DGSAFDMD

^ About Riverdale I still don't get the shipping of Cheryl and Toni? I see them as bffs. Because they are bffs and they're not great actresses so is not like I see completely different people when I look at them acting? IDK.

Nikki K

It feels a bit gratuitious... much like making Cheryl a Serpent. I mean really?!! I wonder if it's because they find they need to give Cherly something to do and it's an easy cop out (though I have to say I enjoyed her investigating scenes with Betty so much more, that seeemed the right way to integrate her into the group more) and also because it's more cutesy and palatable for some people than finding Kevin a proper love interest. I have my doubts the thing with Moose is going anywhere tbh.

Alex - That's what worries me though. Alice was near catatonic and Polly very eager to draw her to her cult leader. Meanwhile I wasn't pleased with FP falling off the wagon and then leaving the Serpents to Jughead. I mean really. :rolleye: Also being so keen on going to Toldeo and we as viewers never even got a throwaway line if he has talked to Gladys lately (I mean he said to Jughead: You are going to your mother's. But that doesn't say anything). So okay Veronica wants him to manage her nightclub. That's a lovely sentiment but how good is he with money anyway? You know... it's all so illogical. Mainly I just don't want a storyline where Alice has to be rescued by Betty and Jughead from Polly's cult and no FP anywhere. Apparently they are trying to get Molly Ringwald to commit for longer which really they should -- I mean Mary is a lawyer and her son is incarcerated for murder! How could her absence be explained?

PhoenixRising

I agree with Nina on that, May. They're just giving Cheryl something to do that doesn't involve her being the mean girl or the femme fatale. And the Cheryl/Toni shipping is more by committee than anything else. It's like they feel they're obligated to do that for PC reasons, but they don't really serve a narrative purpose to the story. Same with Moose and Kevin. That's lazy writing if you ask me. And if they're gonna make Cheryl bisexual they should at least try to portray her as such. Usually I've noticed that TV portrays bisexuals as male-friendly lesbians because they don't wanna offend the lesbian community by having a female bisexual end up with a man, but statistically that's what happens 84% of the time in real life.

I think that whatever is gonna happen with Alice and Polly next season will probably have FP getting involved, Nina. Polly did have a sinister look in her eyes, and perhaps FP will have to help Betty get her mom out of this cult thing that Polly is gonna get her in?

Yeah, I do hope Mary comes back next season since Archie got arrested. As for Veronica opening up that club underneath Pop's, I'm willing to wait and see how that goes.

Nikki K

If you use numbers, you need to back it up, Alex. I'm not comfortable with this narrative you're presenting and don't necessarily agree with it as far as RL is concerned.

I agree that there is too much tell and too little show when it comes to Cheryl with regard to her romantic involement. There was more build-up to her infatuation with Archie in season 1 tbh.

I don't know about Moose and Kevin. See they had a thing going in season 1 but it's too hard for Moose to come out as bi or I honestly want to remind people that these kids are still supposed to be teenagers though they cast older actors for them an when you're that age you're still developing a sense of identity and things are confusing so perhaps I wonder sometimes if we're not overeager to slap a label on everything especially with kids like this who are not fully "cooked" yet. Thing is –*no matter what Moose decides to be I think he is Kevin's friend but he doesn't want to be his boyfriend in public – that was a thing in season 1 before Kevin met Joaquin. It's also true that on TV shows like this they are far more reluctant to portray actual gay relationships. Especially of the confused teenage variety.

Honestly, I don't think that will happen, Alex. I think it'll be Betty (with Jughead) to the resuce. We'll have to wait for FP/Alice again for ages.

I think the club is basically just there to give the Pussycats a venue.

I'll get that Josie's mum will probably be Archie's lawyer but if Mary doesn't come back for this, the writers deserve to be beaten.

BL.Arinna_1982

Wow, nice convo you're having here.

PhoenixRising

My apologies, Nina. I didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable. I was only quoting from Pew Research Center's LGBT study that they did a few years ago. The majority of bisexuals(73%) were women and 27% were men. 84% of those identifying as bisexual were involved with someone of the opposite sex; less than 9% had a same sex partner. Here's the link:

Among LGBT Americans, bisexuals stand out when it comes to identity, acceptance | Pew Research Center

I wasn't trying to establish any narrative, just pointing out that TV tends to be more PC about this rather than focusing on just storytelling.

