Makai

Not really. GAF is touting that they are the fastest growing network but that’s because their ratings have been in the toilet. When your programming bring in a .01 ratings share it’s not hard to claim big growth. The Hallmark actresses that jumped ship are not bringing in big numbers. Hallmark’s main channel ratings have been on par with last year’s ratings and HMM’s Thursday Christmas premieres have been significantly up. Overall Hallmark’s numbers have been really good considering live tv viewing has been consistently falling. Their movies are usually in the top 10 or 15 of cable programming and only behind sports. GAF isn’t cracking the top 150. That also doesn’t to take into account people who watch Hallmark on Peacock. Hallmark seems pretty much bulletproof. Probably because more and more people want an escape from reality. Ugh. That was my concern when watching the promo. I like Tyler so I’ll probably still watch. It had the same writer as 3 Bed, 2 Bath, 1 Ghost so I was hoping it would be better than the premise indicated.

The man admitted to setting up a woman to be raped by his friend. Because the friends desire to have sex with a specific woman mattered more than her right to know who she was sleeping with. I’m generally not a vindictive person but the idea that the women he has been in relationships with have brought him pain fills me with glee.

Yeah, he’s just angry she said the quiet part out loud. There are of articles about how everyone on the industry knew there was no point in even trying to put diversity in Hallmark movies when he was in charge. He would have entire scenes reshot because background actors could have appeared to be interracial couples. He’s fine with representation as long as it’s not noticeable or acknowledged.

I feel like multiple sources confirming the same story is evidence that it is true not that it is a lie. I don’t see it not be challenged in court being a problem. What the police and lawyers suspect is not the same as what can be proven. There doesn’t seem to be anything to be gained by challenging him on it during his testimony. The defense had a different alternate theory to float in the trial. Kutcher really only helped established the timeline.

To me age and ignorance is a somewhat justified explanation for mild statements of confusion regarding gender and sexual identity issues. I don’t think simple ignorance due to the changing times is an explanation for Alice Cooper or Carlos Santana. What they are saying is willful ignorance in spouting anti-trans talking points like the person identifying as a cat or concern for kids. If a person of any age is using the same language used to take rights away from or hurt trans individuals they lose any leeway I would be willing to give them.

When I first started seeing mentions of accusations I was really hoping this wouldn’t be that bad but reading the details killed that hope. And now others have come forward to back up the claims made in the lawsuit. Sounds like a really toxic work environment with zero respect for personal boundaries.

I misread part of your post and thought you were saying Rebecca was supposed to be older than Ted and was only responding to that. Watching the show I would have said they were supposed to be around the same age. It really doesn’t impact the rest of my answer in the slightest. No. I thought Sassy was a horrible match for Ted and I never thought either of them viewed the relationship as anything serious. True As someone who couldn’t possibly see them as more than friends it didn’t at all. I actually don’t think that Ted was written as a character who would go for anyone younger in general and who wouldn’t go for anyone at the moment. If he had been open to a relationship I don’t think Rebecca would be someone he was interested in a relationship with and vice versa. When Ted walked out in that robe I was 90% sure it was a fake-out and 10% terrified the show was actually making that decision. I would have viewed it as a massive mistake based on their personalities.

I don’t think that was a factor. I never thought of Rebecca as substantial older than Ted. Ted’s only romantic interest on the show was the exact same age as Rebecca and Rebecca’s pilot is younger than Jason Sudeikis. I just never saw their interactions as anything other than really good friends. I did not see them framing the relationship as will they/or won’t they outside of the two obvious fake-outs. I felt Ted’s interactions with Rebecca were on par with his interactions with the male characters and that Rebecca’s with Ted were on par with her interactions with Keeley and Higgins. And their mutual divorces made them kindred spirits going through much of the same trauma. More of a parallel path story than destined to be together. The only time I thought the show was deliberately hinting at a potential relationship for Ted was with Keeley at the very beginning of the show. Fortunately that did not last long.

Oh, this makes me realize why the team finished second. Before I hadn’t connected Ted leaving to quitting because it was the end of the season and he probably just resigned or didn’t renew is contract. But because they didn’t win Ted didn’t complete what he said they were going to do in the end of season 1. He was able to leave with that unfinished which showed how deeply he was changed. We can’t know that. Coaching a kids team is a nights and weekends thing. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have another job or that he isn’t just taking a temporary break. He led a small college team to a championship in American football in a season and an international football team through relegation to the Champions League in two seasons. He would have his pick of teams in either sport.

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking that. When Rebecca made that suggestion I thought it was supposed to be obviously unrealistic that Ted’s ex-wife would just move to London and start teaching. Ted called it a leave-cute which I thought was adorable. Then having it turn into her actual meet-cute was great.

Because that is a purely legal standard and the public is under no obligation to follow it. Their only legal obligation in these cases is to not break the law. If the general public was required to adhere to that standard it would be taking away their rights. Since I am not obligated to adhere to “innocent until proven guilty” I get to evaluate the effectiveness of our legal system in determining how much weight I am going to give the legal process. In sexual assault cases the legal process holds very little weight in my evaluation. People make up the masses and entertainers have chosen a profession based entirely on appealing to the masses so their careers are always going to be decided by people. Someone who has been accused is entitled to due process and to be innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. They are not entitled to star in a movie or tv show.

