• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics in ~tv with the tag "discussion". Back to normal view / Search all groups
    1. What is prestige television?

      I read an article today that referred to Foundation as "prestige television," and my first reaction was, "idk man, I didn't think it was all that great." This got me thinking, though, and I'm...

      I read an article today that referred to Foundation as "prestige television," and my first reaction was, "idk man, I didn't think it was all that great." This got me thinking, though, and I'm going down two separate paths here.

      First, prestige television is a category that gets thrown about more as a marker of social context than of the quality of the show. Today, at least, these shows are typically big budget, highly marketed (specifically marketed as high quality), and likened to each other. Foundation was really hyped up in the runup to its release. There was a whole slew of articles calling it Apple TV's sci-fi Game of Thrones. More or less the same thing happened with The Rings of Power. Basically, "prestige television" feels like a term that was coopted by television studios in a landscape that has trended towards putting all their eggs into one basket. This only covers the studios' use of the term, though.

      Second is the audience's use of the term. There remains the obvious question of if we're going to ward off the tv studios' coopting of the term, how are we going to use it? It really came out of a specific era of television, and regardless of anyone's assessment of relative quality, shows like that aren't really getting made anymore.

      Personally, though? I wonder if we even need the term. My sort of emotional reaction to the conversation about prestige television is that it reminds me of the debate around "literature." It's not a debate I want to get into, but it's another label that has unclear boundaries and a tendency towards the old. In practice, it just gets used to snub certain books (e.g. "Dune is good, but it's not literature"). With television, I'm not saying we need to do away with the concept of prestige television, but if we do want to keep using it (and again, studios will even if we don't),
      a) What should it mean?
      b) How should we use it (i.e. for good, not for snobbery)?

      19 votes
    2. Outlander - Season 7

      Does anyone hereabouts watch Outlander? Episode 4 of season 7 has just been aired. While the pacing of this season's episodes has been gradual thus far, years have been skipping past in a matter...

      Does anyone hereabouts watch Outlander?

      Episode 4 of season 7 has just been aired. While the pacing of this season's episodes has been gradual thus far, years have been skipping past in a matter of episodes judging by the growth of some of the children. They hinted at a trip to Scotland but then snatched it away for at least another episode. I've not read the books and have avoided spoilers as much as possible of what's to come in the televised adaptation of the novels.

      In episode 1, there is discussion of what was the right thing for a man (or any human, even) to do when seeing a woman attacked. Brianna does not want Roger to help Wendigo escape because Wendigo did not help her mother Claire. Roger describes a situation at sea where he saw a child tossed overboard and then the mother jumped in after her child, but he was frozen and could do nothing to stop the atrocity especially if he had any hope of staying alive to find Brianna. He sympathizes with Wendigo, who fled and saved his life rather than dive into a situation where not only would he not have saved Claire being raped but would have died in the process as well. Brianna is upset by this discussion and in the end Roger does what his wife wants and doesn't help Wendigo.
      I am torn about this. Jamie and Claire are the main couple of the show. Jamie and those of his bloodline are shown to have a strong code. It is shown time and again that Jamie and his ilk would not have stood for such acts of violence and would have died even if the odds of winning or saving those being abused and victimized was not in their favor.
      Yet I feel Roger's point. Jamie and Roger are rather real examples of different kinds of men. Is either more right than the other?

      Those are some of my thoughts about the show so far.

      Is there any interest for discussion purely about the television show?

      8 votes
    3. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S02E04 - "Among the Lotus Eaters" Episode Discussion

      The first three episodes didn't quite hit the mark for me, but this felt like proper TOS style Star Trek. Starfleet messing up the Prime Directive. A villain who is actually a victim. Spock is...

      The first three episodes didn't quite hit the mark for me, but this felt like proper TOS style Star Trek.

      Starfleet messing up the Prime Directive. A villain who is actually a victim. Spock is challenged on feelings versus logic. The overall theme of exploring the importance of personal memories and the straight forward metaphor of fascist regime controlling the people, didn't feel as hamfisted as I have found some of the other newer trek episodes. It does stand on its own as a well rounded singular trek story. I do however still have a bit of a problem with how newer trek seems to like hand to hand combat violence so much. Feels unnecessary in most cases.

      23 votes
    4. 'Silo' season finale: book reader discussion

      I would like to have a discussion of the season finale and season as a whole of Silo with other book readers who know the overarching plot. Non book readers are welcome obviously, but spoilers...