Yeah, I agree that there hasn't been much development with Cheryl in that regard. One of the rules of writing is don't say it, show it. These things have to be earned. And yes, the thing with Archie was built up more due to his resemblance to Jason. The Moose and Kevin thing seems... I don't know, just tacked on. You're right, at that age you don't yet know what their identity is. They're still growing and developing. Like I said before, it seems more obligatory rather than serving an actual narrative purpose. I don't care if the relationship is straight or gay/lesbian/bi, it should serve a purpose to the story or it shouldn't be there. FP and Alice are just simmering under the surface and it probably has a lot of significance to how everything in Riverdale developed.


You really think that FP won't have anything to do with saving Alice from that cult? I'm gonna wait and see. Oh, and do you think her son might be part of this place that Polly was talking about?

Yeah, that club might actually be something to give the Pussycats a place to play. But again, the problem with the Pussycats is that on Riverdale they're just the musical interlude. They were only ever relevant main characters in their own comic/cartoon.

Josie's mother representing Archie might work, but I agree with you about Mary. The writers probably deserve a beating anyway.

DGSAFDMD

Nina I have news for you...

In regards to SKAM Austin it looks like that extra chick who's a friend of Austin's Jonas? she is actually going to be Isaak in this version. People think so because there's a scene where Megan asks her if she knows about her boyfriend seeing this other chick and she literally tells Megan she should ask him instead like the scene she has with Isaak or his different versions in other adaptations. So basically SKAM Austin is going to probably give me a chick who's into Megan without her being Eleonora so they don't ruin their precious Noora/William ship.

So number 1, they're cowards, number 2 who cares? I don't even like Megan and I don't ship her with anything, this is what I wanted IN ITALY WITH ELEONORA

Nikki K

May - yes, that's what I was asking you about earlier. Meghan was talking to a girl via chat once Marlon (Jonas) didn't show up. I think her name was Shay. I figured that'd be the new Isak. Yes, I think it's cowardice totally. And they may as well introduce somebody other than Meghan as her new girlfriend but then again maybe not. Still sucks. I cannot watch this.

Alex - as I tell people continuously learn to read things critically. I'm actually not averse to using data from opinion research centres and have used them to argue for or against in election topics before but I go onto the website of this particular company and I read through this article and it's nothing more than a fluff piece. I tried to find out what methods they have employed to arrive at this particular conclusion and it's not transparent. Even when you click yourself to their main website and go to 'Methods' they explain some of their surveying techniques but not comprehensively. But back to this specific report and firstly this is from 2013 and it's five years later now – they show no progression developement over the course of say at least the past two decades. Secondly they say they have a sample size of 479 bisexuals (I'm very offended that this is added at the very end almost as an afterthought and corroborated my uneasiness with this piece of reporting, having previously made it appear that the sample size is much higher with 1200 people but there gay and transgender people were apparently included) – okay, this seems very low given the general population especially since it seems like this is a survey they have only conducted once and they seem to justify this with what researchers believe to be the population size of bisexual people or the LBGTQ community – while in fact it may be higher or lower, we do not know. Personally, I'm really iffy on the issue that there are "researchers" mentioned but instead of citing proper research papers in peer reviewed journals there is one link to a paper that was from an Institute connected the UCLA Law School but is as far as I could find out not peer reviewed and the other is a link to polling numbers on NBC News. But what is most I cannot find anywhere what method was used to obtain this sample. I want to assume it's some standard method used by other polling institutes I'm more familiar with but you know what they say if you assume something, you make an ass out of you and me. I would also like you to note that this survey is about the U.S. – and you cannot assume same numbers for other countries in the world. In fact, another point I find very noteworthy about this article is that it (a) doesn't show differences by region: I expect that there are disparaties when you compare the South of the U.S. with California, say and also (b) by age. We never find out how old these people are they have interviewed and is that representative cross section of the bisexual population? I find this needs to be split by age group. These days it's easier to acknowledge what you are bi and be with who you like, even marry who you like. If you have interviewed somebody who is now in his/her late 40s or early 50s even, s/he may admit to being bi but having made the ultimate choice to marry a wo/man so as not to be ostracized by his/her family and community. This is not necessarily the case for twentysomethings who get married now. You know, Alex, I tried to argue with somebody lately on a political forum regarding consumer protection policies and a survey that was taken by Institut français d'opinion publique and Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. There the statistics and sampling methods were actually much more transparent than what you showed me here, and I felt fine using data in my argument. Conversely, I wouldn't feel comfortable using the data as presented here by Pew Research Center. It's not about the topic, it's about data collection and data presentation. My point is when you read anything that includes statistics you have to read it with a critical eye. I mentioned that to you before.

