dohe

My friends who have seen it could care less about backstage politics. Each one has said the same thing. It is forgettable. They said plenty of other things but forgettable came up every time. That and Matthew Morrison turning in a good performance. There was also offense taken by a few that Finding Neverland is dominating the it was snubbed talk from the media. As one friend said, they can understand somebody taking issue with the new musicals Honeymoon in Vegas and It Shoulda Been You being shut out or that the revival of Side Show was shut out but Finding Neverland just isn't that good. While politics may have played an issue, I think if anything Weinstein being so involved probably got far more attention for Finding Neverland than it would have gotten if some how it had made it to Broadway without him. The reality is a handful of musicals made such an impact that it did not leave much room. I had a friend who was upset Nancy Opel did not get in. Yet when I asked who she should have replaced, she said she was elated that all three Fun Home actresses got in - she thinks Skeggs gives the most underrated performance of the season*, that Miles was phenomenal in The King and I, and Clark was easily the best thing about Gigi. She said she could not contemplate any of them not being nominated and wished a 6th slot would have been opened for Opel. It was a tough year. So while there is a desire by many to see this as a statement against Weinstein, I think it is more a statement for this being a tough, strong year. *Skeggs is fantastic and, of all the nominations, this was my favorite.

I don't see it as a hard sell when it comes to a Lowell/Liv/Major love triangle. Neither option has any sexual chemistry and both have no depth beyond looks. It is pathetic this show treats same sex attraction as a joke. Instead of using the adaptation of traits for a look at attraction, it becomes a joke so Lowell and Liv can just hang. This is after already playing Liv's temporary same sex attraction in episode 2 for jokes. How not so cute!

The great Kuhn's biggest obstacle is not the Fun Home women cancelling each other out. It is Lucas who will almost certainly win.

If a person is a show runner and their desire is to get as big an audience as possible to watch the show and the show has a white female lead, is even the most open-minded show runner knowingly going to go with white males for her love interests so a bigger audience gravitates to the show and also as not to lose viewers who do not respond well to white female leads dating POC males. With it being an ensemble like this, as with Veronica Mars, it does raise questions. While the I hope they just stay friends angle is used in various ways, I find it is very commonly used when there is potential of a POC male/white female coupling. Because Clive and Ravi are working with Liv, it makes it harder to get a grasp on. That is why I ask if Ravi was played by Bradley James would we see a I love their dynamic as is/I hope they just stay friends as much response. I am highly doubtful of that. I think if Liv was a POC female or if Liv was a white male, concerns about audience reaction to interracial romance would probably significantly decline. The double standard in reactions when it comes to film and tv depiction of a white male in an interracial romance with a POC female in comparison to a POC male in an interracial romance with a white female is nothing new. There is something about the white female lead dating POC males which tends to cause interesting reactions. I wish show runners everywhere had more faith. While I know people who didn't care for Brad and Jane on Happy Endings, overall the response was positive.

This may not be the strongest analogy. I will still give it a try. I am reminded of criticism of Cameron and Mitchell's not kissing - while straight couples did - on Modern Family. There was criticism of a double standard but there was also criticism of those criticizing that double standard. I remember the retort of so do you think the writer are homophobic as if criticism of what appeared to me and others to be a double standard meant an accusation of the writers having a personal gripe against gay men. Criticizing an element of a show in terms of it's handling of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion does not necessarily mean an accusation of prejudice. I have not seen any posts here stating the writers are racist. Getting a show on television is difficult. Doing one's best to make sure that show is not cancelled is difficult. One goal is to reach as big an audience as possible for that show so it stays on the air. That does not mean that the show's handling of it's POC men in relation to the white female lead should go unquestioned. There are questions I am fascinated by. If the race of the characters was determined during the writing, why did the show decide the two platonic male friends of Liv would be POC while the love interests would be white males? If race was not predetermined during the writing but it was predetermined that Ravi and Clive would be platonic friends of Liv, did this affect casting? Did the show change the relationships of Ravi and Clive to Liv upon casting? If Bradley James played Ravi the same style as Rahul Kohli, would the I hope they will just stay friends* comments die off substantially? If Robert Buckley played Clive in the same style as Malcolm Goodwin, would the I hope they maintain a professional relationship comments die off substantially? If either Kohli or Goodwin played Lowell, would as many audience members immediately ship Lowell and Liv? Show runners are aware of how audiences can gravitate to certain romances. It is a fair concern, considering Veronica Mars and now this show's set up with POC male characters, to question if the show runner, in taking into consideration how people can respond differently to POC male/white female couples** in contrast to white male/white female couples, was purposeful in the use of POC male characters on the show. This is a show of diverse characters when it comes to race. As with Modern Family's representation of gay men, the show can be applauded for it's diversity but criticized when it comes to how some characters are depicted. *The I like them just as they are/why can't they just be friends responses are always fascinating. **Why do so many people react differently to POC male/white female romances than they do white male/POC female romances? I have my thoughts but don't want to get off the topic.

