826
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: KLS' Holiday Gift Bonus
« on: November 25, 2012, 09:03:32 PM »
why do you say that?
News:
by a streaming service? KLS thinks so!
Be sure to check out: KLS talks to Soaps.com
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 »
827
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: KLS' Holiday Gift Bonus
« on: November 25, 2012, 08:41:30 PM »
to say that she's wallpapered FB with this advertisement would be a serious understatement. ![[hall2_rolleyes]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/hall2_rolleyes.gif "Roll Eyes")
828
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: KLS' Holiday Gift Bonus
« on: November 25, 2012, 07:09:13 PM »(I'd prefer that the recent photo of herself not be on the front of the greeting card, but that's me.)
never underestimate the powers of presumptuousness and self promotion that is la scott!
829
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 24, 2012, 01:25:43 PM »
i'm just watching 1841 parallel time for the first time and last night watched an episode i found quite striking in terms of this discussion. i believe it's already been mentioned...
[spoiler]it has a scene where it is very strongly implied that bramwell and catherine have just made love. catherine is lying on a bed in what appears to be a post-coital state as bramwell is redressing.[/spoiler]
it's all implied. nothing is spelled out in specifics for the viewer right then and there but i found it remarkable in it's sexual frankness given the times and the perimeters the series had set for itself in this regard. since this was 1971 perhaps network attitudes about such things were becoming more progressive than they had been earlier in the series' run. also it's worth noting that these were "parallel time" characters. not the "real" present time characters viewers had come to know. i wonder if the writers felt that they could be more permissive, more open, with the possibility of these characters and their sexuality. they really had nothing to "lose" so to speak. it was a subtle but slightly shocking scene.
[spoiler]it has a scene where it is very strongly implied that bramwell and catherine have just made love. catherine is lying on a bed in what appears to be a post-coital state as bramwell is redressing.[/spoiler]
it's all implied. nothing is spelled out in specifics for the viewer right then and there but i found it remarkable in it's sexual frankness given the times and the perimeters the series had set for itself in this regard. since this was 1971 perhaps network attitudes about such things were becoming more progressive than they had been earlier in the series' run. also it's worth noting that these were "parallel time" characters. not the "real" present time characters viewers had come to know. i wonder if the writers felt that they could be more permissive, more open, with the possibility of these characters and their sexuality. they really had nothing to "lose" so to speak. it was a subtle but slightly shocking scene.
830
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Lincoln-Slightly OT-DS Cast Members
« on: November 24, 2012, 12:33:11 PM »
that's very interesting...
chloe moretz and jessica chastain, who both played carolyn stoddard, worked together on 'texas killing fields' last year.
small world.
chloe moretz and jessica chastain, who both played carolyn stoddard, worked together on 'texas killing fields' last year.
small world.
831
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 22, 2012, 05:08:12 PM »
yes the dameon edwards subplot...
otherwise known as how-to-kill-a-week-or-two-of-episodes-while-your-main-cast-is-filming-a-movie storytelling.
utterly, completely forgettable.
otherwise known as how-to-kill-a-week-or-two-of-episodes-while-your-main-cast-is-filming-a-movie storytelling.
utterly, completely forgettable.
832
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 22, 2012, 03:00:20 PM »
indeed parallel time ang was quite the floozy, wasn't she?
inspiring endless unrequited love.
don't forget *roger* although i think we can read a different subtext into that relationship.![[hall2_wink]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/hall2_wink.gif "Wink")
inspiring endless unrequited love.
don't forget *roger* although i think we can read a different subtext into that relationship.
