Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

saoirse

S01.E03: The Photo Shoot

Recommended Posts

Brian is so quietly funny in this; I laughed out loud at the “I wouldn’t drink that” comment at the bar. I’m not too surprised though, he was also really funny in his short lived “Wedding Band” show. 

I loved the end, and I do hope Shannen will be featured more heavily in the remaining episodes. 

Yay, Carol Potter! She did great, it was nice to see her. 

Christine Elise is a hoot in this; I loved her crack “Did you reach out to Joe E. Tata yet?” when she was berating Tori for giving everyone executive jobs on the show.

  • Love 11

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, toomuchtv47 said:

Maybe the kid is just a super fan, if him and his mother used to watch together, and the obvious stalker wall and other clues they're giving us are red herrings. On the other hand, maybe since there's only 6 episodes, there's no time for subtlety.

I have just been going on the theory that he is Brian's son. 

1 hour ago, notcreative enough said:

I think it might be the writer that got fired he left way to easy and he had a look on his face when he walked away. The bodyguard thing was weird he just shows up at her house no phone call no paperwork nothing. How does she even know he is a bodyguard because he said so. 

I'm sticking with the kid being Brian's long lost son. The kid said something about his mom doing way worse stuff. If they are going that route it's kinda icky because he basically abandoned his son. 

ETA this. I just read it. Although men make babies all the time and don't even know it, so he may not have abandoned a son, the mom just didn't tell him. 

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Chewy101 said:

ETA this. I just read it. Although men make babies all the time and don't even know it, so he may not have abandoned a son, the mom just didn't tell him

Sorry I meant how real BAG abandoned his real son with Venessa Marcil.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I am glad the show isn’t shying away from exploring Gabby’s sexuality especially so late in life when she already had a husband who has no reason to understand kids and even now a grandchild. 

I feel the opposite.  This episode was the one that I've liked best so far, but I hated when Gabby said that the kiss was electrifying.  The implied message that she was sending was "as opposed to you" even though she was telling him that he was important to her.  It completely sounded like she expected him to wait around for her to find herself, which is what he heard as well.  If she wants to explore her sexuality, so be it, but don't expect him to just be there once she decides what the next course of her life may be.  Who wants to hear that they're not "electrifying," but hey, you're good enough to have around just in case.  If she wants to do this, she should at least separate from him, not necessarily officially or legally (yet), but at least geographically so they're no longer in the same space.

ETA:

Quote

I don't think the fake spouses add anything interesting either, but I'm enjoying the show. 

I like the fake spouses, in particular La La Anthony, which surprises me.

ETA 2:

Quote

I don’t know.  I think there’s a fine line between remembering Luke and milking his death for ratings.

While I see your point, the theme of this episode was re-creating the iconic cast photo---a photo that became iconic because it featured all of them.  In this specific instance, I think it was odd and glaring not to acknowledge, at least in some way, that the photo couldn't be truly re-created because Luke is absent.  To me, that's not a ratings grab.  It's a recognition of the passage of time and the realities of life.  The photos will now always unfortunately be different.

Edited by Ohmo
  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

I feel the opposite.  This episode was the one that I've liked best so far, but I hated when Gabby said that the kiss was electrifying.  The implied message that she was sending was "as opposed to you" even though she was telling him that he was important to her.  

But the confession doesn't make sense without saying that. I mean, who overturns the assumptions of a lifetime and introduces uncertainty into a thirty year marriage over a kiss that was NBD? Since she's made up her mind to be forthcoming about the part she chose to play and the reasons behind it, and her husband is asking her to just forget about what happened that shook her up so, her saying "yes, that kiss really WAS a big deal, so I can't just forget about it" is kind of an inextricable part of that confession.

48 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

If she wants to do this, she should at least separate from him, not necessarily officially or legally (yet), but at least geographically so they're no longer in the same space.

In their conversation, she says she wasn't interested in opening their marriage. The implication (I think) was that she was going to act out her new feelings in her new scripted role only, at least at first, which would not be technically adulterous, any more than it would be if she were acting out a romance with a male actor in a soap. Of course, neither of them know if that will be enough for her in the long run. And it seems to me that the husband didn't want to live with that uncertainty. It's his right to decide to draw his emotional boundaries that way. But she couldn't know for sure unless she asked, so that's why she did ask instead of just going straight for a separation.

