouldn't want our passion to get him in jail to muck up rulings and set bad precedents for the future. Because then we'd risk throwing a good person in jail who doesn't deserve it all because of a bad ruling.
-
10
-
-
I liked Jake telling Bode that Bode needs to learn that fighting for himself can be good enough, he need not always attach himself to someone else.
I also thought Alix West Lefler (Genevieve) did really well in this episode.
It was also great seeing Lochlyn Munro again and I appreciated that this episode didn't follow the usual story beat where people campaigning for the shutdown of the show-central institution see how good said institution is and the institution is saved.
No, even though Three Rock more than proved their worth to the community, they're still getting shut down. I don't know where the story goes from here and I don't know if it's the right choice, but the show made a move that took some guts, so credit to them.
...but...Billy Burke...
Sure, Fire Country may not always know the best about how to use him, but I'd have to say, it's a deal breaker if he leaves, especially if they write him out so cheaply. Burke and Diane Farr really centre and ground this show and give it its heart and soul, so the show should be wise to keep those two around because you can't replace actors like that.
Yeah, likely we'll get some more Hollywood health and Vince is going to wind up being just fine despite the scare, just like Sharon was with her kidney (remember that storyline?), but I'd appreciate it if the show gave Vince and Sharon more meaningful things to do other than cheap drama like the kidney and Vince's electric shock.
Just like S.W.A.T. before it, we've got three more episodes of Fire Country to go. Will Three Rock survive? Will Bode understand the meaning of life? Will we ever get competent writers on this show?
One thing's for sure though- if a tree falls in a forest, at least Station 42 will notice.
-
2
-
-
I actually thought this was one of the better episodes...then the ending happened.
Which only heightens my own fears that, heading into S8, S.W.A.T. has made a giant mess of things that it may not be able to recover from.
If this was the final season, Deacon leaving at the end of the episode would have simply been heartbreaking. It may also still be frustrating, since Deacon leaving so abruptly makes the character look bad, but, in a final season scenario, it wouldn't be worth too much getting worked up about because there's only a few more episodes to slog through anyway.
In this, new, situation...I can't help but feel with Luca, Street and now Deacon leaving that the show is falling apart.
(There was also no Hicks or Nichelle today too, which only adds to the frustration)
At this stage, it's almost imperative that, at least, one of those three scheduled to leave don't actually leave. It's also imperative that S.W.A.T. hires another lead character that can shoulder the load- even if one of the old guard returns- because the quality of the acting has declined too much and S.W.A.T. really needs something to freshen it up if it wants a longer run past S8.
Some positive signs did come from this episode- Alfaro and Powell looked like they may have some actual chemistry, though I hope they keep those two platonic. We don't need Stris 2.0.
As for the actual case itself, it was nice that the show gave another nod to what was supposed to be the hook for the show- Hondo having to juggle his role with the badge with his ties to the street. The show is at its best when it leans into the struggle Hondo has with trying to convince a cynical and leery community that it really can trust the police, because the show has done a brilliant job showing how Herculean that task really is.
Hondo must feel that no matter how many steps forward he takes, he's also always taking two steps back. Two military vets who team up and take on the gangs to avenge their fallen daughter is a great way to highlight that, and, as much as you see the pain in the father's face that no one seemed to care about his daughter, you could also see the pain written all over Hondo's face, frustrated that many of the things he still fights against still happens, regardless of everything he does to make things better.
It's this kind of wider but personal conflicts that the show has been missing. This was the first case that truly felt like it had some meaning, and the show really needs to have more cases like this. Plus, creating cases that leave a personal mark with SWAT members is an easy way to develop those characters since we get an insight into those characters.
Three more episodes for this season, folks.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, ABay said:
I don't think it's lazy to do your job and want to go home at the end of the regular work day.
No, I don't think so either. There's just a difference between completing your task with time to spare so you can go home early and cutting corners on said task just so you can go home early. One is happenstance, the other is laziness.
