katha

They want him in the finals, that's for sure. They're also gearing up for that "Sharna hasn't won a mirror ball yet, it's her time!" nonsense, perhaps not this season, but it will come soon enough. I think James is doing good in votes, though I can't gauge how good. He might not need help and they just push him for the heck of it, or it might be a case of "he's getting good votes, but not yet at a level that makes him a safe bet for the finals so they feel they need to push that more". I still say they helped Laurie with that "struggle" narrative, she needs some sort of variety in her storyline and she can't be seen as coasting. Could be wrong, but I don't think Laurie and Val have any kind of trouble with votes at all. She has an energized fanbase, Val's fanbase is big and dedicated and they seem to really like Laurie (as opposed to Ginger, for example, where the general reaction seemed to be..."eh"), I think Laurie is also doing well with the general audience.

My UO is that I totally get why Lorelai and Jess hated each other on sight and I don't think it reflects badly on either of them. Lorelai saw that he was rude to her, she feared his influence on Rory and probably saw a bit of her own teenage rage and self-destructiveness in him. It was understandable that she was wary of him. The car accident freak out was way out of line and the way she talked to him at times was borderline as well (considering she was an adult with way more power than a teenager), but even with her hatred of him she for the most part tried to be fair. She didn't tear him down to Luke, she let Rory date him and didn't tear him down there either (even when he was being a crappy boyfriend she tried to be nuanced in her advice to Rory). She mostly just stayed away, which was surprisingly mature of her. (-; And Jess wasn't charmed by Lorelai's "cool mom" thing, which became totally understandable once Liz rolled into town and you saw that she used a "cool mom" act to hide and excuse neglect and irresponsibility. He was also right to call her judgemental and self-involved, since with him she never much bothered to find out facts or step away from her own experiences and projections. She also wasn't treating him nicely after their one argument, so why should he try to win her over just because she's queen of SH? He hated SH anyway and was just biding his time to get out of there. (-;

I think Mark and Derek were given teenage partners more recently (and Mark's not on anyway, so this is an academic discussion) and the show probably thought it was Val's turn again (no one apart from these three was going to get a contender like Laurie, let's get real here...). He's doing well with her so far IMO. Not everything works, but that's normal. It's also a slightly interesting and unusual set-up in that they gave this "human emoji" contestant to someone like Val, with his intensity. The thinking behind that might have also been that it will be a bigger challenge for both of them, since they'll deal with someone unlike themselves and will have to adapt to each other.

I think they have dance chemistry, at least in the upbeat dances. In the two serious dances it becomes more of an issue, though I thought the tango was well done. The paso was mostly hampered by Laurie's insecurity IMO, she hadn't quite mastered the technique so she couldn't reach out in performance either. It also seems obvious that Val is aware that getting her more secure and convincing in the intense/serious dances will be a challenge and so he pushes. Both packages for tango and paso reflected this, that sort of performance doesn't come as easily for her, add in learning challenging technique with a teacher who will pack in a lot of content because he knows he's got a contender. She'll probably get better at it as the season progresses and Val throughout the seasons has been a responsible teacher who is usually self-aware enough to notice when he's getting too hardcore. I have to say I'm enjoying her more than I thought I would, I thought she'd be annoyingly perky, but she's not. (-;

It might have been a small moment in rehearsal TPTB decided to turn into "narrative"? However, I'm sure Laurie isn't constantly preppy during gymnastics rehearsals, and even though DWTS isn't a big deal compared to that, it is a few hours of practice every day. I'm sure frustrations happen with every team. Val also made the paso very busy (perhaps too much so?), which was in contrast to the jazz where he went rather easy on her because of her schedule, so that might have contributed. She was a bit insecure still in performance, so it seemed quite believable that she might have been somewhat overwhelmed. Val has also repeatedly admitted that he gets too intense and competitive at times and sucks the fun out of it for his partners. Then once he notices what he's done, he's sorry. Anyway, even with the drama the show tried to stage in the package, it didn't seem a big deal IMO: Val pushed a bit too hard, Laurie got upset, Val pulled back and adjusted his approach. A rather typical teaching situation, I'd say.

I think she's doing very well in votes. But she can't be perceived as coasting, that's when voters get complacent (and also resentful of female frontrunners who do well all the time...it's not "relatable". Eyeroll.). Which was also why this drama played out this week: She gets an emotional package where she's seen as struggling, her dance doesn't get the most points and so on. It's all to create more narrative for her, to show that she's struggling as well and get people to rally around her.

