Reply to The Diplomat

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "The Diplomat "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone watching?

Rufus is a gem!

I love Keri Russell, but I’m not loving this character. She speaks too fast, is too harsh, and the only emotions this character seems to have make her seem weak and weird (the whole anti-dress and anti-social thing are weird for a diplomat).

And while I loved her wardrobe and hair in both the Americans and Felicity, I don’t get her look in this series at all—especially since her husband is all dolled up.

I love the London setting and the plot. I hope it gets better. [/quote]

I just finished season one.  WOW OP.  Way to miss the point.  I mean, really.[/quote]

Nobody “missed the point.”

Some of us think the point/premise is stupid and unrealistic.

Some of us think Keri’s character in The Americans was stronger and more interesting. She seems like a weirdo in this series. [/quote]

You're missing the point because the whole point is that she IS a weirdo. That's literally, the whole point.  Fish out of water.  The whole premise of the show.  [/quote]

Nobody missed the point.

Some of us think the point/premise is just stupid. Her character is too over the top to be interesting of likable. I wanted to love this show and her character specifically because I’m a big fan of the actress, but I find her character to be weak, silly, and irritating. Others do as well.

I hope they focus more on her brain than her silly lack of hygiene and grooming next season. And I hope they tweak the plot related to her husband who is clearly the more interesting character who adds humor as well as depth to her own character. [/quote]

So not playing well with the misogynists. Got it! It’s fine for you not to like a show but pretty silly to demand it be a … completely different show than was obviously intended. Like saying “Well, Bridgerton was OK but it would have been better set during the reign of James II and focused less on romance.”  The show is about a policy wonk thrust into the spotlight previously occupied by her narcissistic husband. [/quote]

Uh, we know.

I guess as a policy wonk (albeit with a JD) I’m baffled by why the fish out of water premise needed to be underscored by a woman with unkempt hair, sweaty stinky pits, and the attitude of a petulant teen who refuses to acknowledge professional mores. It’s particularly odd given that she really isn’t a greenhorn since she’s been attached at the hip to a politically savvy ambassador by marriage for a decade plus.

Silly way to drill down on unnecessary details that distract from the plot. You can still use the premise without making her character off-putting. Just like you can make a character smart without making her wear glasses and downplay her appearance. I mean, Keri played the brilliant badass in The Americans. [/quote]

Because you don’t actually know any truly brilliant people. They often have eccentricities. You just seem offended to see a woman character represented as something other than “f-able.” [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics