|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Nov 9, 2014 19:49:29 GMT
I'd like to see Emily learn kung fu. probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? And then Julia tells Emily about the time she went undercover as a woman as a man on a basketball team. (Victor Victorian) |
|
|
|
Post by CosmicCavalcade on Nov 9, 2014 19:56:45 GMT
probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? And then Julia tells Emily about the time she went undercover as a woman as a man on a basketball team. (Victor Victorian) And then they start up their own gentleman's club thing and Murdoch can't understand why she always smells like cigar smoke and thinks she's having an affair and kills Emily by accident.  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 9, 2014 20:06:41 GMT
I'd like to see Emily learn kung fu. probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? I'm totally down with Emily being the first to wear trousers. And the bra had been technically available since 1889 as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassiere#History |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 9, 2014 20:13:44 GMT
probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? And then Julia tells Emily about the time she went undercover as a woman as a man on a basketball team. (Victor Victorian) Emily totally wants to be Julia when she grows up.  |
|
|
|
Post by CosmicCavalcade on Nov 9, 2014 20:18:35 GMT
And then Julia tells Emily about the time she went undercover as a woman as a man on a basketball team. (Victor Victorian) Emily totally wants to be Julia when she grows up. So Emily = Julia's daughter and George = Murdoch's son so those two better not get together.  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 9, 2014 20:21:21 GMT
Emily totally wants to be Julia when she grows up. So Emily = Julia's daughter and George = Murdoch's son so those two better not get together. There it is. |
|
|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Nov 9, 2014 21:36:35 GMT
Okay, here's my first salvo. Should I take that last bit of profanity out? Feeling a bit grumpy at the minute because of the way "Grabtree" was given equal time in the Peter Mitchell interview.  I so know what I am doing tonight! *grabs hold of Photoshop and hisses menacingly "mine!"* |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 1:58:16 GMT
I'd like to see Emily learn kung fu. probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? Didn't they call it Rational Wear or something like that? Julia came close in Anything You Can Do when she was going for a balloon ride, but oh yes, I would love to see Emily sporting pants and no corset. Brackenreid would have a fit! |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 10, 2014 3:04:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 10, 2014 3:06:25 GMT
probably a bit hard to roundhouse kick someone in a corset and skirt....so guess who's gonna be like the Amy character from the books and wear *gasp* trousers first? Didn't they call it Rational Wear or something like that? Julia came close in Anything You Can Do when she was going for a balloon ride, but oh yes, I would love to see Emily sporting pants and no corset. Brackenreid would have a fit! Most of the "rational wear" bloomer fashion is Victorian. I'm having bad luck thinking of a good term for the early 20th century to see if the style changed. I don't think Emily would go for straight men's wear. I tried Edwardian, Belle Epoque, and Gilded Age already - no luck. |
|
|
|
Post by carco on Nov 16, 2014 16:20:06 GMT
One thing that annoyed me about the attack on CosmicCalvalcade's Tumblr yesterday was the assumption that she wanted to turn MM into the Gay Pride Parade. Joss Whedon already made the political statement with the Willow character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. More over, there was not a political identity of "coming out" circa 1900. I don't want to speak for CC, but what I've been suggesting here, is that Emily could simply be left *not needing a man*. Her primary relationships can be shown to be with women. Let fans conclude whether she is focusing on her career, whether she is simply not interested in any of the men around her, or whether she is pursues intimate relationships with women off screen. Leave the door open to the idea Emily might be a sapphist, and then let the fans fight it out. I certainly don't like the idea of her mooning over any man, including George. It doesn't seem to suit her personality to moon over anyone. She's still pretty much all business like Murdoch was in the first season. That hasn't really changed. She's a little softer I suppose, saving Webster and whatnot but overall she just doesn't seem like the relationship type of person. They should have just let her focus on her career like you say. Oh well, guess we'll have to suffer through those forced scenes with George for the rest of the series. I was just re-reading this thread and was reminded of a DogZone episode CBC recently aired: Flying SoloThis idea has been around for a long time and could suit the back story for Emily. She can have flings but doesn't "need" to be in a relationship. She clued into the otherwise "hidden" state of Julia's marriage with Darcy very quickly, even before others who were closer to Julia even caught on. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 16, 2014 17:06:51 GMT