833
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: ShadowGram Update #272 -- 2013 DS Cruise
« on: November 22, 2012, 02:47:05 PM »
love it! ![[hall2_grin]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/hall2_grin.gif "Grin")
834
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: ShadowGram Update #272 -- 2013 DS Cruise
« on: November 22, 2012, 01:52:45 PM »
i live in new york so i don't have to take airfare into consideration but still i think this is going to end up being more money, and a bigger commitment of time, than i can give to it.
trying to fill 8 days with DS related events is going to be a real stretch. especially if scott and parker are the only two guests. more so given that anything to do with the depp film seems to be verboten with the fest crowd.
even with their expenses covered i'm not sure how viable this enterprise will be for scott and parker either. they can only sell so many books in 8 days.![[hall2_huh]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/hall2_huh.gif "Huh")
trying to fill 8 days with DS related events is going to be a real stretch. especially if scott and parker are the only two guests. more so given that anything to do with the depp film seems to be verboten with the fest crowd.
even with their expenses covered i'm not sure how viable this enterprise will be for scott and parker either. they can only sell so many books in 8 days.
835
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: when was my ascension?
« on: November 22, 2012, 04:01:47 AM »
thanks annie...
you were one of the people posting here when i first signed up. i always remember that early crew.
you were one of the people posting here when i first signed up. i always remember that early crew.
836
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 21, 2012, 02:34:20 AM »
personally, no, i do not consider beth to be in the same "ingenue" category on the series as vicki and maggie who at various points in the series served as it's heroine and "moral center".
my opinion of it is that the writers went out of their way to write the two characters as "virtuous". especially vicki. but again it's just an opinion since none of it is "real".
do you want them to be sexually active for some reason? i'm not seeing your point on this. maybe they were. who knows.
my opinion of it is that the writers went out of their way to write the two characters as "virtuous". especially vicki. but again it's just an opinion since none of it is "real".
do you want them to be sexually active for some reason? i'm not seeing your point on this. maybe they were. who knows.
837
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 20, 2012, 04:16:38 AM »
i just really don't think that in 1968 the network would have permitted any of the young, female characters who were cast in the series' "heroine" roles(ie. not witches, vamps or tramps)to engage, or to even give the impression of engaging, in premarital sex.
not just yet. maybe by the early 1970's it would have been conceivable but not yet.
not just yet. maybe by the early 1970's it would have been conceivable but not yet.
838
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / when was my ascension?
« on: November 20, 2012, 01:34:40 AM »
i just noticed my board status had been upgraded to DSF god. ![[hall2_shocked]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/hall2_shocked.gif "Shocked")
when did that happen?
when did that happen?
839
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 19, 2012, 12:09:29 AM »
you're right quentincollins...
i think we were just trying to make two different points.
carry on.
i think we were just trying to make two different points.
carry on.
840
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 18, 2012, 10:16:48 PM »
hypothesising about whether or not joe and maggie fooled around in the car is just fan fiction. it was never actually written into the scripts so one can speculate about such things into perpetuity to no resolve.
since these are completely fictitious people none of them "really" slept together. but the series was carefully written and structured to let the viewer know who was who and what was what. ingenue characters like vicki and maggie were very carefully written so that their premarital "purity" remained intact. carolyn was certainly more morally ambiguous but even with that we never actually saw her in bed with anyone until she and jeb were married. not a minute before. all of that was calculation on the part of the writers and producers and, as gothick mentioned, ABC standards and practices department. none of it was by chance.
perhaps because the whole thing was so outrageous in every other aspect to keep it from tipping the scales into a caligulan orgy a sense of sexual propriety was always kept in place.
since these are completely fictitious people none of them "really" slept together. but the series was carefully written and structured to let the viewer know who was who and what was what. ingenue characters like vicki and maggie were very carefully written so that their premarital "purity" remained intact. carolyn was certainly more morally ambiguous but even with that we never actually saw her in bed with anyone until she and jeb were married. not a minute before. all of that was calculation on the part of the writers and producers and, as gothick mentioned, ABC standards and practices department. none of it was by chance.
perhaps because the whole thing was so outrageous in every other aspect to keep it from tipping the scales into a caligulan orgy a sense of sexual propriety was always kept in place.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 »