DramatistDreamer

I remember hearing about this a lot in Andy Murray's earlier days on the ATP Tour. It became repeated as frequently as the Serbian players' swimming pool narrative. I'm surprised you've never heard, Chit! It's probably the only reason why I'm familiar with Dunblane and where it is.

Did anyone know that Max Mirnyi owned a pizza shop?? Apparently he had to close it and he describe in detail why. (Also, in tennis related news, Mirnyi has joined the Nishikori camp).

IMO Christine "Cricket" Blair's best pairing was...wait for it... Danny Romalotti. He was probably the only character who didn't see the constant need to rescue her. And if she's out of town on a regular basis, at least, going on the road with her rocker/husband makes much more sense than inventing these inane crime-fighting conventions that she has to go to. Honestly, Michael should've been one of Lauren's temporary pairings, a short-term marriage not unlike one of those relatively brief multiple marriages that soap vixens (e.g. Erica Kane) usually have. It's obvious that the writers don't know what to do with this couple. Usually I'm quick to blame the writers for a failure of imagination but in this case, I just think the couple's possibilities are limited but I feel like, unless Michael gets sent off the canvas somehow, Lauren is kind of stuck in that pairing for the foreseeable future. Also, at this point, a liberated, single Lauren could probably be the best chance to resuscitate Paul's character. At least the two actors have chemistry with each other. TEB's Lauren could create chemistry with other characters but for DD's Paul, I'm not so sure. As long as both are there, why not do something meaningful with both characters? The history can easily be revived into something current. And yes, the show should bring back Heather (I'm partial to Vail Bloom, now that she's sober, everyone deserves a second chance) even for a brief storyline arc.

Supercouples, A.K.A 'The Luke & Laura Phenomenon' were the best and worst thing to happen to the soap opera genre, I always say. When it was uber-popular in the 1980s, soaps had an easy and ready concept in which to build their marketing around but when it got old, or actors left the show and had to be replaced, it became a real obstacle to the show's mobility or ability to adapt and change. Lily was too damn young to be a part of any super-couple. She was certainly too young to be locked into a pairing with someone as senior as Cane. People talk about how poorly Nicholas has been written in recent years but Lily was an underwritten character from almost the very beginning. I strain to think of one storyline written for her that wasn't somehow entirely tied up in her role as either girlfriend, wife or mother. From the time she was a teen, her first storyline was about her sexuality, nothing more and it's seemingly been that way throughout her time on the canvas.

Does anybody know what happened to these actors: Melissa Morgan- Brittany Norman Todd Curtis- Skip Evans Jonathan Farwell-George Rawlins Farwell may be retired by now but are the other two still acting?

I think it's both, tbh. A lot of those Lane fans have color issues and CK's version of Lily with DG is an aspiration for many of them, imo. Strangely enough, I think many of those Lane fans are more Cane fans--the pormanteau says it all, mostly him with very little of her represented. When the show has made feeble attempts to pair Lily with someone who was not Cane, those rabid Cane fans became boorish, insulting and in many cases downright abusive to either the man that Lily was being paired with (e.g. Tyler) or abusive and insulting to Lily (e.g. when she was with Joe). Compare that to the whimpering when Lauren was paired with Carmine where many Lauren/Michael fans were upset with Lauren but many also seemed to agree that Carmine was "hot". Also, is the unfortunate aspect that Y&R, in its consistent casting choices in the 1990s and beyond, had primed viewers to see lighter-skinned/mixed actors as being more palatable onscreen. KSJ, ironically was well aware of this fact and spoke on it in that very candid podcast interview that he did a couple years ago. It's all just highly unfortunate that the creative choices ended up tanking a character that should have, could have been very viable, no matter who is playing her but is basically a non-factor at this point. The sad fact is, that the vestiges of one of Y&R's biggest supercouples of the 1990s/2000s are being wiped away, there is hardly anything left.

Thanks for posting these @BoldRestless. It's so easy to fall back into viewing these classic episodes! Somehow I had forgotten that Brad used to work for Lauren at Fenmore's. Of course, I can't forget crazy Lisa! So now, I remember how Leanna Love ended up married to Victor. That candid conversation between Paul and Lauren is the type of dialogue that has been sorely missed from Y&R for about a decade now. I'll have to pick up with the rest of these episodes tomorrow and throughout the weekend but such interesting material to watch that I'm tempted to keep going but I should get some sleep, lol.

Speaking of scams, here's a bit of food for thought on this Thanksgiving.

For some reason, that's what I remember as well. I just wondered if the big, elaborate Thanksgiving celebrations that we all grew up with and loved were an '80s invention or did they have these kinds of episodes in the decades before. Like, was Chris Hughes known for making the types of Thanksgiving toasts that his son Bob made famous?

Does anybody know how many ATWT Thanksgiving episodes are uploaded on YouTube, or anywhere else? I wonder how far back the show started doing Thanksgiving episodes? For example, was this a thing in 1978 or 1979? If so, I'd love to see some Thanksgiving episodes from that era!

Aren't those the people that the U.S. should want? It's unsettling even to try to wrap your mind around it.

That seems to be a prerequisite for being in Trump's cabinet. I hope people realize that two things can exist simultaneously about Sondland being a predator and being accurate in his account before the House. One doesn't negate the other.

I see what you're saying.