So tonight was "Knock down Laurie to make it look like a horse race" night, huh? Though she wasn't as secure as usual, so gave them an alibi to dock points. And I'd agree that they're probably doing her a favour in the long run, the audience would grow to resent her if she was constantly topping the leader board (no matter how deserved). Boring night in general, I thought.

Sorry for coming back to an old discussion, but I found that article really interesting! Tend to agree, though, that the system itself is the problem, not Streep herself. Though the Hollywood awards circuit has a tendency to nominate her for everything she does, not always warranted. But, again, that's down to the laziness of the establishment and their "must reward everything Meryl does" mindset, not Streep herself. She chooses the projects she thinks are best suited for her career. She's done her fair share of scenery chewing and Oscar bait (I think she didn't deserve an Oscar for that Thatcher thing), but also more subtle things. She is a very technical actress, I could always see where that criticism came from. At her worst, you do kind of see the wheels turning that put the performance together. But it's not as if she's alone in that either. Someone who interestingly enough sometimes gets similar criticism is DDL. And even though he's Method, he seems similar to her in that there seems to be an almost terrifying level of mastery of technique. Again, at his worst he also tends towards mannerism and scenery chewing. But there's such a level of detail and layers to every performance that when it works (and mostly it does with both Streep and DDL), it's astounding. I think that's also why both of them are such awards darlings, frankly: Their peers recognize the sheer technical skill displayed in every performance.

Yeah, he made his name in a boatload of "cute, geeky young guy" roles and then probably aged out of them. And since he's typecast, then he gets problems finding work that transitions him into more mature ground. He's a fine actor, but IMO not spectacular enough to establish himself as character actor and permanent Oscar contender. Perhaps he'll find a nice part for himself that will re-establish him somewhat, I certainly always found him a pleasant presence (which is more than you can say for many actors...). For someone like Maguire, I don't think it's even so much about box office. Apart from DiCaprio, who is a guaranteed money maker in the somewhat younger set outside of franchises? No one, is the answer. But you have your contingent of "manly action heroes" (your Pratts and Hemsworths and Tatums), frat guy comedy and serious Oscar bait (which has people in his age range like Redmayne, Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Gyllenhaal, Gosling etc. who IMO are just better actors), and Maguire sort of doesn't fit anywhere? He needs to find a niche for himself as an adult presence more than anything, seems to me.

I always liked One Fine Day with Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney. It was a nice movie with two adult characters who mostly acted like adults and not like brainless twelve year olds. The leads had good chemistry, their conflicts made sense and were resolved through communication and there wasn't any drawn out misunderstanding and stupidity involved. The child actors weren't too irritating. Even with their differences you could see why the Michelle and George might be attracted to each other and it ended on a pleasant note without going overboard for some grand happy ending. Basically what I want from rom coms.

Yeah, it mostly seemed like some sort of private, ongoing argument between two parties (disagreeing about choreo? Criticism that was taken as offensive? Who knows...) that was taken to social media and made public in the heat of the moment. Now they've taken it down, but the damage is done since stans on both sides will continue to use it as fodder for their attacks. Insert eyeroll.

Reign of Fire is a nonsense B-movie about the dragon apocalypse. It features Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey, who were both at that time in a bit of a career crisis. But you can also see why they both managed to drag their careers back on track: Man, they are committed to their roles. They might be in a nonsense B-movie about the dragon apocalypse, but obviously they didn't take that as an excuse to give half-hearted performances. Most of the fun of watching that film is seeing how into it both of them are. Okay, and the cute, deadly dragons. (-;

I just feel that she showed such potential with Alfonso, but now it seems like she's petering out? I know he brought a lot to the table, but some of her other partners weren't bad and showed potential, but it feels like she never does much with them IMO. Idk.

Pros are seldom to blame for exits of contestants. But the perennial argument against Allison is this IMO: She's arguably incapable of teaching her partners the basics as well as the other pros and so they never dance as well as they might with another teacher. Even with Riker, he already had the goods and oftentimes his energetic performances covered up Allison's own deficits as both ballroom dancer and ballroom choreographer. People like Andy or Babyface or Jonathan IMO would have probably learned more and improved more with other pros, her busy and hectic choreo didn't help them either. It was too much for them and rather hindered their progress. None of that means that they'd have necessarily lasted longer, but perhaps becoming better dancers might have given them a greater chance to progress?

