S05.E08: The Bubble

[LuvMyShows]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I hope Diana knew all along, or at least figured it out pretty early on but didn't say anything because Liza was the best assistant she's had in ages and she didn't want to lose her.  

The reason that I think Diana doesn't know, is that she seems very protective of Empirical and desirous to keep her job.  If she knew what was going on between Charles and Liza, I think she would have confronted Charles about the risk to the company if the information falls into the wrong hands.

[Empress Josephine]

I will try and say something nice about Liza and Charles. If she likes it, I love it! 

Lol...I tried, I really did. But I almost puked when Charles said, "You were sitting reading 'Look, Homeward Angel' and I thought 'Who does that?' ", or whatever 'deep' crap he said that was supposed to emphasize their 'strong' and 'profound' connection. 

And since he asked, I've sat at my desk on lunch break and read many many books. Where is my star-crossed love story at?!

I jest...but not really.

[jzygayle]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Maybe they should get a spin off. Three people living in an apartment together...Three's Company 2018 lol 

 

 

I would watch the shit out of that.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

19 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

What would you call it? If you're in a relationship, you have to account for the other person in decisions, activities, etc., and that takes an active effort. You can't just assume stuff will happen as if by magic.

To me, making an effort isn't the same as work. Everything in life takes effort (even fun things) but work is the stuff that's tedious or doesn't bring me joy. Nothing happens magically but not everything feels like work. Going for a walk requires effort, but strolling along the beach on vacation doesn't feel like work while speedwalking to get to work/school on time does. For me, checking in with a significant other or a friend about activities and decisions doesn't feel like work because I love spending time with them and planning stuff to do together.

16 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I was just going to say. Just because you found the right person doesn't mean everything will fall into place. It's the naivete of romance - you were meant to be with that person, therefore, voila, everything is perfect. I highly disagree. I married the love of my life, and without a doubt, the person meant for me. But we work for our marriage every day.

This reminded me of something a friend told me once - in everything else in your life, when you say work hard, that's a good sign. It's a good trait. You work hard in your career - that's great. You work hard for your health - awesome. But when you say "you work hard in your marriage", it's suddenly a bad thing?! There's trouble in paradise, or marriage is falling apart, etc... Why is working hard an acceptable trait everywhere else but not in relationships?

It's like that famous saying that I hate: "You find a job that you love and you'll never work a day in your life..." Uhhh, no.

I do get that the honeymoon stage is all magic and butterflies. But there's a reason why it's a stage. Everything eventually settles down and you deal with real-life stuff. Work happens, and that's not such a bad thing. People work through issues, and if they don't, they break up and/or divorce.

In the case of Maggie/Malkie, this is technically no longer the honeymoon phase. It's their rebirth. Malkie realized pretty fast that Maggie tend to be lazy in relationships, and that's why it ended. So yes, if Maggie wants to be back in the saddle, she has to prove that she's no longer lazy anymore. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but Mr. EB and I have discussed this several times over the duration of our relationship and neither of us feels like our relationship is work. We are happy, we love each other, and our relationship feels easy, even after 20 years together. Several of my past relationships felt like work for various reasons and a lot of that was due to conflict about different stuff. Once I found the right person, it was so easy to be together. I guess it depends on what you consider work, but we have dealt with a lot of obstacles and real life stuff including living 500 miles apart for two years, deaths in our immediate families, changing careers, etc. and while those things sucked, our actual relationship has never felt like work, even during those tough situations. I think that relationships should be fulfilling and enriching and bring you happiness. If they feel like work, why bother? I don't just mean romantic relationships either. I've had a few friendships that ended because they were too much work, too much drama, and too much conflict. Life's too short to be stressed out about people who are supposed to bring you support, comfort, and laughter.