It's implied they DID separate - I can't imagine Jason going off to Gabby's house to stay while she and her husband are glowering at each other. And it seems to me that if they've separated, she has less incentive NOT to go for broke in her experimentation, instead of sticking strictly to the script.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

For me, I think the omission of Luke has been made more glaring by the fact that Christine has repeatedly told Tori that they NEED Shannen...that they have to have Shannen.  One quiet reflective set of lines from Christine that went something like "The audience knows that we can't give them Dylan, so that's why it's so important that we have everyone else" would go a long way.  By not mentioning Dylan at all but then mentioning the urgent need for every other cast member to return, it just amplifies the elephant in the room.  Dylan was an enormous part of 90210. Not mentioning the character when talking about a reboot is just odd...and noticeable.

Edited by Ohmo
  • Love 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

23 minutes ago, screamin said:

But the confession doesn't make sense without saying that. I mean, who overturns the assumptions of a lifetime and introduces uncertainty into a thirty year marriage over a kiss that was NBD

The choice of that word was hurtful.  If a person (be they a man or a woman) told his/her longtime SO/spouse that he/she had experienced an electrifying kiss from someone other than the SO/spouse, no way is that going to go over well.  She seems so overwhelmed and consumed with how she feels and what this means for her, it's like she forgets that there's another person involved. 

If the show was going to go this route, I wish they would have made Gabby divorced, then have her go to Vegas, kiss the bartender, start to question, etc.  As it stands, it feels like we're supposed to root Gabby on in this exploration, which I'm not inclined to do because she has a significant other who also has feelings and will be affected by this, no matter what she ultimately decides.

  • Love 22

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

While I see your point, the theme of this episode was re-creating the iconic cast photo---a photo that became iconic because it featured all of them.  In this specific instance, I think it was odd and glaring not to acknowledge, at least in some way, that the photo couldn't be truly re-created because Luke is absent

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, desertflower said:

Christine Elise is a hoot in this; I loved her crack “Did you reach out to Joe E. Tata yet?” when she was berating Tori for giving everyone executive jobs on the show.

I laughed hard at this.  I think she's playing "herself" as someone who isn't a bitch per se as someone said above, but who has an axe to grind towards at least a few of them particularly Jason. But she's the exec in charge and still wants to see this through, so she had to forcefully remind Tori that producers have to do the firing and appeal to the stars they want on the show.  

As for Luke, I get the argument that recreating the photo with Shannen would have been an opportunity to say something about him missing.  But I feel there had to be a limit on how many times you can mention him before it becomes overused.  That's how I felt about a character on Pose this season; even with a long time jump, that character was still brought up and I was like "let her rest in peace already." 

  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of Stalker Guy being the son of, say, Tiffani or the actress who played Toni or even Christine. 

I need a Shannen dream sequence. I am not sure how they can recreate the iconic "I hate you both, never talk to me again" scene without Luke. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Another thing about the Gabby storyline that bugs me is the double standard.  Jason and his wife were both unfaithful to each other..  Ian's wife was also unfaithful to him.  Were they "exploring their sexuality" as is said about Gabby?  She's gone on a dating app, where I'm sure the goal is not to have tea.  If Gabby told her husband that she'd been "exploring her sexuality" with another man, she'd be derided for it, but since it's a same-sex relationship, hey, it's OK.  Let's not confuse equality with virtue.  Gabby's still married.  This is not some virtuous endeavor.

  • Love 22
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

The choice of that word was hurtful.  If a person (be they a man or a woman) told his/her longtime SO/spouse that he/she had experienced an electrifying kiss from someone other than the SO/spouse, no way is that going to go over well.  

Yes, it was hurtful. But he's asking her to forget about what happened, and she's made up her mind that she can't. And the reason is that kiss. She's made up her mind to be honest about it, and there's no way to honestly explain why that kiss is important enough to her to do this without being hurtful.

How would you have worded it in a less hurtful way? To me, trying to soft-pedal the matter would have been worse. "The kiss was nothing special - but I'm going to shake up our thirty year marriage and your cherished assumptions about our relationship because of it." To me that comes off patently and lamely false, disrespectfully so, and therefore more hurtful than the truth told straightforwardly.

The only way to spare her partner ANY hurt at that point would be to withhold the truth completely; keep her exploration to herself until she's absolutely sure of what she wants. But she's made up her mind to tell him the truth, and you can't have that honesty without some pain. IMO, if she's made up her mind to tell the truth, ripping the bandage off is the best of the bad options available. Some hurt is unavoidable.