What I was also saying is that, sometimes, when we finish a task, we may not have necessarily finished it. It's not because we were bad at our jobs- it's another matter of us being human, in that we all make mistakes and overlook things. What tends to happen on these police procedurals is that, unless it's a plot point, you never get the protagonists leaving the crime scene thinking they've done their job when they actually haven't. If the task isn't done despite looking like so, one of the protagonists will have a "hunch" and they'll be back on the case, when, in reality, that wouldn't always happen.
-
2
-
-
On 4/23/2024 at 7:11 PM, Kel Varnsen said:
Of course they are. You would be too if so many of your cases had some sort of connection to your personal life.
I've mentioned it before, I think, but it's something Hollywood seems to always get wrong about every job, at least as far as the main protagonist is concerned. Focal characters are always diligent, punctual go-getters who put in the extra work to make sure they've done their jobs right, even if it means having to re-open a task at the end of the day instead of simply declaring the task "done" and going home.
I have no statistics, obviously, but having worked in workplaces with lots of other people, I can safely say that there are very few people who are so dedicated to their jobs that they'll put in the extra mile to get things right. Now, I grant that the amount of people who "hot dog" at their jobs likely depends on the field, and most of my experiences are at low-paying jobs where employee motivation is already a struggle, but, knowing we're all humans, even at so-called "better" jobs, not everyone is going to be on top of their jobs all the time. Even the best will get lazy and give in to the temptation to cut corners, even if it would be disastrous for them to do so.
Perhaps there's a good reason why Hollywood makes their characters so dedicated to their jobs. Firstly, a character who is lazy is typically not very likeable, and, secondly, it's not a very satisfying story if plots were always resolved because a character was simply lazy.
This goes both ways- for the protagonist and the antagonist. You want your protagonist to succeed because they overcame everything the antagonist threw at them, not because the antagonist got bored halfway through the story. Conversely, a loss for the protagonists would not be impactful if they were not shown trying so hard to do everything they can to succeed at the challenge only to fall short. If the protagonist simply went through the motions and failed because of it, the audience would very much wonder if the protagonist would have succeeded had they actually tried, and they might wonder how serious the challenge really was if the protagonist didn't offer any effort in trying to overcome it.
So while it's not accurate for Hollywood characters to be dedicated go-getters, it's a more satisfying story to write them that way.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:
Terrible news. I'm confused on why it was overturned. Didn't the women testifying establish a pattern?
Here's what was at issue. The appeals court basically stated the following:
- Harvey Weinstein had no criminal record before the New York trial, so, in the eyes of the court, he had not been proven to have done anything wrong before the trial
- Despite this, the prosecutor brought forth as evidence the testimony of several women who accused Weinstein of crimes he was not on trial for, and thus were not being tested by the trial at hand nor were they tested previously
- The jury then based too much of their reasoning for conviction on these untested accusations, instead of properly evaluating the accusations that Weinstein was actually on trial for.
It's like this- you've got a murder trial with a defendant who has no criminal record. The prosecutor brings in all these people who testify the defendant committed murder in prior incidents. The prosecutor then says "because all these people said the defendant committed murder before, he must have committed this murder!"
Well, you can't base a fair conviction on crimes the accused is not trial for, because those crimes are not being tested by the court. The defendant needs the proper ability to defend themselves, and they can't if they're faced with the prospect of having to answer for crimes they haven't been charged with (since charges need to be supported by physical evidence, not simply on hearsay alone). You also can't use, as evidence, accusations of crimes that haven't yet been tested by the court, since, in the eyes of the court, it is not proven that the defendant actually committed those crimes. Because of the presumption of innocence, since the accusations are not proven, you cannot say the defendant committed those crimes.