13 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Maybe they should get a spin off. Three people living in an apartment together...Three's Company 2018 lol

I would definitely watch this! I like that Maggie and Josh now have a friendship that's separate from Liza and that all three of them are totally fine with it (no weirdness/awkwardness/jealousy about it) even though part of me thinks that the writers developed the Maggie/Josh friendship partly to keep Josh as part of the story now that he and Liza aren't dating.

[Gothish520]

I havent read the comments yet, but I still just don't see it between Liza and Charles. Charles is still boring, still lacks charisma, and it looks to me like Peter Hermann can't kiss, at least not stage kiss. The sex scene was dreadfully boring and terribly shot.

 Can they please sit down and talk to each other? I see no connection between them at all. 

Best part of this episode was the scene with Pauline, I was actually rooting for her. Now you know that's bad, when you are rooting for the ex-wife over the star of the show. I like Liza, but I just do not like Liza with Charles. She becomes just as boring as he is when they're together. No spark at all, and it makes me sad, because I used to really enjoy this little show.

At this point, I care more about Kelsey and definitely more about Maggie, Lauren, and Josh. And Diana!

Edited August 3, 2018 by Gothish520

[Aulty]

27 minutes ago, Gothish520 said:

Charles is still boring, still lacks charisma, and it looks to me like Peter Hermann can't kiss, at least not stage kiss.

The latter I will second. I think ist was the kiss before he left for Christmas with his daughters that was the weirdest I've ever seen on TV.

[Mabinogia]

10 hours ago, Empress Josephine said:

Lol...I tried, I really did. But I almost puked when Charles said, "You were sitting reading 'Look, Homeward Angel' and I thought 'Who does that?' ", or whatever 'deep' crap he said that was supposed to emphasize their 'strong' and 'profound' connection. 

Yeah, that's the kind of line a middle school boy would say to the "nerdy" girl he likes. "oooh, you like books, that's so cool. I like books. We are soul mates!" lol Again, trying too hard to come across as mature and deep and ending up seeming the opposite.

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I guess it depends on what you consider work,

I think we agree on the basic point but differ on the semantics. 

[Gothish520]

18 hours ago, MissEwa said:

Party of one here but as one of those people I felt bored. It did very little for me. And I think this is why:

(emphasis mine)

It felt... forced. All vingettes and close-ups and out-of-focus shots and swishy camera angles that screamed this is supposed to be sexy and bits of dialogue that didn't really relate to each other. It was as though the writers were like 'here is a montage of sexy times, put in some sexy faces and murmurings and then a close-up of Charles undoing his pants'. The carousel scene was shot the same way - and I get that it's (maybe?) supposed to be the 'bubble' - that dreamline first blush of love etc. etc. - but it just felt gimmicky and like they were covering for the lack of actual chemistry. All the scenes that weren't shot that way were very short and awkward. There was just nothing to them, and Charles' stunted. Line delivery. Makes it feel like he's. Reading. From. Cue cards. 

Contrast to Josh and Liza, who didn't need these tricks. There were plenty of scenes of them just walking and talking, and you could feel the chemistry, or her showing up at his place and then them disappearing into his room, and just him pulling the door shut to finish the scene felt like a moment. It didn't feel scripted, or directed. I feel like we've still never seen Charles and Liza have a fun, intimate date. Or even a conversation. 

Of course, YMMV. I know I'm an outlier on this one. 

Also the beard was HIDEOUS, and it is very rare that I prefer a man without a beard to one with, but that was a hard nope.  

IMO Diana knows, at least about the relationship. She's not a fool - she knows Marriage Vacation is about Charles. There's no way she watched that exchange between them at the restaurant and didn't right away think 'assistant, who is... OH.' And that last comment about wondering who Charles shaved the beard off for was extremely pointed. I'd guess she also  knows about the age thing too, or at least suspects. 

Maggie and Lauren and Josh saved this episode. 

