If I hadn't read your comments on the last post you made, I'd have totally thought you were being serious. *facepalm* My sarcasm-o-meter is a little broken sometimes.
LOL. Irony and satire are dangerous. I like to ask myself before I post something like that, what is the worst case scenario? Will people now think I eat babies? I figured I laid it on thick enough, but even if I didn't, my post would still disgust feminists, and not cause fans of the patriarchy to behave any worse than they usually do.
I'm not sure the show is trying to portray Peter as a good husband- the watchers are certainly supposed to find his bumbling attempts at navigating his marriage endearing, but it's made pretty clear on the show that he's not very good at being in a relationship. The fact that we're supposed to think it's cute that he's been married for ten years and doesn't understand that maybe his wife wants to see him and spend time with him is still kind of problematic, of course- the whole thing with the watch just made me cringe.
I think you're absolutely right. The object is not to show Peter in a particularly flattering light, it's simply to explore his character, and make us care for him. And it's working. I don't understand why both Peter and Elizabeth act like they've been dating for a short time, and don't really know each other that well yet. She bends over backwards to please him, with pretending standing her up for dinner was no big deal, bringing him surprise gifts and picnic lunches, and taking her gift back in a very gracious way. He seems unreasonably worried about losing face to her.
I think the watch thing was also supposed to tie in with the wealth and luxury thing. Peter is fascinated by Neal's world, but also disapproves of it. He was tempted by the luxury items in the police store room, but when it came down to it, he prefers his plain, dependable watch. Having Elizabeth give him the watch was probably just convenient for the writers. And it adds a bit of dramatic tension between him and Neal, if Peter thinks that his wife thinks that he isn't fancy enough for her.
I'd be so much happier with Elizabeth if we could see her doing something other than preparing picnic lunches and helping Peter with his cases (which I really hope the FBI reimbursed her for, because planning that kind of a party takes time and energy and she's a fsking professional and the idea of her working for free just to support her husband kind of makes me want to vomit).
Yes, this. I felt very strongly that the focus was on Elizabeth and Neal vs. Peter → Peter feels inadequate as a man. I don't think the show portrayed Elizabeth as evil for helping him, but I think it did portray a wife in her husband's workplace as a dangerous situation. And then Elizabeth had to symbolically take back her generous help, because the fancy watch reprenting her fancy event planning life was not as dependable as his plain watch, and though given with love and the best of intentions, she was out of line. Or whatever the take home lesson was supposed to be.
At least there was less stalking in this episode, so maybe the show will keep getting incrementally less painful.
LOL.
The lesbian character (Diana, played by Marsha Thomason) from the first episode didn't appear in the second episode, and while Lauren Cruz (played by Natalie Morales) may or may not be a lesbian, the character bio on the USA website seems to indicate that she's going to be some sort of romantic interest for Neal. So I'm not really sure who you're talking about, there (though it's entirely possible my reading comprehension has taken a vacation for the day).
No, you are absolutely right. I was talking about Lauren as if she were Diana. I felt that they were both there as beautiful women for Neal to charm, so he could show off his social engineering skills and only partially succeed, and to ask questions to help along the exposition by the wise men folk. And be really sexy by flirting sexily with a woman or by wearing a cocktail dress and a sports bra. I find both actresses appealing and talented, and must admit I particularly liked Natalie Morales, but I think the second episode should have focused more on the core recurring characters. Why couldn't it just as well have been Diana as Lauren? I think Neal would have tried to establish his position in the group with his mad flirting skillz anyway. He sure does with Peter. (Though it could have something to do with the difference between recurring and regular, and the terms of the contract with Marsha Thomason.)
I'd like to see more backstory on Mozzie and Jones, too- and on June and her family, because I can hope that her granddaughter will eventually be developed into something more than "hot art student eye candy."
Cindy, right? Yes, me too. I think the show will be more interesting and last longer if they give it more of an ensemble feel.
no subject
LOL. Irony and satire are dangerous. I like to ask myself before I post something like that, what is the worst case scenario? Will people now think I eat babies? I figured I laid it on thick enough, but even if I didn't, my post would still disgust feminists, and not cause fans of the patriarchy to behave any worse than they usually do.
I'm not sure the show is trying to portray Peter as a good husband- the watchers are certainly supposed to find his bumbling attempts at navigating his marriage endearing, but it's made pretty clear on the show that he's not very good at being in a relationship. The fact that we're supposed to think it's cute that he's been married for ten years and doesn't understand that maybe his wife wants to see him and spend time with him is still kind of problematic, of course- the whole thing with the watch just made me cringe.
I think you're absolutely right. The object is not to show Peter in a particularly flattering light, it's simply to explore his character, and make us care for him. And it's working. I don't understand why both Peter and Elizabeth act like they've been dating for a short time, and don't really know each other that well yet. She bends over backwards to please him, with pretending standing her up for dinner was no big deal, bringing him surprise gifts and picnic lunches, and taking her gift back in a very gracious way. He seems unreasonably worried about losing face to her.
I think the watch thing was also supposed to tie in with the wealth and luxury thing. Peter is fascinated by Neal's world, but also disapproves of it. He was tempted by the luxury items in the police store room, but when it came down to it, he prefers his plain, dependable watch. Having Elizabeth give him the watch was probably just convenient for the writers. And it adds a bit of dramatic tension between him and Neal, if Peter thinks that his wife thinks that he isn't fancy enough for her.
I'd be so much happier with Elizabeth if we could see her doing something other than preparing picnic lunches and helping Peter with his cases (which I really hope the FBI reimbursed her for, because planning that kind of a party takes time and energy and she's a fsking professional and the idea of her working for free just to support her husband kind of makes me want to vomit).
Yes, this. I felt very strongly that the focus was on Elizabeth and Neal vs. Peter → Peter feels inadequate as a man. I don't think the show portrayed Elizabeth as evil for helping him, but I think it did portray a wife in her husband's workplace as a dangerous situation. And then Elizabeth had to symbolically take back her generous help, because the fancy watch reprenting her fancy event planning life was not as dependable as his plain watch, and though given with love and the best of intentions, she was out of line. Or whatever the take home lesson was supposed to be.
At least there was less stalking in this episode, so maybe the show will keep getting incrementally less painful.
LOL.
The lesbian character (Diana, played by Marsha Thomason) from the first episode didn't appear in the second episode, and while Lauren Cruz (played by Natalie Morales) may or may not be a lesbian, the character bio on the USA website seems to indicate that she's going to be some sort of romantic interest for Neal. So I'm not really sure who you're talking about, there (though it's entirely possible my reading comprehension has taken a vacation for the day).
No, you are absolutely right. I was talking about Lauren as if she were Diana. I felt that they were both there as beautiful women for Neal to charm, so he could show off his social engineering skills and only partially succeed, and to ask questions to help along the exposition by the wise men folk. And be really sexy by flirting sexily with a woman or by wearing a cocktail dress and a sports bra. I find both actresses appealing and talented, and must admit I particularly liked Natalie Morales, but I think the second episode should have focused more on the core recurring characters. Why couldn't it just as well have been Diana as Lauren? I think Neal would have tried to establish his position in the group with his mad flirting skillz anyway. He sure does with Peter.
(Though it could have something to do with the difference between recurring and regular, and the terms of the contract with Marsha Thomason.)
I'd like to see more backstory on Mozzie and Jones, too- and on June and her family, because I can hope that her granddaughter will eventually be developed into something more than "hot art student eye candy."
Cindy, right? Yes, me too. I think the show will be more interesting and last longer if they give it more of an ensemble feel.
Thank you for your thinky comments. That was fun!