Heh. A bit of Sapir-Whorf going on there, no?

It's a Southern thing, not a Texan thing. Ask around in Georgia - the Coca Cola company is headquartered in Atlanta, and the prevalence of "coke" as a generic term for a soft drink is pretty high there.

Jaywalking is a made-up crime, invented to shift the blame in automobile fatalities from drivers to pedestrians:

Yes, but the job is Parisian duct cleaning.

The unfortunate truth about WW2 is that every side committed war crimes - the Allies just got away with theirs because they won.

Yeah, the first thing I thought of was something along these lines:

Thanks! I think about this stuff kind of a lot.

Questions like these amuse me because they automatically fall into the "everything that happened before now happened at about the same time, right?" fallacy. Asking if Alexander the Great's army could beat Genghis Khan's is about as silly as asking if Cortes' army could beat Caesar's or if Hitler's army could defeat…

I don't think either of those are bad notes, but I do think these development executives are drawing the wrong conclusions. The main character should probably be the only person who can solve the problem, but it should be because he/she has a particular skillset or unique perspective or knowledge or motivation, not…

"If it works, don't change it. Unless some other guy did something totally different and it worked. Then change it to that. And if changing it to that doesn't work, you shouldn't have listened to me when I said to change it. But listen to me now. Just do the same thing, but make it totally different, and completely…

I dunno... I don't think the public knows what they want, either:

Not from an alternate universe, as far as I know, but definitely from the "death of the author" school. It doesn't matter what Ron Moore said he wrote, it matters what he actually wrote.

You mean the one where the writers spent three seasons establishing a cast of great characters that the audience really cared about, only to throw it all out the window so they could spin out a bunch of meaningless, out-of-character plot machinations to get to the ending they wanted? That finale?

This! So much this. The issue of forced "epicness" has been bugging me for years - every protagonist has to be The Chosen One, every villain has to want to destroy or take over the world, and every decision has to be the most important decision in the universe.
The logic is utterly backwards: the writers or execs say,…

Sorry, nerds, but if you have to figure out how to scientifically break the beer bottle, you've already lost the fight.

I misread this as "supervacation" :(

How is this even a question? Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, 100%, all the way, forever.