Lowell comes off as creepy. He has that trying too hard feel. I want to say do people fall for people like that and then remembered good looks and sly charm are quite common in plenty of creeps. If that is the actor's intent he is doing well. If it is not, that is a whole other deal. Considering all the murder victim did to the guy's sister, I think the prosecutor would rather do a plea bargain than take it to court.

Demarcation is the act of setting a boundary that limits something. For example, a show having it's POC males there to be pals/sidekicks/partners in solving crime with the white female lead with no romantic attraction hinted at while the same white female lead shows romantic interest in multiple white males is the boundary in question. Particularly when the show runner has done this before.

What prom thing? And, no, I am talking about the sequences between Carter and Bird, particularly that last one. The ones that had more chemistry than anything else this show has ever had. Edited: I see you are referring to television commercials. I avoid commercials.

I liked Alex Saxon as Max better in this episode and am reminded he played a far more watchable character on The Fosters. I don't know if it was less screentime but he seemed closer to actually being a character instead of some lazily conceived result of pandering as he has come across before. Taylor doesn't bring much chemistry to the game with Ofe, who himself just don't carry much nuance, so I still continue to be stuck in a sort of holding zone. Unable to engage in Taylor's romantic dilemma, maybe this is on the writers who seem to have been focused more on light manipulation than fleshing out the Taylor, Max or Ofe characters. However I would rather Taylor look within instead of jumping into a rebound with Ofe. It is unfair to Ofe and herself. I keep reminding myself, Carter is only interested in Crash when she feels hurt. She is hurt by that encounter with Lori. So Crash is the bandage - granted a dirty, been laying on the floor bandage. This plotline though is tiring to a great degree because Crash is almost an inanimate object. Dull performance and badly written character makes for eye roll inducing. Okay, lets cut to the chase. Does the show have any clue that it's most chemistry heavy sequences yet on the show, ones with a palpable, off the chart sexual chemistry were the ones between Carter and Bird tonight? Either they are setting up something for later in the season or this is the most oblivious show ever. My guy looks over at me during their last scene together and says now Patrick and Richie from Looking could have used that type of tension. That made the next cut of Bird running with Max to a hot tub that much more disconcerting.

The show is wasting an outstanding performance by Prescott. It also moves way too fast and is getting too outlandish.

Major is getting more and more screentime by each episode and had multiple sequences that did not feature Liv at all in the latest episode. One of the original arguments about why Wallace and Veronica or why Weevil and Veronica should not be together was it was better to be them than a marginalized love interest. However while Duncan, a very poor characterization, did end up marginalized, it was Veronica's other major love interest Logan who became the 2nd most prominent character of the show by the 3rd season while Weevil was reduced to cameo's and Wallace came across as an afterthought. The notion that being a love interest means marginalization doesn't hold much weight for me going by how Veronica Mars ended up the Logan and Veronica Show.

Cranberry, no I don't believe that there is a guideline that should be set for every show. The reason the discussion is arising over this specific show is: 1. This is the 2nd time this show runner has made a show about a white female lead where the prominent multiple POC male characters are the platonic pals while multiple white male characters get to be considered as love interests for the white female lead. 2. The divide between the multiple POC males, shown as having no romantic interest in the beautiful, charismatic white female lead and vice versa, and the white males, who are romantically interested in Liv and vice versa, is so transparent it is hilarious. I have not seen a remotely strong reason that has been given why either Ravi or Clive shouldn't be a potential love interest for Liv. I have seen rationalizations that hold no weight at all and are rather predictable in their tone. I also would not be shocked at all that if Bradley James was playing Ravi or Robert Buckley was playing Clive that these I think they should just be friends comments would decline rapidly. Of course if James was playing Ravi or Buckley was playing Clive they would already be depicted as love interests. If Buckley played Clive, angst over Liv being in love with him but unable to be with him sexually would be played out just as it is now being played out between Liv and Major. However if we want to say that Ravi or Clive somehow fit characterizations that should be disallowed the possibility of being a love interest solely on the character - despite Major being depicted as of romantic interest to Liv despite her fear of infecting him, then a simple question. Why were POCs given roles which are designed to be friendzoned while white males are given roles where they can be love interests?

