Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

581 Excellent
  1. To some extent, watching this show is like living with an alcoholic. You learn to cope, put up with more than you would have thought you could, and willfully ignore the most inane and unpleasant stuff. Horses in space literally galloping on an alien planet with vicious dinosaurs, sure, whatever. But the stuff that irks me the most is when they seem to try to make an attempt at some science-y point and strike out completely. No, an insulated, airtight box in space holding 4 people would not become frigidly cold in a few seconds or even a few minutes. They would probably run out of breathable air before any temperature drop killed them. Of course the true temperature drop time would depend on the degree of insulation and many other factors, but it is nowhere near what was shown. See: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67503/how-fast-would-body-temperature-go-down-in-space I still think this show is entertaining, and it continues to cash in on nostalgia from the 60's TV series, so I'm still in, for now. If I want more accurate science, there's always The Expanse.
  2. Although I sadly agree with Bill that there's a significant risk (maybe even a certainty) that Trump will not concede a loss and refuse to leave the White House, I don't get what Bill expects democratic presidential candidates to say when he asks them what they would do about this? He replayed Mayor Pete's response from the prior week ("well, that's going to be pretty awkward when Chasten and I move into the White House..."), but what response is Bill looking for? Does he want the candidates to say, well, I would send in the marines to take him out by force? What exactly would Bill propose to do? He's never explained his solution to this problem. Maybe there isn't one that anyone wants to contemplate.
  3. The age of consent in New York State (presumably the state where "Riverdale" takes place) is 17, but the whole "tickle-porn" tangent is still pretty problematic. Regarding college choices, it seems odd the universe of college choices seems to be Yale or Barnard. If they're trying to pick from Ivy League schools in or within commuting range of New York City where's the Princeton love? The actor playing Nick St. Clair went there btw.
  4. No, there is no such thing as "patent renewal" and there are no special rules for patents relating to food or drink. (You can apply for an improvement of an existing patent, but that would become a new, separate patent). The IP protection of Coke is a trade secret, which can last forever, or at least until the secret becomes not a secret. Patents are different. They have a definite and finite term and require the opposite of keeping something secret: they require full disclosure of the invention with some amount of detail.
  5. You're absolutely correct, twice, in fact. "Oleg" is indeed played by a Russian actor, but he, at least to my ears, has a flawless American accent, which still sounds odd next to his wife's Russian accent.
  6. Presumably, many watch this show because they have some interest in history, and specifically Viking history. While this show never presented itself as a documentary, or claimed to adhere to historical facts with complete fidelity, the confluence of recent divergent "facts" on this show is irksome: Kievan Rus was not Christian around the year 800, and, in general, wouldn't be for another 200 years. The last two episodes have repeatedly cited the "Christianity" of Kievan Rus for some reason that just doesn't seem to matter to any plot point. Why muck up the historical time line for no reason? There is no record of Kievan Rus invading any part of Scandinavia (or contemplating such an invasion and "scouting" for same). This does, however, contribute to significant plot point, so perhaps more forgiveness is warranted here. Neither Hvitserk nor Ivar ever met Igor, nor traveled to Kievan Rus, but it's still fun to see their interactions (but galling that the Igor's wife has a thick Russian accent, but Igor sounds like a California dude). And despite the subtitles that keep telling me various people are "speaking Russian," neither Russia nor its language really exists at this time. The origins of Kievan Rus are somewhat murky, but do involve Vikings most likely traveling from what is now Sweden.
  7. I read that as Malcolm always knowing, or strongly suspecting, this of his father, but suppressing those memories because they were just too painful to retain or accept. Having those memories confirmed (and forced to be faced) caused the cognitive crisis we saw. But who knows? Whether the writers intended or not, the father considers and/or attempts to kill his son but pulls back and fails to follow through at the last moment has striking similarities to the biblical story of the binding of Isaac by Abraham (but of course Abraham was never a serial killer, or a killer of any kind). Nevertheless, in the bible, the aborted sacrifice of Isaac broke a bond between father and son and their relationship was never the same afterwards. I suspect here something similar will result, though the relationship between Malcolm and his father was never normal or in any sense "good." Gil's crack about "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" made perfect sense for someone his age to reference. It aired from 1984 to 1995. But it made far less sense for Malcolm, presumably about 30 years old, to have any knowledge of this show since much of it ran before he was born. A more credible response from Malcolm would have been puzzlement about what Gil was talking about. While most of us know certain notable TV shows that predate our own time, I don't think "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" makes the notability cut such that most younger people would know anything about it.
  8. "Dr. Smith's" feelings of guilt (remorse?) upon meeting the daughter of the guy she air-locked murdered is the first evidence we've seen that she may not be a psychopath. But in a sense that's worse. She recognizes the harm she causes and chooses to cause that harm anyway. The 60's TV Dr. Smith was never this dark. I don't know where they go with this. She's not exactly "Tony Soprano," who despite his malevolence, was interesting to watch.
  9. Plus, the added nonsense of Hiram's "rum patent" assertion, at least to a real patent attorney, is hard to hear. While it is barely conceivable that some aspect of a rum recipe could have been patented at some point, even if it could be patented, that patent would have expired since we were told it was an old family recipe from her abuela (grandmother). (US Patents last 20 years) Hiram's claim to have "reversed engineered" his daughter's rum concoction and thus "proved" infringement, which then apparently resulted in instant "cease and desist" - whatever that means - just made my head explode. This is not remotely how patent litigation actually works. I know the writers aren't aiming for accuracy and this is far from the most ridiculous aspect of even just this episode, but If the writers want to throw in gratuitous detail like this, maybe they should first google something for like 10 seconds?