Now, you are allowed to use character witnesses and use unrelated incidents to establish motive. Getting back to my hypothetical murder case, if part of the prosecutor's case revolves around suggesting the defendant has anger issues and wants to argue the evidence points to the defendant killing the victim in a moment of rage, the prosecutor can definitely bring in people who have witnessed the defendant get violently angry before, because then the prosecutor can prove the defendant can let their anger get the better of themselves. The prosecutor would still have to prove that the rest of the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, but at least the prosecutor can establish part of their case.
My guess is that Weinstein's previous trial judge thought that by using the testimony of the women who brought forward the untested allegations, the prosecution would simply use it as evidence that Weinstein was the kind of guy who simply "would commit rape", not as evidence that he actually committed rape. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for.
One other tangentially related point- Weinstein and his lawyers brought up the claim that the #MeToo movement unfairly influenced his trial, and there may be something to this. I mean, I really don't know how a jury can be expected to judge a case fairly when, on a daily basis, they're confronted by thousands of protesters who loudly shout at them and implore them to convict. There's a reason why juries are typically sequestered for deliberations- put in a hotel room without TV or newspapers and (I suspect) the Internet, because the judge can't risk the jurors being influenced by anything that would bias their evaluation of the case. How all those jurors- and the judge- can't be influenced by those protesters is beyond me.
-
1
-
7
-
10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:
I don't see it that way. Gossip is "I heard this about so and so." The women who testified shared their personal, lived experiences with Weinstein about how he abused them. That kind of testimony is often allowed in court. The original judge and 3 of the 7 upper court judges thought it met the burden. 4 in the upper court felt it did not. So the judges looking at the case were split evenly overall. It just happens that 4 happened to be an upper-court majority.
Maybe I used the wrong word but it's semantics. The court simply said that the trial judge can't use as evidence the testimony of women who allege crimes against Harvey Weinstein that have not been proven in court. Which is especially important because those allegations were for similar crimes that Weinstein was on trial for. The judge ruled that because Weinstein had no prior criminal history before the New York convictions, it is a grievous error to allow testimony of people who accuse Weinstein of the same crimes as those he was actually on trial for, since it made the jury believe he had committed those crimes before when no court had deemed he had done so.
My level of legal expertise is nowhere near a level where I'm in a position comfortable enough to say "the judge got it right" or "the judge got it wrong". I'm only going to comment on what I see. I know there will be people who will read what the court says and find confusion with it, since, in their minds, the "untested allegations" against Weinstein are as true as they can be, but, you have to remember that, in a court of law, if allegations have not been tested in court, a court cannot see those allegations as "true".
It'd be like if someone was convicted of murder based solely on testimony of others that the person committed other murders other than the murder they're accused of committing. That's not a conviction that can be allowed to stand, because then you're risking people getting convicted purely on the weight of others simply running their mouths, with what they're saying being, potentially, falsehoods. People should only be convicted of the crimes they're actually accused of, not only crimes that stand simply on hearsay.
-
1
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:
They should have known if allowing women to testify about unrelated charges/cases would be considered swaying the jury or prejudicial information, if those are the right terms. Information presented has to be relevant to the case and unfortunately it seems they allowed information that wasn't. From my reading, it sounds like they didn't meet the standard for admissible evidence of prior bad acts, which the prosecutors and the judge should have known and addressed at trial.
I think the problem is that the claims of the women unrelated to the case had not been tested in court, so they were little more than hearsay. It would be like if the judge had allowed testimony from someone who said "Harvey Weinstein is an alien from another planet" or "Harvey is a murderous cannibal"- since there is no proof that happened, you can't use it as proof that Harvey acted in that manner before.
It seems to me that Harvey was convicted on little more than Hollywood gossip. That's a poor standard for conviction, and I rightly think the prosecution needs to do better. True justice deserves no less.
-
7
-
-
36 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:
I’m trying not to have my hopes up when it comes to Deacon. He’s my favorite. No Deac, no SWAT for me.
😢 😢 😢 😢 😢
Well, I hope for your sake at least he is brought back. I do think there's a high probability of that.
37 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:Please don’t hire very mediocre actors like the 3 newbies just because they don’t cost much. It doesn’t help when 2 of them look quite the same.
