theyusedthelamppost t1_jebtp0z wrote

some lazy writing but still enough good stuff to justify watching.

Though I'm worried that we are delving into late-GoT territory. These mysteries they are teasing have hooked my interest. But if the payoff doesn't live up to the expectations (Thrawn) then it's all gonna come down like a House of Cards on them.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jdx51h4 wrote

I'd say that the sitcom format is too constricting to keep up with modern viewers' tastes and expectations.

In the 90s, it was easy for a network to pump out a sitcom that followed the procedural format because that it was viewers expected and were comfortable with. But now writers have a different bar to meet. There basically needs to be a serialized element to the plot, which makes it harder to fit things in a comfortable 24minute run time.

Only Murders in the Building is a great modern show that probably qualifies as a sitcom. But its main hook is its long mystery arc. Many of the jokes rely on callbacks to what happened 4 episodes earlier.

Poker Face is largely procedural, but it relies on longer run times and isn't focused on comedy, so it doesn't really qualify as a sitcom.

Sitcoms struggle because they just aren't easy to pull off in the modern streaming environment where audiences expect to consume content by binging whole seasons as a time.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jdx2acf wrote

it's unfortunate spoiler material but it doesn't ruin it.

when a book is adapted into a series, it generally preserves most of the major plot points. Is it "ruined" by being an adaptation? No, because most of the audience hasn't read the source material. That's even more true in the case of cast lists, because even fewer fans would bother to dig out that info.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jdcf165 wrote

I can totally understand why your interest in BCS would fizzle out during S2. It's a relative low point for the series. But I will say that things pick up after that S3/4/5 are each better than the least and it scratches the ceiling of the best TV ever.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jctq6sb wrote

that's a valid theory that can't be disproven, but it doesn't explain what's going on with the connection between NK and Bran inside his visions/flashbacks/greensight/time traveling/whatever you wanna call it

and then there's the deal that NK had with Craster implies something more going on than just being thoughtless beasts

I happen to prefer other theories and hope that the books make more of the scene when Bran looked back and saw the creation of the first White Walker


theyusedthelamppost t1_jcnfnoy wrote

I guess it's 'pick games that translate well to a movie instead of picking games that have a really strong brand'.

Zelda has been a strong brand for decades but it doesn't lend itself to the screen. There are little to no personalities among the characters. The game consists of exploration, puzzle solving and collecting.

I think Blizzard made this mistake when they chose to adapt Warcraft instead of Diablo. Diablo translates to a linear story so much better.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jaect1p wrote

Make it a personal drama about a futuristic "plumber" whose job it is to install and maintain the 3seashells bathroom systems.

He's lured into a web of betrayal and deception as he uncovers the unethical origins of the company who harvested these shells and developed the technology. His loved ones aren't the people he'd always thought. They'd been planted here to make sure he didn't learn too much. Kinda like Truman Show how the people in his life were they to keep him on track.

As he goes through this arc, the movie continues to tell the audience absolutely nothing about the shells or the technology itself. It's just kept off-screen or obscured by some loud noises that pop up to cover the dialogue whenever the characters are talking about it.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jaeby72 wrote

>As for non-binary actors, why not just nominate them in the category that’s best fitting for the character they’re portraying?

that just delays the problems for the next generations to deal with when more roles feature characters who don't clearly fit in the box of 1 gender.

>I don’t see why we should change nearly a hundred years of an awards category just for rare fringe circumstances.

Because the cases will become less rare over time. Might be better to reform the system beforehand until waiting for the problem to spill over. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


theyusedthelamppost t1_jaeaf39 wrote

how nitpicky are you about the definition of superhero? Would Samus Aran count as a super hero if she was featured in a movie where her super suit could do cool things like drop bombs, fire lazers and shrink to a ball? Does Mario count as a super hero if he is going to do cool things like jump high and shoot fireballs?

It's impossible for to imagine a market devoid of character who use some type of cool power to do action. Within that framework, I guess it just depends what you mean by superhero. If all supernatural/sci-fi powers were banned, then Hollywood would just move one tier down to have more characters like James Bond, Ethan Hunt or John Wick who just perform unrealistic stunts that are presented as being within the laws of physics.