Anonymous wrote:I agree that the whole aesthetic is very neutral and all of the same- but I think that is very smart. Most people are not willing to pay for good design. They have created a machine based on one design aesthetic. She probably has a library of flooring materials, tile, stone and fixtures to choose from. She has her own furniture she can use in the designs as well as accessories. It makes thinking about the design super simple and the clients know what they are getting when they hire her. It's much harder IMO to have to go to an individual's home and work with their aesthetic, and have thousands of choices for them in terms of fabric, paint colors, etc. So time consuming and overwhelming for the client, and it can be frustrating for the designer to pitch their look. Keeping things simple probably allows her to make more money with clients that already know what look they are going to get with her designs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:based on this thread, i'm watching Room to Improve on Prime. i'm on the first free epi, season 7, epi 1, and obviously the closed captions have been done by an american who has never heard an irish accent in their life.

"It's called the Saxo," was actually "it's a cul-de-sac."

"She once dropped me in Boba Rothman, might I add. Brad Pill in Boba Rothman," was actually "she wants to wrap me in bubble wrap, might I add, wrap me up in bubble wrap."

"if she gets a lam-cis-the-min," was actually "if she gets an alarm system in."

i'm 3 minutes in. i'm going to miss the renovations because i'm going to spend my time reading the 'merican captions.

Wait until the episodes where they are in Tipperary. The accents are so thick that the captions say [mumbles] a few times. I have Irish family and even I have a hard time with certain Irish accents, so I don’t fault them!

Me again. Apparently, the episode I’m referencing is famous.

https://www.dailyedge.ie/room-to-improve-17-3923909-Mar2018/

https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/room-improve-620418

https://www.irishmirror.ie/whats-on/film-news/room-to-improve-2018-dermot-12252290

And the homeowner had to make a statement because she got destroyed on social media (10,000 tweets about that episode!):
https://extra.ie/2018/03/29/entertainment/movies-tv/room-to-improve-katie-hits-back

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, season 2 apparently outed them as anti-maskers, so I like them a little less. But I do like their Target line.

I watched a few episodes and was so confused by this. Their poor contractors are all wearing masks but they aren’t and neither are any of the supervisors.

Maybe the non mask wearers were regularly tested during shooting So as not to shoot a tv show with people in masks?

Or they could just be narcissistic a holes. But wait, we knew that before seasons 1 & 2.

I think that’s a little harsh. TV shows are an industry like any other and they’re actors like any others. The whole industry has had to figure out how to try to film safely, without masks, to stay afloat.

Why couldn’t they film with masks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean spirited thread but what does anyone expect.

Its a look and sure it’s consistent. I like that she does a streamlined contemporary look without going too far. It still looks livable and comfortable. I would be curious what some of you actually like? Give some examples.

I like what Erin/Ben Napier, Nicole Curtis, Genevieve Gorder, sometimes Good Bones, do. Restoration, not afraid of pattern/color. More sustainable, more considered design choices. Less about Instagram shots.

Anonymous wrote:Did they really paint a vintage piano in season 2, episode 1? That makes me sad. I would have loved to see that piano stained a nice wood color, not another white-ish gray.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her clothes in this season are a little weird.

I noticed her pants fit oddly. I think it's because of the mormon undergarments.

Anonymous wrote:Her clothes in this season are a little weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder when we're going to get around to it not being ok to casually accuse men of being gay if they don't strictly conform to the US frat guy model of what it means to be a guy.

Just some underlying misogyny to unpack there.

You are using the word misogyny incorrectly. Say homophobic.

No. You don’t get it.

When you make feminine qualities in a man something that are somehow embarrassing, to be avoided, a sign you are gay if you have a wife and kids.

When the worst thing a boy or man can do is have feminine qualities (ie toxic masculinity). Yet girls are encouraged all day long to have stereotypically male qualities and in fact it’s celebrated.

At the root of all that is a dislike of women and traditionally feminine qualities.

Eh, I think drag culture is arguably minstrel misogyny - it’s mocking and degrading women. Here, her husband isn’t effeminate - he’s just very California and doesn’t fit it in outdoorsy Utah and has no practical construction know-how. So, it is incorrect to use dislike of McGhee or the lack of sexual chemistry with his spouse as an example of misogyny. It isn’t. It might be homophobic- b/c there is an implication that being gay is less than.

So he’s being accused of being gay because he isn’t in construction and not outdoorsy enough (???). But this is no commentary on his masculinity. Mmkay.

It is not negative commentary on women or womenhood - thus, not misogyny...yikes.

Misogyny is contempt of women.

Men in this country are told over and over from the time they are young boys that stereotypical feminine qualities, interests, tendencies (like being too emotional) are not "cool" (if they're lucky) or they're told it's flat out not allowed for them. Why is this the worst thing a guy could be? Contempt of women. We as women internalize it too.

Assuming any man who doesn't conform to male standards is gay, which happens regularly, is not some objective fact check devoid of meaning. Please. It's a school yard way of taking him down a notch. It's a socially acceptable way to call out a guy who doesn't seem masculine enough for you. Internalized misogyny.

Nope. That’s homophobia. Very different.

Anonymous wrote:Did they really paint a vintage piano in season 2, episode 1? That makes me sad. I would have loved to see that piano stained a nice wood color, not another white-ish gray.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder when we're going to get around to it not being ok to casually accuse men of being gay if they don't strictly conform to the US frat guy model of what it means to be a guy.

Just some underlying misogyny to unpack there.

You are using the word misogyny incorrectly. Say homophobic.

No. You don’t get it.

When you make feminine qualities in a man something that are somehow embarrassing, to be avoided, a sign you are gay if you have a wife and kids.

When the worst thing a boy or man can do is have feminine qualities (ie toxic masculinity). Yet girls are encouraged all day long to have stereotypically male qualities and in fact it’s celebrated.

At the root of all that is a dislike of women and traditionally feminine qualities.

Eh, I think drag culture is arguably minstrel misogyny - it’s mocking and degrading women. Here, her husband isn’t effeminate - he’s just very California and doesn’t fit it in outdoorsy Utah and has no practical construction know-how. So, it is incorrect to use dislike of McGhee or the lack of sexual chemistry with his spouse as an example of misogyny. It isn’t. It might be homophobic- b/c there is an implication that being gay is less than.

So he’s being accused of being gay because he isn’t in construction and not outdoorsy enough (???). But this is no commentary on his masculinity. Mmkay.

It is not negative commentary on women or womenhood - thus, not misogyny...yikes.

Misogyny is contempt of women.

Men in this country are told over and over from the time they are young boys that stereotypical feminine qualities, interests, tendencies (like being too emotional) are not "cool" (if they're lucky) or they're told it's flat out not allowed for them. Why is this the worst thing a guy could be? Contempt of women. We as women internalize it too.

Assuming any man who doesn't conform to male standards is gay, which happens regularly, is not some objective fact check devoid of meaning. Please. It's a school yard way of taking him down a notch. It's a socially acceptable way to call out a guy who doesn't seem masculine enough for you. Internalized misogyny.