Table for two, please! I completely agree with everything you said about Charles and Liza, their supposedly romantic scenes together, and their lack of chemistry. I've tried, I really have, but it is just not there. I'm sorry, Sutton Foster and Peter Hermann have no chemistry together at all. Meanwhile her chemistry with Nico is off the charts.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Gothish520

[7-Zark-7]

I don’t want to see Maggie jumping through hoops for boring ass Malkie. The actress delivers her lines like she’s sulking at her agent for getting her this gig.

[Dixie Sugarbaker]

I feel like they are setting up for the series to end. Liza and Charles. Maggie realizing she has to open up to have a lasting relationship. Kelsey trying to stop self sabatoging. Diana finding love with Enzo. At some time this has to end and this feels like the beginning of the end.

I can see Diana finding out that Liza is 41 and being nonplussed - "Well, of course you are 41, Liza. You perform your duties satisfactorily. I am not surprised. Now, get me a coffee. Now!"

[Gothish520]

Sophia: For too long, couples were told that open communication is the key to an enduring relationship. Now they'll know the truth. Love is actually fueled by mystery. Mystery is where the erotic thrives. A healthy relationship should feel a little illicit. Then the question is, whatâ's the line between dangerous and destructive?
Diana: What? What is it?
Sophia: Chapter 12.
Liza: But, um, doesn't real intimacy ultimately require real honesty and openness?
Sophia: No, think of intimacy as a place instead of a condition. A place that you go to only with your partner. And it's secluded, it's private. It's like your bubble. And when you're together in that bubble, then what is more exciting than sharing your secrets?

I think this woman is full of it - "A healthy relationship should feel a little illicit"? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get this "bubble" thing at all. Is she saying that couples should only be open and honest with each other when they are in a private place specifically designed for it? Is she saying that couples should play coy and mysterious, keep things from each other, basically play games unless they are alone in this "bubble" place? And if they tell each other things in their "bubble", aren't they then being open and honest? WTF is she talking about? I don't get it - someone please explain!

[traveladdie]

On 8/3/2018 at 6:22 AM, Aulty said:

The latter I will second. I think ist was the kiss before he left for Christmas with his daughters that was the weirdest I've ever seen on TV.

I feel certain they did multiple takes of this kiss. I find it hard to believe that the director would not say to Peter "Hey, could you kiss her actual lips please?". That being said, there was something about this take that the director liked. I don't think it has anything to do with Peter. 

[LuvMyShows]

10 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

Sophia: For too long, couples were told that open communication is the key to an enduring relationship. Now they'll know the truth. Love is actually fueled by mystery. Mystery is where the erotic thrives. A healthy relationship should feel a little illicit. Then the question is, whatâ's the line between dangerous and destructive?
Diana: What? What is it?
Sophia: Chapter 12.
Liza: But, um, doesn't real intimacy ultimately require real honesty and openness?
Sophia: No, think of intimacy as a place instead of a condition. A place that you go to only with your partner. And it's secluded, it's private. It's like your bubble. And when you're together in that bubble, then what is more exciting than sharing your secrets?

I think this woman is full of it - "A healthy relationship should feel a little illicit"? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get this "bubble" thing at all. Is she saying that couples should only be open and honest with each other when they are in a private place specifically designed for it? Is she saying that couples should play coy and mysterious, keep things from each other, basically play games unless they are alone in this "bubble" place? And if they tell each other things in their "bubble", aren't they then being open and honest? WTF is she talking about? I don't get it - someone please explain!

I also think she's full of it.  The only part I can sort of make sense of, is regarding the illicit aspect...if you alter what she said slightly, and say, "A healthy sexual relationship can be spiced up by having it feel a little illicit," then I can buy that aspect.  And for Charles and Liza, the bubble seemed to be external in nature, as in, keeping their relationship secret from their work and personal worlds, so that didn't even mesh with the actual bubble nonsense that this woman was spouting.  What is more concerning, is how she said that love is fueled by mystery, and mystery is where the erotic thrives...but it's that exact equating of "oh, this is great sex so we must be in love", that has led to countless ill-advised marriages over the years.

