Columbo

Don't really watch the show, just a couple of clips here and there. But I must say I love the concept of the Jackson family. Four kids with four different dads. Such fertile potential for stories. Combine that with legendary characters like Bianca, Carol, and Sonia and you probably have one of the most fascinating family dynamics in tv history.

But it could have exacerbated his drinking and drug use?

I can't recall if it was an article, blog post, or in a forum, but I remember someone suggesting that Depp got too involved in portraying Hunter S Thompson in the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That he started emulating the drinking and drug habits of the journalist and that may have lead Depp down a path of addiction and troubled relationships.

I wonder if the fandom is so zealous in defending him because they're afraid that if they accept the truth they'll have trouble listening to his music again? Because Michael Jackson is the ultimate seperate the art from the artist kind of conundrum.

I dislike any of the older episodes where Disher and Stottlemyer were being negative towards Monk. I much preferred when they all worked as a team.

Controversial opinion maybe, though definitely not feasible, but I believe the franchise should have ended after Roger Moore finally gave up the role. There's a certain charm to the older movies, even despite some of the more questionable incidents of the earlier films, that the newer films just can't reach. IMO I think the Austin Powers movies of the 90s, and I think Daniel Craig even mentioned this years ago, made the Bond producers go in a much more serious direction in the 21st century. Which is the wrong way to go. Because James Bond is a ridiculous character getting involved in trying to stop outlandish plots. Trying to make him more serious just doesn't work. And I feel the way that both Connery and Moore played Bond in a sort of manner that said "look I know it's silly, but trust me and you'll have fun" suited the character more than the recent serious interpretations.

Love the animation from the old Disney Movies like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. Considering they couldn't work with computers, what the animators came up with during that era was insane.

Tom Cruise did some interesting acting work, especially before the year 2000. I don't know if it was the couch jumping incident and the focus on his Scientology stuff or the fact that some of his more serious movies didn't gel with the critics but most of his movies have been safe blockbuster type films.

What's the opinion on Michael Jackson? Did he sexually abuse those kids or not? I feel he did everything you don't want to do if you don't want to be accused of being a pedophile. Also, I never got how he never got a childhood excused his sketchy behaviour in public regarding kids.

Daniel Day Lewis is not a great an actor as everyone thinks he is and I think he knows it. He's great at playing people from a certain time period because he'll spend ages obsessively researching everything about that era until you're convinced when you see him on screen that he actually built a time machine and traveled back to that era. But that's all he seems to play. I'm much more impressed with actors who are a bit more versatile. Who can do both comedy and drama. Who takes a chance on an iffy script and elevates it with their acting skills. Who don't need to be their character to play their character because they are confident enough in their abilities to pull it off and they have faith that the audience will believe in the movie or TV show.

The 70s seemed a pretty good decade for sitcoms like M*A*S*H and The Mary Tyler Moore Show plus other shows. In fact, The Mary Tyler Moore Show is probably one of the most significant shows of all time imo. Ushered in a more character focused comedy compared to the gag filled writing of 60s sitcoms.

The Office, especially the American version, really stretched credibility in terms of how they used the documentary format. Especially later in the season.

Have you seen those YouTube videos where the audience laughter is taken out of sitcoms like Friends or The Big Bang Theory to prove some weird point that those shows aren't as obviously as funny as enlightened shows like the office or arrested development (even though I laughed just as much at friends as I did at The Office)? There's been a kind of weird elitism when it comes to studio audience sitcom. As though it's shameful to laugh because other people are laughing or whatever. To me whether you do your sitcom in front of an audience or in a documentary format it doesn't matter. What matters is making sure the story and the characters work. Because if they don't work the audience won't laugh or enjoy your sitcom.

There's no such thing as a golden age of television. There are good and bad shows in any year. People like to put on nostalgia glasses when it comes to their favourite shows. Also, for truly unpopular opinions. I'd rather watch a procedural than something like The Wire. And I don't mind audience laughter in a sitcom.

I'd love it if they made a Murder Of Roger Ackroyd movie because I wasn't a fan of the Suchet version. Because I think it's a rather fascinating character study psychologically. And if they work it out how to film it effectively then it could be awesome. However that will never happen because they'll look for novels set in international settings like Murder in Mesopotamia so it looks great on the big screen. Plus I'm not sure Kenneth's Poirot will be able to do justice to The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Anyway I haven't seen this version of Death on the Nile yet. Saw the Ustinov and Suchet versions. I liked the Suchet adaptation but I loved the Ustinov film. It looked so glamorous.

I haven't watched SVU in years, and my memory may be a bit hazy. But my main memory of that show was that every episode the suspect was either gunned down in the court room by a grieving family member or friend of the victim. Or the suspect was beaten to a pulp by Stabler.

https://www.avclub.com/frank-langella-fired-netflix-fall-of-house-of-usher-har-1848791430

And from my limited understanding the Mafia was a much more powerful presence in 1990 New York compared to today.

The Torrents of Greed could be re-edited to be a great tv crime movie.

Alan Alda really infused the character of Hawkeye with a lot more humanity compared with what was shown in the movie. But I suppose he had to because the Hawkeye in the movie was quite the unbearable character.

Have you read any further books in the series?

In this hypothetical scenario are we talking about season two "I'm stuck in a dying industry and my soulmate is engaged to someone else" Jim or season 6 "I have to work really hard as co-manager so I can set up the best possible future for my family" Jim?

School Daze was a strange case for Jamie to take imo. I mean it was obvious that Henry was the killer, and any mental health angle was a dead end with him. I think they should have swapped the episode with the strict judge. Have Melnick defend the school shooting case as she always seems to like hopeless cases. Have Ross be a part of the strict judge case.

I'm an idiot. I've seen The Reaper's Helper at least three or four times now. It was only on my recent rewatch of this episode that I realised that Stone deliberately destroyed his own prosecution by leaking his conversation with the detectives to the defence counsel. There's something gritty about the first season of Law and Order that I don't think the other seasons don't quite have in theirs. It's also a little bit more slower paced than the later seasons. Which meant the scenes could breathe a little bit more and there are some more character moments. I think the first season showcase two kind of episodes in which Law and Order does best. The "we think a powerful group and/or individual has done something dodgy. It might be illegal it might not but we're going to do some further investigation" episode as shown in prescription for death. The second type of episode is the "this case is a lot less straightforward then it appears on the surface" as told in the episode Happily Ever After. The change in demeanor of the wife over the course of the episode was great. From grieving widow to cold blooded woman.

Because it's irrelevant to the Will Smith situation. The academy had to act because it happened during their award show.