>Not to mention that any government-affiliated IT admin should have implemented those blocks

Not to mention that any government-affiliated IT admin should have implemented those blocks prior to initial

Thank you for using 'should' instead of 'would'.

Just watching the first season is fine.

The important information is revealed.

He played a lamp. No dialogue, and almost unrecognizable. He looked like a lamp.

>cinema, which for the most part is only remakes, reboots, sequels

Unlike original games like The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Hitman 3, Far Cry 6, Destiny 2, Overwatch 2, Grand Turismo 7, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II,
Resident Evil 2?

Or original games like DOOM (2016) or Tomb Raider (2013)?

It is definitely true that the mid-budget original movie has mostly disappeared, and some original movies only have a limited theatrical release, but have you seen:

I'm Thinking of Ending Things

The Favourite

The Witch

The Lighthouse

Power of the Dog

Lady Bird

BlacKkKlansman

Mandy

Midsommar

Portrait of a Lady on Fire

Nomadland

The Shape of Water

?

Some of my favorite games are sequels or reboots, and the last 5 years or there have been quite a few original movies, and that's with a worldwide pandemic that disrupted movie production.

Here's the thing, many movies have an imperfect protagonist by design.

George Nada is imperfect, but fundamentally decent.

He didn't ask for any of the stuff that happened to him. He is just a dude who wanted to work and make a little bit of money.

Once he finds out how fucked up things are, he wants to do the right thing even though he's in over his head.

That's what make the movie interesting.

The key is that a Mary Sue is liked by the establishment.

Technically James Bond is a Mary Sue, he's a part of the establishment, extremely competent in almost every aspect, respected by men, and desired by women.

If we take away the trust MI-6 has in him, he would not be a Mary Sue, but the misunderstood outsider who is always right. Dirty Harry perhaps?

The Bond villains are his green aliens.

As for being a writer stand-in, allegedly Bond was a type of wish-fulfillment for Fleming who was not accepted into MI-6.

A Mary Sue is a special type of writer stand in.

It's a character that exists in a world where the establishment fully embraces the alter ego of the writer because they acknowledge the character's competence.

>She was almost always in the right on every subplot, got one over on absolutely everyone, always had the upperhand and was portrayed as far too intelligent for anyone else to compete with

That is not what a Mary Sue means.

A key element of a Mary Sue character is that she excels at everything and that she is liked by (almost) everyone.

Wednesday is an outsider and there are very clear limits to the control she has over her surroundings.

The original Mary Sue was a parody for a reason.

The first season is highly regarded.

At the time, the second season wasn't as well received, but fans of the show still enjoyed watching the show, mostly because there was nothing like it on television.

As to why the show is legendary, Twin Peaks is a deconstruction of traditional television shows and a comment on America.

The stuff you think is irrelevant is in fact relevant.

Having said that, the second season is flawed and simply not as good as the first season.

You are underestimating the value of the Fox content.

Streaming has become an important source of revenue.

This is a list the ten most streamed shows in the US about a month ago:

The Watcher; The School for Good and Evil; House Of The Dragon; The Sinner; The Blacklist; NCIS; Gilmore Girls; Love Is Blind; Unsolved Mysteries

(Nine of these shows are on Netflix, one is on HBO)

That's right, Gilmore Girls outperformed anything that's on Disney+ or on Amazon.

And Gilmore Girls wasn't a big hit when it originally aired.

Disney needed content and Fox has a massive library.

Are you suggesting that I think Amazon is a great thing?

I didn't mention a last argument. My main problem with crypto is that so many people who like crypto are sad cunts who get upset and start to cry when somebody disagrees with them.

Your sphere of knowledge isn't reality.

Bankruptcies affect creditors. People who financially rely on those creditors are also going to be affected.

The use of energy to create a virtual currency also affects others. Energy is not a infinite resource. Generating energy pollutes the environment.

Mining farms affect the neighborhoods they are in.

They can create noise and the power requirements might mean that power companies need to break up the street to install extra cables.

Mining farms also put a strain on the availability of microchips. Each boom in mining has created shortages in the microchip market.

Also, you either replied to the wrong post or you simply don't know how to read. I never mentioned proof of work mining.

People care because it affects everyone, not just people who love crypto.

Things were fine when people were mining with their personal risk. But now crypto creates financial instability and it uses too much energy.

Carolyn Jones is my Morticia.

The overall numbers of House of the Dragon are better, and in my opinion it's the better show.

But for me the main take away is that it's very rare for shows to completely outperform the competition.