      I would like to have a discussion of the season finale and season as a whole of Silo with other book readers who know the overarching plot. Non book readers are welcome obviously, but spoilers will be here.

      Click for spoilers

      Overall I think it was decent and I like a lot of the additions they made. Some of the episodes in the middle were very filler-y and kinda boring. But I wasn't a huge fan of the reveal in the show vs the books, for the screen and especially for the tape. The heat tape is like the determining factor here and they really glossed over it. I'm not sure if I would have gotten it if I didn't read the book.

      However there are still mysteries, I was wondering where they were going to go with Lukas since he got busted in the last episode. Now he's going to the mines??? Who is she going to talk to over the radio now? Also where do the mines go to avoid other silos lol? Although I'm not really mad about the change if Lukas doesn't end up being Bernard's shadow. In the book it was very "hey you random dude, be my shadow now suddenly"

      And what about that mystery door? Are they connected to the other silos somehow? Bernard seemed kind of surprised when Jules mentioned it and said there were many mysteries... I wonder if he actually knows anything about them or not. I was surprised Sims didn't know about the fake helmet screen, but I guess he wouldn't know that if wasn't actually Bernard's shadow yet. I really question if he will actually end up being Bernard's shadow though...

      Overall, would watch season 2. I wanna know what ends up happening.

      21 votes
    5. Last episode of Endeavour

      Can someone explain the end of the episode to me, a poor American who has never seen the original show? I think I was following right up until the gunshot, and then... wtf?

      6 votes
    6. How do the human-like Cylons work, in 'Battlestar Galactica' (2004-2009)

      First It was mentioned that, there are 12 of them. If one dies there memory is uploaded and another gets activated, I thought it was somewhat like cylo in star wars. later, we see all of them...

      First It was mentioned that, there are 12 of them. If one dies there memory is uploaded and another gets activated, I thought it was somewhat like cylo in star wars. later, we see all of them operating together, so they sync continously or at certain period? I'm wondering how do they actually work, in data sharing/sync scenario?

      PS. My heart weeps for firefly.

      6 votes
    7. Series finales and a lack of closure

      I just finished a show, and it, like a lot of shows that I've watched recently, ended rather abruptly. As soon as "the point of the show" concluded, so did the show itself. I don't know if this is...

      I just finished a show, and it, like a lot of shows that I've watched recently, ended rather abruptly. As soon as "the point of the show" concluded, so did the show itself. I don't know if this is a more recent trend or just something I've noticed recently, but I find nine times out of ten I really dislike it. It feels like they just don't give the viewers a chance to sit with the ending and this universe they've come to love. No time to sit and enjoy the view from the peak, no last drink with the friends you made along the way, no five years later "where are they now?". Just a kind of ambiguous ending that can be taken either way and a feeling of "there's gotta be one more episode right?"

      Do people actually enjoy this? I feel like they must because how often I see it in movies and TV, but at the same time, I sorta just feel like it's a cheap way to add some depth to the ending without actually pinning yourself down to actually ending the show/movie. If people wanted it to end with A they can read into the ending that A happened, if they wanted B, same case.

      19 votes
    8. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 16, Episodes 1 & 2 Discussion

      The 16th season of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia started airing last night and is now available for streaming on Hulu too! What did y'all think about the new episodes? Please make sure to...

      The 16th season of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia started airing last night and is now available for streaming on Hulu too! What did y'all think about the new episodes?

      Please make sure to provide warnings for any spoilers you may post! If you want to hide your spoilers, please follow the formatting tips at https://docs.tildes.net/instructions/text-formatting#expandable-sections to hide them under expandable sections. Thank you!

      Episode 1 & 2 After watching all the teasers they showed over the last few weeks, I wasn't expecting literally all the teaser material to show up in the first episode. However, I still enjoyed the first episode! This felt a bit more like a classic Always Sunny episode and I found it funny for the most part. I definitely think that the show has lost a bit of its old charm, it now looks like a proper TV show with properly lit up sets and whatnot. Despite this, I think this episode was a solid start to the season!

      I really enjoyed the second episode too! It was cool seeing Charlie's sisters show up in this episode. I remember in the season they mentioned Charlie's sister and then she was never mentioned again. In the podcast, they mentioned that they'd simply forgotten about Charlie's sister as a character. So it was cool seeing them finally show Charlie's sister(s) in an episode now. Also was not expecting an OnlyFans name drop haha.