Sadly I think the writers are too content to leave it there to focus on all the boring teenage romances.

BL.Arinna_1982

PhoenixRising

Well, time to switch subjects...


Nice gif, Arinna.

Still no word on Timeless being renewed. To be honest, this season didn't really impress me like last season did. Wyatt went from being a tough, smart, capable agent to this emotionally compromised and messed up character, Lucy seems to have forgotten all about getting her sister back and is more concerned with correcting her family's sins, and Flynn went from being a compelling, tortured, tragic figure mourning the loss of his wife and daughter to a guy who's more interested in hitting on Lucy. As for Wyatt and Lucy... well, that's been disappointing lately. The whole Rittenhouse story arc isn't getting anywhere fast. I have no idea where this is going or what the narrative is other than "white people in history are bad," which is getting kind of tedious at this point. If it gets cancelled, I can't say that I'll be too upset. I have Riverdale, Westworld, and This Is Us.

I can't wait for Westworld tonight, although it seems like it's taking forever to get to the end of this storyline even though there are only ten episodes.

Man, the only thing I'm gonna have to watch this summer is Westworld and reruns of Gotham. I'll be shipping Bruce and Selina on that show. But I'm not gonna have much to pass the time this summer unless they come out with a really cool summer show. And there aren't any new shows this fall that I'm interested in. In fact, most of them look horrible.

DGSAFDMD

Nina,

To be fair I don't think they'll date, I just think that this girl will like Megan like Isaak liked Jonas in the beginning but then a new girl will come in and will actually be her gf. At least I hope so?

Waiting for Westworld to be available on HBO GO so I can watch will let you know if anything interesting happens

Nikki K

I suspect that's what'll happen too, May. Still not sure if I can get myself to watch it but keep me posted, will you?

DGSAFDMD

I tried watching the entire episode (episode 4) and man.. is getting harder and harder for me to watch the group scenes because is literally like 2 of them are present and the other two are just... transparent. The one playing Sana is like in the middle.

The scene where they ask Vilde to see what of William turns her on? that scene was kinda painful in the Austin version cause is just her acting in that scene while the other two are being just BAD while saying their lines idk I might still hang in there cause I liked that they keep changing stuff tho.

Like for example instead of them going to Eva's house and then them leaving so Vilde can be there with William, in this version they go for bowling with this version of Chris and William and Megan was supposed to go to a concert with her boyfriend but then she sees him outside the bowling area getting into his ex's car. (Kinda dumb cause wtf they coincidentally met there? but whatever I guess) so I like that they change a lot of things, if they had better actors it would make it more fun.

I am in trouble guys. I'm here being all "ew you people are messed up" at the Killing Eve fans for shipping the main psychopath killer with the MI5 detective and now I kinda ship that same psychopath but with someone else... I am not proud of myself.

BL.Arinna_1982

PhoenixRising

Hi, Nina! Hi, May!

I apologize once again, Nina. I decided to get back to topic because I don't want there to be any discomfort.

Man, Teddy must have a "Kick Me" sign on his back, because he just keeps getting screwed over. Dolores/Wyatt fried his brain. When a girl starts talking about disease, flies, and dead cows, you'd think Teddy would at least be smart enough to get the hell out of there before it was too late.

Maeve really rocked this episode! Samurai, Ninjas, Geishas, Shoguns, and telepathic Maeve with a sword! I have to say that William and Maeve are really owning this season, while Dolores has been something of a disappointment. She's not the compelling, romantic, tragic character we saw in season one. Her schizophrenic "Wyatt" personality is making her bat crazy, but it's getting a bit tedious.


Is that Aria and Ezra, Arinna?