Danielg342

Yes this, 100 times this. Creepy detective? I say yes.

No news on his contract, but he does have a new girlfriend, soccer player Shawna Gordon- old enough to be his daughter: http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/former-western-sydney-player-shawna-gordon-is-dating-criminal-minds-actor-shemar-moore/story-fno61i58-1227187723377

I agree the apology was warranted- it just bugged me how it was delivered (he sounded like he was grovelling) and it bugged me that Gordinski had no other role in the episode except to apologize to Morgan.

I spent Victoria Day- that's the Canadian “Memorial Day”, and it's a week earlier than it is in the U.S.- sleeping and shopping at Costco. However, I went downtown two weekends in a row, so the sleep was well worth it.

I had a lot of problems with “Restoration”- chief among them how Stan Gordinski turned into a blubbering suck-up- but Morgan's words with Buford was not one of them. I think, fully, that Morgan knew what he was doing, and that by having the press conference, he knew entirely that Buford was going to experience some major pain. Earlier in the episode, when Buford was playing coy with Morgan, Morgan warned Buford about “what happens to child molesters in prison.” Buford then decided to open up, but not fully, so Morgan decided to teach him a lesson by telling the public that his molester was Buford. This may be unsettling, but I'm okay with that. Buford was still every bit as slimey in “Restoration” as he was in “Profiler, Profiled”, and still seemed determined to ruin Morgan's case just like he had six years prior. Like the true molester that he was, Buford still wanted to exhibit control and he did, so Morgan had to turn the tables. Yeah, he did so in an extreme way, but the way I see it, Morgan had no other options- the only card he had left with Buford was revealing his real past. Furthermore, I would argue that Morgan is definitely the kind of guy who'd adhere to frontier justice if given the chance. He was always the kind of guy who'd shoot first and ask questions later- I think of the early years where he tackled and fought with impunity and how he emptied that clip into Billy Flynn and how he went rogue to hunt for Ian Doyle. Plus, I can imagine that having his molester alive had to have weighed on him. Sure, I doubt he'd want death on anyone, but this is his molester he's talking about, so if he had the opportunity to dispatch him, Morgan would. It of course helped that Buford goaded him into it.

First of all, though I understand writing quality and acting quality are subjective, I would argue that Megan Boone isn't the only one for whom the writing has let her down- several guest stars fell flat too, and I think the show wasted the likes of Mary-Louise Parker, Peter Stromare and Ron Perlman. Second of all, Boone doesn't need to have “her own set of writers” for the writing to have let her down- all that's needed is the very real possibility that the writers are just not capable of writing to where Boone is best. Now, I think this says a lot about the skill of James Spader, Harry Lennix or Mozhan Marno that they're able to elevate above what's given to them and Boone can't, but I'm not convinced she can't hack it out if she was given the right role. Simply put, she's miscast. Boone should never have been the leading lady, or at least the leading lady as a FBI agent. She doesn't do empathy very well, or vulnerability, coming off as a petulant child. What she *does* do well is appearing innocent but being really completely depraved- she would be so much better as a villain, especially as someone's “scheming seductress”. She never should have been cast as “the good guy” because she just can't garner sympathy. The way I see it is that Elizabeth Keen should have been done differently with two different options: -Using a different actress (like maybe Amy Davidson) who can play the “the newbie with a lot of potential who just needs guidance to realize it” while still projecting the confidence and maturity that's needed to be an adult. It's like how Spencer Reid was like in the early days of Criminal Minds, where he had that big brain of his- he just needed Jason Gideon to help him use it correctly. -Establishing, from the start, that Keen is the villain, being a schemer intent on using the FBI for some kind of goal, and Red is there to stop her. This show does schemers very well- Tom Connolly was a shining example of that- so it shouldn't be too much to use that for Keen. I also think it would have made a much more believable case as to why Red is so obsessed with her, and would have given Keen a bit more of a “central” role on the show. Plus I just think “Red vs. Lizzie” is far better than “Red and Lizzie”. Bottom line- terrible actress? That's subjective. Miscast? I think that's more likely. Boone could have had a role on this show where she flourished- it just isn't the one they gave her.

I'm not quite sure, honestly, what else could be implied by Morgan looking at Reid's butt and saying “I hope it was a she” other than to make sure his butt wasn't “penetrated” (since a girl wouldn't likely penetrate his butt).

Reid was asked if "she was worth it", which could mean he had sex with her. So Morgan says his line and checks Reid's butt...because sex between males involves the butt (and that's about as much as I feel I can explain without going beyond the bounds of the board, I hope).

That may be true, zannej, but Morgan did look into Reid's butt when making the comment. So the implication seems clear to me.

