ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Movies and TV Mad Men (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=231096)

Reaper16 07-29-2010 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 6904782)
But I think Elizabeth Moss is a terrible actress.

Still haven't seen an episode of Mad Men, though.

This post contains its own rebuttal.

Red Brooklyn 07-29-2010 09:39 AM

Have you seen her in anything else? She's aweful. Aweful. In everything else I've seen her in. Aweful.

Demonpenz 07-29-2010 12:49 PM

peggy is the bomb the real acting is in the body language and tone of voice in this show. that is where the action is!

Baby Lee 07-29-2010 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 6904879)
Have you seen her in anything else? She's aweful. Aweful. In everything else I've seen her in. Aweful.

Is the spell check feature mine alone on this BB?

Red Brooklyn 07-29-2010 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 6905318)
Is the spell check feature mine alone on this BB?

Yes. It won't work for me. Never has. So... learn to live with my mistakes, man. :)

noa 07-29-2010 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 6903555)
Sarah Newlin looked totally different.

No bathtub hj's for Don Draper (yet)

Baby Lee 07-29-2010 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 6905325)
Yes. It won't work for me. Never has. So... learn to live with my mistakes, man. :)

I normally wouldn't have busted on you over it, but you kept repeating it ovar, and ovar, and OVAR!!

Red Brooklyn 07-29-2010 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 6905341)
I normally wouldn't have busted on you over it, but you kept repeating it ovar, and ovar, and OVAR!!

Yeah, I'm pretty much the worst speller you'll ever encounter. And if I get going without double checking myself, it gets super ugly.

Feel free to keep busting me on it. Maybe one of these days it'll sink in.

:banghead:

But seriously, the spell check thing here doesn't work for me. I always get an error message.

DaneMcCloud 07-29-2010 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 6905529)
Yeah, I'm pretty much the worst speller you'll ever encounter. And if I get going without double checking myself, it gets super ugly.

Feel free to keep busting me on it. Maybe one of these days it'll sink in.

:banghead:

But seriously, the spell check thing here doesn't work for me. I always get an error message.

What browser are you using?

If you see a word underlined in red after typing, right click on the word, then select the correct spelling.

It's not "forum dependent", it's "browser dependent".

keg in kc 07-29-2010 10:14 PM

No, he was spelling it correctly. He meant her performance filled him with awe. And he thinks movies with babies are awwful.

DaneMcCloud 07-29-2010 10:23 PM

Oh and FWIW, I was fairly disappointed with the season opener.

It was such a "uh, okay, no brainer" that I felt it wasn't even necessary.

I fully expected the season opener to be at least a couple episodes ahead of where they started.

Boring.

Miles 07-29-2010 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6906581)
Oh and FWIW, I was fairly disappointed with the season opener.

It was such a "uh, okay, no brainer" that I felt it wasn't even necessary.

I fully expected the season opener to be at least a couple episodes ahead of where they started.

Boring.

I which way? I thought where their firm was at the point of the opener seemed about right. There had to be some gray area of startup vs. success/failure.

DaneMcCloud 07-29-2010 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles (Post 6906610)
I which way? I thought where their firm was at the point of the opener seemed about right. There had to be some gray area of startup vs. success/failure.

That's what I mean.

There's no way it would have been a failure, because it's all about Don Draper. So that little exercise was unwarranted. They could have referenced the Ad Age article by following it up with the WSJ. That was way too extrapolated, IMO.

There's a weird vibe going on with the new husband and I'm glad they pushed that a little further. But the daughter rebelling was typical (as was the boy ignoring it all).

We've seen Don cover Peggy's ass all too many times, IMO.

They need to move forward, not try to inundate new viewers to the past.

Entourage pulls this shit each year and it's usually at least two episodes in (if not more) before it's watchable.

Miles 07-29-2010 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6906617)
That's what I mean.

There's no way it would have been a failure, because it's all about Don Draper. So that little exercise was unwarranted. They could have referenced the Ad Age article by following it up with the WSJ. That was way too extrapolated, IMO.

There's a weird vibe going on with the new husband and I'm glad they pushed that a little further. But the daughter rebelling was typical (as was the boy ignoring it all).

We've seen Don cover Peggy's ass all too many times, IMO.

They need to move forward, not try to inundate new viewers to the past.

Entourage pulls this shit each year and it's usually at least two episodes in (if not more) before it's watchable.

Just my take, but without this episode the change in professional persona's that Draper made during that episode would have been pretty odd without it.

He has always been the shadowy brilliant guy that comes out of the shadows to drop his pitch. Now he has become the driving force of the firm and hence the change to the WSJ interview as well as his telling the bikini conservative guys to get the **** out.

DaneMcCloud 07-29-2010 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles (Post 6906642)
Just my take, but without this episode the change in professional persona's that Draper made during that episode would have been pretty odd without it.

He has always been the shadowy brilliant guy that comes out of the shadows to drop his pitch. Now he has become the driving force of the firm and hence the change to the WSJ interview as well as his telling the bikini conservative guys to get the **** out.

I guess that's where we differ: He's ALWAYS been that guy.

Once he realized that his personal life was invading his professional space, he snapped back "into place" and became the calm, cool, electrifying Don Draper we all know.

I think it would have been FAR more interesting if the Korean Vet that interviewed him actually knew a "Don Draper", instead of what occurred.

For the first time ever in this series, I feel that Weiner dropped the ball. He may redeem himself down the line with an episode that ties into this one in a big way, but it still felt like an "introductory" episode to me.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.