I was just re-reading this thread and was reminded of a DogZone episode CBC recently aired: Flying SoloThis idea has been around for a long time and could suit the back story for Emily. She can have flings but doesn't "need" to be in a relationship. She clued into the otherwise "hidden" state of Julia's marriage with Darcy very quickly, even before others who were closer to Julia even caught on. There used to be a movement or a statement or something in our area called Quirky Alone. However it was undermined when people started throwing huge Quirky Alone parties/dances, and these basically became places where Quirky Alone people hooked up! One of the problems with that movement in the US (and it's possibly deliberate) is that the economics doesn't really support it: people end up living paycheck to paycheck, in a lot of debt, owing a lot of rent - their lives are unstable. You need 2 people for "back up". You probably need more than 2, actually, but I don't think the politically forces that wanted to make it impossible to live alone are ready to hear that the same logic would make a 5-some even more preferable! *polygamists and polyandrists draw swords* |
|
|
|
Post by carco on Nov 16, 2014 20:37:38 GMT
I was just re-reading this thread and was reminded of a DogZone episode CBC recently aired: Flying SoloThis idea has been around for a long time and could suit the back story for Emily. She can have flings but doesn't "need" to be in a relationship. She clued into the otherwise "hidden" state of Julia's marriage with Darcy very quickly, even before others who were closer to Julia even caught on. There used to be a movement or a statement or something in our area called Quirky Alone. However it was undermined when people started throwing huge Quirky Alone parties/dances, and these basically became places where Quirky Alone people hooked up! One of the problems with that movement in the US (and it's possibly deliberate) is that the economics doesn't really support it: people end up living paycheck to paycheck, in a lot of debt, owing a lot of rent - their lives are unstable. You need 2 people for "back up". You probably need more than 2, actually, but I don't think the politically forces that wanted to make it impossible to live alone are ready to hear that the same logic would make a 5-some even more preferable! *polygamists and polyandrists draw swords* There's definitely arguments for both all sides of that issue. But Emily would certainly be going against society if she doesn't necessarily want a relationship to end in marriage. She's obviously upset that she lost George and has been walking on eggshells around him ever since he called it off between them. And she did get swept away by Lesley Garland. That doesn't necessarily mean she's not gay but does seem to indicate that she's still sold on the notion of courting, etc. The odd thing with Emily is that we still know so little about her so it's only her actions that we have to go by....we don't know why she does what she does. If there ever was a mystery on this show...it's Emily. We were introduced to all the other characters in the first few episodes so we've learned their back stories over time and usually through their conversation with another character. But so far, Emily has had little or no such conversations with the other characters. She is still very much a blank slate. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 17, 2014 0:32:51 GMT
The odd thing with Emily is that we still know so little about her so it's only her actions that we have to go by....we don't know why she does what she does. If there ever was a mystery on this show...it's Emily. We were introduced to all the other characters in the first few episodes so we've learned their back stories over time and usually through their conversation with another character. But so far, Emily has had little or no such conversations with the other characters. She is still very much a blank slate. Murdoch Takes Manhattan is selling me on the notion of "thrill-seeker Emily", who is too easily bored for George.  |
|
|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Nov 17, 2014 0:43:52 GMT
The odd thing with Emily is that we still know so little about her so it's only her actions that we have to go by....we don't know why she does what she does. If there ever was a mystery on this show...it's Emily. We were introduced to all the other characters in the first few episodes so we've learned their back stories over time and usually through their conversation with another character. But so far, Emily has had little or no such conversations with the other characters. She is still very much a blank slate. Murdoch Takes Manhattan is selling me on the notion of "thrill-seeker Emily", who is too easily bored for George. I think that is one of the reasons she was attracted to Leslie Garland. He kinda had that 'bad boy' air about him, he was new, and exciting, and took risks. While George was always rather -for lack of better word-sedate, (when it came to his relationship with Emily that is) |
|