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

19 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Another thing about the Gabby storyline that bugs me is the double standard.  Jason and his wife were both unfaithful to each other..  Ian's wife was also unfaithful to him.  Were they "exploring their sexuality" as is said about Gabby?  

Double standard? You're castigating Gabby as having committed the equivalent of actual acts of adultery committed in deception, for having an involuntary surge of feeling when someone surprises her with a kiss, and leveling honestly with herself AND her husband about it immediately after the fact. To me it seems like you're applying a double standard in her detriment. Why do we have to apply Jesus's "lust in the heart=adultery" to her and her alone? Gabrielle's Jewish, anyway. :)

Edited by screamin
  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, screamin said:

Since she's made up her mind to be forthcoming about the part she chose to play and the reasons behind it, and her husband is asking her to just forget about what happened that shook her up so, her saying "yes, that kiss really WAS a big deal, so I can't just forget about it" is kind of an inextricable part of that confession.

I agree, because it wasn't about one specific kiss from one specific woman - she's not looking to go explore something with that bartender - but what her reaction to that kiss represents, igniting something she's suppressed for years into something she can no longer ignore. 

I like that his reaction wasn't to don a PFLAG shirt and proclaim "Of course you need to finally explore the feelings you've been pretending not to have, and I support you 100% in this journey to your true self," because his "WTF does this mean for me and the life we've built together over decades?" reaction is incredibly realistic for someone blindsided and hurt.  And it hints at great things like explored on Grace and Frankie, where a cheated-on spouse is asked to better accept the betrayal when it's with a same-sex partner after a lifetime of suppressed - and oppressed - feelings than would be expected upon fooling around with just another partner of the opposite sex (how there is a difference, and how there isn't).

But I also like the way she's handling it, because she's being honest in order to avoid that betrayal.  She can't avoid hurt, once she realizes she can't ignore this any longer, but she can be up front and let him make his own decisions with eyes wide open, just as she's going to do.  A woman kissed her.  She didn't take it any further, and she told her husband about it and, most importantly, the long-suppressed confusion it forced her to confront.  He's entitled to every negative emotion he feels, and to whatever - within reason, of course - action he takes in response, but she's not being a thoughtless or lying-by-omission ass.  It's messy, and thus astoundingly realistic for something set in this universe.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 12

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I like that his reaction wasn't to don a PFLAG shirt and proclaim "Of course you need to finally explore the feelings you've been pretending not to have, and I support you 100% in this journey to your true self," because his "WTF does this mean for me and the life we've built together over decades?" reaction is incredibly realistic for someone blindsided and hurt. 

Yeah, I was liking that, too.  His reaction was pretty much, "I'm going to give you the space to explore this, and by giving you space I mean I'm going to move out and I'm also not promising you that I'm going wait faithfully on the side while you figure this out."

I mean, it does happen. I had a friend who was sneaking out with men behind his wife's back and when he got outed, he came clean to her and they opened up their marriage, and it actually made their marriage stronger because he wasn't hiding anything from her anymore. But that's not something everyone can do.

Quote

I laughed hard at this.  I think she's playing "herself" as someone who isn't a bitch per se as someone said above, but who has an axe to grind towards at least a few of them particularly Jason. But she's the exec in charge and still wants to see this through, so she had to forcefully remind Tori that producers have to do the firing and appeal to the stars they want on the show.  

I feel like she wants to mess with them just enough to keep them on their toes, but not so much the entire thing falls apart.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, screamin said:

Double standard?

Yup.  Her aim is to explore a relationship that's not her relationship with her husband to whom she is still married.  Exploring a kiss between two women (or two men) is not an act of friendship,  She's also posted on a dating app, and Christine told her to go to a bar.  All of these things are heading in the direction of romance, which, unless she divorces her husband, will be cheating.  You are correct in that she hasn't cheated YET, but this "exploration" is pointing her away from her husband, not toward him, and we, as viewers, are supposed to root for this.  I'm rooting for her husband.

As to what I would say, I would not throw around adjectives like electrifying that would likely hurt my spouse.  She could have said that the kiss occurred and resulted in feelings without explicitly describing those feelings unless her husband asked her what those feelings were.

  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post

I thought this episode was a bit slow in parts, and I noticed some awkward dialogue and weird time jumps. I don’t know, but something felt a little off, and I think episode 2 has been the best of the three shown so far. 

On the plus side, I laughed out loud when Tori said Jennie made her pee her pants a little. That scene in particular was great as was the one with Brian, Jason, and Ian at the bar. I loved Brian’s side comments throughout. He’s really funny. 