[Yeah No]

13 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get this "bubble" thing at all. Is she saying that couples should only be open and honest with each other when they are in a private place specifically designed for it? Is she saying that couples should play coy and mysterious, keep things from each other, basically play games unless they are alone in this "bubble" place? And if they tell each other things in their "bubble", aren't they then being open and honest? WTF is she talking about? I don't get it - someone please explain!

I don't know exactly what she meant, but the idea of the bubble resonated with me in some ways.  For me the bubble is like this little figurative romantic oasis in our relationship where hubbie and I go to be intimate with each other, whether physically or emotionally or whatever.  It's when and where we escape the stress and distractions of everyday life to focus on each other so deeply that we shut out the rest of the world when we're doing it.  Sometimes we are just silly, other times we tell each other thoughts and feelings that we would never tell anyone else, and still other times we don't even speak at all.

I think that for Liza and Charles the bubble is sort of their own little reality where they can do those kinds of things without having to face the ways it is fraught with difficulties arising out of their real world relationship with each other, their complicated relationships with the other people that know both of them, and Liza's lies.  Because as soon as they face those things openly it's sure to be a romance killer.

[red.]

On 8/3/2018 at 9:22 AM, Aulty said:

The latter I will second. I think ist was the kiss before he left for Christmas with his daughters that was the weirdest I've ever seen on TV.

100% the weirdest kiss I've seen on TV. I replayed it hoping I had just seen it wrong the first time but it didn't even look like he actually kissed her lips? Weird weird weird. He's kissed her previously and it's been less awkward, right?

Has he ever actually kissed a woman before this? (that's a story for a different day I guess). A beautiful man but there seems to be a disconnect with the acting or kissing or something. Idk why it grates me.

..
K nevermind I just watched this and can definitely see the good chemistry, guess I had forgotten. 

[sacrebleu]

Quote

Party of one here but as one of those people I felt bored. It did very little for me. And I think this is why:

(emphasis mine)

It felt... forced. 

yup. It's like dance scenes in modern movies have all these quick cuts so you can't tell if the actor or stunt double is dancing, versus uncut single shots of Fred and Ginger that show their whole bodies, so you see how good they are.

 

all those flash edits are an attempt to create excitement because the principles can't create it on their own.

 

also, the ENTIRE office shuts down between Christmas & New Years?!?!?! A publishing company in regular financial trouble can afford to give every employee a paid week off??? 

[morakot]

For some companies, people are required to use up their vacation time or lose it before the end of the calendar year. The time between Christmas and New Year's is generally a quiet time at work because everyone is doing this - often, the only people onsite are peons or temporary contractors that aren't paid if they aren't at work. We only follow the executives (and Liza, who, as a major player in Millennial, is basically an executive who gets peon pay).

[Mabinogia]

53 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

also, the ENTIRE office shuts down between Christmas & New Years?!?!?! A publishing company in regular financial trouble can afford to give every employee a paid week off??? 

I worked for an ad agency that did this, mainly because two of the four owners were from England and both went home for the holidays. The company no longer exists. 

 

1 hour ago, sacrebleu said:

yup. It's like dance scenes in modern movies have all these quick cuts so you can't tell if the actor or stunt double is dancing, versus uncut single shots of Fred and Ginger that show their whole bodies, so you see how good they are.

Ah, Fred and Ginger. *love* But now you've got me imagining the show hiring kissing doubles. I do think all the cutting is to add the excitement that is missing. I think if we just watched them kiss it would fall flat. I watched that video of all their "moments" and that could have been any two people being directed to give a "longing look" here and there. 

[MissEwa]

3 hours ago, sacrebleu said:

also, the ENTIRE office shuts down between Christmas & New Years?!?!?! A publishing company in regular financial trouble can afford to give every employee a paid week off??? 

