Max Fischer

Absurbist for sure. Bet you could watch an episode three times and not catch all the verbal and visual jokes. One of the writers, Megan Amgran, posted her list of she had for one show:

Agree, "The Night of" is excellent. Good story and characters. As it turns out, the writer/show running for "The Night Of" and "The Outsider" is the same person, Richard Price. The detective in TNO (Bill Camp) is also in The Outsider.

They've only had 5 episodes. Seems strange it's only halfway done. I don't watch previews (and any trailers) as I like to be surprised.

It's a show that could easily have gone off the rails but I agree, after 5 episodes the Outsider continues to hold my attention. I'm curious how/if they'll sustain through the full 10 episodes as I thought it could be a 6 or 7 part show. (I hate programs that drag as I tend to abandon ship).

Do yourself a favor. Don’t read anything about it. Spoilers will truly spoil the show.

Most spaghetti westerns had a dark side, this show took less risks than a 50s afternoon western sponsored by Corn Flakes and the Lutheran Church.

The Good Place is one of favorite shows of all-time. Smart, hilarious, clever, full of surprises and kept evolving. Ended it’s four year run with a perfect and very satisfying conclusion. Highly recommend.

I thought it was dull and unimaginative. Not much difference between the “plot” and 1950s serial western. Save the village, another shoot out, jailbreak, etc. and every episode had a double-cross (and sometimes a triple-cross) and somehow the Madalorian never sees them coming. Blah.

Keith Moon is mesmerizing.

Who Live at Leeds is my favorite live album. A shame there wasn't a video recording.

He's not the messiah but a very silly boy. He was a great one.

One of my 2019 favorites. It could have been low-brow schlock but they created complex characters while making it entertaining and hilarious without using forced melodrama to propel the story. IMO, Eddie Murphy deserved the Gold Globe Award.

Controversy is the only way to make that thing relevant.

In an amusing way ya kinda missed the gist of the conversation.

Uh, that post means we agree. Agree, he's excellent but glad Hyde no longer has that injury risk.

Though I am upset the Bills plan to give $20M/yr to Jason Peters and not even try to sign Judon for $8M/year.

For me (and suspect the Bills staff) looks at the current roster like this: Roberts/Extremely Reliable Returner>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WR5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WR6

Serious question: What do you believe makes him "Make" or "Break" - and do you think that is different from most fans, and more important, from the Bills Execs and Coaches? There are so many factors to determine success it would make my head hurt. Wins is one but as we've seen repeatedly this season, stats don't necessarily translate into team success.

Should be easier to accept if fans think of Roberts as a specialist: Long snapper, kicker, punter, etc. We don't expect Ferguson to be a center, he's the long snapper. I'll never understand why reliable returners are so undervalued when each week is littered with losses due to poor special teams.

It's amusing how worked up folks get over a rumor.

After the Chiefs - Texans game we should never again debate the value of Andre Roberts. Andre is extremely reliable and those stats just add cream to the top.

OK, that's pretty funny. I'm "old" but thought 8 Mile was great.

I haven't found the TEAM stats but for QBs, Allen and the Bills convert 3rd and long passes at a decent clip. In fact, Allen ranked 7th among the QBs here: http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&rank=047&type=Passing&year= As for the raw number of 3rd and Longs, I haven't found the team number but the above link suggests the Bills are about average for the number of attempted passes in third and long. To find the average, I used the QBs that seemed to have played every game (that is, eliminated Mahomes, etc).

Andre Roberts is a very trustworthy returner Remarkably few injuries overall. Feliciano emerged as a worthy two position player. The jet sweep became a staple Bills appeared to blitz more each game. Bills seemed to convert a lot of third and long plays.

I'm curious how many viewers care about historical accuracy in movies/TV. I understand that some things are changed to provide story flow and even the use of material not "disproven" but I have a real problem with blatently "changing history." This was my problem with Inglorious Bastards. It was enjoyable up until they killed Hitler and his key general staff in the theater. That's an extreme case and could be chalked up to creating Hollywood fantasy but it's just not necessary and contributes to historical illiteracy. There are countless story plots without completely changing history. Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Scorsese to use Frank Sheeran's fantastical book when there are so many as-good storylines that are very true. Even in Goodfellas, where they changed the names and never really pretended it was "history," did not take nearly as many liberties with what actually happened. There are so many examples of movies lazily changing verifiable facts, I just don't get it. One last example, and almost no viewer will care, is the "The King" on Netflix. It's the "historical" account of Henry V's rise and defeat of the French at Agincourt. A sort of side-by-side with Shakespeare's "Henry V." Shakespeare didn't have much trouble making historical changes to make a good story but he relied on biased accounts (which, for the most part, were the only ones readily available) and was not shy about promoting Tudor propaganda to entertain the masses. However, in "The King," modern filmmakers made made unnecessary changes to history to drive the story, namely the fate of Henry's brother (who was himself an important figure after Henry's death) and the French Dauphin, neither of which would make any difference but they do it anyway. End of rant.