These are just US numbers, but the interesting thing is that if you calculate minutes back into episodes watched and you look at more than just one week, House of the Dragon, Rings of Power, and She-Hulk* sort of have the same numbers.

*All original shows based on an existing popular franchise.

There seems to be an upper limit to how many people watch a show that's way below the possible number of viewers.

You can't buy a cultural event.

Having said that, I think HBO is extremely pleased. People were skeptical, but House of the Dragon revitalized the GoT franchise and is one of their biggest hits.

Anyway, Netflix habit of dropping a whole season at once sort of makes sense. The downside is that the hype fizzles after 14 days, but at any given time, Netflix tends to dominate.

That's free marketing.

Just to be clear: problematic means that something needs to be discussed.

Friends was made during a time when sensibilities were different.

Some subject matters would have been addressed in a different way if the show was made today.

Acknowledging that, doesn't mean that the show is terrible.

Also, many sitcoms suffer from the same problems: over time, characters become caricatures and act in ways that in real life would make them extremely unpleasant.

The reason I like Seinfeld is that the show always acknowledged that the characters are not very good people, whereas Friends is less self-aware.

I think the movie is very funny.

And also very sad.

Great comedy is often sad.

This is what Solondz had to say:
“It’s often hard for me to separate what I find so sad from what I find so funny. There’s a kind of poignancy for me…things that I am very moved by I find funny.”

The genius of the movie is that the characters often act in a ridiculous way and that ridiculous things happen to them, but they don't see it that way. That's the comedy.

For example: Joy breaks up with Andrew.

At first there is a misdirect. It seems like Andrew will react with quiet resignation.

But then he gets extremely angry. Which is sad, but also funny.

It's funny because Andrew doesn't understand that the gift he bought for Joy isn't romantic or considerate so taking back the gift is a ridiculous gesture.

It's even more funny because Joy pretends the gift is great, because she thinks Andrew is being considerate and understanding.

Then Andrew goes off and starts ranting.

The irony is that the sympathy we felt for him wasn't earned. Joy was right to break up with him, but she broke up with him for the wrong reasons.

The whole scene is set up like a classic joke.

There is a setup, a misdirect, our expectation is subverted, and there is a punchline.

The scene would be far less funny if the gift had been an expensive bracelet instead of an ashtray.

Or if Andrew had been good looking. Or if Joy had been less oblivious.

The scene were the pedophile is trying to rape a child is extremely disturbing, but also funny.

It's funny (and extremely uncomfortable) because we are forced to see things from the perspective of a child molester and there is a gap between how mundane his initial actions are, and the terrible reality of what he's trying to do.

Plus there is the irony that this man is a therapist.

The scene with the son isn't funny, and there is a specific reason for that: it's a scene in which the therapist has to deal with how depraved he is. he has to see himself for what he is, a monster.

My experience was different.

But there are a few shows I will give a chance. I re-watched some Hill Street Blues and that was fun.

The short answer is that many people didn't get the movie when it was first released.

The movie is of course very different from the book.

In the movie it's clear from the start that both Jack and Wendy are in a bad place.

I think people are more sensitive to picking that up today, then in the late 70s / early 80s.

The book is about alcoholism, the movie is about mental illness and controlling behavior/gaslighting.

Back then, movies/shows about mental illness were far more on the nose, so people just didn't understand the movie.

And of course the book leans far more into the supernatural aspect.

Kubrick understood the essence of the story. I think King was too close to the subject matter, to fully understand what he had written.

King identified with Jack and wrote Wendy as a perfect wife.

Kubrick understood that Wendy should be the main character.

Have you re-watched those shows recently?

I tried to re-watch a few shows from that era and it was rough...

If somebody kills somebody I love, I want the killer dead.

But my personal desire for revenge should not be how society functions.

It seems that many people cannot make that distinction.

And we can see the problem when people are being executed for drug related offences.

Or for having extramarital sex...

Although I was disappointed with the show, I don't have a problem with the cast.

The actors have work experience and they have gone through a casting process.

It makes no sense to cast well-know actors just because hey are well-known. Well-known is not the same thing as talented.

And it's not like the actors are completely unknown. Morfydd Clark for example was praised for her work in the theater and in film before she landed a part in Rings of Power.

Daniel Weyman is also a respected theater actor and was praised for the parts he played in several television series.

This is not true for all recent movies, but many recent movies have very limited cinematography.

As I understand it, this is often because of time constraint.

And although the camera often moves, there is less movement in a shot.

And most shots are short.

I actually think that these days television shows are more interesting than movies.

Television has moved into the opposite direction (at least some shows).

This was my daily reminder that you don't understand how ratings work.