      31 votes
    9. The Expanse: Thoughts on railguns

      Having finished out the Amazon Prime series "The Expanse" I'm now working my way through the novels and I keep coming up against a problem with with railguns. Specifically, the way that railguns...

      Having finished out the Amazon Prime series "The Expanse" I'm now working my way through the novels and I keep coming up against a problem with with railguns. Specifically, the way that railguns are used in The Expanse doesn't mesh well with the way they're portrayed.

      First, some background. Ships in The Expanse are generally unarmored. There are a bunch of reasons for this but the short version is "most things that can hit you in space will kill you anyway" and armor adds mass which makes every manuver more expensive in terms of reaction mass. So no one has armor. This is important because it means that ships in the Expanse can get ripped up by something as mundane as a stray bullet from a Point Defense Cannon (PDC). PDCs are... well, they're guns. Regular guns which are flinging around much less mass and at much lower velocities than railguns.

      Thus, ships in the Expanse are equipped to handle impacts but nothing much bigger than a sand-grain moving at a few km/s.

      When we're introduced to rail-guns in the series we're given to understand that they use magnetic acceleration to chuck a 5kg chunk of tungsten and/or uranium at a target at an "appreciable percentage of C." That's much faster than a bullet or any micrometeors ships are likely to encounter. Even 1% of C is ~3,000 km/s.

      5 kg of Tungsten is less than you think. Some back of the envelope math suggests that's about cube about 2.6 inches on a side... which is not big. That works out to an incredible energy density which would make a lot of sense if railguns were routinely being fired at planets or asteroids but, since they seem to mainly target ships, the vast, vast majority of the energy that goes into flinging that slug at its target is going to carry through to the other side of the ship.

      All total we're talking about 488.5 million Newtons of force for 1% of the speed of light. Helpfully, this scales roughly lineraly so long as we don't get too close to C and induce relativistic mass issues, so 10% of C is 4.8 billion Newtons and so on. So, that railgun slug is carrying a lot of energy. At 1% of C it represents 22.5 trillion joules of kinetic energy. Written out long-ways so we can appreciate all those zeros it's 22,500,000,000,000 J. At 10%, we're talking 2.25 quadrillion joules. To give some sense of scale, that means that, at 1% of C, three rail-gun slugs are delivering about as much energy as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. At 10% of C one round carries about 537 kilotons, or about the yield of a modern, city-busting hydrogen bomb.

      Those are absolutely titanic amounts of energy but, realistically, they'll never deliver that much power to a target. After all, a railgun round can only push on its target as hard as the target can push back on it. If the round just punches through the entire ship like it's made of paper, most of the energy stays in the railgun slug as it exits the other side of the ship and you get a neat hole rather than a gigantic flash as trillions of joules of kinetic energy turn into heat.

      And obviously, if we're trying to kill things, we want the latter. The solution to this problem is fairly obvious: you need fragmentation. While it's great to have a tungsten cube all tightly packed together as you accelerate it, if you're shooting at a ship, you want a fairly diffuse impact, especially if we're talking about a 10% of C railgun slug. There aren't a lot of things out there in the solar system which can take 500 kilotons of hate and come out the other side in one piece. Moreover, at the distances at which a rail-gun fight happens, that spread would help ensure that you hit your target. Like a shotgun loaded with birdshot, a fragmenting railgun round would provide a cone of impact rather than a line, making dodges less effective.

      And, as I mentioned earlier, you don't need a ton of mass to make this work. If a PDC round can go straight through a military craft then we can safely assume that a chunk of tungsten with the same kinetic energy will do the same thing. PDCs look rather a lot like the close in weapons systems in use on many naval ships today so we'll use those as a guide. The 20mm cannon on a Phallanx CWIS tosses out rounds at about 1,035 m/s. Those rounds weigh about 100 g (0.1 kg) which gives them a kinetic energy at the muzzle of 53,422 J.

      So, if we could predictably shatter our 1% C railgun round into 421,136 pieces, each would have about the same kinetic energy as a PDC round and be able to hole the ship. At 10% C we could go even smaller and do the same thing with upwards of 40 million shards. 1% is plenty though. Each hull-penetrating piece of our original 5 kg bullet needs only weigh about 1/100th of a gram, which works out to being about 1/100th of the size of a grain of sand.

      Put another way, if the fragmentation of a rail round could be precisely controlled, a target ship would experience hundreds of thousands of individual hull breaches with the mean distance between them determined only by the geometry of the ship and the angle of the attack. The result of this would be either the delivery of a titanic amount of energy to the ship itself as the armor attempts to absorb the impact or, if no armor is present (as seems to be the case in the Expanse) the rapid conversion of the interior of the ship to a thin soup.

