MovieChat Forums > CarolTheDabbler > Replies
CarolTheDabbler's Replies
I assume that most professionals would at least do their best to go along with the *spirit* of the law -- i.e., they'd make a good-faith effort to keep from embarrassing anyone. If they thought it wouldn't go any further than their spouse, they'd probably talk about some of the interesting cases, though perhaps without mentioning names.
I've never been any kind of therapist, but once in my twenties I created what could have been a horribly embarrassing situation. I had told a friend about something really stupid that someone they didn't know had done. Later on, though, the three of us somehow happened to be together, and the friend innocently repeated the story to the very person it was about. I didn't know if that person recognized the incident, but I casually said, "Oh, right, someone I knew in college" -- which was a lie, but hopefully saved both of them from any major embarrassment.
I've tried to be a bit more discrete since then, which is easier now because most of my "stories" occurred when I lived somewhere else.
The title is "You're Having My Hartley." We just watched it a few days ago.
It starts with Bob having trouble waking up in the morning. At work, Carol tells the guys that she's expecting, then later on Emily tells Bob that she's expecting too. (Hack-stone is correct about the Peeper and his wife being in the episode, but the wife never says she's pregnant.) A lot of goofy things happen, and then we see Emily *still* trying to get Bob to wake up. When he does wake up, she says Carol called with great news, and he says' "She's pregnant," and she says yes. Then Bob asks if Emily is pregnant too, and she says no.
That was the final episode of the 5th season, and we've now watched the first five episodes of the 6th season. What I don't understand is why nothing has been said so far about Carol being pregnant (or having had a baby between seasons). Maybe "they" changed their minds, and were hoping we wouldn't remember.
<blockquote>No matter what Bob said, Elliot disagreed. That’s what made it funny. I don’t think there really is a “cure” for a personality disorder like his.</blockquote>
I'm not even sure it's a personality disorder. Maybe it's just his personality.
<blockquote>Mr. Carlin was obviously successful at work. I forget what he did, but he did have a job. He could deal with people on a professional level, just not on a personal one</blockquote>
He was in real estate, and as you say very successful. (At one point he was Bob's landlord.) I suspect the reason he could deal with people in his work is that he could deal with them in a superficial and manipulative manner. It was actually to his advantage to hide his true (generally negative) feelings for them.
<blockquote>He obviously had no friends to talk to, so instead he paid a psychologist to have someone to talk to and complain.</blockquote>
Good point, pj, I think you're right.
But although he seemed to want Bob to validate his feelings, whenever he did that, Carlin would contradict him. No wonder he doesn't have friends!
There was a series of underlying problems that hurt the Hobbit movies by contrast with LotR. I got most of this info from the DVD features years ago, so some of the following is a bit short of specifics.
Jackson & crew had originally wanted to do The Hobbit first, followed by LotR, but although they were able to secure filming rights for the latter, they hit a snag with the former, which they were not able to overcome quickly, so they finally went ahead and did LotR first.
They nevertheless had enough time to do a proper job on LotR. For example, the costume for one of the kings included hand-embroidered underwear! Though it never showed on screen, and a lesser production would have had him wear his own undies, they figured the royal undergarb would inspire the actor to exhibit more gravitas, and they may have been right.
After they finally started pre-production work on The Hobbit, not only did they change directors and need to redo some work due to the differing overall viewpoint, but also right about the time Jackson took over, he became seriously ill, which delayed things further. By the time they finally got all the pieces together for The Hobbit, they simply didn't have the time to do meticulous detail work (as they'd done for LotR), because their filming rights would have expired.
On the positive side, the overall 11 or 12 year delay is, of course, the reason that Martin Freeman was even thought of for the role of Bilbo. He had not only become better known, he had achieved the physical age, the maturity, and the experience to play the part so beautifully.
As for the third Hobbit movie in particular, it's my personal opinion that Jackson occasionally indulged himself to the detriment of the film. For example, how did those sand worms get from the planet Dune to Middle Earth? That bit of cutesy popped me right out of the story. Indulging oneself is of course allowed, but it's also important not to distract one's audience.
Yes, BUT when you're working with an ordinary keyboard, a hyphen (or more properly two hyphens in a row) can be used to indicate a dash, which CAN be used more or less in place of a comma. I learned that in high-school typing class -- back when we used typewriters instead of personal computers.
<blockquote>I don’t think I was ever with any guy who was a really good listener. Men seem to be in their own world, especially when sports are on TV!</blockquote>
All too true. But in my defense, I merely said that women value such men, not that there actually are any!
<blockquote>It seems like men have different standards for women.</blockquote>
That's OK -- I'm sure most men would say that women have different standards for men!
Just off the top of my head, women seem to value a man who is responsible, takes good care of himself, and is a good listener. Whereas (though I may be totally misjudging) men seem to value a woman who is "hot."