Agreed. My guess it'll be someone who is high profile, and maybe younger. I might get behind a storyline where Hondo sees himself- the good and bad- in a new recruit.
39 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:Carolyn had ALS. It’s mentioned in 7x05.
Oh. My bad. It was Kristin who had cancer- must have confused the two.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:
For Hicks/Maggie storyline, they copied it from Criminal Minds, isn’t it? It’s what happened with David Rossi.
Somewhat...I believe Carolyn had cancer, not ALS. Same idea, though.
3 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:I love Deacon but I’m truly not looking forward to next week’s episode (SNAFU). 😣
I'm not looking forward to it either, but something tells me that one of the three that appear to be written out- Deacon, Luca or Street- will be back for S8, likely filling the old role that Cortez used to fill (my guess is Deacon because Jay Harrington made a lot of posts celebrating SWAT getting a S8, whereas Kenny Johnson only tangentially acknowledged it and Alex Russell didn't mention it at all). I'm also predicting a new cast member for S8 in a bid to "freshen" the series.
-
Blah.
Great to see Jessica Camacho (Agent Vasquez) again as well as Hondo's joke that kept Deacon honest, but that's about it for the positives.
It was a rote case with a stereotypical criminal- women love shiny things, I mean, who knew?- with the rote obstructive bureaucrat who is only there to create artificial drama and arbitrary roadblocks for the heroes, only for said bureaucrat to see the heroes' value in the end.
Blah.
As for Hicks' storyline with Maggie...for real, show? This has to be one of those storylines the show wrote thinking it was the final season, because why do they have to break Hicks' heart again? Maybe they can pull the same thing Empire did and reveal Maggie doesn't actually have ALS and she has something else...implausible, maybe, but it'd be a happier story.
I mean, great for Hicks to be there for Maggie through what will be some painful days ahead, but...for real, show...you can give someone like Hicks a happy story every now and then.
Blah.
Oh, and no Tan or Powell despite their apparent status as series regulars. At this stage, I don't know why the show bothers to list anyone other than Shemar Moore as a main cast member.
Blah.
-
8 hours ago, SoMuchTV said:
There is a sports forum here:
I'm aware of the sports forum. I'll put it into consideration. I hesitate to put a wrestling topic there since, technically, it's not a competitive sport- it's more appropriately "sports-themed theatre". Then again, the vast majority of wrestling fans are also sports fans, so maybe there is a fit.
-
On 4/15/2024 at 9:33 PM, Anduin said:
Given this is about Vince McMahon, sex offender, I suppose this belongs here. Anyway, could he start another pro wrestling company? The answer is maybe. But he'll be 79 by then, does he still have the drive? The energy? Where would he get the money from? Who would perform? Who would go to see the shows? Would any network air the shows?
Side note- I do wonder why these forums don't have a wrestling forum or at least a topic, considering it *is* on TV. In any case...
Could Vincent Kennedy McMahon start his own wrestling company? I wouldn't put it past him. Many thought that McMahon would only leave WWE on his deathbed, so I could see him getting the itch to get back in the game once he's able to do so.
The only question I have is whether or not it would work. On top of all the logistical concerns you mentioned- who would broadcast his promotion? Who would invest in it? Who'd be willing to work with him, etc.- the problem with McMahon's hypothetical promotion is that I'm not sure McMahon really has his finger on the pulse of wrestling like he used to. Wrestling punditry is almost universal in its proclamations that Paul Levesque- AKA Triple H- has vastly improved the WWE product since becoming the head of creative in WWE after taking over the role when McMahon was first forced out of WWE in 2021.
Plus, I watched almost every WWE program for two years from June 2018 to June 2020, and a lot of that stuff was literally the worst TV I'd ever seen in my life (see Shane McMahon vs. Miz, Rusev vs. Bobby Lashley, The Big Dog eating dog food, the mishandling of The Fiend, etc.).