Julia, the actors playing Ravi and Clive are not the only POC male actors in Hollywood. So your belief that if Lowell was played by a POC male it would mean the actors playing Ravi or Clive are the only two choices to play the role of Lowell doesn't seem to hold up all that well. Liv is the lead. There has been no other female on the show which has been given much screentime. Peyton has barely had any screentime. So to be frank, I'd be a bit cynical if Peyton entered an interracial relationship with Ravi or Clive or another character played by a POC male. It would seem like a transparent look we aren't avoiding interracial romance angle when clearly the show is avoiding that with the lead who has almost all the screentime. It would be the classic example of here's some scraps much like Veronica Mars's Dad dating Wallace's mom. As is, this is really about the demarcation concerning the female lead.

This is a show with multiple POC males and multiple white males. To have the multiple POC males disqualified as potential love interests for the white female lead while having multiple white males as love interests for the white female lead is not something that should be shrugged away with rationalizations. Why is it better for one of the POC males to be one of the love interests? Because it demonstrates an openness to interracial romance instead of promoting, unknowingly or not, a shutting down of that route. Why was the show cast in a way in which the prominent POCs are depicted as friends but not potential love interests for the white female lead while show has already had multiple white males serving the role of love interest for the white female lead? Whether it is better or not to be a love interest for Liv is besides the point.

Cranberry, being a love interest for Liv and having a less meaty role are not mutually exclusive. Just as I find the rationalizations given for why Ravi and Clive should not be potential love interests for Liv without merit, I find the notion that the show had colorblind casting to be hard to swallow. That the show just happened, as with Veronica Mars, to precisely fit this demarcation is what makes it so troubling.

All the extraneous conversation is skipping around the salient point of discussion. Why are the multiple POC males not depicted as possible love interests for the white female lead while the multiple white males are? Therefore if the concern is a desire for Ravi and Clive to maintain a friends only position to Liv and that was the intent of the show, why were white males cast in the parts of Major and Lowell while POCs were cast in the parts of the detective and Liv's sidekick. Unless we are supposed to believe that this sort of casting was not on purpose. Sorry but I am not buying.

Cranberry, none of my posts state that platonic friendships aren't as important as romantic relationships. Nor have I said Ravi or Clive are getting the short end of the stick in terms of characterization. To me, that does not even figure in the conversation. The topic is the handling Liv's love life. I am interested in why the show has a has a similar demarcation to Veronica Mars, a show from the same person, in which the white female lead has multiple close POC friends who are excluded from consideration in her love life while the white males in her life are treated as love interests.

That is the same feel I am getting too. I also am disinterested in whether it is better to be a sidekick of Liv's or a lover of Liv's. To me that avoids the topic at hand. The question is why, in a redux of Veronica Mars, do the POCs play the platonic sidekicks to Liv while the white males play the lovers to Liv. I think Clive and Liv would be fascinating together.

A place to debate concerns about how the show runners choose romantic partners for Liv. As with Veronica Mars, this show has a diverse cast - which is cool - and, as with Veronica Mars, POCs can only be sidekicks for the white female lead while she falls for only white men - which is raising concerns. Since this show so far seems to be following the same model, I think it raises questions.

Wallace became little more than a minor, peripheral character by the end. The last season's primary focus was about Veronica choosing between two white men as fans expressed their feelings on which one was hotter - something Logan won handily because he was the clichéd dangerous, bad boy with a good heart. Anyways to me when people respond with a it is cooler to be the sidekick who does not have a romance angle reminds me of people who, when I expressed my belief in same sex marriage, would make comments such as "Trust me. You're lucky you can't get married." It doesn't answer the question and seems to try to express a negative as a positive. Why has this guy now made two shows about a young white woman with a diverse cast - a very good thing - where there is a demarcation between how the white female lead of a show interacts with white men around her age (romantically) and POC men (non-romantic sidekicks) around her age - a very problematic thing. Can a thread be opened to discuss this. Some people on here think this is very problematic and should not be ignored. But it does seem to be getting away from the episode - the discussion beginning with the show brought in a new white male for Liv to fall for while ignoring the POC males she is friends with. I spent three years watching Veronica Mars and I think it is highly doubtful. In all likelihood any interracial or same sex romances will be saved for far in the background - sort of the 1 minute in an episode here and there - and it will not involve Liv. The demarcation is very much set it appears.

