I think that her even bringing up that it would save him money on the dorm implies he's paying for her schooling -- but I don't think that whether or not Castle is paying for anything should make any difference to the minimum amount of respect that the overwhelming majority of kids would show either of their parents. I really suspect this is all just the Hollywood in crowd being clueless.
The only thing I see in Tom's favor (of not being a criminal/bad guy/spy) is a guess I'm drawing from all of Le Carre's work -- that being it would be unnecessarily risky for Tom's "mission" to attach himself to Liz (to where he would never have allowed himself to even get to know her). I'm thinking of how mild George Smiley had "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" killed to maintain a mole's cover. Wouldn't Tom or one above him so eliminate Liz?
I think your speculation ties things together -- by which I mean that it might be right. The hangup I have figuring things out is that I cannot imagine Red is such an evil character that we viewers will hate him in the end, that anti-heroes are common enough, but that they are always finally likable rogues (as far as the audience is concerned). So, since I can't think that Red is the bad guy (in any storyline or the overall series), it leads me to distrusting Tom as just too snarky goody-two-shoes.
When I post now, with the changes, there is an "edit" button to click on. I think that change is wonderful -- but, sure, because I make typos and sometimes say the wrong character's name, and I do it too often. I am so happy for that! But, my first post had to be "approved" after I contacted the webmaster and I am still antsy about whether or not anything I post will appear at all. I comment on the "edit" because I don't know if un-signed-in users, as you until/if they ever fix your problems see the "edit."
I enjoy this show a lot and this was an interesting case/episode too. I especially liked Watson opening the trunk and her expression. One of the things I thought this episode stressed, in regard to partnerships, is that the partners are individuals and have their own thoughts and thus bring their own point of view. When this show first came out, the first couple of episodes were a bit of a struggle -- by which I only mean that I know of a couple of people who gave up on the show back then. I wonder if those that did have checked it out again and seen what it has become!
Next thing they need to have is a like button/thumbs up -- which I'd click on for your comment. Thumbs up!
I sent you an email explaining my problem and how it was resolved contacting the web master -- but you have to be able to sign in to get it. If this posts, click on the "About Us" at the bottom of the page and email the webmaster with your problem.
Martha's an older person, not an integral part of young people's lives (in the eyes of older people commonly), and advice you hear passed out around senior centers is that you have to bite your tongue if you want your young relatives to come around. I don't think it's good advice to give Castle as he's not in an old folks home (metaphorically) where it's out of the beaten path for the young to visit, which they wouldn't if they're going to be criticized.
2 things bother me about Alexis. First is that there are typical rude teenagers as was commented earlier, but they don't normally change into that at 19 -- and isn't it most often a case of the teen developing their own life and defending it and distancing from their pre-teen home life? So Alexis' change seems to come out of nowhere -- and the writers are treating the change, not as a single point of contention, but as a fundamental personality transplant. The 2nd thing is that the ice cream reference by Castle seemed to me to be designed to suggest he's clueless and therefore Alexis is totally in the right and he's, at the least, a really poor parent and then just add in the negatives. Do the writers mean for us to think Alexis is acting righteous?
© 2015 TV Fanatic
TV Fanatic Plus
© 2015 TV Fanatic