      This, however, seems never to happen in the series and what leaves me scratching my head. As a book and TV series, The Expanse does an otherwise bang-up job with hard science fiction. Most things in universe make sense. This, however, does not. We have take as a given that the materials science technology exists to allow the mounting and firing of a railgun on a ship -- there are a lot of challenges there -- but the straight-line-of-fire use of them is a rare problem with the world-building.

      Any fans have any suggestions to help me square this circle?

      45 votes
    10. The Mandalorian Season 3 finale. What did you think?

      I thought it was pretty good, it's just that the whole season seemed a little off. I feel like the actual overarching plot of the season didn't even start until over halfway through. Still enjoyed...

      I thought it was pretty good, it's just that the whole season seemed a little off. I feel like the actual overarching plot of the season didn't even start until over halfway through.
      Still enjoyed it overall and can't wait for the next season.

      11 votes
    11. I want to talk about The Mandalorian, I don't seem to get it

      Some very mild spoilers for The Mandalorian I have not been really following Star Wars since Disney took over, I think I saw one or two of the new sequels (they were forgetable) and I saw Rouge...

      Some very mild spoilers for The Mandalorian

      I have not been really following Star Wars since Disney took over, I think I saw one or two of the new sequels (they were forgetable) and I saw Rouge One (It's great, would even call it the most Star Wars Star Wars movie)

      I had some time last weeks and I saw Andor and I was just stunned. Good to great actors, great worldbuilding, a bit on the nose but still engaging social critic and themes, an interesting and intense story based in gritty realism while still being very Star Wars. I think everybody who likes science fiction and/or spythrillers should watch it.
      So I was like: oooooh so they finally found a way to do new and interesting stuff with the Galaxy far far away. Everybody says nice things about the Mandalorian, let's check that one out. It got 92% on RT so I'm shure it's nice....

      I seem to hate it and it makes me angry that it turned out the way it did, because i still like a lot about it. It makes me sad that they botched it so badly.
      Maybe having a main character whitout a face is not helping? so i need a robot to tell me what Mando is feeling? Pedro Pascal is actually doing an incredible job working with body language and voice, but I don't think it's enough to actually be able to salvage this dumpsterfire of an realisation. Or maybe they should have kept with Mando being an unrelatable asshole, and not make him a disney daddy?
      And then they still show his face.... in the most anticlimactic way ever... why? just why do that? It makes me angry just thinking about it, how can you fuck that up so badly, that could be a series defining payoff, but no! They just waste it in the most boring and unconcequencial way ever.

      Then there is the Rule of Cool or Why is Everybody a Badass?. Mando is cool, i get it. He has an amazing Look (obviously the helmet is crazy good). He has very interesting and powerful weapons. But then I he still gets mostly his as kicked by nearly everything and everybody all the time?? I mean why do you tell me with every character and all his design that he is a force of nature and than he gets his ass kicked by a fucking dinohead on two legs that looks like a joke and is a joke (I dont actually mind that, i like the design and the joke) I just makes no sense to me.
      Nearly everybody else looks cool and is presented as a badass as well, there is just to much of it. there are no weak people, there are no hurt people, there are just badasses and cannonfodder.

      Then there is the storytelling... It ranges from quite ok to fucking horrible. I mean, who thought it is a good Idea to NOT cut the motherfucking prisonship episode? It's some of the worst TV i saw in a long while. It does nothing for the overall story. it does nothing for the characters. It does nothing for the viewer. It does nothing for nobody. Its just full of bad acting, bad direction, bad and lazy set design, bad editing, bad jokes, and the worst storytelling. why did they leave that piece of shit in there? the whole series is worse for it. It makes me angry.

      So I finally checked the wikipedia page and I understood. Jon Favreau.... Jon Favreau!!! I mean not all of his work is that bad. I liked Iron man and Chef, and I love Cowboys and Aliens (really! it's so bad it's good, but you can not expect differently with that name) I hated his Lion King.

      I don't now where I'm going with this. I think I just needed to share my feelings about it. It's just so full of potential, there is so much they could have done with it. they could have explored so many themes and share so much lore... but they just fucked it up and everybody seems to like it, i dont get it.

      /rant

      so are the other Star Wars shows worth a watch?

      11 votes
    12. I May Destroy You (2020) discussion

      IMDb Link TheTVDB Link Has anyone else here watched this? If so, I would love to hear your thoughts. I just finished it and am sorting through how I feel about it, especially after that final...