Because, in short, people have used “feminism” as a means of promoting discrimination against men (with the media using “feminism” as an excuse to let all of this slide), when, if the ideas were flipped, there would be an outrage. Case in point: I remember once a former friend of mine on Facebook posted a link to a video from a group that claimed to be “promoting equality in the media” when it was clear it was just a front for radical feminist propaganda. Part of the video focused on criticising the objectification of women, with two male musicians- one being Justin Timberlake, the other I think was Robin Thicke (for “Blurred Lines”)- and one female musician, Rihanna, taken to task for portraying women as sexual objects. I remember commenting on the post by noting that the video did not take to task Christina Aguilera, who released a song- “Your Body”- in that same timeframe that spared no expense to assert it objectified men as sexual objects (the video is even worse in this regard). I remember expressly saying that “if we're going to rail against objectification, it should go both ways- not just when a man does it to a woman.” In response, one of her friends jumped in and called me a “misogynist” for making the comment that I did. At that point I knew the conversation was just going to go nowhere so I basically just offered a token response just to save face and left, deleting the friend who posted the link off of my Facebook list. Still, I pointed out then, as I am now, that you can't use “feminism” and “equality” to justify hypocrisy, and a disappointingly loud group of “feminists” misconstrue the original idea of feminism (which is all about gender equality, not making things unequal for men) and insist that by “flipping the switch” and committing wrongs against men that were once committed against women is somehow “okay” when it isn't. Which is where this show comes in. As Cobalt Stargazer noted, the show seems to have the mistaken belief that if Reid (and Morgan, who I throw in here) is somehow “reduced” in capacity in favour of JJ that it is somehow “okay” when it isn't. Now, I think there are a lot of other factors in the “rise of JJ” than radical feminism, but I do believe it plays a part. To wit: Let's say that, for years, JJ (and let's put Amy Davidson (Zoe) in this role instead of AJ Cook) was the “daughter figure” with a special mind with a troubled past who needs guidance in order to realize her true potential and understand the horrible world she's been thrust into. She becomes a beloved figure for her “quirks” and her own special brand of empathy, because even though she doesn't know how the world works, her knowledge at least allows her to understand and relate to the pain that it causes. Now, let's assume in this scenario that Reid- formerly in the background as the capable but otherwise un-noteworthy media liaison- suddenly rises to prominence in Season 7 after getting fired from the show a year before. This Reid, though liked in his old role- which is why people wanted him back- comes back as not in his old role and not just as a profiler, but the best profiler there is, also being able to kick some ass too! The rest of the team fawns over his abilities, never failing to mention how “special” he is. The kicker? To give Reid credibility, lines and qualifications that were normally given to JJ are given to Reid, with JJ often being “shown up” by Reid just to drive the point home. Given all that, imagine what the uproar would be. You wouldn't hear the end how CM became sexist because it promoted a male character over a female character, let alone a female character that was beloved. More than likely, Reid would have to get “dumbed down” again in favour of JJ just so CM could save face and stem the backlash, if it ever could recover from such a faux pas. The only reason why that would happen in that scenario? It's because- to quote the familiar refrain- “a man has been elevated above a woman, and we just can't have that!” Yet, somehow, when the reverse- a woman is elevated over a man simply due to her gender- happens in reality, no one ever really raises a stink, out of the misguided idea that discriminating against “the majority” because they'd been oppressors somehow makes it “okay” when in truth you're just switching one problem for another- and alienating the very people who could actually help end inequality in the first place.