<blockquote>I suppose women still go for a man who is older and more established in his career. I was just talking about this to my sister the other day and she said, “ Young men are dumb!” She meant that men usually mature later than women.</blockquote>
Quite true. Of course that difference tends to diminish with age, which may explain why (for about 25 years, from college till I got married) I nearly always dated men who were about 30 -- old enough to relate to, but still physically young.
<blockquote>Hollywood has often paired up actors with younger women.</blockquote>
I think the main reason is that the men are seen as the actual "stars," whereas the women, even the big-name ones, are often seen as mostly decorative. Mercifully, I think that's starting to change (though, as with a lot of other things, I'd rather see the change being made because the respective stars work well together, rather than merely because "it's the right thing to do").
<blockquote>No one ever said to Ted that Georgette was young enough to be his daughter.</blockquote>
That was certainly true of the actors (with a nearly 25-year age difference). But of course most of the people we saw having personal conversations with Ted were men -- who were presumably thinking "Way to go!!!!"
Back some decades ago, a (female) friend of mine was acquainted with a well-known celebrity, who commented that his then-girlfriend probably had "a few good years left in her." My friend, shocked, pointed out that he was no spring chicken himself, to which he replied that with men, age doesn't matter. That actually does (still) seem to be true in some cases, at least when (as in that case) the man has status and/or money.
There's also a real-world reason -- namely that they were no longer able to film new exterior shots of her old place -- because the real owner of the house was sick and tired of people ringing her doorbell, wanting to come in and see Mary's apartment.
I assume that's simply a lingering trace of the days when a man was expected to work long enough to earn enough money to "establish" himself before marrying -- at which point he would look for a wife young enough to bear him a substantial family while she was still fertile. It gradually became more acceptable to marry for love instead of practicality, but it was still considered "normal" for the man to be at least as old as the woman (and I imagine that's still the case to a certain extent), but it's my impression that attitudes have continued to relax during the 50 years since "Angels in the Snow" aired.
Just taking Ms. Moore's life as an example of how the old stereotypes are relaxing, her first husband (Richard Meeker) was 8 years older than her and her second husband (Grant Tinker) was 11 years older than her -- then after their divorce she dated men a few years younger than herself -- and her third husband (Dr. Richard Levine, whom she married ten years after "Angels in the Snow" aired) was 18 years younger.
I think the whole point of Elliot Carlin was to be unlikable. (Not saying that the character wanted to be unlikable -- though I suspect he did -- more that the writers wanted him to be unlikable.) So he was a successful character.
To me, though, he was funny-unlikable, while to you he was apparently annoying-unlikable.
<blockquote> How can we possibly find it plausible a navigator can be so dumb???</blockquote>
There are different kinds of "dumb." I don't think Howard is particularly illogical or ignorant. Mostly he just has his own way of looking at things, which is apparently not inconsistent with aircraft navigation.
Someone compared Howard to Dick Martin's character on Laugh-In. That character was itself based on the version of herself that Gracie Allen played on Burns & Allen. Oddly enough, I think Howard (at least in the early seasons) had more in common with Gracie than with Dick.
I never noticed either. But maybe this explains why I don't have much trouble remembering the names, despite the fairly large number of regular and recurring characters.
Unless I'm misinterpreting pretty badly, the so-called "den" is the little alcove to the left of the kitchen. There doesn't seem to be a door on it, so it wouldn't be a particularly good spot for a second TV.
The Newhart statue is on the Navy Pier, almost at the far end, to your right as you're headed out there.
I've been there, but before the statue was (likewise the Mary statue in Mpls.)
I agree with several people about Larry, Darryl, & Darryl. It got to the point where the audience spent the first part of each episode basically waiting for them to show up -- sort of the way Good Times degenerated into waiting for J. J. to say "Dy-no-mite!"
The show had its good points. I love Tom Poston, and I think I liked Mary Frann's character a little better than Suzanne Pleshette's. But LD&D kinda ruined it for me. I watched the whole series on broadcast, but haven't bothered buying the DVD.
We do have TBNS on DVD, and it actually seems to have improved with age.
Apparently they blacked out all home games until 1973, when they adopted a "sold out" exception. But the game had to be sold out at least 72 hours beforehand, to allow time for the broadcast changes to be made. So either this game occurred just before that rule change or the last ticket wasn't sold in time.
I've been assuming that she wore those long skirts as a "hostess outfit" at home. When she comes to Bob's office, she tends to wear pants.
But she's also a part-time teacher, and now I'm trying to recall what she wore in the "career day" episode (when several professionals, including Bob, told her class about their jobs). OK, I checked Quora, and apparently most schools dropped their "no slacks" rule (for female students and teachers) in the early 70s when skirts got so short that slacks were actually the more conservative choice.
When I say "original Matlock" and "new Matlock," I'm referring to the titles of the two shows, rather than their lead characters.
<blockquote>As we have learned, the character's name isn't really Matlock.</blockquote>
My personal impression is that her maiden name was probably Matlock. Is that what you mean, that she now uses her husband's last name -- or do you mean that her name never was Matlock? If the latter, I'm interested to know your reasons.