      IMDb Link
      TheTVDB Link

      Has anyone else here watched this? If so, I would love to hear your thoughts.

      I just finished it and am sorting through how I feel about it, especially after that final episode. I’ll type out longer thoughts in a comment once they’ve settled.

      3 votes
    13. Apple references in *Severence* plus a couple others

      I'm really struck with the references in this show. As an aside, it's a really enjoyable show. And this time, unlike Lost, I expect to be let down at the end, and am just appreciating the ride as...

      I'm really struck with the references in this show. As an aside, it's a really enjoyable show. And this time, unlike Lost, I expect to be let down at the end, and am just appreciating the ride as long as I can til it goes dumb. It's also awfully familiar to some other recent shows, like Homecoming and Loki. I've only just finished ep 2. Thank you, red letter media for the introduction.

      Interesting references:

      Mark Scout looks a lot like original macintosh era Steve Jobs.
      Lumon -> Lemon -> Apple
      using a logo without text. Also, the teardrop, if you squint and abstract a little, is like an inverted apple with the bite gone
      corporate aesthetic is like evil Jony Ive Apple (I've heard tell it's not unlike 60's IBM), not counting the old testament painting.
      founder's cult
      I feel like I'm forgetting a couple.

      Non Apple references:
      Portal (and portal 2): opening animation, instruction books

      The Matrix: scary codes on a screen, black goo

      The Cube Series: general plotline (I am only on ep 2, mind you).

      6 votes
    14. Arcane discussion thread

      This post will include spoilers from all first 3 episodes. Arcane came out on Netflix a few hours ago. I binged the first 3 episodes. It easily exceeded my expectations. I played the game for many...

      This post will include spoilers from all first 3 episodes.

      Arcane came out on Netflix a few hours ago. I binged the first 3 episodes. It easily exceeded my expectations. I played the game for many years and I can't believe how they managed to bring those characters to life. Now I'm really hoping that they develop the Runeterra universe more like Disney is doing with Star Wars.

      The character that teleports Jayce and his mom is called Ryze (Maybe I'm wrong and it's not him?). He is considered the main protagonist of Runeterra. Some other characters that I've spotted include Vi, Jinx, Ekko, Singed, Jayce, Viktor, Twitch(?), Caitlyn, Heimerdinger, Warwick(?).

      One of my favorite thing about League of Legends is it's art department. This show has some great music and the video is like a painting. I really like how bright the images were, especially during that first robbery scene. The view on the cities was breathtaking. They went for a really stylized look and I really like what it does to the effects like lightning or smoke. Sometimes they draw extra lines around the objects or characters' silhouettes to make them stand out.

      The story itself was good too. I was pretty engaged with all the characters. Many of them we've never heard about before in the lore. There's a meme in the community about how characters have a "dark and secret past". It's nice to finally get rid of the secret part of the quote. Seeing it animated was pretty emotional they really didn't pull any punches :D. It gives so much context for why those characters behave the way they do.

      It's definitely a show I'll have to rewatch multiple times to catch all the easter eggs. For example Vi wears these goggles in the game.

      I'd love to hear what people unfamiliar with the game think about this series so far. Also for those that didn't know, this series will end up being around 6 hours long once it's fully out. The second act will launch on November 13, and the third act will release on November 20.

      btw for those that want to read more about this universe, there's a map here. The story is happening in Piltover & Zaun. They publish a lot of short stories here.


      Edit: Arcane showrunner interview: how League Of Legends broke the video game movie curse

      11 votes
    15. Cowboy Bebop Netflix series - links to some reviews

      The Cowboy Bebop live-action adaptation caught the attention of many users here, so I'll link some of the reviews I could find. The show is not yet available to the audience, but entertainment...

      The Cowboy Bebop live-action adaptation caught the attention of many users here, so I'll link some of the reviews I could find. The show is not yet available to the audience, but entertainment websites clearly had access to it.

      AV Club: Netflix’s Cowboy Bebop is a bloodless substitute for the real thing.

      EW: A colorful, campy attempt at live-action anime doesn't justify itself.

      The Verge: Netflix's Cowboy Bebop has heart, style, and some rough edges.

