At least in the case of Mal and Zoe, I'm pretty sure those are the character traits Whedon wanted them to have. They weren't meant to be perfectly nice people, which is a lot of why the show was good.

The twist was a major problem. It was more Shamalayan than Whedon.

Fair. I hereby change my mind.

It's pretty good, but this one comes around.

It's pretty frivolous to get worked up about it at this point. E is gonna show something I won't watch all day long, may as well be her.

Eh, that might be realistic, as I recall growing up small town politics like that are all about who you are, not what you do. If Lorelai and Rory were more well-liked than Dean and his parents, they'd be forgiven. What they should have showed is more whispering behind their backs about it.

That was always the strongest aspect of Gilmore Girls, it was never the story of how completely awesome in every way Lorelai (or Rory) Gilmore was. Lorelai was often a complete asshole to her mother beyond all reason, for instance.

The whole abortion storyline was hacky. There's no drama in a crazy person matched against Mrs. Coach and that's because they failed to humanize the point of view that Luke(?)'s mom was coming from with regards to OMG my grandbaby. My personal opinion is that you can't humanize that point of view because it's nothing…

I prefer the "still dressed like drag performers" era of Crue. They either couldn't afford or hadn't discovered glossy production yet, so Too Fast For Love and Shout At the Devil sound grimy and cheap, which is how hair metal should sound. Their later stuff is kinda meh.

I think the point of not reporting it for several hours was so we couldn't know this for sure. But yeah.

I don't follow the ratings of Kardashian shows as closely as I might and was surprised to hear this called a flop. Can anyone put in context how big of a failure for E! it was?

It's really awesome how this comment describes both itself and its author.

So did Vince Neil. I assume the movie Airheads was accurate on that point, at least.

No, he's not.

It was a big deal to people like my elderly aunt, who was familiar with Jenner as an athlete, but not really as a Kardashian-adjacent person because here media universe almost completely involves PBS and books. But that's not that such a big group of people.

I know what the point of them is, but even when they're good I usually think "hey, that's a good special effect" so the bad ones don't really make a difference to me.

I'd bet Pale Rider was in that category, or I hope it was.

Yeah, I really enjoy S.M. Stirling's post-apocalyptic novel series, despite the fact that his real-world politics aren't my own, that they bleed into his art in minor, but noticeable ways and that the quote unquote message of the series is a lot of claptrap. They're entertaining in other ways, which I enjoy.

I don't get the sense he's superconservative, but I very much get the sense that he's a crank. I don't need to think he's not a crank to like his movies. Cranks sometimes make wonderful art.

"I love rules-lawyering in a dame. That's one of the commandments you have to squint to see, but it's next to the one where I said I care about abortions and gay people's sex lives more than anything except America."
—evangelical god