About the only positive out of that 2018-2020 period is that Becky Lynch became a real star during that period (though it was kind of by accident) and women's wrestling grew somewhat by getting a Royal Rumble match, the Mae Young Classic and a pay-per-view of their own, Evolution. There weren't too many other positives, and those that were positives were either moments of serendipity (Kofimania) or they came from ideas the wrestlers made themselves that McMahon approved, like The Fiend and later The Bloodline.
So, while I can't say for sure that a new McMahon promotion would fail, I feel that there's a good chance it will, simply because I'm not sure the old man knows what he's doing anymore. If the other stuff that could impede McMahon- like being unable to find a TV partner or investors, or even writers to work for him (remember, Vince used to love ripping up the scripts to his shows and force complete re-writes mere minutes to air time)- then McMahon's poor vision for what wrestling is in the 21st century will likely doom the promotion.
It may be good for fits and giggles while we watch it implode worse than WCW did in its final years, but that's about it.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, possibilities said:
I think chosen family could be very meaningful, IRL and also as a story. I would love to see them commit to that idea. But I do worry, like you said, that they may have gone that route to give themselves an out if they decide to get rid of the character.
Alix West Lefler- who plays Genevieve- is 12 years old and lives close to where Fire Country shoots (the show shoots in Vancouver and Lefler is from the suburb of Burnaby). I don't know if there's something with the laws or anything but maybe that played into the writers' choice. I know that having actors younger than 18 can cause some logistical concerns and, since Genevieve isn't exactly a major part of FC, I could understand the need to give them an out, even if I don't agree with it.
-
On 4/13/2024 at 7:08 AM, Madding crowd said:
I don’t know why they introduced the idea of Bode being a father and just took it away. That’s just going to make him spiral more into his usual fugue. I liked the episode in general.
It does open the narrative possibility of having a story where Genevieve meets her real dad for the first time, which can be a good story if they work it right. It also allows them to write out Genevieve if they want to do so without having to kill her.
Personally, I would rather have Bode be Genevieve's actual father than one by proxy because it gives that relationship more meaning, but I can see why the writers went with this choice.
-
The problem I have with Powell, Alfaro, Cabrera, et all is that I feel I have no reason to care about them. They're just bland "robots" who are just there to execute the plot.
Yeah, they may be "inoffensive" but "inoffensive" isn't the same thing as "interesting". I'll grant that, perhaps the characters may get some character building later because the writers wrote this season as if it were the last one, but I also feel that each of the characters should have at least started with some kind of "hook" to get us in to them.
To be clear, I'm not saying I need some deep characterization, but I might have liked knowing that, say, Miguel Alfaro is there because his family was ruined by gangbangers so he's a police officer to set things right.
I also think the other part is- with all due respect to Niko Pepaj, Anna Enger-Richt and Brigitte Kali Canales- I don't find them particularly that strong as actors. Kenny Johnson, Alex Russell, Lina Esco and Jay Harrington run circles around them and it's not even close. The newer cohort seems fine when all they're tasked with is holding the fort for an episode or two, but I'm not sure I could ask any of them to carry a series or even just a single episode.
Which is a big issue. If you're going ask me to watch these actors for 22 episodes, then I want actors in there who will be comfortable taking centre stage.
So S8 needs some changes on the cast front, even if Harrington stays. 'Cause I don't just want characters I care about- I want some actors I would genuinely enjoy following too.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:
"Let's get some water on that fire, folks! Let's knock it down!" I think you're a bit behind the power curve there, boss. Won't save much.
I looked at that as more about stopping the fire from spreading as opposed to saving the log cabin. There were a lot of trees surrounding the cabin so it'd be a risk to allow that fire to spread.
-
1
-
S02.E08: It's Not Over
in Fire Country
I have a feeling we weren't supposed to like her, and that we were supposed to get a sense as to why her and Manny didn't work out.
I will say Paola Nunez seemed to have a lot of fun playing the character. For that reason alone I want to see her again.