I didn't want to clog up the general threads with my thoughts on this, so I thought I'd rather put it here: Witney kinda seems in a rut for the last few seasons? I think having Fons so early in her DWTS career really might have done a number on her. Not in the sense that I think she's gotten "entitled" or "arrogant" or anything, but that she seems to have a problem adjusting to different skill levels and also sometimes seems to have issues with teaching her partners? She seems to be going through the motions both when it comes to choreography and general investment in the show. Actually, I thought this time around with Vanilla Ice it looked a bit better because he was so enthusiastic about it all and swept her along a bit. Pity that he didn't have the fanbase for this show and also delivered a good, yet not spectacular dance which probably made the fanbase he does have complacent since they thought he was safe.

I think one of the things the show did that will always resonate is that they didn't peddle this myth of "if you just try hard enough, everything will work out fine." That's rare for sitcoms. There was a clear acknowledgement that if you don't come from money, if you don't have connections...it's tough to start a great career or lift yourself up into a higher socio-economic sphere. You might work hard, but that doesn't stop you from losing your job or stalling at an unsatisfactory level. That it got harder and harder to find stable jobs with benefits in the blue-collar sector also rang true. And not only in the blue-collar sector... All of this is as relevant as ever and many people are struggling, so the show rings true.

I think there might have been a strong class aspect tied into this as well. Lorelai started as a maid, but she had good education and a life in privilege as her background, the other maids probably didn't. Which might create resentment if it's perceived that she thinks she's above them (and since Lorelai has a history of acting entitled even as an adult, I wouldn't totally exclude the possibility that she perhaps acted unconsciously in unfortunate and/or condescending ways towards the other maids) and yeah, if she was aggressive and pushed herself forward for promotions the others might have hated her simply for the fact that they didn't have the self-confidence (also tied to a life in riches) to do it. If you're keeping your head down, struggling to survive and don't see any way out of it, your fellow maid who has no inhibitions about making demands won't produce warm fuzzy feelings. It's a lifetime of lack of expectations and struggle and frustration taking its toll. So I wouldn't be sure that Lorelai worked harder, necessarily, (though I'm sure she worked hard), but that it was probably clear she had ambitions beyond her position while the other maids perhaps didn't know how to go about this or didn't have the self-confidence. You see this repeated in Jess, actually. Smart kid who doesn't have any kind of hopes or aspirations for his future. Total lack of encouragement from his environment and constant economic uncertainty probably played a large part in creating a kid this frustrated and disillusioned with the world.

I don't think the DWTS thing is a big deal, it was two years ago, only diehard Meryl fans will care (if even that). And it's a popular song, so why not skate to it if they like it? The puzzlement for me does come in with them saying they wanted to try new things and then...doing what they've always done: Mushy romance. It's also becoming a rather typical style from Montreal, where all the pairs seem to be doing soft, flowy programs.

I'm pretty sure that this was Mark's call, now that the Broadway news is out. You don't stumble into a leading role on Broadway. He's probably been auditioning and putting his name out there for months, he must have been in tests and negotiations for some time. He wouldn't find a part like that in the few days DWTS have announced its cast. Tbh, no matter the circumstances, perhaps it's time for Mark to move on. He's been doing it forever, he had a great season with Paige, and it's pretty obvious that he still likes the dancing, teaching and choreographing, but is tired of all the scripted drama that comes with the show.

I think with Jess and Rory even as teenagers you saw pretty striking personality differences that didn't make them all that compatible. They fell in love and bonded over their literary interests and I think Jess will always appreciate her for being one of the few positive and supportive people during a miserable time in his life (same as with Luke). But there's something unbending and uncompromising about Jess, not always in good ways, that I don't see changing. Even Luke, who understandably wasn't wild about Emily and Richard and their upper class world and their contempt for him, was willing to tolerate and put up with it for Lorelai's sake and participate to some degree. Jess? Rory likes the cushy life and she likes the perks of that wealthy lifestyle. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I don't see Jess ever wanting to participate in that sphere. That's one area, for example. And in general I can see them developing in ways as people that would heighten their differences even more. I can see them being friends, though. Something that I can't imagine with Dean tbh.

