"The EW story at least suggests that Felton isn’t being killed off, though, so there’s a chance he’ll pop back in someday."

I thought Oliver did an admirable job of it, though.

Fair point.

Yeah, but he was the only good one in the main cast (besides Larry).

The "weekly / no interviews" format is definitely proving to be a good one.

And he even fixed two of the biggest problems with them, by dropping Keep It 100 and reducing the panel size by one.

I can't really agree with "as stupid as they come" since Brewer is such a high bar to clear, but I'll give you reactionary. Still, he doesn't seem to want to see Medicaid gutted. In the hypothetical case that McCain dies or retires before the bill reaches a vote, I can see Ducey letting it die before he appoints a…

…did you seriously just take two weeks to come up with a comeback and then settle on the exact same comeback?

Yeah, that's really the question; the original premise is out the window at this point.

I wonder how many issues Groo has run at this point. I know they stopped the sequential numbering ages ago.

I dunno, when it came out there was nothing else like it, and I think it's still pretty consistently solid even if the novelty's long since worn off (and he hasn't introduced a new character I've cared about in 5 or 6 years).

Could be; I've never seen it. (It's on the to-do list.) But I think there's a lot to unpack in the series that speaks to modern technology; it's a show about a live-action MMO, and the human psychology that comes along with that premise.

The thing about Westworld is that the world-building is the most interesting thing about it. The plot and characters are basically incidental to the main premise. So if that's not what you want, then yeah, it's best to avoid it.

It's still pretty heavy on the splash pages, but that arc that was all 16-panel grids was pretty tight.

If he wants to put out another 48-issue compendium, that gets us to issue #192, which is still a couple years out. I think that sounds about right.

Fair enough, but I've seen a hell of a lot of high-profile stories of corporations taking advantage of creators (from comics to film to music). And I'm just inclined to trust a human being over an abstract legal entity in the first place.

I never saw him complain about the fart shoes in particular, but I read that he didn't like the premise, and thought the idea of the Muppets splitting up and becoming estranged was not true to the spirit of the characters. (I liked it, but I see his point; it does spend an awful lot of time moping.)

There have been some pretty good comic book adaptations of old Jim Henson scripts. But yeah, still very much mining the past.

I disagree. I'd say that in disputes between artists and corporations, it usually is a case of a powerful entity screwing over a much-less-powerful individual human being. To the point that there's a good reason that's people's default assumption.

If he really did spend the entire run of ABC's Muppets TV series arguing with the writers and network that Kermit shouldn't be such a huge asshole all the time, then I'm inclined to think he was right.