> This isn't meant to be a serious product, it's a hobby project

It's so weird how often people don't seem to understand that concept on these kinds of builds.

Oh for sure. They’re great segments of the book. I’m just wary of how much they’ll stand on their own versus just being flashbacks.

I would’ve loved a full proper adaptation as a series. The first movie was great and the second was okay, but there’s just so much in the book that can’t fit. Now it feels like they’re going about it both ways. We’ll see though.

I’ve read the book. That’s why I mentioned Mike’s family’s backstory … though maybe that was in the movie too, I don’t remember.

I know that there’s more backstory there, but at no point did I think “this would be an interesting TV show.” Like I said, I’ll be watching and I’d be happy to be proved wrong. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. But apparently questioning the premise is a no-no on this one.

Sure, I'm not saying I'm not open to it. I'm just trying to figure out what we'll see based on what the story gives us.

I just feel like there needs to be something more than "people start dying, town freaks out, someone chases away the evil, evil goes into hibernation." It would feel like just an adaptation of the story we've already seen, but with new characters subbed in.

I'm fully ready to be proved wrong though. It's just my first impression.

Right I’m aware - that’s what I mentioned in my comment. I just don’t see much of a story there. The main story we hear of his past was the visit Mike’s grandad(?) witnessed. But in general, what we know about them all is that everyone died.

So it sounds like it’s treating the movies as canon which is nice. But I don’t see what the story’s going to be. It doesn’t really make narrative sense to fill in the gaps in the main cast’s stories. So will this instead be about an earlier Pennywise stint in Derry?

Sure, I don't disagree. It's what I would do too.

But if your goal is a screen that could change pictures when you want at no additional cost, that's something that a printed photo can't do.

They literally just said - no need to worry about battery.

Might not be a great use case for everyone, but I feel like the comment was pretty clear what the point was.

This may sound random, but how many cocks has he seen?

Not remotely beautiful.

The "study" attributes an inherent correlation between the best picture nominees and the decline of the box office. But it's not accounting for the greater box office trend - the rise of blockbusters.

The relationship between Metacritic and Box Office inverts around 2004, it looks like. You know what came out the previous year? Return of the King. (Though I think Spider-man in 2002 is a more relevant data point.) Since then, there's been a bigger focus at the box office on spectacle-driven films, which are rarely going to be Best Picture types. And that goes even further in the past decade with the shift to streaming; last year's winner made $1.6 million at the box office because it was straight to Apple+.

This says nothing about the movies quality. The only possible conclusion to draw from here - and that's if you take the data at face value - is that good movies aren't making as much money, not that Best Pictures are getting worse.

> I think it started with the acceptance of digital lossy audio formats, making its way into early bluetooth protocols, and it all went downhill from there.

You know what we had before Bluetooth and streaming?

• Cassette players
• Shitty plastic walkman headphones
• AM/FM radios
• Scratched records
• FM transmitters for your car
• Tiny desktop speakers bundled with a computer
• Laptop speakers
• Low quality burned CDs

High quality listening is cheaper and more accessible than it's ever been. Listening to Spotify over bluetooth on a stock car stereo is far better than the radio ever was, and that's without even getting into the convenience factor.

The truth is that people have never cared at large about audiophile level quality. The only difference now is that the baseline will get you far enough for most listeners, while you used to have to take some amount of effort to get to that level.

> it’s the sponsors that lost out

Why do you act like that’s a bad thing? The sponsors are part of all this too.

Sure, I don't disagree that she wasn't a fit for the show. But I don't think it's because they didn't know what to do with her. I just haven't seen anything from her that's unique beyond her uncanny impressions, which isn't really something that leads to great sketch comedy.

The second list has at least two all timers on it, with Kate and Cecily.

I'm curious what avenue you think she wanted to go in that she wasn't allowed to. Her standup is all impressions, and SNL used her for that. I feel like SNL knew exactly what to do with her... they just didn't want to do it often.