Tori does seem to be making a real effort to cover her cleavage with wardrobe and accessories, which I think is the right choice because her chest looks even worse with age. Isn’t there a plastic surgeon who can fix that? 

Still not nearly enough Shannen though, and while I miss Luke too, it didn’t occur to me that he needed a mention in this episode until I read the comments here. But I agree that a mention during that last scene would have been good. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

This was the first initial group meeting with the psychiatrist.   There was way to much to get through to focus on Luke Perry.   I mean the show just can’t focus every episode on him.   It just can’t.  I get that having a cry fest about how much everyone misses him would appeal to some people but their was actual story the show needed to get through.  

  • Love 13

Share this post


Link to post

still enjoying this though I was disappointed with Jason's dream sequence. I liked the first 2 episodes better where it pulled in references to lots of past absurd plot developments. I wanted a montage of all of Brandon's stuff-gambling problem, West Bev beat, etc. 

  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone else get confused when someone mentions Jay? It always takes me a bout 5 seconds or so to realize that they are talking or referring to Jason Priestly. I'm sure his friends call him that but it just feels so wrong.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, AAEBoiler said:

It always takes me a bout 5 seconds or so to realize that they are talking or referring to Jason Priestly. 

It took me a while to get used to it too, but I love the nicknames -- Jay, Tor, Shan, Jen, Z, Bri, Gab or Gabby. They've all been using them and it just underscores to me how long they've all known each other. 

  • Love 10

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I do find it interesting that on the show, "his" character is considered a loser because he doesn't work, but is taking care of 6 kids while Tori pursues her dream of producing a reboot. BAG's character OTOH is a saint for being a SATD to 3 kids. 

Another thing I found interesting, and am not sure if it was intentional on the part of the writers, was when Ian got shot down by the writer for telling her she had nice eyes. I don't buy that he didn't know it was inappropriate because he was married for years, since this was at the workplace, not in a bar. However, there was the discussion about men feeling that they cannot even give a woman a compliment now in case it is considered harassment. A few scenes later Tori and Jenny are objectifying the bodyguard, and Tori asks him to flex his muscles. Later, Jenny refers to him as bodyguard, not even being respectful enough to call him by his name. Objectifying is wrong not matter which sex it is directed at, so if the writers were trying to make that point, good on them. Objectifying men certainly continues in shows like the RH franchises, where the howives will hire men and then treat them in totally inappropriate manner. And think it is cute or sexy. Blech. 

I don't necessarily see it that way with regards to Tori and her spouse versus BAG and his spouse.  The Nate/Dean character, as stated in the first episode, is turning down offers.  In episode 3, he doesn't want to be left home alone with 6 kids.  And it's been stated explicitly several times that Tori and Nate are hurting financially.  This implies that this version of Tori's spouse is unemployed and is perfectly content to leave the money making (or lack thereof) and the child rearing to Tori.  I've not seen any of Tori's reality television shows or read her biographies, so I have no idea how that may or may not relate to actual spouse, Dean.  Maybe the real Dean is a good husband and father, despite not working much.

OTOH, BAG, as the SAHD is raising his family and being a good father (on show and in real life).  He does take acting jobs here and there.  But he's also lucky enough to have a spouse who is making mega-bucks and so he can afford to be picky about what roles he pursues.  Leaving him time to raise his kids while still working.  None of this makes BAG a saint, especially if they are pursuing a story line where he meets the son he never knew (which is where it looks like it's heading).  However, it does make him look better than Nate who is neither acting as a good parent nor a good provider. 

I totally agree with your assessment of the objectification as seen from Ian's, Tori's and Jennie's characters here.  And I totally agree that objectifying is wrong regardless of the sex of the individuals.  That being said, I suspect that most men find it less offensive to be objectified and that many would feel no qualms about saying "don't do that" if they didn't like it.  Though with some of the things I've seen women post to actors online, maybe men are no longer comfortable saying "stop that".

  • Love 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Yup.  Her aim is to explore a relationship that's not her relationship with her husband to whom she is still married.  

No, that's not so. As Bastet said, she is not showing any interest in looking up the bartender and continuing whatever the kiss started; she has no relationship with her. When she spoke to her husband, she said clearly that she did not want to 'open' their marriage (bring a third party in - that is, another relationship). She wanted him to know about this tumult in her feelings she was having, and that she has the intention of 'exploring' that through the non-adulterous  medium of her acting.

