Yeah, wasn't bad, but why? Love the Weigart story, Frank. Not interested in kinder, gentler DW(Deadwood, not Domenic West) It is bad enough that TV SATC have more jump-cuts than Homicide now, lest we see something smutty. Swergin really surprised me this week. Want to write a drabble where Al says "I'm not evil. I haven't been evil for a very long time. Why does everyone keep asking me that?" But I probably won't really do it.

erika, heh. Hadn't thought of him that way. It seems to me, and this is still without having seen more than random episodes from the first two seasons (I know, I know) that Al has gone from doing what he needs to in order to protect his interests/business to doing what needs to be done to protect his town and the people in it. Fits in with the growing sense of community that others have commented on. Helping Alma was also a nice callback to Bullock being the first person to go to Al's aid after Hearst took his finger.

Oh, I wasn't being serious...just kind of struck me funny as I was watching. But I think you're right, mostly. Oh, reminds me I was gonna change my tag today. No disrespect to my imaginary spouse, another member of HBO's cabal of Daves.

Heh, you're new tagline could have been the episode title, given Alma's trip to the bank.

I love his apathetic "No, stop, don't."

WWatCF has so many really awesome lines--it's almost as quotable as Princess Bride. One of my favorite retorts in the movie is Violet's "Can it, you nit!" (CatCF did have that perfect little moment between Violet and Veruca when they're walking into the factory, look at each other, smile oh-so-sweetly and swear "Best friends forever!" with that glint of "I'll hate you forever and beyond!" in their eyes.)

Speaking of Veruca, the new version completely missed the screechy whininess of the 1970s vintage, and the writers missed a great character point by not making her father both the perpetrator of his daughter's greed and the captive of her demands, as he was in the original film.

by not making her father both the perpetrator of his daughter's greed and the captive of her demands, as he was in the original film.

And indeed, as I seem to remember from the book, as well. (I could be wrong on that, though)

One of my favorite retorts in the movie is Violet's "Can it, you nit!"

Hee! I can hear it in my head.

"Everything here is eatable. Edible. You can eat everything."

" Wait! Stop! Reverse that!"

It's "Wait, strike that. Reverse it!"

("So much time, so little to do!")

From this MSNBC article on guilty pleasure movies (quote is from page 3):

Mention “Titanic” to educated, cultured folk and there’s a good chance you’ll be met with condescending sniffs and, if you’re lucky, a defiant declaration that they’ve never seen it, accompanied by a proud refusal to even brook the notion. To which I say: Shut up. What they miss is that the drippy love story isn’t what the film is about at all. It’s merely the mechanism though which we see the film’s true subject — the boat. The reason Rose is in first class and Jack is from steerage isn’t to show that love conquers all, it’s to provide an all-access pass to every section of the ship as it steams towards its doom. Chaining Jack below decks after the iceberg may smack of melodrama, but it also keeps him and Rose at water level almost the entire time and prevents them from abandoning ship before the precise moment when it becomes completely submerged. The result is that we're right there with the ship every second of the way as it slowly, inch by inch, goes to its death. James Cameron's earlier films occasionally slipped into techno-porn. This was his love song to a giant slab of steel. -Marc Hirsh

He makes a very convincing argument. The things I like about Titanic all have Cameron techno-porn at their roots.