Azgard12

Forgot Mr. Branson, so I've added him. Okay, now I'm just going to think about how these pair up- I don't really know that it is possible for there to be just one killer. However, I somewhat believe that if two killers are on our list... outing one pretty much pins the other one down. IF there are two killers and we've seen both, I would hope they share scenes together (Scream 1, Scream 4). That said, they might not (Scream 2). I really think in a TV format with way more time, there's just too many opportunities (and too few characters, in this case) for us not to see our killers together. I actually typed out every combination of the people I said were suspect above and really, only Cop/Keiran/Teacher combos feel like they work with Audrey being an interesting addition at times. I really like the 2 separate killers theory. Forgot Mr. Branson, so I've added him. Okay, now I'm just going to think about how these pair up- I don't really know that it is possible for there to be just one killer. However, I somewhat believe that if two killers are on our list... outing one pretty much pins the other one down. IF there are two killers and we've seen both, I would hope they share scenes together (Scream 1, Scream 4). That said, they might not (Scream 2). I really think in a TV format with way more time, there's just too many opportunities (and too few characters, in this case) for us not to see our killers together. I actually typed out every combination of the people I said were suspect above and really, only Cop/Keiran/Teacher combos feel like they work with Audrey being an interesting addition at times. I really like the 2 separate killers theory.

This was played upon in the original Scream as well. Could easily go either way (part of why I think this works so well): 1) The real killer was intentional in doing so and trying to heighten Emma's suspicion (though, it didn't work ultimately, so...) 2) Audrey is the killer and couldn't mess with Emma during this time (BORING)

I have a few assumptions and a few observations. Assumptions: 1) The killer(s) appear in Episode 1-2. It would, in my opinion for a series such as this, be cheating for the killer to crop up as a character introduced later. 2) If there is more than one killer, the "pair" shouldn't openly discuss how bizarre the killings are or whatever. 3) The more we see someone alone, the more innocent they become (again, as said above... kudos). 4) Acting shady doesn't absolve you in the Scream-verse (especially when you consider the "Plan A" for Scream 3). Stu, Billy, and Mickey were are super obvious suspects. 5) The killer will not be in two places at once (Wes has a fixation on this, which he previously discussed...) 6) The same "tricks" might be used, but not in the same ways if production can help it (Billy's fake death/Roman's fake death/Charlie's fake death). I'm also struck by the idea that Wes mentioned after Scream 3- being upset he never got his female/female combo he wanted in Scream 2. Based on these: EMMA: Innocent. Just stopping there. NOAH: Innocent. Too many alone scenes. Alibi during Riley. Too many alone scenes with others. And he's the voice of the show. BROOKE: Innocent- too many alone scenes, visible alibi during Riley's death BROOKE's DAD: Innocent- didn't appear soon enough. WILL: (probably) innocent. Too many alone scenes with too many characters and as of E6, it would be a repeat of the fake-out. JAKE: Suspect. First real suspect, though again couldn't be paired with Brooke or Will. IMO, he's had the most shady lines. MOM: Suspect. Though I believe one killer must be teen. We know so little of her, but it would be awkward for her to stalk her daughter. PIPER: Suspect. Another character we know little of. This would be the cheapest option of those from episodes 1-2. TEACHER. Suspect. He's appeared surprisingly little for as much suspicion as he draws. Still, Billy's Mom and even Rowan barely appeared at all in their films and were the killers. AUDREY: Suspect. So many people she can't be paired with... but they're all in my "innocent" category. COP: Suspect. Probably the most recurring character tied into things with means who we know little about. KEIRAN: Suspect. This guy is managing to fill the role Billy so much while also having little alone time and so many reasons for us to suspect. His absence for a bit seems like production wanted us to forget him. And his dream disappearance bothers me, because I feel it was a meta-way for us to suspect him less. That said, him being the killer would be disappointing. One fear I have does go back to Harper's Island... (the spoiler is for that show)... I guess I am afraid that there isn't a satisfying answer that is both logical and unexpected.

I think the people who will survive Season 1: -Emma (though I'd truly love the show if they killed her off) -Audrey (unless she's the killer and I can see that) -Noah (really, he's the best the show has to offer) -Brooke (based on that I think this completes the core of the show, though I don't care for her)

This happens to me every year I watch: The first week of the show, I'm so into it and amazed by the excellent cast. I have my early favorites (Jason, Jeff, Becky, Vanessa), the ones I think will bring the drama and make it fun to watch (Audrey, Day, John, Liz, Austin) and even some eye candy (Clay, Jackie, Liz, Jeff, to me). But then this thing happens. Those people instead are evicted (Day, Jeff, Audrey), become boring wastes of space (John, Becky Jackie), become toxic bullies or people I just can't with (Clay, Austin), are revealed to be complete idiots (Audrey, Jeff, Liz) or just stop being of interest. And then I just stop watching. I guess maybe I'm rooting for Jason (most likeable?) or Vanessa (actually playing?), but I just don't care. It happens every year. Am I just bad at watching this show?

