Had Louis kept a low profile for a few years and then made a tentative, apologetic return to comedy, I guarantee all would have been forgiven and he would have become fairly big again.

According to the original NYT piece from 2017, the ladies involved told the reporter(s) that CK had apologized to them in the intervening ~10 years, except I think for one of them.

The concept that Ishtar might actually be good, is something I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.

If anyone missed it, it’s still up at this location:
https://lostmediawiki.com/Jeopardy_(found_unaired_pilot_of_NBC_game_show;_1964)

if someone is truly contrite I’m all for second chances – my problem with CK in particular is that he’s joking about the very thing he ostensibly apologized for, ya know? How can we believe he’s truly sorry if he makes light of it as soon as the mike is back in his hands?

Instead of trying to gradually rehab his image and earn back the trust and good will of his fans, he pivoted to the only people that don’t care that he’s a sexual predator: the far right. ...

Louis doesn’t strike me as a total piece of shit unable to see how what he did was wrong, and seems to be genuinely sorry. And I say that as someone who has not listened to anything he’s done since his sexual harassment came to light. (I didn’t know he had a new special out until a few days ago.)

Recording Academy members decided it was all good and awarded him the Grammy over five other candidates after a relatively short period of time. ... Wolov obviously disagrees and is disappointed that all these people lining up to proclaim support for #MeToo couldn’t help but still award him a Grammy for his very first…

That’s false. The original NYT piece reported that he HAD apologized to at least some of the women involved. (It’s been a couple years since I read it.)

Except he didn’t apologize at all. All he really said was that the stories were true. He made the apology about him and never really spoke to his victims. Then he made himself the victim.

Wolov says. “I don’t believe in cancel culture, but...”

Johnny & Venus were a couple in the S4 episode “Three Days of the Condo”. The homophobia that the plot turns on is problematic today, but the episode is still pretty funny due to the performances.

Obvi Dave & Maddy from Moonlighting is the correct answer, but here’s an honorable mention for Josh & Donna from West Wing.

the big problem with ‘will they, won’t they’ arcs is that we’re too mired in the idea that marriage/commitment is a ‘happily ever after’, when it isn’t, and you could get a lot of mileage out of pairing opposites for all of the ups-and-downs of relationships

Depp has had multiple roles where his performance is mostly makeup.

Out For Justice (1991) is really enjoyable. I’m gonna say it’s the all-around “best” Steven Seagal movie.

even though it’s on many levels just one of his adolescent revenge fantasies, Inglorious Basterds actually has something to say about the power of cinema to right wrongs. It’s the perfect theme for a director so in love with his chosen medium.

Love this. Love all of this.
(And Cox was fabulous in a small role in Braveheart, too.)

Music and Lyrics comes close. She’s perfectly pleasant in it, and she and Hugh Grant are even believably chummy together, but they have precisely zero romantic or sexual chemistry.

I’m surprised it’s remembered so fondly, when I saw it in the cinema I thought it was fine, nothing special.