I'm sure Robert Carlyle's making more money on Once Upon a Time than anything else he's done, and it's by no means the worst show on TV, but something about the idea that this is where his career has ended up is sort of depressing.

Honestly, I don't 100% disagree with all of his complaints, but, unless he's been told that Whedon & Tancharoen closely read his reviews every week looking for hints and tips about how to make the show better - what's the point? We know what Sava thinks; we have two and a half seasons' evidence that the show probably…

Agreed. However, here's the part of the article where each successive word made me less excited to bother reading AV Club reviews of this show: "reviews by Oliver Sava will run twice weekly."

It's either:
a) "headlinese", i.e. the cut-down sentence style used in newspaper headlines, a holdover from when space was at a premium (although if that's the case, it should really say "Margaret Cho says feels “vindicated” by new wave of Asian-led sitcoms"); or
b) a typo.

The original trilogy is pizza. The prequels are calzones.

Ouch, what rapier wit! I've seen spambot comments more cutting than that.

Yes - so far, CBS's attitude seems to be something along the lines of "You want Star Trek? Well, here's your fucking Star Trek, losers! Now give us your money!" But I remain hopeful. Sort of.

True - an important distinction.

Yes. Prose is not his strong suit.

What about all those kids who like wisecracking old broads, Auntie Mame, and Broadway show tunes? (Or was that just me in 1978?)

The correct contrarian phrasing would be "The Marx Brothers were okay, but the Ritz Brothers were so much better"

Who cares about Star Wars when there's a new Star Trek tv show in the works? Counting down the days until January 2017! Woohoo!

I don't much like any of the Star Wars movies any more, so by this logic, I must be the most real Star Wars fan of them all.

Fair enough - I don't think I'm ever going to agree with that (the movie always seems to me to be an assemblage of all the standard war-movie cliches from all the other war movies I've ever seen), but I see what you're getting at. For myself, I prefer Spielberg's subsequent SPR-related project, i.e. Band of Brothers. T…

I disagree. He made it work, but on paper, it does sound kind of pompous and stupid. (Which is why it was perfect for him!) No, but seriously: it's the kind of speech that, if mishandled, has the potential to come off as pure ham, and I don't think he was wrong to be suspicious of it, going in.

Agreed (although I almost wish Saving Private Ryan had won the Oscar, thereby obviating the need to have this stupid running argument for the next fifteen years). SPR is just not a great movie - the Omaha Beach sequence is stunning, but take that out and it's just another war movie of no particular merit. Whereas…

Yes.

Actually, yes (although without quite so much mindless violence) - he was styled to be something of an everyman-action hero in the early days.

Blimey, a TISM reference in the wild - now there's a thing.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say. Mickey's initial fame and popularity is based almost entirely on the Disney shorts of the early days (the 1930s, basically), which are little remembered on the whole - and that's a shame, because that Mickey is a very different character to today's corporate mascot.