      Indie Wire: Netflix’s Live-Action Riff on Everyone’s Favorite Anime Is a Cosmic Disaster

      Games Radar: A Stellar Remix That Hits All the Right Notes

      Polygon: Cowboy Bebop turns a classic anime into a Saturday morning cartoon

      IGN: mixed

      Slate: Cowboy Bebop Is Netflix’s Latest Live-Action Anime Mistake

      Hollywood Reporter: negative

      Rolling Stones: The Live-Action ‘Cowboy Bebop’ Takes an Anime Classic Into the Stratosphere

      The Atlantic: What’s Lost When a Classic Anime Is Adapted by Netflix

      RogerEbert.com: Cowboy Bebop Fails to Find a Rhythm

      Time: Netflix's Live-Action Cowboy Bebop Misunderstands What Made the Original a Classic

      Vulture: Cowboy Bebop’s New Shine Can’t Replace Its Old Soul

      Collider: Netflix's Live-Action Show Is a Colorless, Soulless Copy of a Landmark Anime Series

      Vanity Fair: Netflix’s Cowboy Bebop Is the Rare Remake That Works

      Rotten Tomatoes: currently 41%

      Metacritic: currently 40, Mixed or average reviewsbased on 18 Critic Reviews

      10 votes
    16. So ... The Expanse

      Looks like Tildes hasn't discussed this show for a year or two. I just finished binge-watching the first 5 seasons (I'm hoping there is a Season 6 in the offing), and of course, I now feel like...

      Looks like Tildes hasn't discussed this show for a year or two. I just finished binge-watching the first 5 seasons (I'm hoping there is a Season 6 in the offing), and of course, I now feel like discussing it. This thread is wide open to whatever anyone wants to bring up about the series. But my first question for people is this--

      Did anyone notice any significant change in quality after Amazon took it over? If so, better or worse? How?

      For me, somewhere around Season 3 or 4, it felt like the story quality declined. Not that it's "bad" in any way ... just that it got less original, more like traditional series plot devices. And that could just be me, or that--in general--even the best shows tend to lose some of their edge after the first few seasons ... or maybe they're just following the books (never read 'em) and this is how the books went.

      But, yeah ... it's turning into a nicer, more nuanced Stargate ... the Good Guys trying to save humanity from The Terrorist Mastermind ... the Evil Post-Soviet Empire conspiring to help said Terrorist, etc. They even had Snidely Whiplash tying the poor girl to the railroad tracks.

      I'm obviously over-simplifying here; it is still an excellent show ... just, like I said; it started to feel less original. I'm wondering if that's just my impression, and if not, do we know that it's an "Amazon" thing, or what?

      15 votes
    17. Zemo and New Cap: Lawful evil or lawful neutral?

      Episode 4 of Falcon and Winter Soldier had me contemplating the architypes these characters represent. If you haven't seen the latest episode, I recommend watching it first because it actually...

      Episode 4 of Falcon and Winter Soldier had me contemplating the architypes these characters represent. If you haven't seen the latest episode, I recommend watching it first because it actually does a lot to develop their characters (also spoilers are bound to come up).

      Anyways, both characters show a clear commitment towards a guiding set of morals. Zemo with his unwavering commitment against super powered individuals. Cap with his fight against terrorism in the name of justice. Cap obviously believes himself to be good, but his actions don't always reflect that. Meanwhile Zemo seems to be aware that his zealous actions are morally problematic, but doesn't really care.

      I realize it's kind of a silly question, but the ambiguity of the actions these characters take has me wondering where they would traditionally fit on the good ole' alignment chart.

      7 votes
    18. Solar Opposites - Season 2 discussion

      Has anyone watched the second season yet? I quite liked it, although it's been getting a lot more meta than Season 1, which made it feel a lot more "Rick & Morty"ish. (Tag spoilers accordingly...

      Has anyone watched the second season yet? I quite liked it, although it's been getting a lot more meta than Season 1, which made it feel a lot more "Rick & Morty"ish.

      (Tag spoilers accordingly please!)

      5 votes
    19. The Queen's Gambit (Netflix) - Discussion thread

      I finished this the other day and given how popular it is, I'm surprised there's been no discussion thread here. No spoilers in this top post but go ahead with spoilery discussion in comments....

      I finished this the other day and given how popular it is, I'm surprised there's been no discussion thread here. No spoilers in this top post but go ahead with spoilery discussion in comments.

      • Network: Netflix
      • Format: 7 episodes mini-series (45-70min runtime)
      • Drama set in the 60s-80s, based on a book, that follows an orphan chess prodigy and follows her as she grows up into the chess world.

      I'll greatly recommend it. Quick and high quality. Wonderful acting.

      12 votes