StatisticalOutlier February 6, 2023 Share February 6, 2023 Dang it. I didn't realize the show had changed nights. I caught the last half of this one and thought it was kind of so-so, but just watched the whole thing and maybe there's a rhythm to the show because I think it's a great example of what's so special about this show. It does build upon itself. Link to comment
dubbel zout February 7, 2023 Author Share February 7, 2023 Sorry, M. Night Shyamalan, but there is a point where spoiler alerts aren't necessary. I'm not saying you should go around telling people how a movie ends or whatever while they're watching it, but you can discuss the piece and give some plot points away after, say, six months, IMO. How fun to learn Claire Foy went back to The Crown for the flashback scenes. Netflix threw enough money at Peter Morgan that that wouldn't be an issue, but I wonder how complicated Foy's schedule was to fit that day in. The audience's silence after Shyamalan described his movie was hilarious. I'm not really a fan of Rob Beckett. He tried too hard. The Big Red Chair stories were very funny. The woman should have walked after her setup, heh. 2 Link to comment
StatisticalOutlier February 7, 2023 Share February 7, 2023 How about Sarah Michelle Gellar's story about being sued by McDonald's when she was 5 years old, and having to sit for a deposition?! 2 hours ago, dubbel zout said: I'm not really a fan of Rob Beckett. He tried too hard. I think that's why I didn't think much of the show when I tuned in right before his segment. But as part of the whole, it was a lot less annoying. 1 Link to comment
sugarbaker design February 7, 2023 Share February 7, 2023 (edited) Claire Foy seemed to be having a real good time. Love her! Edited February 8, 2023 by sugarbaker design 3 Link to comment
MicheleinPhilly February 7, 2023 Share February 7, 2023 13 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said: How about Sarah Michelle Gellar's story about being sued by McDonald's when she was 5 years old, and having to sit for a deposition?! Just in case you needed more evidence that lawyers are scum-sucking arseholes. Link to comment
dubbel zout February 7, 2023 Author Share February 7, 2023 That's a pretty famous story, as Gellar indicated when she said it was used as a case study in many advertising/marketing classes. To sue a 5 year old? That says a LOT about McDonald's that they let that happen. 4 Link to comment
MicheleinPhilly February 7, 2023 Share February 7, 2023 I don't think I even knew how to tie my shoes at 5. I'd be curious to hear how the case study is presented in classes and I'm not sure what McDonald's motivation could be for including the 5 year old who appeared in the commercial instead of simply Burger King and its ad agency. 🙄 I was also struck by how she hates when people remind her just how long it has been since Buffy. I absolutely HATE all of these "30 years since the release of X" commemorations. I know I'm old - I don't need you to remind me of that, damn it! 1 4 Link to comment
StatisticalOutlier February 8, 2023 Share February 8, 2023 22 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said: Just in case you needed more evidence that lawyers are scum-sucking arseholes. I'm assuming you meant to add, "Present company excepted, of course." 20 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said: I'd be curious to hear how the case study is presented in classes and I'm not sure what McDonald's motivation could be for including the 5 year old who appeared in the commercial instead of simply Burger King and its ad agency. 🙄 My understanding is that it's notable because it's the first time a company called out a competitor by name in an ad. The lawsuit got settled and there's no written decision or law flowing from it. I can see why Gellar would be deposed, but I'm not sure why she would be named in the lawsuit. I'm guessing it was a procedural matter, since it's unlikely they included her because she had deeper pockets than Burger King and the ad agency, and her culpability would seem low. 2 Link to comment
MicheleinPhilly February 8, 2023 Share February 8, 2023 3 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said: I'm assuming you meant to add, "Present company excepted, of course." My understanding is that it's notable because it's the first time a company called out a competitor by name in an ad. The lawsuit got settled and there's no written decision or law flowing from it. I can see why Gellar would be deposed, but I'm not sure why she would be named in the lawsuit. I'm guessing it was a procedural matter, since it's unlikely they included her because she had deeper pockets than Burger King and the ad agency, and her culpability would seem low. My apologies, counselor! 😉 Link to comment
dubbel zout February 8, 2023 Author Share February 8, 2023 I don't see how deposing a 5 year old would have any probative value. But it's moot at this point. Link to comment
MicheleinPhilly February 8, 2023 Share February 8, 2023 9 minutes ago, dubbel zout said: I don't see how deposing a 5 year old would have any probative value. But it's moot at this point. "Ms. Gellar, what was going through your mind when you accepted this role?" "I hope they pay me in candy." 5 Link to comment
Bruinsfan September 12, 2023 Share September 12, 2023 I hope she trapped the plaintiff's lawyer in an unending loop of "what's that?" and "why?" Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.