Shermie

Okay, I just didn’t understand the Amish stripper. I mean, I get being rebellious and leaving the Amish life behind, but becoming a pole dancer for 20 years? There’s rebellion and there’s rebellion. But then she goes back to the full Amish garb when she becomes a mom? Makes no sense. I get maybe hiding the heavier figure under the baggy dress, but why wear the bonnet? She didn’t really explain why she chose to put that back on. Especially since she had no qualms about leaving it behind (again). I couldn’t reconcile the dowdy middle-aged Amish woman with the hot pink, cowboy hat-wearing, long wavy blonde haired Barbie. There looked like a 20 year age difference and a 100 year chasm of lifestyle.

I love this show and am so happy to see Stacy and Clinton again! I really like the format, that they started the show saying they’ve changed because attitudes have changed. I expected more postings about this show, but it sounds like the US just has one episode available? I’m on ep 4 and it looks like all 8 are available here. I like the big wardrobe room full of clothing in all colours and styles. It’s telling to see what the MO (makeover person) is drawn to. And I like the double tryout concept, where they first have the MO choose some things and wear an outfit as their new self. Then a friend/relative comes and shares their thoughts/opinions and it can be different from the MO. Looks like they go home with 4 full outfits - top & bottom or dress, coat, shoes or boots, bag, jewelry, hat.

Yes, it certainly shows the contrast between different types of parents. I don’t have an issue with Timothy not being around. He’s a grown kid with a life of his own and is busy getting an education. That’s normal. No Trixie this week either, but again, normal considering the character’s circumstances. Agree that the new nun is lovely. But am I the only one who thought she had a hesitancy about her? As she was learning the rules and looking at the activities, there was a reticence about her as if she was rethinking her choice. I don’t see why anyone would become a nun (or priest) in this day and age, to be honest. You can do God’s work without giving up everything else. It doesn’t make you more faithful or a better Christian.

Yes, I’m watching the show. It’s not a comment on the reality of Naomi being a mother; it’s a comment on the ridiculousness of it. I don’t remember the cause of the infertility issue. I assume some environmental catastrophe, but plant life seems unaffected. Are animals infertile too? Trying to figure out why other countries are all having fertility issues and are looking to Gilead for inspiration.

I assume it’s supposed to be along one of the Great Lakes. In reality, it is. It’s a gated community in Fort Erie, Ontario. I wonder how the real life residents feel about their community being portrayed as some sort of Stepford wannabe. I find all this “the US (Gilead) can’t be trusted” business very interesting to hear in these times. When this show began, the idea of the US turning into well, something else, seemed like fantasy. Now, though. I’m amused by Bradley Whitford barely tolerating his annoying wife and even his child. The little girl wearing that Amish-level head thing and dress are just no. And isn’t his wife a bit old to be a mother to a child that young? They look like her grandparents.

I just wonder what the Lasley’s (and real life parents like them) would tell their families. That their baby didn’t survive? I mean, the potential grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, etc. would all know they were pregnant.

Just watched the season in two evenings (prefer to do it that way) and I think it seems less plodding this way. What a gorgeous place, but it’s a little too remote for my taste. Surprised that many ended up with a fondness for the Ratliff family. The dad was a useless lying idiot, and he tried to kill his family. Oh well. I guess they can bond over ramen in their rental apartment when they get back. I couldn’t watch Lochlan “drowning” because someone close to me did drown and a scene like that is very triggering. No way to avoid it since producers seem to love that “dying is like drowning” trope, but I had to look away. The 3 women storyline felt separated from the others. There was some intertwining of plots and characters with everyone else, it seemed, but the women were a separate group. That said, I enjoyed this show and love the elevated “Love Boat” style of it - same concept each season but different cast and storylines. Any guesses on which characters will show up in season 4?

Maybe the hikers are the types who wander off trail and got lost. Then they heard the yelling and saw the fire and figured they found civilization (heh). Refresh my memory - did the Yellowjackets ever discuss hiking for help? Like if they just followed a stream or walked downhill or kept going south, eventually they’d come across somebody. Even if it took weeks, they had all summer.