The unspoken corollary means that exploring those feelings MAY in fact lead to a relationship in the future, if she eventually decides they are strong enough - which she will presumably be as scrupulously honest in warning him about IF it happens. Because she's made up her mind to mentally explore the possibility, she's doing the honorable thing by giving him warning of it and giving him the choice of deciding if that uncertainty is something he can live with or something he can't. And for him to make a fully informed choice, he needs the unvarnished truth about how things stand - including the strength of her feelings about what happened. 

Quote

All of these things are heading in the direction of romance, which, unless she divorces her husband, will be cheating.  You are correct in that she hasn't cheated YET, but this "exploration" is pointing her away from her husband, not toward him, and we, as viewers, are supposed to root for this.  I'm rooting for her husband.

Why should we pick sides to root for? I think she acted honorably in telling him the truth, and I don't think he did anything wrong in choosing to respond, "no, I can't live with that uncertainty, don't expect me to wait around for you while you do this." That's his choice to make, and it seems to me just as honorable.

Edited by screamin
  • Love 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

There was way to much to get through to focus on Luke Perry.

But what I think some of us are saying (at least what I'm saying) is that mentioning Dylan is not the same thing as mentioning Luke.  I think, in an effort not to be maudlin, they have avoided mentioning both actor and character, but it's noticeable because Dylan was such a presence on the original show.  I'm talking things like when they're discussing storylines for their reboot, there's no talk of including or even mentioning Dylan at all.  If Tori's reboot were an actual reboot, they would at least have to have that discussion, and I think the audience knows enough to be able to handle that,  Or with the photo shoot---a brief mention of having to change the placement of the actors in the photo,  Not everything has to be "We miss Luke Perry," but I do think Dylan's presence should be acknowledged.

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

How would they have broached that subject had Luke Perry not died? He had no plans to participate in this re-envisioning because he was too busy with Riverdale, that was made clear way back in February when this was first announced.  

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

When she spoke to her husband, she said clearly that she did not want to 'open' their marriage (bring a third party in - that is, another relationship). She wanted him to know about this tumult in her feelings she was having, and that she has the intention of 'exploring' that through the non-adulterous  medium of her acting

She told her husband that, but as we saw later, she's not doing that.  She's on a dating app and Christine sent her a message.  Gabby can say that she's doing research all she wants, but the meaning that is coming across is that there could be something between Christine and Gabby,  Gabby is going down that road, and anything that happens will be between Christine and her, not Christine and Andrea.  The fact that there's no physical consummation (be that yet or if) doesn't change the fact that no matter what she does, Gabby has now introduced a question into her marriage that her husband will always have to deal with.  What did that exploration mean?  Is that exploration over (or enough for her)?

She may not ever open her marriage in a physical way, but she's opened it to an idea even if she does go back to him.  She's already committed to someone (her husband) who is clearly not pleased with her decision.  In the parameters of her marriage, her actions have caused her spouse to separate from her.  I'm not going to think what she's doing is wonderful because her actions are hurtful to him.  We're going to agree to disagree.

Quote

How would they have broached that subject had Luke Perry not died?

"We can't get Luke because he's busy on other projects, so Dylan will be away for some reason,,,maybe he'll be in France like in the original pilot."

Edited by Ohmo
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

She told her husband that, but as we saw later, she's not doing that.  She's on a dating app and Christine sent her a message. 

Yes, but this was after she told her husband the truth about what she wanted and he bluntly rejected her offered terms. He told her no deal, he wasn't going to sit around waiting while she worked through her issues. You've said the right thing for her to do would be divorce...her having that conversation with him was the first step to that if he decided that was what he wanted. We don't even know if they're still together at this point. Why should we expect her to unilaterally abide by a deal he rejected outright?

I don't think what she's doing is "wonderful." I think it's understandable, human, defensible from both sides to some degree, and therefore complex, and well acted. I think it therefore is a fine, interesting conflict to have on a soap like BH90210, and belongs there as much as any of the other soapy conflicts do.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

The actress playing Brian’s wife is terrible. And I also get confused when people call Jason ‘Jay’ 

so excited for more Shannen! 

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

@Sarah D. Bunting and @Tara Ariano:  If you haven’t  noticed already (which I haven’t heard you address—and which I just realized myself upon rewatch), please take note of Tori Spelling in her portion of the opening credits.  Everyone else in the cast kind of does the classic 90210 turn towards the cam, but she like crawls out of some hole?  It’s very strange, and I’m surprised it took me 3 episodes to notice.