This is pretty standard everywhere I've worked (not in book publishing but in magazines - oh, the olden days! - and a few other industries). If you get paid leave you have to take some of it then, and if you don't, well... Merry Christmas! Some places only 'strongly encourage' it and others actually shut down so you can't work even if you want to. In magazines it was ridiculous because you still had to release editions to the same timetable so everyone basically killed themselves through the first half of December to get double the amount of work done and then recovered for two weeks. 

The concept of 'the bubble' as it relates to Charles and Liza made sense to me - I've heard that first flush of a romantic relationship described as a 'love bubble' before, when you're not really thinking with your head and reality doesn't come into it as much, and I could see that about them - but whatever that writer was talking about was gibberish.

When I think further about that scene between Charles and Liza, I wonder if they shot something a lot more linear and it just didn't work, and they couldn't re-shoot, for whatever reason, so they chopped it up into what we got to try and save it. It was just weird and jumpy and such an abrupt open for the episode, and not, as far as I can remember, stylistically like anything we've seen them do before? I don't know. 

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

On 8/2/2018 at 11:07 PM, Empress Josephine said:

Lol...I tried, I really did. But I almost puked when Charles said, "You were sitting reading 'Look, Homeward Angel' and I thought 'Who does that?' ", or whatever 'deep' crap he said that was supposed to emphasize their 'strong' and 'profound' connection. 

I know the girl who reads (and I am one such girl) is fiction’s shorthand for “Look! She is amazing and special!!!”, but a) it’s generally not weird to read while on lunch break, and b) in the publishing industry, aren’t the odds that most people in the office will be reading at their desks at some point during the day?

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, ZuluQueenOfDwarves said:

in the publishing industry, aren’t the odds that most people in the office will be reading at their desks at some point during the day?

That was the funniest part. Dude, you're in publishing, of books, pretty sure most of the people there like to read books. 

[Lambira]

Hi.. I'm new here... been watching the show since the beginning and am a huge fan and excited to finally find other people who love it!  So at the risk of annoying everyone else right off the bat I'll jump right in.  I am, and have always been, Team Josh. Like some of the other posters, I also didn't feel the chemistry between Charles and Liza that so many others felt... and it was magnified in creepiness for me that he is her boss.  I also feel that Charles and Liza are soon going to become mired in dragging each other down.  I thought it was a small but telling detail that Liza hated Charles' beard so much, and he wound up shaving it off for her, not because he wanted to.  (Even though Liza never had a problem with Josh's beard).  I always felt that Josh brought out Liza's playful and fun side, and Charles just makes her subdued and mopey.

 

I also differ with many of you who hate Pauline's character and blame her for the end of the marriage.  This is possibly because I actually read the Marriage Vacation book (Yes in case you didn't know, they actually published a book with Pauline's back story of the lost year) and the book was surprisingly pretty good in a) just being entertaining, and b) explaining the backstory and feelings as to how Pauline wound up being gone a year.  She gave up her interests and career and life to support Charles, and it was eventually taken for granted and certainly not reciprocated.  Regardless of your feelings about Pauline I believe there is blame on both sides as to how they got to that point in their marriage.

 

Thanks for having me :-)

[Mabinogia]

25 minutes ago, Lambira said:

She gave up her interests and career and life to support Charles, and it was eventually taken for granted and certainly not reciprocated. 

Honestly, that doesn't surprise me one bit. He seems like the type who is used to having things go the way he wants. 

28 minutes ago, Lambira said:

I always felt that Josh brought out Liza's playful and fun side, and Charles just makes her subdued and mopey.

This is why I've always been and will probably always be Team Josh. She has fun with him, he brings out a side in her that I don't think as a wife and mother she has really tapped into. Charles just seems like he'd pull her back into the life she had, being a wife and mother. 

I just fear the story is going to end up being that Liza escaped domestic life to sew her wild oats with Josh and realize that she wanted what she had all along and settles down with Charles to be a wife and mommy again because that's what we women really want. (I know I'm reading a LOT into it, but as I said, that's my fear, not necessarily how things will go, just my personal worst case scenario). 