Normasm: I do agree with you in principle. I was more about trying to explain why "feminism" has become such a "bad" word to use (in fact, it'd been a "bad" word for quite some time- recent events have just underscored it, I think). Plus, while I agree that identity politics take hold in many other places of the globe, I think it forms a far larger part of the public discourse in the U.S. than it does elsewhere in the world, mainly because the discourse is different. In Europe, it's almost always about bringing ideas together and finding common ground, whereas in North America we're very combative and have a "me-first" mentality (not to mention a very sensationalist news media). Which is why I think some people wind up pushing things too far.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but truth be told in today's day and age, "feminism" has become a dirty word because of nutbars like Anita Sarkeesian who assume just about everything "guy related" is bad and other nutbars who live by things like "Schrodinger's Rapist" and assume every man out there is a potential rapist or wants to commit some kind of harm against women. I'm a guy who wants to proudly support feminsim, because I believe in equal rights and opportunities and would never even think of hurting a woman, but it's hard when I get dirty looks simply because I decide to say "hello" to a girl. Bottom line, is, modern-day feminism, the type that trumpets a gross misrepresentation of a heavy-edited video, needs to seriously evaluate its methods. (I also don't understand what you're saying in the second paragraph there) I think this is a very good point, and I believe a lot of it has to do with a long tradition of discrimination in the U.S. America is quite unique in this regard in being that so much of its history and its identity is pinned on the white male at the pinnacle of society, and it's been recently where the U.S. is trying to correct that. One of those manifestations is that Hollywood favoured- and still does, to a degree- white male actors for their leads, and will give them a variety of roles as opposed to minorities. Unfortunately, the "solution" to the old way of doing things has always been to "reverse" the discrimination, instead of telling people to start looking at things objectively. There shouldn't be anything wrong with having white male actors fill in roles- if that's what the creative vision calls for, then that's what should get used- I just think Hollywood needs to stop assuming a "white male lead" is what is needed to ensure a wide audience, and that when they do create roles for minorities, they cover roles that have always been given to white men. I think of this show as a perfect example of the perils of reverse discrimination- Erica Messer seems to think that by having more male victims and increasing the screentime of her Mary Sue will undo the damage when it really does the opposite. Treating any victim as a "pawn" is wrong- be it male or female- since it does a disservice to the whole idea of a victim, because it strips them of what makes us care about them- the fact that they had lives and families and a purpose in this world. Secondly, by using JJ as an idealized version of a woman, Messer doesn't realize she's basically equating womanhood with an unreasonable and quite frankly unattainable standard of excellence that, if I was a woman, I'd be insulted by. The media has had enough problems creating women that are frankly unrealistic, so adding JJ to that mix is flat-out wrong, plus Messer doesn't understand strength isn't about how many things you master but how you overcome your own setbacks- setbacks that JJ never seems to get...and that's the real crime. May I ask what country you're from, MCatry? I'm Canadian.

I would say “C)” too, since the ratings didn't seem to be affected too much by Hewitt.

I had no idea there was a movie about Grumpy Cat...my how far she's gone. (Regardless, she doesn't have anything on Stubbs, the Mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska, or Bosco, the dog who was actually elected Mayor of Sunol, California) As for Elle...I think I'd just like to see her come back at some point, in any capacity, really. For all the flack that female characters get on this show, Elle was the only one who seemed closest to actually having a set characterization and flaws, instead of being randomly written all over the place like Prentiss, turned into a Mary Sue like JJ or not being given much to work with like Blake or Callahan.

This may be unpopular, but I'll say it anyway- in practice, democracy just won't produce great leaders, except in very rare occasions. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to live under any kind of system, but I think in our system- at least- it can be shown that we still have quite a bit of work to do. I could go on a multi-page screed about why this is so but what it boils down to are two things: 1) Some things a country might need to do the people would never vote for. Just think about it- who will vote for the politician that wants to raise taxes? Not me, anyway. I look at Greece and all the trouble their politicians are going through to get out of bankruptcy as proof- even though the country needed to make all those changes, the people- understandably so- still rose up in arms. 2) You'll probably never get a real visionary in office. We all know the popular phrase, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" and there's nothing that spooks a populace more than change, at least rapid change. Unless the ruling party have made a real mess of things, you'll rarely find someone who will win on a "major reform" ticket, and even then, the reforms still have to be something the vast majority wants anyway. I also think our political system does a lot to ensure that "real democracy" fails. Since we've got a "first past the post" system, people are that much more unlikely to vote for someone who "thinks outside of the box" because, no matter how wonderful their ideas may be, unless there's a real chance that person can win, only "mainstream" politicians will get voted in. Furthermore, since no one in North America really places a premium on education, you have a wide electorate that, quite frankly, isn't qualified to make the decision necessary to vote. Thus, elections become exercises in scare tactics and mass marketing, because the wider public just isn't informed enough to know the impact of the platforms our "great politicians" spout at us.

(I have no idea why I posted four times...the "Quick Reply" button seems to have failed me... Mods, I'm so so sorry...) I believe Reid was the one who told Morgan to go, not the other way around. Morgan said he wasn't going to go anywhere without Reid and was going to wait for him to get cleaned up before Reid said, "they're going to take off all of my clothes and spray me. Do you really want to see that?" Then Morgan agreed and went to the hospital. I would agree that Morgan now isn't a good fit...but then again, the writing for every character sucks nowadays, including Reid. The S1-S4 Morgan/Reid...that was a different story. That was a real friendship.