ETA:  I just realized BAG kind of does it, too, but TS does it much more noticeably, IMO 

Edited by Miss Bones
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Fallacy said:

Isn’t there a plastic surgeon who can fix that? 

Oh, heavens, don’t give her any ideas.  That’s how she got into this mess!

  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post

Also I’m not loving Christine Elise. In the office scene where she’s arguing with Tori, and talking the liquor out of the cabinet, I didn’t buy her anger at all. 

And what did the Shay character expect Brian’s assistant to do when he met her, kids her hand? Bow down? Irritating 

 

And about the roxette song someone asked about, I think they are just throwing in random songs from the 90s to keep the nostalgic feeling of the show. Like how they threw in ‘the sign’ by ace of base in the first episode 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm liking this series.  If these storylines are what it took to get the cast together again, it's fine.

They're doing a good job of keeping it funny, but also with some drama (Gabrielle's storyline; Tori trying to prove herself as a producer).

I'm confused about Shannen's location.  In episode 1, it showed her plane ticket was going from Jaipur to Los Angeles.  Jaipur is in India.  So she was saving tigers in India, when she did the stream from Instagram?  It was getting near dusk, when she was doing the live stream.

Here's a screen shot of the plane ticket:

C7lJEXc.png

However, Jaipur is 12.5 hours ahead of Nevada.  Unless the group interview in Nevada was at 8am, it would have been too dark in Jaipur to really see Shannen's face, which would have been at 8:30 PM in Jaipur.

In Episode 2, Shannen and Brian talked on the phone.  Shannen had been in Los Angeles a few days prior, but was now somewhere else saving sea lions.  But the time zone seemed closer to Los Angeles.

The in Episode 3, she's in Peru.  How did Tori even know which small mountain to climb?

So across 3 episodes, Shannen has gone from Jaipur, India, to Los Angeles, to somewhere else, then to Peru?

Also, whenever I see the assistant Zach, he reminds me of two people:

* His haircut reminds me of Jason's from Season 1 on the original show.

* He also reminds me of Cousin Bobby from Season 1:

620?cb=20171216014705

I just found out that the actor who played Cousin Bobby, would later have a role as Danny Five.  Interesting.

Edited by nuraman00
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

Shannen had been in Los Angeles a few days prior, but was now somewhere else saving sea lions.  But the time zone seemed closer to Los Angeles.

Don't sea lions hang out somewhere near Los Angeles? In the same time zone, at least.

Edited by screamin

Share this post


Link to post

I am really enjoying the hell out of this show! Had no idea I would like it so much and I am hoping there will be a second season.

My thought about Zach is that his mother is Kathleen Robertson, who played Clare. I thought Clare was involved solely with David but she was after Brandon at first and then dated Steve Sanders for a while. However, according to a show Wiki she was also with David:  "David and Clare start dating their sophomore year in college after meeting in a Media Studies class. They have a fun and light relationship, mostly based on sex, but break up when they both admit to having feelings for someone else; David for Donna, Clare for Brandon. They reunite for a while, but Clare breaks up with David during the summer before their junior year. They stay friendly afterwards as part of the gang."

There appears to be some bad blood between Tiffani Amber-Thiessen and some of the cast and both sides have already said she won't be part of the reboot. This makes me think it's more likely to be Kathleen.

  • Love 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 8:47 PM, Kdel1079 said:

Also I’m not loving Christine Elise. In the office scene where she’s arguing with Tori, and talking the liquor out of the cabinet, I didn’t buy her anger at all. 

And what did the Shay character expect Brian’s assistant to do when he met her, kids her hand? Bow down? Irritating 

And about the roxette song someone asked about, I think they are just throwing in random songs from the 90s to keep the nostalgic feeling of the show. Like how they threw in ‘the sign’ by ace of base in the first episode 

I thought the same thing!  And what was wrong with him saying he's not a big Top 40 fan, therefore wasn't that familiar with her? People are allowed to have their own preferences.  What a stuck up asshole.  I'm just not liking LaLa, as it is.  Didn't like her when she was an MTV VJ, and still don't.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, Scout Finch said:

My thought about Zach is that his mother is Kathleen Robertson, who played Clare. I thought Clare was involved solely with David but she was after Brandon at first and then dated Steve Sanders for a while. However, according to a show Wiki she was also with David:  "David and Clare start dating their sophomore year in college after meeting in a Media Studies class. They have a fun and light relationship, mostly based on sex, but break up when they both admit to having feelings for someone else; David for Donna, Clare for Brandon. They reunite for a while, but Clare breaks up with David during the summer before their junior year. They stay friendly afterwards as part of the gang."