  10. It shouldn't have taken a needle in the eye to figure out that maybe the potent drugs Holden was already taking to combat further problems from Eros radiation might have something to do with avoiding or eradicating the green-spot eye disease. You know, one first questions many doctors normally asks, is "what medications are you taking?" How could they miss this for so long? That didn't ring true. But kudos for Naomi for brightly recognizing that something good came out of the disaster on Eros after all.
  11. Prior to viewing this episode, I knew Phyllis Schlafly was a prominent conservative who seemingly single-handedly defeated ERA in the 1970's, and in an odd way, also seemed personally to embody much of what she was trying to prevent. She was a successful women lawyer at a time when there were almost none. And despite having a gay son, her antipathy for the gays never wavered. But I didn't know she was out and about making coded antisemitic rants. But apparently she really was. See https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/books/review/she-changed-america.html?auth=login-email
  12. Yes, but they're off by the Christianization of Kievan Rus by nearly 200 years. I know this isn't a documentary, that they screw with the time line, and conflate various characters (such as Rollo), but this was a more fundamental detour away from history. Though there are various sources chronicling attempts to Christianize the Rus from 867 onward, the more or less accepted date for when Kievan Rus became Christian is 987, with the baptism of Vladimir. Maybe it was a throwaway line by King Oleg that they'd "just become Christian," but that irked because Kievan Rus was not generally Christian then, and wouldn't be for some time. I presume this episode (and season?) take place somewhere around 800 - 825 given that the raid on Lindisfarne was in 793 and we seem to be a couple of decades out from that. I would suspect the balloon flying scene was wholly fictitious too, but it was cool to watch, so all is forgiven.
  13. Why would the Nazi's let Americans have this control? Other than to support the conclusion of the series they wanted, that didn't seem realistic. Also, why would the young Nazi plotting officer agree to give up control of North America? I suppose that was his only ticket to seize control of the rest of the Reich? But how could John have that much power if he was so on the outs with the top Nazis then in control? Maybe best not to overthink things. Overall, the series was well done - perhaps most entertainingly by projecting what American life would truly be like under a division and occupation by the two Axis powers. But a few things seemed off. What happened to Americans of Japanese descent on the West Coast? In our universe, many were imprisoned in one of the darker periods of recent American history. Would the fictional Japanese occupiers in the JPS consider Americans of Japanese descent "Japanese" and treat them differently (and better)? That would parallel the Nazi's presumably considering Americans of German descent Aryan. And a small point. I understand why Helen burned Margarite's dried flowers. But what if Margarite came back to their apartment unexpectedly (as she already did at least once)? Wouldn't Helen want them prominently displayed as a show of loyalty and respect (even if kept hidden in a cabinet somewhere otherwise)? Smith's ability to escape lethal Nazi plots might have been a bit strained, Recall his dispatch of high Nazi leader (Goering? I forgot who it was) during a hunting trip in a past season, where he gave Helen the same "if I don't come back" speech that he gave to his No. 2 in the penultimate episode. But his fang-revealing speech to Himmler was worth it. Death by insulting truth. Hoover was creepily credible, but would the Nazis have put up with his own presumed proclivities? Where the Smiths lived before moving into the City to their swanky Nazi high rise (which reminded me of a Nazi version of Don Draper's apartment in Madmen), they lived in Roslyn, New York. Roslyn is now, and was then, a wealthy suburb on the North Shore of Long Island. It has now, and had to a lesser extent before WWII, a significant Jewish population. It's easy to imagine the Smith's Roslyn home being formerly owned by Jews.
  14. This episode was very entertaining, but perhaps short on historical accuracy and maybe overly sympathetic to Margaret. Regarding historical accuracy, while its certainly true that Margaret and company traveled to the US and met with Johnson, its far less certain what, if any, effect her visit had on any change in US policy toward the UK, This episode portrays her visit as the singular reason President Johnson recanted his hostility toward the UK and approved the IMF loan sought by the UK. Also, Johnson is portrayed as a pliable buffoon susceptible to the charms of the British princess. Johnson was a master at manipulating others and it is hard to see him as being so easily and openly manipulated here by Margaret. He had many flaws, but he was not the fool portrayed here. Also, though Margaret was not without her charms, she just wasn't that smart. None of them are, and they are in general poorly educated. They may know what fork to use and which wine is best, but that's about it. While it is plausible that her visit may have played some minor role in Johnson softening his position on some UK-related matter, portraying her visit as the singular basis for the critical US policy change portrayed here is untenable and incredible. See Caro's Johnson books if you want a more fulsome explanation. Regarding the presentation of Margaret here as overly sympathetic, as a counterbalance to this, I would suggest viewing: https://youtu.be/GKgGeq-lk98 This is a Tracey Ullman skit from many years ago that is just as entertaining today as it was back in the day. Whatever her reasons for being the way she was, Margaret was, by almost all accounts, insufferable, petty and obnoxious. Too little of that, however, came through in this episode.
  15. That line regarding Jussie Smollett was a bit too meta for me. But given their recent "musical" focus and that Rafael de la Fuente ("Sam") played "Jamal's" BF for couple of seasons on Empire maybe they could bring on Jussie here to be Sam's BF and they can both sing? That would cause some commotion.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size