Grumpy Cat will not phase me. :-p (Apparently he's very playful...anyway...back to the topic...) I will say that I'm with Cobalt Stargazer in that I'd rather keep the relationships on the team platonic. Not just for realism but also because CM is supposed to be about the cases and the characters at work- not their personal lives. Plus, the characters pairing up would make for cheap drama and, at worst, would drive the team apart. So, no, just no. Having said that...if anyone were paired, Morgan and Reid seem to be the only choice I might be intrigued by, just for the simple point that Hollywood tends to avoid homosexual male relationships at seemingly all costs. So it would be nice to subvert that for a change. Plus, I would disagree that Morgan and Reid wouldn't at least be friends. I think Shemar Moore and Matthew Gray Gubler have impeccable chemistry together, and in S1-S4, the writers seemed to actually feed into that and made Morgan a "big brother" to Reid. Lately- and unfortunately- the writing seems to have gotten away from that, but early indicators showed that it could have been possible.

Well, if the show were to ever go there...why not Morgan/Reid? No one in the history of television would ever think of something like that- so it'd be a refreshing change of pace- and it would help put a little bit of irony into the "I hope it was a 'she'" line Morgan delivered way back in S5.

Thursday is an important bloc of programming simply because it's the day before Friday- when all the new movies get released. Since all the networks have studio relationship, it's important to get eyeballs on Thursday, so that networks can generate the most advertising for those new movies. So a move to Thursday indicates the network believes a show can generate those eyeballs...of course, ABC so thoroughly dominates the night that I'm not sure why other networks even try to compete with "current" shows.

Interesting...never thought about this until now. Assuming that the writing was clear that the Morgan/Garcia banter was purely playful (because the writing isn't clear), I would think that Savannah (and Sam, who, as I understand, is still Garcia's boyfriend) probably wouldn't be comfortable with it at first, but may just "get used to it" once she understands it's just something between friends. Savannah seems to understand that Garcia is just Morgan's friend, so I could see her accepting the banter on some kind of level. Of course, I also think Morgan, out of respect for Savannah, would tone down his own rhetoric and not be as flirty with Garcia as he used to be...that stuff, after all, flies if he's single, but not when he isn't. As for Garcia...well, the show went four seasons with Lynch being her boyfriend, and I guess I could fanwank Lynch not wanting to bother the "dynamic" Garcia has with Morgan, if only because Lynch might be slightly intimidated by Morgan (even though I know Morgan's not the "bully" type, Lynch likely has been bullied by people like Morgan before, and Lynch had been apprehensive towards Morgan a few times on the show). Sam...that's a wild card. Haven't seen enough of him other than to know that he's a dithering fool. In fact, I wonder why Garcia stays with this guy...as Garcia herself said in "Burn", Sam wasn't good enough for her to confide in her feelings about Greg Baylor, and you'd think that'd be something you would confide in with your boyfriend. So I can't make a case one way or another if Sam would be OK with the bantering. Garcia herself...well, I can see her rather enjoying the banter and likely wouldn't put up with a boyfriend that would tell her to "cut it out". Rather, I think Garcia would want a guy who'd be just as playful as she is. Someone she can play tricks with and plays tricks with her. Someone who likes to go on "adventures" just because they can. Someone who would get her twisted sense of humour and interests (because I think Garcia is twisted and would definitely be "out there" with her interests). Someone who keeps her on her toes...heck, someone with a spine. Bottom line...Garcia needs better taste in men. :-p

Unfortunately for next season this show will stay on Thursday, with the new Heroes show being its lead-in. Perhaps I should give that a chance since Heroes should have a good, built-in audience, although I'd like to think The Blacklist, after two seasons, should be able to stand on its own. Hopefully this will allow it to rebuild its audience, and I hope that if the show still stumbles NBC will change it back to Monday- it worked so well with The Voice so, if it wasn't broke, why'd they try to fix it?

I think I'll just flat out and say it- Tom Connolly is the show's best written character. He wasn't without his flaws- that "reveal" with the Director giving him a seat we could see a mile away- but I can't think of another character who could drift from being a "good guy" to a bad one as easily as Connolly did, and when Connolly fully embraced the "bad side", we not only knew about his power but we saw it in action. Of course, it helps that Reed Birney was so good as every level of slime you could think of, but, for once, the show isn't wasting a talent with poor writing.

Sorry. My understanding is that the producers knew Hewitt was trying for another baby.

That's also true too- and highlights one of the many problems I have with how the show treats Morgan, since it's apparent he's just a "prop" to show how much "in shape" JJ is (pair JJ with the character who is held to be "the toughest" and the thinking goes she'll be treated as "just as tough").

My understanding is the producers knew about Hewitt's pregnancy...I have a feeling that the show brought in Hewitt hoping that she would give CM a bit of boost and that didn't happen (ratings-wise at least). So I think Hewitt's departure was more about a "mutual understanding" that the experiment didn't work and the pregnancy was an easy out.