This would have been an excellent story line!! Clare dated Steve last and broke up with him when she left to go to France with her father, so for her to have had a child with David, they would have had to hook up while she and Steve were dating.

Which isn't impossible 😀

Share this post


Link to post

I was a little disappointed in the beginning that they weren't doing a true reboot. I was hoping for a BH90210 morph's into the new Melrose Place kind of thing. 

I like the current storylines and it seems like each of the "heightened" cast members are playing a cross between themselves and their character on the show. Even the storylines are hitting cross-domain between reality and television. Ex: Jason moving in with Gabby temporarily after leaving his wife? That's something I could picture Brandon and Andrea doing. Jennie bitching about Shannen but welcoming her back into the fold and Tori being fairly neutral? That seems pretty much like Brenda, Kelly, Donna to me.

The Tori and Brian moments show chemistry and kind of reminiscent of David and Donna.

What we got is pretty entertaining so far. Hoping it gets picked up for a Season 2.

  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

What I like about Gabby’s storyline is that it is usually reserved for the men.  I watch Grace & Frankie over on Netflix and it is basically the same setup decades into a marriage two men come out to their wives and say they are going to move in with each other.  The whole setup walks the line with saying the men need to be able to explore their sexuality but were  cruel to do it when their wives were thinking about what to do after they retired.   90210 doesn’t have the subtly by half but i do appreciate that it a woman going through the coming out process and not feeling the repercussions of her husband like most shows wrote it.

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, allienc said:

This would have been an excellent story line!! Clare dated Steve last and broke up with him when she left to go to France with her father, so for her to have had a child with David, they would have had to hook up while she and Steve were dating.

Which isn't impossible 😀

Except, I just realized that first I was talking about the actress who played Clare and Brian Austin Green getting together offscreen but then got confused and veered off to talk about the characters' storyline, LOL. Anyway, Zach could be their son because I'm sure his mom just HAS to be some old cast member who will make an appearance. All I do know is that based on the snarling in the media between Tiffani and Jenny and Tori, there is zero chance it will be Tiffani.

Edited by Scout Finch
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scout Finch said:

Except, I just realized that first I was talking about the actress who played Clare and Brian Austin Green getting together offscreen but then got confused and veered off to talk about the characters' storyline, LOL. Anyway, Zach could be their son because I'm sure his mom just HAS to be some old cast member who will make an appearance.

That would be really cool!  And also is your avatar your cat?  Because he/she is beautiful!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, LBS said:

That would be really cool!  And also is your avatar your cat?  Because he/she is beautiful!

Yep, that's my 22-lb. Scout! My user name is after the To Kill a Mockingbird character (plus she was a girl). But when I got Scout when he was two months old--he's six now--the name Scout just fits perfectly. I also have a smaller tortoiseshell cat, Willow, but I particularly love orange kitties and will always have one. They are sooo sweet and affectionate. Scout loves to be picked up and held. The other cat will tolerate it for about a minute and has a pained expression on her face!

 

"I. Will. Cut. A. Bitch!" Scout's first photo.

Scout 2.JPG

To get back on track, is Joe Tata still alive? He's one of the few characters I can think of that I'd like to see.

  • Love 10
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, Scout Finch said:

To get back on track, is Joe Tata still alive? He's one of the few characters I can think of that I'd like to see.

Yes, Christine Elise mentioned him when she was giving Tori shit for all the things she promised her castmates, asking her if she'd spoken to Joe E. Tata, maybe he'd like to be president of FOX.

Looking at his IMDb, he's 83, and his last role was a guest shot on Tori and Jennie's show Mystery Girls five years ago (prior to that was the 90210 reboot, and before that a short film and a guest shot on the Aaron Spelling show Charmed)They didn't include Nat in Jason's nightmare about Brandon still running the Peach Pit, which would have been the natural place to use him if they wanted a little cameo, so I tend to think that mention of him is all the nod we're going to get, but we'll see.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

I am absolutely loving this show.  It's everything right now.  

I love Tori's humor, I love Jennie's snarkiness, I love that the cast calls Ian "IZ" or "Z."  I also am loving the fashions on Tori and Jennie because they look amazing.  

I do wonder if the show is going to address that Jason and Christine were a couple for something like 5 years?  And that Tori outed a few years ago that she and Jason hooked up briefly.  And that Jason and Shannen hooked up briefly.  Now that I think about it, funny that the show has him hooking up with Jennie because in real life, they apparently did not.