But my saying this person who has been credibly accused of this thing I find unacceptable so I am going to make it clear I am not going to support them doesn’t mean I’m not respecting the legal system. It two completely separate things. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean freedom from consequences. In my opinion, the standards that are the foundations of the US legal system is not meant to supplant individual citizens reasoning, conclusions and any legal actions they may take. Not to mention that laws can vary widely even within the same state.

My question is what does is look like to “respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” The legal system would have to get a hell of a lot better for it to be the determining factor for me. Even presuming the legal system always got it right that has little to do with me deciding I am not going to watch a tv show or buy a product that would put money in the pocket of someone I feel is problematic. Presumed innocence does not entitle someone the right to continued patronage. There are lots of completely legal things that people can do that could cause me to not support someone. I wasn’t saying that’s it’s not important to examine every accusation. I was saying that in most cases I have a tipping point. Woody Allen is probably the easiest example for me to explain my thoughts. I can’t say definitely if he is or isn’t guilty of molestation even though I have examined the details. But at the end of the day the things that are 100% proven about him and are completely separate from Dylan’s accusations are enough for me to think he is a horrible human being and to avoid anything involving him.

I know. Although he was charged (you can’t be arrested without being charged). The charges were dropped. It’s mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter and other places but I didn’t dive into the details. It actually says multiple sources. Those are allegations that he’s never denied. He specifically denied the criminal charges only. My point is that there are enough allegations, that I find believable, just in the workplace sexual harassment for him to make the list of celebrities I choose not to support. The beauty of me being just an average consumer is that I get to make that choice for me. I get to determine my own standard of proof. And, for me, repeated accusations of sexual harassment is enough. It is what many people mean. Although I have rarely actually seen “believe all women” actually used by people who are part of #MeToo. Believe women is what I have mostly seen and the difference between the two is really significant.

It wasn’t just one accusation. In most of the cases where there are lasting consequences there a dozens of reports of concerning behavior. There were many people who were aware of concerns. In this case the criminal charges led to others coming forward with evidence of inappropriate behavior, including with minors. There is a pattern of behavior that the high profile accusation exposes which plays a big role in the outcome. I don’t know if he was guilty of what he was charged with but even without that there is enough to see he is a creep who shouldn’t be any a position of authority. Here’s a quote from Hollywood Reporter. Even if this is all he was guilty of that’s enough for me. Which is often the case in these stories. The best case scenario, the one the accused admits to, is enough to make me never want to support them in any capacity. I can think of quite a few examples where one accusation had zero effect. And way too many where multiple accusations also had no impact.

I’m fairly certain I’ve come close to influencing someone to violence with an eye roll but I would have also been the recipient of the slap. Fortunately my parents restrained themselves to verbal smackdowns.

In his special Chris brings up Jada’s boycott and said she started the feud then. That just makes me think Chris as an extremely fragile ego. That Oscar’s was the year when all 20 of the top acting nominations went to white actors. Spike Lee was actually the one who started the boycott talk. And yet I didn’t see anyone claim Spike was just pissed he didn’t get a nomination even though he was also snubbed that year. Who knows what Jada said to Chris in private by publicly she expressed support for him in spite of the boycott.

Absolutely but Chris didn’t chose to call Will a bitch. He chose to focus his anger on the women who did nothing to him other than show up bald and roll her eyes at his joke made at her expense. In all of this Jada is the only one who has responded to an appropriate degree and yet she’s the one called a bitch to a worldwide audience.

Netflix chose to give him a huge platform where anyone with a Netflix account has a ticket to his concert and Chris Rock chose to take that platform. Then they hyped up the special specifically with the fact that the slap was going to be addressed. I agree. I agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second. He should be (and is) allowed to say whatever he wants and the public is allowed to voice their opinions in response. Free speech is a two way street.

I feel like that can be a significant distinction when talking about a child being disciplined but not when talking about a slave. Particularly when the character is based off of a real person who was nicknamed “Whipped Peter”.

I don’t begrudge him wanting to speak out. I do begrudge the misogynoir. Particularly from someone with a horrible track record on the subject.

Women have been severely underrepresented in media in general and in the MCU specifically. Things like Black Widow only getting her own movie after a decade and after her death despite the demand. The former CEO of Marvel not wanting to make female led superhero movies because he believe the toys wouldn’t sell. Women being used as plot devices to fuel the stories of the men in their lives and a rarely given in real agency in the story. It taking 11 years and 21 movies to finally get a female led MCU movie. Then when it finally happens and it’s a massive success the constant effort by many online to belittle, demean or flat out deny that success.

I don’t get how empowering women is political. As a women I find it a nice change from us being constantly shoved to the side. I’m sure this is an unpopular opinion but I’m perfectly fine with Deborah Ann Woll not being included or being recast.

That makes sense. I watch on HBO Max so don’t pay attention to air date. I agree. Same day live ratings don’t mean a lot for premium cable. If anything streaming has become more significant since HBO actually gets some ad revenue from it. The Last of Us and House of Dragon are bringing in huge numbers. I didn’t realize the Real Time did so much better live than streaming. Although I guess that makes sense with less binging.

Quoted from the latest episode thread. https://ustvdb.com/networks/hbo/shows/real-time-bill-maher/ I think these are the ratings being referenced. When The Last of Us was against the Super Bowl it had a huge drop in the same day cable ratings and Real Time easily took first on the network. The Last of Us retook first with last Sunday’s episode.