While watching a 1993 episode on YouTube, I noticed in the comments that someone mentioned that Tangie didn't quite seem to fit but couldn't put his/her finger on just why Tangie didn't fit. That got me to thinking, just about every time Tangie appeared onscreen, whether I agreed with that statement and if so, what are the reasons for it. I think I came up with some reasons why. The timing and how the character was introduced seemed to be sort of a stumbling block. JMO but it seemed as though the writer(s) couldn't decide what type of a character Tangie actually was. Was she a trickster who liked to play games? Was she seeking a deeper, more meaningful relationship with Josh while hiding her true intentions, so as not to scare him off? Was she obscuring an emotionally fragile center at the heart of her personality with big gestures? Was she testing Josh somehow out of a deeper insecurity? It was as if the writing worked hard to stay away from any aspects of Reva's personality, lest the viewers be tempted to compare the two, yet on the sly, they still seemed to be trying to infuse the relationship between Josh and Tangie with some of the 'push-pull' element that made Josh and Reva such a draw. It's odd to watch. When Josh first arrived back in Springfield, he made it sound as if he knew a good deal about Tangie. He talked about how much time she spent with Mara and Shayne, who both seemed to really like her. Then when Tangie gets to town, Josh tells Vanessa that he barely knows Tangie. There are moments when Josh makes it seem like a crazy fling, then the next moment he's talking about his concerns about getting intimate with Tangie and what that could mean for their relationship. Ambivalence is fine, but at least get the timeline correct. The writing for Tangie seems very muddled and it has me confused. There was a really great scene between Josh and Tangie where Josh is trying to unclothe Tangie but the zipper gets stuck on Tangie's sequined cocktail dress. Josh wants to cut it off but Tangie, afraid the dress will get ruined, says she doesn't want her dress to get ruined. Then she proceeds to tell Josh why the dress is so important to her. Marci Walker really shined in that scene and she and Robert Newman really showed what chemistry was possible between them when the writing is done well. So far, that has been the only time when I thought that Tangie has possibilities but the opportunities are too few and too far in between. The other problem is I feel as though the writing is too hastily trying to shoehorn Tangie into scenes involving the Lewis family. Little Bill seems to worship Tangie like a goddess and somehow she's already becoming a fast confidante with Mindy. Vanessa, who is usually circumspect seems to be already encouraging Josh to pursue a relationship. HB within one meeting seems to be charmed and even the caretaker at Cross Creek (where Tangie made a spontaneous visit after commandeering the Lewis jet somehow) seems to love her. It's all too much at once! The writers are forcing things so fast and not allowing the viewers to take to Tangie gradually. Maybe the writers sense that some of the other storylines have either wrapped up or are wrapping up and are panicked and trying to generate something else fast. It just seems like too much too fast where Tangie is concerned.

Though Harriott's article contained a few morsels for thought, all in all, I thought it was an entertaining "read" but one that functioned on a highly personal, highly operatic level. I took it for what it was. Buttigieg, in calling Harriott after seeing the article, was obviously doing damage control. It made for an interesting counteraction but won't change anyone's mind about him. The follow-up reads like like some sort of odd 'mano a mano' hyper-masculine piece, the kind of article you'd expect to read in Esquire magazine.

My guess is that the event that you described will happen in Season 4. From what I've observed and in reading articles, The Crown doesn't always put events in exact chronological order. That event is too dramatic not to be included. I think it's likely that there will be more on that character in the next season, as well as the introduction of a new character (who I think we all know who she will be) in Season 4. I was surprised at how they raced through years in this season's episodes but like I've said, the show has been known to 'reorder' the sequence/chronological order of events for dramatic purposes. Using a bit of 'dramatic license', if you will.

The casting for Camila (Shand) Parker-Bowles was very generous. No offense, but Camila was never as cute as the actress portraying her, I've seen photographs when Camila was younger. But the casting for young Princess Anne is ingenious! The actress is quite a find. I've seen interviews with Anne as a young woman and this actress is spot on in her interpretation. Olivia Colman and Helena Bonham Carter are as great as you'd expect two actresses of their caliber to be. One of the aspects that really caught my attention was the use of music cues, which was excellent. In a way, it sort of reminded me of when soaps were really good at creating original music for scenes and certain pieces became identifiable for a certain mood. What The Crown did that took it even further is that there would be a piece of music that would give an air of foreboding or dread and just when you start to believe that you know when it will be used next, that same piece of music might be used in an entirely different context during a scene that is hopeful. The use of music cues during this season was top drawer.

Also, Michael Bloomberg is running as a Republican in Republican's clothing. I have no idea why he's running as a Democrat when 2 out of 3 of his mayoral candidacies were as a Republican and the other one was as an Independent. They both should be running on the GOP ticket. In other news, To quote a great singer "I believe the children are our future...everybody's searching for a hero, people need someone to look up to..." These children definitely know they haven't found one in Melania.

I read that article this morning after seeing it trending under a very different title. Regardless of the fact that those remarks were said to have been spoken about 8 years ago, Buttigieg should be asked about them. If every candidate has to be asked and expected to answer to things said decades ago, he can and should certainly be expected to talk about these remarks. The video is there so he cannot claim to have been misquoted.

Can't get a break from scandal. Scandal in the morning Scandal in the evening Scandal most anytime. News dumps at night, sometimes while we sleep. I can't stand this effing corrupt administration. Interesting piece of trivia.

When I posted this NPR article nearly two weeks ago, I knew that it would more or less lead to something like where it is now, with a resignation.

A few years ago, I remember reading about Tim Berners-Lee being interviewed about the many problems with the Internet and turned over several remedies in his mind, one of which was creating a sort of alternate WWW that would fulfill the original purpose, which was to share information and foster communication. It was an interesting interview, if anyone can dig it up, it's worth a read/watch. I guess Berners-Lee was doing more than just brainstorming that day.

Obviously, this is great for Calderon-Kellet but I'm not sure how things will fare for the show without her input.

While I was trying to skip the post-debate commentary on MSNBC the other day, I did catch a snippet of a former Obama campaign manager who said that he won't be paying attention to any polls until January, at the earliest. He used an example, illustrating how far down in the polls Obama initially was in his presidential campaign until the first set of primaries actually began in earnest.