I feel strongly we'll see a killer unmasked at the end of the season, but their accomplice will live on into Season 2.

And on that note: Goodbye, Survivor. If I wanted to watch bad behavior rewarded, I'd rewatcg Game of Thrones. Jeff, you touted this as the best season. Week after week we have previews promising change. But the bad behavior never ends. I'm done.

True. I realize RPDR is in many ways about judging and reads. I just think this whole X = intelligence is kind of analogous to X (skinny) = beautiful or X (straight) = normal... and a lot of other similar struggles. As I've abundantly pointed out- I'm not rooting for Pearl. Just the reasons people are against her are as pernicious as those touted against the community as a whole.

I quote Mortal Kombat far more than I should ("Get over here!" and "Finish him!" being among the most common). Doesn't mean I judge people who wouldn't get my dated in-jokes. I wouldn't think anything of it had nobody known what I was talking about- though it's been in mainstream pop-nerd culture for a while. And at least in this case dated is within the past 30 years My argument here is the majority seems to argue that Pearl is uneducated based on several points: 1) Macbeth MATTERS even though it's old and out of the modern mainstream 2) Macbeth is quoted... though many probably think those quotes are from the Bible or Ben Franklin... 3) Knowing Macbeth determines something about your character and integrity? I dunno. For being in such a maligned and judged crowd, I'm surprised at how quickly people are to find other ways to judge and demean people... be it ageism, racism... or just not understanding that everyone isn't born with the world at their feet... even when it comes to educational opportunities. From that, I can understand having a jaded or "lackadaisical" outlook toward the experience of being "educated".

Its funny that the conversation here mirrors the conversation being had among the older queens about the younger queens. In younger generations, there *is* sometimes a push-back against just accepting the best things from the previous generations (and older) as being valid and worthy. True, this discards some of the experience and wisdom I believe to be vital in education, but there is an authentic desire to find things out for oneself. Under that light, Macbeth- to me- could be obscure to a young person (and Little Women moreso). That said, we're all individuals here who choose to take time out of our days to discuss the merits and character from a television show in complete sentences... I guess my thought is that it's going to be interesting to see the progression of Pearl through this season- or more importantly- the perception. I don't see someone disinterested or bored, but it's been brought up through the show, the boards and in Untucked. Like I believe Pearl said: "Resting bitch face." Only this is more of a case of resting I-don't-care face. (I'm not a Pearl fan. Just to be clear.)

Not that I like Pearl, but a minor note: Macbeth left the school norm between 2002 to 2008. A lot of major textbook companies changed it up. Modernly, it's not unusual to see: -Midsummer Night's Dream in Junior High (maybe) -Romeo and Juliet is 9th Grade -Julius Caesar is 10th Grade -Hamlet is 11th Grade -Othello is 12th Grade It's actually strangely rare to encounter Macbeth... and I say this as someone who has been tasked with getting Shakespeare into Junior High.

They probably were happy to let Nicole go and increase the alcohol consumption. Who's going to break-up the fights while she's gone? It's just a little too late, though.

My former doctor (who is quite good, just a long distance away now) has double what I make in a year on the site. Yikes.

Standalone book. I didn't read it, but I had a student who read it and- upon watching the pilot episode- I asked them for some details about who the killer was (partially because I wasn't sure I wanted to watch the show). I'm pretty sure the show has changed the killer to be someone else.

I had heard from a young person I know who the "killer" is as well. Which, yeah, left me baffled when watching this. They're clearly taking this an entirely different direction and based on what I've heard, that's a good thing. Maybe we need a spoiler thread to discuss that more? Not sure this show is even worth it.

It's generally disliked when these reality shows bring back contestants. I know when Survivor does it, it annoys me... However, I kind of think on these talent competitions, it's necessary (to a degree). On Top Chef, MasterChef, Project Runway, ect... the judges generally adopt the idea that contestants have to stand up each week and be judged on that week alone. I think were there not the chance for people to have that second shot, we'd see more unfortunate situations. I suppose I'd rather see a good chef be given a second chance than someone who always floats along make it to the end. Everyone has a bad day in these talent-competitions. I don't think it works in more of the gamey things like Survivor or Big Brother, though. People are voted out for a reason.

There's been a lot of discussion about the various prophecies in the series. Everyone really subscribes to all of them, but in my eyes, it would be just like George R R Martin to break one or have them never come true. It could all just be a ruse. Many think Circe safe, for example, as long as her children live. Well...

Everyone really seems to hate hidden immunity idols, but they really do make votes more interesting. It's just frustrating that they shape the game more into some weird hide-and-go-find game. I suppose I wish they weren't hidden, but earned in some other semi-anonymous way.