Recent comments in /f/television

luvs2spooge92 t1_j9drw45 wrote

Reply to comment by SilverSuferNorr in Paramount’s $1.5 Billion Write-Down Is the Bill for Peak TV Coming Due | Analysis by flowerhoney10

What you’re seeing is the slow killing Showtime to appease Viacom legacy brands. Last fall, Showtime’s CEO of 15 years left. After that they announced MTV Networks people would take over. Then they pivoted saying the Pluto CEO will take over. Then earlier this week, lots of Showtime execs left while a ton of people at the network were laid off. Viacom has a history of acquiring and destroying. Paramount keeps stumbling into money makers like Top Gun and Yellowstone so they’re just going to keep trying to do super broad stuff without really understanding why those things worked. They might stay alive but it will be through luck and not good decisions or talent.

15

28stabwoundz t1_j9dmqex wrote

Reply to comment by YoyoDevo in Physical 100 is fucking awesome by Wegianblue

Can you actually give us an instance of when this happened? Personally I dont see why ur maken a deal about it cause its honestly sounds more like they wanted a challenge which is pretty brave. I dont think its about being an idiot or overconfident these people are just the type of people who like to face and overcome massive hurdles. This enviroment was a good opportunity for them to see how they would fair against men. Yes maybe not strategic, but they gave it a shot for the competition and I think thats pretty cool especially how it is obvious they would be pummeled. And its a good spirit to have that their "proud" of themselves. What, do you want them to be completely ashamed and cry that they got beaten? None of the women were rude to the men or said anything sexist to them they just challenged them for their OWN benifit.

To me this sounds like "How dare a woman even think of challenging a man" she must be an arrogant piece of shit when its really not that deep.

Saying that the female contestants are arrogant is just comepltely misleading. From what I can see, the women always showed good sportsman ship and respect to their male contestents. I haven't watched all of the show so maybe I'm missing something but so far, there has been pretty good sportsman ship from both sides and what your saying seems like a nonexistant problem. Especially, when I have seen other males that are smaller and less compitent pick obviously larger more bulky male contestants but why dont they get hate for being "an idiot"?

I guess I could say the same for the males who chose females to go 1v1 against but since the world isn't black and white I can think that yes, they did it because they wanted to win even though others would see it as cowardly. Though I could argue that many of these male contestants were actually outright disrespecting their female oppontents by saying things like "She's just a woman if I cant defeat her I'm not a real man"...which is sort of lame? Not good sportsmanship. But OH no their ok i guess cause its strategy lol. These women are proud of themselves and have probably faced alot of sexism for their way of life but they have barely talked about it and have instead, used it as fuel to try out new challenges. Pretty admirable if you ask me.

12

kickspecialist t1_j9dmjkc wrote

Reply to comment by NFL_MVP_Kevin_White in The Best TV Shows You Haven't Watched Yet by Mr_Tanan

You should aim for Arcane and Chernobyl from your list. Both are quicker watches than the others (Fleabag may have a shorter run time) and they are the best two in my opinion. I have not seen Succession but I probably never will, real life has disenchanted me from ever wanting to watch rich people drama.

1

nothingsb9 t1_j9dmcsv wrote

Reply to comment by Whellyer1 in The Wire or The Sopranos? by Whellyer1

That will sort itself out, in a way it’s about factions as much as individual characters. So there is the street cops and the street dealers and then the cop bosses and the crime bosses

1

SgtSharki t1_j9dm3fp wrote

Reply to Why did the 90's offer a larger variety of broadcast kids shows than the 2000's-present? by sgavary

In addition to the legal changes, it was a cost savings measure. Animated shows are expensive, live action educational shows like "Jack Hanah" and similar "critter" based shows were much cheaper to produce. There has also been a shift in entertainment consumption since the 90s. Young males, the target audience for many of these shows, are much more likely to be playing video games on a Saturday morning than watching TV or streaming.

1

SilverSuferNorr t1_j9dklv3 wrote

Reply to Paramount’s $1.5 Billion Write-Down Is the Bill for Peak TV Coming Due | Analysis by flowerhoney10

The article reads more like a obituary than getting excited for anything on Paramount+Showtime.

It's say it will unlikely bring in new subscribers and risk turning the ones away.

Even goes on to say they want to resurrect dead shows and make them into franchise, instead of trying to take risks.

Showtime was stupid to gut those shows and should had tried to promote them.

Anyways the article basically saying Paramount+Showtime is playing it safe.

I have 2 more days in my subscription and I'm cancelling it. Literally nothing is worth the price on there for me.

15