I know it was just a typo, but I would legitimately love to see someone explain something with surprise: "Whoa! Force equals mass times acceleration!"

Thank goodness that sick fuck never mentioned cake.

Still waiting on that Baroque Cycle adaptation. *Looks at watch, taps foot*

That's too bad, it saddens me to think— I'm sorry, how insensitive of me, you can't read. How stupid of me…

I'll have to read his book. Thanks for the info.

Thanks!

Huh. The Delivery Man always felt kind of literary, but I never realized it had actual literary origins.

I'd read a collection of short stories based on Elvis Costello's The Delivery Man.

And the conflict can come from Romeo and Juliet solving cases as opposed to coming from hating each other.

Sure, that particular story needed Romeo and Juliet to die, but Whedon was making a blanket statement that all happy characters are ultimately boring and I'm saying that notion artificially limits your storytelling options.

I'm okay with that.

It's like Whedon can't let his characters simply disagree; their differences have to pull them apart.

I understand the importance of story conflict in the sense of our main characters not being able to get what they need or want, but Whedon always seems to take it a step too far, to the point that his characters can't even get along with each other.

This reminds me of a comment Joss Whedon made years ago to the effect that no one wants to see Romeo and Juliet as an older married couple.

Two things.

Yeah. That phrase "twenty minutes of action" speaks volumes.

Hold on. I believe you also have to move the victim's lower lip in unison with the high-pitched "yes".

Is there a word that means "the opposite of a tautology"?

Sad, reluctant upvote, while laughing.

I particularly love the let's-throw-a-Hobbit-party! score.