Then why not GWAR or Van Hagar?

Diversity isn't necessarily anathema to comedy, but putting diversity before comedy usually is.

He's funny LOOKING and has a friendly smile. He shines a light on some interesting, obscure news items. But his "comedy" consists of wagging his finger in a circle and repeating some imaginary schoolgirls' burn. Like Jon Stewart, it actually makes me wish his show was straight news.

Worse still, Tessa is purely fictional and yet a major plot twister in a fact-based story.

At the beginning of the series, before we have any more info, Joe seems to think Laura isn't around enough and maybe she needs help. Thus, Anita. Laura gives no indication that she disagrees. Proving she can't bake is symbolic of her domestic incompetence OR at the very least, her temporary frustration over her…

George is a better character than Lennart, and Hurt is great, of course. But like Mattie, he's a tech-wiz plot shortcut. The Hawkins family is certainly more of an audience-digestible package of TV cliches than the Engmans.

I think you have a point about "Davidspawn" hubots. They are much more human-like in the AMC/4 version. For my money, too much time is spent on Tobbe in the original.

I get the impression Rebecca Front was bait-and-switched. Swedish Vera: "What a great role! Count me in." AMC/4 Vera: "Oh, she has about 10 uneventful minutes in the series. To make room for 3 hours of Katherine Parkinson sighing over the sink".

Well, I liked "HUMANS" and thanks for the marketing lesson, but I still recommend the original. It's a superior production in terms of story, characters, fun action, and trusting its audience.

I just binge-watched "Äkta människor". (Swedish "Real Humans")

I get it. Sacramento, a major place name, is misspelled twice. As an aspiring AV Club poptimist, I applaud all media-related actions.

I hope so.