[Lambira]

15 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I just fear the story is going to end up being that Liza escaped domestic life to sew her wild oats with Josh and realize that she wanted what she had all along and settles down with Charles to be a wife and mommy again because that's what we women really want. 

LOL and word

Edited August 7, 2018 by Lambira
wanted to add more

[LuvMyShows]

10 hours ago, Lambira said:

I also differ with many of you who hate Pauline's character and blame her for the end of the marriage.  This is possibly because I actually read the Marriage Vacation book (Yes in case you didn't know, they actually published a book with Pauline's back story of the lost year) and the book was surprisingly pretty good in a) just being entertaining, and b) explaining the backstory and feelings as to how Pauline wound up being gone a year.  She gave up her interests and career and life to support Charles, and it was eventually taken for granted and certainly not reciprocated.  Regardless of your feelings about Pauline I believe there is blame on both sides as to how they got to that point in their marriage.

I haven't read the book, and I sympathize with the fact that it was probably a sh*t marriage that Charles was largely responsible for, but did she try to do something about it other than leave for a whole freaking year?  How was the upcoming and continued absence explained to the kids?  Did she even have any contact with the kids while she was gone?

[Gothish520]

52 minutes ago, LuvMyShows said:

I haven't read the book, and I sympathize with the fact that it was probably a sh*t marriage that Charles was largely responsible for, but did she try to do something about it other than leave for a whole freaking year?  How was the upcoming and continued absence explained to the kids?  Did she even have any contact with the kids while she was gone?

I agree that how she handled her relationship with her children is a big factor - if she kept in regular contact with them, that would go a long way towards people being more understanding of her actions. It seems that she spends a lot of time with them now at least.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

3 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

I haven't read the book, and I sympathize with the fact that it was probably a sh*t marriage that Charles was largely responsible for, but did she try to do something about it other than leave for a whole freaking year?  How was the upcoming and continued absence explained to the kids?  Did she even have any contact with the kids while she was gone?

Even if you have a shit marriage, you have to take responsibility for your part in it, i.e. speaking up to say why you're unhappy, making a decision about what to do, and handling it in an adult way. Just leaving for a year to go write a book does not seem like the most responsible way to deal with it.

The title of her book attempts to put a positive spin on abandoning her family for over a year and sell everyone on the idea that it was a vacation from her marriage on par with a girls' spa weekend as opposed to abandoning your spouse and children for an extended period of time. You don't just get to go on sabbatical when you're married with kids.

As far as I'm concerned, if we don't see it on the show, it's not canon so I don't really care how the book attempts to make Pauline more sympathetic. I have no interest in reading the book because it got terrible reviews and the one excerpt I read was pretty awful.

[Court]

20 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Even if you have a shit marriage, you have to take responsibility for your part in it, i.e. speaking up to say why you're unhappy, making a decision about what to do, and handling it in an adult way. Just leaving for a year to go write a book does not seem like the most responsible way to deal with it.

The title of her book attempts to put a positive spin on abandoning her family for over a year and sell everyone on the idea that it was a vacation from her marriage on par with a girls' spa weekend as opposed to abandoning your spouse and children for an extended period of time. You don't just get to go on sabbatical when you're married with kids.

As far as I'm concerned, if we don't see it on the show, it's not canon so I don't really care how the book attempts to make Pauline more sympathetic. I have no interest in reading the book because it got terrible reviews and the one excerpt I read was pretty awful.

I agree. Look when a man does what she does,  he is pretty much a deadbeat. Not a single person would handwave or justify her actions.

Yes the marriage failing is on BOTH of them. But how she handled that by abandoning her kids is on her. I hate that the show wants me to find her sympathetic. I don't. 

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Court said:

I agree. Look when a man does what she does,  he is pretty much a deadbeat. Not a single person would handwave or justify her actions.

