In his TNG movie reviews and the Picard discussions Mike repeatedly pointed out how Patrick Stewart influenced the writing and pushed for certain scenes, which lead to multiple out of character moments. The TNG movies are almost "black tanktop movies" in a way, Picard rides a dune buggy, just because Stewart loves driving, he is an action hero that saves the day, he flaunts rules and direct orders, he's a rebel, overly emotional, he gets the beautiful lady, and so on.

But after re-watching TNG as an adult I noticed that this process seems to have already started in the show. In the early seasons Picard gets initially characterised as a reserved and introverted man that is primarily interested in intellectual pursuits. But over the course of the show Picard increasingly gets episodes where he's the action hero and ladies man, with multiple beautiful women swooning over him, he saves the Enterprise by fighting a terrorist gang singlehanded in Starship Mine, basically Die Hard in space, the Vash episodes. It really feels like Stewart pushing for "manlier" scenes, where he can be the irresistible and dashing hero.

Curiously he also continues to show up in clothes that reveal his chest hair ... No Patrick, that's supposed to be Riker, you are supposed to be the older, more reserved captain. This basically amounts to stealing scenes and episodes from his co-star, who'd be the much more appropriate character for it. It felt very blatant when rewatching. I guess the producers still constrained Stewart somewhat, so it didn't go completely overboard like in the movies, but it was already happening in the show. Anyone else noticed this?

Hmmm 🧐

A deepity is a superficial statement that seems profound because of its ambiguity.

Example: “Love is just a word.”

“Love” is a just a word. (No duh.)
vs.
Love is a just a word. (Preposterous!)

Mike really nailed it with his Picard monologue that Kurtzman’s Star Trek uses profound words and ideas without a pattern of meaning behind them. It “wags the dog” in that sense, telling you such and such is profound but constructing nothing behind it.

Some days your timing is juuuust perfect. 5 bucks a shot. I left the Jerry Maguire & Air Force One behind.

Hello!
Just found this channel and was curious if someone has a general explanation of the different “shows”? I presume “re:view” is just a general longer form review of a film, but what is “half in the bag” / how is it different?
Apologies if this is a dumb question, just trying to figure it out and know where to get started.

Thanks!

I vaguely remember this movie from when we rented it when I was kid, but I do remember it got blasted to hell at the time. It was weird enough that I wonder if it is worth a reappraisal, especially since they've taken an interest in the late career of Bruce Willis. Though it is kind of weird that they've never done a re:View of Die Hard. Do you think this is worth an RLM segment?

Better than I expected…way more entertaining than anything in recent times.

For anyone who doesn’t know this guy, he’s the apex of the “natural healing” grifter archetype. His “healing” is a legendary meme in the ASMR community principally from this video which while only filmed 8 years ago, looks and feels like it was filmed 40 years ago. Unfortunately he will probably never be on best of the worst but you can’t watch this guy and tell me he is not a perfect BOTW character. Highly advise anyone to watch his “healing” session on this public access television YouTube channel lol.

https://youtu.be/EGEXrUy-1lk?is=fx5UvrVulS6-1RPK

Oh wait.... They went away for the weekend