Yeah, I agree with that. Mark tended towards a lot of content, sometimes too much, and also a clear effort to present content in different, slightly twisted ways. Like, there's lots of samba in that Duck Dynasty samba, but the movement is a bit off-kilter and integrates those duck moves into everything. Where I think he overshot at times is that he had moments when he misjudged what a partner could handle: Like, I think Chelsea Kane would have been fine doing a traditional paso. But he got that dark techno music and wanted to do movements that reflected the music, so he did this ghoulish theme where he took traditional paso content and then made it bizzare and extreme. He could pull it off IMO (though he indulged his worst try-hard tendencies...), but it was beyond Chelsea. Same with Sadie's paso, he's brilliant in it and the movements carry the theme, but it wasn't the best showcase for Sadie. OTOH, often enough he also found something unique or interesting that a partner could do as a dancer or performer and played to that strength, perhaps moreso than some of the other pros. ETA: It looks like Mark is heading to Broadway: http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/DWTS-Mark-Ballas-to-Join-Cast-of-Broadways-JERSEY-BOYS-201609011

Yeah, Alley was challenging, both personality-wise and with her physical limitations. I thought that was one of Maks' strongest seasons, really showing that he could hack it as a teacher and choreographer with a less than ideal partner.

In Yale no one cared about Rory Gilmore. That was the ultimate blow. Sure, at Chilton she faced animosity, but soon enough she started getting top grades and became the star of her year (together with Paris). Many of the hostilities she encountered were connected to her being "new girl" and therefore interesting, and later because Paris perceived her as a worthy rival. In Yale she was one of many students who came in with top high school careers, and even though apart from that one course she didn't seem to struggle too badly, she was also probably one among many who got good grades. And yes, it's easy to be self-confident when there's a clear goal you haven't ever questioned: Getting into Harvard (then Yale). When you haven't ever faced serious failure, haven't ever screwed up and have been very much cushioned from any kind of emotional hurt and insecurity. Rory already starts her "running away" game when she's faced with messy situations in the earlier seasons (Dean break-up, Jess/Dean, conflicts with Lorelai), later as her life becomes less outwardly structured and straight-forward and she has to make decisions on her own this escalates.

I'd argue that Rory's different reaction to Tristan and Logan was heavily tied to the context of their relationships. IMO, Rory tended towards passivity and sometimes displayed rather unfortunate doormat tendencies with all her boyfriends. It's most noticeable with Logan because she's older and it's manifesting as problematic permanent behaviour whereas with Dean, part 1, and Jess it could still be excused as teenage inexperience. Arguably Logan was also her most serious and involved long-term relationship, so all of it made more of an impact in viewing experience, including the negative stuff. Whereas IMO with Tristan, she just wasn't into him. So it was easier to stand up to him and rebuff his bullying (I think that's what it was). Logan didn't pester her against her will, it was a mutual attraction. Which makes a difference as well. And also: Teenage Rory still operated from the safety net of SH, Lorelai etc. and could draw (artificial?) self-confidence and strength from that bubble. Rory in season five was in many ways much more insecure, not so sure of her place in the world anymore and drifting through Yale. In many ways she clung onto Logan for security. He certainly had his many faults and I don't think they were suited long-term, but IMO he was essentially a kind and decent guy and Rory really lucked out there, because someone more manipulative and selfish might have taken advantage of her submissive and passive stance. I also liked MC's acting, he had a certain ease in his demeanour that was pretty rare on GG, tension and hyperactivity usually ruled the day.

With the development journalism has taken in this age of social media, I'm not sure Rory was a good fit for the field at all. Even as an opinion writer or reviewer there'd be constant harsh feedback via online comments and steady jobs are thin on the ground. It's freelance work, mostly, and everyone has to hustle for the next assignment. Rory with her craving for security would have been at sea there IMO, and if she freaked out so much about the ballerina and Mitchum, how was she going to deal with hundreds of online comments per article? She'd have done fine in research, management, administration, something like that. I don't think teaching or academia, also suggested from time to time, would have been easy for her either. The scrutiny and vicious criticism in both those fields isn't any less intense than in journalism, from students, parents, colleagues, bosses. And in academia you have the cut-throat competition for grants and tenure as well. Publishing has had the same fate as journalism, not as many steady and well-paying jobs to go around because the internet has changed everything.