Yes the marriage failing is on BOTH of them. But how she handled that by abandoning her kids is on her. I hate that the show wants me to find her sympathetic. I don't. 

At least Charles isn't sympathetic enough to want to be married to her!

[buffyshrugged]

Quote

On 8/8/2018 at 12:56 AM, LuvMyShows said:

I haven't read the book, and I sympathize with the fact that it was probably a sh*t marriage that Charles was largely responsible for, but did she try to do something about it other than leave for a whole freaking year?  How was the upcoming and continued absence explained to the kids?  Did she even have any contact with the kids while she was gone?

 

The book does a decent job of explaining why she stays longer than she intended, and she is in contact with her kids throughout the year.  But she never actually talks to Charles about the state of her marriage during this time, just writes him long, honest letters that she apparently never sends.  So it's on her for not bringing up her concerns both before and during her absence.  As a mom, I can't imagine leaving my kids for an entire year.  The whole time I read the book, I kept thinking "Why didn't you ask your husband if you could go to a writer's retreat for a month or two, and get yourself into couple's therapy?"

[MYOS]

1) Diane knows for Charles and Liza - pointed looks during the luncheon with Pauline, then the off hand "wonder who he did it for" to Liza after whispering to her that he'd shaved his beard. :p

2) That beard was hideous.

3) Charles needs to show himself to be professional, worthy of inheriting the publishing house AND ... better than he is now. I find him boring. I don't want him to go bungee jumping but rather see what he likes. What books does he like? What is he proud of? What's his alma mater, does he go back to reunions or games or whatever? Does he get excited about anything? What's his favorite holiday?.... you get the idea. :D

[Gothish520]

21 minutes ago, MYOS said:

1) Diane knows for Charles and Liza - pointed looks during the luncheon with Pauline, then the off hand "wonder who he did it for" to Liza after whispering to her that he'd shaved his beard. :p

2) That beard was hideous.

3) Charles needs to show himself to be professional, worthy of inheriting the publishing house AND ... better than he is now. I find him boring. I don't want him to go bungee jumping but rather see what he likes. What books does he like? What is he proud of? What's his alma mater, does he go back to reunions or games or whatever? Does he get excited about anything? What's his favorite holiday?.... you get the idea. :D

Growing a beard is the only interesting thing Charles has ever done on the show, lol. I liked it, but I'm a beard gal. 

Totally agree with you about him otherwise - I have no idea who he is or what makes him tick. I would especially like to know his side of the story with regard to Pauline - because as it stands right now, her version of him seems spot-on, and I wonder why she even wanted him back.

Am I the only one who thought the scene with Liza and Charles on the carousel was corny as hell? Especially when he reached over to touch her, and the fact that he never even loosened his tie.

[MYOS]

I liked the carousel, if only because it showed something about Charles and a cool aspect of NYC.

[VartanFan]

I’m a little behind. I love liza with josh and I love Liza with Charles. But the smile Charles gives her when he shoves his pants down....oh, Mama. I also agree with whoever said that they think PH doesn’t “stage kiss” that well. 

[aradia22]

What was that? Song I like (though probably not the right song for that scene) + Two attractive actors = Bland, unsexy sex scene

I'm not sure if it's chemistry as much as direction. Lighting, angles... basically all of the things. I don't get it. They've shot decent sexy scenes for the other characters. But with Liza and Charles it's like they suddenly forgot how to do things. The weird choppy editing made it confusing more than anything else.

What was the big deal with Charles' beard? I think he looks better without it but it didn't look terrible. Why is this show becoming a worse version of Sex and the City? Did they get new writers? Are the old writers just getting stale?

Sophia Bell felt like she was full of BS but that sounds pretty accurate for the kinds of dating/sex/love books that are out there.