I wish Gen Z would learn how to pronounce English. One of them was “weary” of what the others would do. The word is “wary”. Another gives a bracelet as a “momento”. It’s a “memento”. And so many change T’s to D’s within words; how many times do I have to endure how “impordant” something is? Gawd, people, learn how to speak your language. /rant over

So why is that, I wonder. Some book-to-screen adaptations have been done very well (LOTR, for example) but it seems like they always change characters and plot lines for no real reason. The book was successful because readers liked the characters and plot, so why change it? (Reminds me how pissed I was in the ‘80s heyday of book/miniseries, where they did one of a book I loved back then. Can’t remember the name, but it opens with a young woman confronting 4 successful women with “Which one of you bitches is my mother?” The miniseries eliminated one of the 4 women for no real reason and it changed everything.) Anyway… I haven’t read any of the Outlander books (yet), so I guess I have no expectations to be disappointed.

It would have worked better if Liza had said she was 29 at the beginning because she’d still be “in her 20s” but a few years older and that would explain some of her fish out of water actions/reactions. I do find the young vs “old” stereotypes trope-y and tiresome. I’m waaay older than Liza really is, and I know a lot of what the 20-somethings are talking about. And I’m not tech-stupid either.

Yeah. I guess there are no laws or anything yet about bigamy? There were actual witnesses to Claire and Lord John's wedding and then -- poof! it was like all the characters conveniently forgot. Jaime asks - are we still married? Claire says - how can we NOT be? Then Lord John calls Claire - Mrs. Fraser (reiterating that she is not Lady Grey) and well... I guess that's that. I guess all one had to do was declare -- "We are married!" or "We are no longer married!" and just by saying it out loud - that made it so???? Weird. Well, no. Claire and Lord John’s marriage is invalid because Jamie is still alive. She thought she was widowed so she remarried, dead hubby isn’t dead so he’s still the hubby. Second marriage isn’t legal. I mean, this episode and this show do a lot of weird, over-dramatic things, but the marriage question is pretty straightforward.

We found this series compelling, especially with the “based on history” parts. Bridger was a pip; the actor really nailed his charm, wit, and “don’t give a fuck” attitude. He was a revered mountain man of the era, considered the best. Definitely a survivor. Not sure what was up with the rest of the fort folks staying inside the burning bar? Glad that Sara, Devin and Two Moons survived after everything they went through. I assume they fictionally made it unscathed to California. Wonder if the husband in Cross Springs was actually real? She turned out to be a badass survivor too. I could barely look at Jacob; good gawd, imagine how he smelled with all that rotting flesh and dripping blood. Him kissing Abish made me cringe. And what bitter irony that after hunting for her for weeks (months?) and she survives all kinds of horrors and betrayals, he’s the one who kills her. The “Wild West” is romanticized as the result of a bunch of scrappy can-do explorers who lived off the land and forged their future. But it was clearly the result of clear cutting entire tribes of people, white men doing terrible things at the cost of their women and children, and a lot of dirty dealings by people who are recorded otherwise in history.

We just started this, and while I want to know who survives and how, wow, the violence is something. And it’s all well and good to be stitched up if you survive an attack, but infection is what’ll get you. Whatever cut you open wasn’t clean, methinks. I’m always awed by the people who actually did these journeys back then, bouncing around in covered wagons for weeks, going through raging rivers and over mountains, never knowing what danger was around the corner, all for some elusive dream. All I can think is they’re wearing the same clothes for the entire run. ::shudder:: She should have given some of her money for the horses, keep it in separate pockets or wherever she is stashing it. I thought it was stupid to leave the kid’s braces in the path; whoever finds them is going to know they’re on track for the woman and the bounty. Plus, metal braces would make a good weapon.

Of course it’s true; his polling numbers were dismal. And yes, some people still support him but very few. Even diehard Liberals weren’t supporting him specifically anymore. I had great hopes when he was elected, but he’s been a disappointment. If he had resigned last summer, we’d have a PM in place by now to deal with the American bullshit leader. He’s following in the footsteps of Biden and RBG; all 3 stayed on way too long to the detriment of their countries. As for disaster prevention, it would help if humans didn’t build things in deserts and on floodplains.