Boon shooting Loretta's ex-boyfriend in the arm was on purpose. He was basically playing as if he missed the head while him and Loretta know he did as intended. He had been told to find Loretta and he knew the boy was no real impediment. So he basically disarmed the boy in his way. Notice he does not kill the boy but lets him bleed. When he talks to Loretta about headshots, we, as with Loretta, know this is a guy who shot the head off a snake (and Justified's screenwriters give no indication he is making that up). We know that Boon is teasing Loretta and that if he had desired to he would have shot her ex in the head easily. It is similar to the conversation at Loretta's place where he both signals how dangerous he is in a teasing - and very creepy - manner. As for why Raylan would be concerned over Boon, Boon showed absolute confidence. He went out of his way to try to initiate conflict with Raylan knowing Raylan's rep. He wasn't some criminal that Raylan came upon while solving a crime. He was a criminal introducing himself to Raylan, saying Raylan was all he expected, and still itching for a deadly showdown. Raylan is not an idiot. To see someone acting like Boon and not recognize this person has skill would have been idiotic on Raylan's part. Raja nailed it in his post that the desire for the headshot, a much smaller mass area of the body, was Boon's hubris which caused him to fail in killing Raylan. The show had that conversation with Loretta in there to build to that final showdown. The hole in the hat sat where most people's foreheads would be. Problem for Boon was that Raylan does not wear his Stetson like most people do.

They fire at the exact same time. Not even a fraction faster or slower than each other. There is a very slowed down video on Youtube that confirms this. Therefore neither shot hits the other one before they have fired. Boon begins his draw as small a fraction possible earlier. We see Boon drawing with Raylan in the foreground with the side of his back to us. Raylan's movement of his arm begins immediately with Boon pulling. This is significant since it shows Raylan's quickness in reaction. Raylan does not extend the gun far on his draw. This makes sense since he is aiming for the body. Boon extends just a bit further as he is aiming for a smaller mass area. In doing so, now both are even and their shots come at the exact same time. In all likelihood, no matter what each other does or who draws first, they both get unimpeded shots off. Raylan has met his match and yet hasn't. Boon is just as quick but he is undone by his hubris. This is the point. Raylan and Boon would have died if it was not for something out of Raylan's hands which is Boon being so arrogant as to aim for the forehead. What he does not know is Raylan wears his hat high so while Boon hits exactly what he is aiming at - what he is aiming at is not the actual area where Raylan's forehead is.

This has nothing to do with whether a man and a woman can just be friends. This has to do with asking why are the men who are not white the ones who are just friends with Liv while the white men are the love interests. And again it wouldn't be so problematic if the show was not coming from a person who did this before. One of the things I have commented on is that if neither Ravi or Clive becomes a love interest for Liv it is the same road with Wallace on Veronica Mars. Veronica dates a series of white men while the show never approaches going the route of close male friend who is not white could be a love interest. That is not a trend. However to have the same development play out from a new show by the very same show creator with Liv, the white female, having multiple white male boyfriends while the two men who are not white are disallowed from being a romantic interest comes across as a troubling trend. Lowell and Major can be friends to Liv while Ravi or Clive is the love interest for Liv. That would actually be refreshing because what I am seeing so far could not be less refreshing.

That has become a big concern for me to the point I am considering no longer watching it. You nailed it. You have two major male characters that are not white and they are treated as if the show would not even consider them being romantically interested in Liv or vice versa. You have three major male characters who are white and they are treated as Liv's old love interest, Liv's new love interest and the bad guy who no doubt will also share some romantic interest. Even worse the characters of Major and Lowell have nothing but looks. That is all they offer. They are bland eye candy. They are a joke. But just as long as Liv dates bland white men while the men that are not white are played as exposition tellers or the straight man in comic sequences who could not possibly be love interests, I guess I am supposed to be cool with that.

I agree it was perfect. I cannot think of a way that it could have been done better. Someone mentioned Leone but the great Leone would have had that scene lasting for quite awhile. This was more to the point - just enough to give you a sense of Boon's thorough confidence and Raylan's confidence transitioning in to determination and knowing this is someone who has the capability of killing him - something the audience also knows. It is perfectly placed after we see Raylan controlling his darker impulses. He is not looking for a showdown - instead it finds him. It is against someone who it turns out has maybe even more ability that Raylan. It has the future of two other characters in it's hands - Loretta and Ava. It has Raylan, no longer driven by anger, confronting his mortality. It has Boon being undone by his own hubris. It has a sense of someone watching over Raylan - as if his decision to do the right thing with Bob last week and in the barn this week receives some good karma. Yes the showdown is a trope. However it is a remarkably rich trope if done well and here it could not have been done better. The scene would have been horribly ruined if Loretta killed Boon by, say, driving him over. The show having Loretta killing someone in the last episode would have ruined the finale. That makes no sense, serves no overarching thematic purpose, and does not, in any way, work for the storyline of our lead. It also would have been a horrible move to have Raylan just shoot Boon the moment Boon gets out. That is not the purpose here. The last thing the show is going for in this moment is Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is about Raylan sensing the words of Art may come true just as the audience is sensing it. This is about Loretta looking down the road fearful this person who has saved her multiple times is no longer alive. Our relief matches Loretta's just as our recognition matches Raylan's. This was a perfect scene.