LOL. I know Liza is from NJ and lives in Brooklyn but has she spent no time in NY? The Sea Glass Carousel is not exactly a mystery no one knows about. I guess it's better than pretending she didn't know about the Central Park carousel. Anyway, it made for a nice scene aesthetically but yeah, it's really for children. The New Yorker in me was like, why would they go from Bryant Park (NYPL) all the way down to Battery Park to ride the Carousel. The carousel ride is a minute or two and then there's not much else to do in that area at night. Illogical.

So Kelsey made a mess of everything and NOW she's doing the mature thing? I mean... better late than never? I don't know. I'm fully prepared for this to get messy again next episode. 

I fully forgot why Maggie and Malkie broke up. Also, I don't know if there were more close ups around the dinner table but Debi is looking weirdly puffy in that Real Housewives way that makes me thing she had something done. Anyway, bringing back Malkie feels like a less interesting version of bringing back Enzo. Because the writers really shit on Diana and she deserved some uncomplicated happiness. But Maggie seems like she's choosing to be single or unattached. So she could have been with any of her old love interests or a new person or no one at all and it would have been fine. 

I do not understand Pauline's character AT ALL. Now she's back to being malicious and passive-aggressive. What happened to the wet blanket we got all through her book tour? Damn it, writers. Keep your characterization consistent. 

[aradia22]

Quote

Aside from whether the character could have grown the beard in 10 days, I looked very closely, and thought that the beard was actually glued on. 

I kept going back and forth. If it was fake, it was a decent makeup job. As a fan of Face/Off, it seemed like the hair was too neatly laid. But then there are some men with straight hair who can achieve a very groomed look. So I finally settled on thinking it was fake but that it was passable enough to be believable. 

Quote

When Malkie said "you have to do the work" in a relationship, I just shook my head. Relationships shouldn't be work, especially at this very early stage. Yes, there may be some compromise required down the line, but if you're already referring to your relationship as work when you're still in the honeymoon phase, maybe this isn't the right person for you. When you find the right person, it isn't work at all. I get what she was saying, which is that Maggie wasn't ready to be serious so she ran away, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people go on and on about how romantic relationships are work.

I agree. Partially it's because in this episode "work" meant a big gesture, which feels very juvenile like teenagers and their prom-posals. I think early on you shouldn't be finding a bunch of red flags or getting annoyed at the other person so easily or feeling like it's work to spend time with them. The early stages of dating should be enjoyable. You should be attracted to that person and want to make the effort to spend time with them and make that time special. I agree, the work should come later. 

Quote

It felt... forced. All vingettes and close-ups and out-of-focus shots and swishy camera angles that screamed this is supposed to be sexy and bits of dialogue that didn't really relate to each other. It was as though the writers were like 'here is a montage of sexy times, put in some sexy faces and murmurings and then a close-up of Charles undoing his pants'.

Yup, all of this. Bad direction and editing. Maybe I have a little more faith but unless all the takes were just atrocious, they should have at least let things go on a little longer. It was so choppy. Just hold on what's happening instead of quick cutting to something different. That would have been sexier.

[aradia22]

Quote

100% the weirdest kiss I've seen on TV. I replayed it hoping I had just seen it wrong the first time but it didn't even look like he actually kissed her lips? Weird weird weird. He's kissed her previously and it's been less awkward, right?

Has he ever actually kissed a woman before this? (that's a story for a different day I guess). A beautiful man but there seems to be a disconnect with the acting or kissing or something. Idk why it grates me.

Watching that video with most of the times they've kissed, it's not the weirdest thing in the world but I think I've identified the problem. Peter is actually kissing Sutton instead of doing a stage kiss. What it looks like from the outside is that he latches on and then that's it. Whereas with other shows and movies you can see the actors' lips and there's a lot of pulling away and coming back. Even if it's not how you actually kiss, it looks better on screen because otherwise it's kind of vampiric.. more like you're trying to suck the soul out of someone's body than kiss. 

I found this random youtube video of movie kisses. You can see the difference.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Never be the same (not sure why TV land posted this a year after the episode aired, but here it is!):