  • Love 5
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I do wonder if the show is going to address that Jason and Christine were a couple for something like 5 years?

Based on Christine's interview posted in the media thread, I don't think they'll do much more than the "I certainly remember you" or whatever she said singling him out in that initial "Holy Emily Valentine" meeting; when asked what she wanted her character to be, her main thing was what she didn't want, which was for "Christine Elise" to be all about being "Jason Priestly"'s ex-girlfriend.  So I think that brief acknowledgment is all there is going to be.  

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/22/2019 at 12:13 AM, Bringonthedrama said:

In general I like Jennie in this reboot, but Jennie's tantrum about Jason being a hypocrite made me roll my eyes.

I think the point is that they both cheated.  HIs wife didn't even know that he cheated.  So, yeah, maybe he doesn't get to be mad.

On 8/22/2019 at 1:48 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

Another thing I found interesting, and am not sure if it was intentional on the part of the writers, was when Ian got shot down by the writer for telling her she had nice eyes. I don't buy that he didn't know it was inappropriate because he was married for years, since this was at the workplace, not in a bar. However, there was the discussion about men feeling that they cannot even give a woman a compliment now in case it is considered harassment. A few scenes later Tori and Jenny are objectifying the bodyguard, and Tori asks him to flex his muscles. Later, Jenny refers to him as bodyguard, not even being respectful enough to call him by his name. Objectifying is wrong not matter which sex it is directed at, so if the writers were trying to make that point, good on them. Objectifying men certainly continues in shows like the RH franchises, where the howives will hire men and then treat them in totally inappropriate manner. And think it is cute or sexy. Blech. 

I see these as two totally separate incidents.  I do not think telling someone they have nice eyes is inappropriate.  I'm with Ian on this one.  It's a compliment.  OTOH, asking someone to flex and practically drooling over them is inappropriate.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I see these as two totally separate incidents.  I do not think telling someone they have nice eyes is inappropriate.  I'm with Ian on this one.  It's a compliment.  OTOH, asking someone to flex and practically drooling over them is inappropriate.  

I actually agree with you. I thought it was a compliment too, and were a male to tell me that in the workplace I would take it as such. OTOH there are women who would take offense to it, as the woman in this case did. I still stick by though that Ian's comment that he was married for years so had no idea that some might consider it inappropriate, was BS. That would mean to me that he was giving her a compliment to hit on her, rather than to just give her a compliment. So she may have actually had a point. 

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I still stick by though that Ian's comment that he was married for years so had no idea that some might consider it inappropriate, was BS. That would mean to me that he was giving her a compliment to hit on her, rather than to just give her a compliment. So she may have actually had a point. 

You make a good point. I didn't think that through.  But, she got upset about it from the jump.  which is completely her right, but I think just saying "I would appreciate you not complimenting or remarking on my appearance" would have been fine instead of jumping down his throat.  if he does it again then you can up the response.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I see these as two totally separate incidents.  I do not think telling someone they have nice eyes is inappropriate.  I'm with Ian on this one.  It's a compliment.  OTOH, asking someone to flex and practically drooling over them is inappropriate.

I think at work they're both inappropriate. Yes, commenting on a person's pretty eyes seems innocuous, but it's still commenting on their physical appearance. It may not have the same sexual connotation as complimenting their lustrous hair, lush lips, or what-not, but if you'd hesitate to say it as a run-of-the-mill compliment to a coworker of your own sex, you probably shouldn't say it to one of the opposite. One may feel that the writer was too harsh with Ian, but he DID need a little pushback.

Which means, yes, Tori was being inappropriate. But "Tori being inappropriate" is pretty much her running gag.

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/22/2019 at 10:00 PM, Ohmo said:

Another thing about the Gabby storyline that bugs me is the double standard.  Jason and his wife were both unfaithful to each other..  Ian's wife was also unfaithful to him.  Were they "exploring their sexuality" as is said about Gabby?  She's gone on a dating app, where I'm sure the goal is not to have tea.  If Gabby told her husband that she'd been "exploring her sexuality" with another man, she'd be derided for it, but since it's a same-sex relationship, hey, it's OK.  Let's not confuse equality with virtue.  Gabby's still married.  This is not some virtuous endeavor.

Agreed. She is just being selfish and acting like a cliche, dismissing her vows for some demographic storyline. She bores me.

  • Love 6

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size