General Hospital's Britt Westbourne (Kelly Thiebaud) has always had a very complicated relationship with her mother, Liesl Obrecht (Kathleen Gati). That’s probably an understatement, but when Jason (Steve Burton) approached Liesel at the bar and asked her about Britt’s death, Liesl seemed genuinely upset and still grieving for her daughter, even though we know she is very much alive.

Far away in Croatia at the Five Poppies, Britt is also having some complicated feelings, wistfully said “Goodnight, Mutter” before falling asleep. That makes it seem like she misses her mother. Why hasn’t she reached out to Liesl in all this time to let her mother know she’s alive? That seems strange.

The Britch

Britt isn’t known for being a sentimental person. She didn’t get the nickname “The Britch” for nothing. And from the way she treated the massage therapist at the Five Poppies it doesn’t look like she’s changed much.

During her relationship with Jason, she did become a little softer and let her guard down more. Plus, she told Liesl in the past that it upset her to think that people thought she was cold and mean; and she did return to her mother when she was dying, seeking comfort from Liesl in her last moments.

It’s possible that even though she survived the poison, Britt has an illness. In Croatia we saw her inject herself with some kind of medication. Maybe she hasn’t told her mother that she’s alive in case the treatment she’s getting doesn’t work.

Even the mean and manipulative Britch may have wanted to spare her mother the agony of watching her daughter die twice. It would wreck Liesl to find out her daughter was alive, then have to lose her all over again.

But is The Britch capable of that kind of empathy for another person? I’m not convinced. She was never taught empathy or kindness as a child, so even though she did soften up over the years I am not sure that she would go to these lengths to protect her mother’s feelings.

Jason Morgan

The one person who seemed to be able to break through Britt’s shell was Jason. The fact that they share a lifetime of doing morally questionable deeds and crimes probably helped build that bond. Jason’s motives are always good though, while Britt’s are usually self-serving.

Maybe Britt didn’t tell her mother that she was alive so that Liesl wouldn’t tell Jason? Britt has to know that Jason would come looking for her if he knew she was alive.

If Britt is mixed up in something shady again she might not want Jason to find her so that he won’t get involved in whatever it is she’s up to. She’s been keeping tabs on what happens in Port Charles, so she must know Jason is alive. It’s plausible that she would keep quiet so she doesn’t appear on Jason’s radar.

The Cassadine connection

But the best motive for Britt to not reveal herself to Liesl is that she is connected to something deeply shady that is affecting the power players in Port Charles. The shot that she gave herself is a clue. So is the fact that the courier delivered Dalton’s (Daniel Goddard) backpack to her.

Whatever Dalton is up to, he’s been testing something on animals, which is why Emma (Braedyn Bruner) wants to bust him. But I doubt the WSB wants to get the inside scoop on Dalton because he is engaged in animal testing. Animal testing is heinous, but it’s not the kind of thing that the WSB would send in a team over.

What if Sidwell’s (Carlo Rota) arrival, his purchase of Wyndemere, Dalton relocating to GH and conducting experiments there, and Britt’s reappearance are all connected? They all seem to be tied to some mystery man that is calling the shots. What if that mystery man is Victor Cassadine (Charles Shaughnessy)?

It would make sense. The bomb that was set in Sonny’s penthouse that injured Michael was an older WSB explosive device. Victor was at one point the director of the WSB. He kidnapped Liesl, so if Britt is now working with Victor that could be why she hasn’t reached out to her mother.

Maybe Victor somehow saved her from the poison that supposedly killed her, and got her to help him with some kind of medical testing, which is now being carried out in Port Charles. He could have some kind of partnership with Jenz Sidwell to get rid of Sonny (Maurice Benard) and take control of Port Charles so that Victor could return and once again be the primary power in Port Charles.

Whoever is behind the experiments that Dalton is doing must have deep pockets and connections to Port Charles and General Hospital, because there are secret experiments going on in General Hospital labs. Britt would know what labs in the hospital could be used secretly, and how to access them. She could be directing the research and experiments from afar.

And, if Britt is involved in some kind of highly experimental medical tests funded or directed by Victor Cassadine, it would make sense that she wouldn’t let her mother know about it. Even if she does love and miss Liesl, Victor would make sure that she keeps quiet either by threatening to have Liesl killed or some other type of coercion.

It will be interesting to see what Jason finds out about Britt, and why she hasn’t revealed to anyone that she’s alive. It will also be interesting to see if the WSB is aware that she’s alive.

New episodes of General Hospital air on weekdays on ABC. If you miss an episode, you can catch up on Hulu.

On July 28, 1995, Waterworld, the Kevin Costner-led sci-fi blockbuster, set sail. I was too young to see it when it first came out and by the time that I started watching older movies the few things I heard about Waterworld was generally how bad it was and that Costner’s hero had webbed feet. So, as the movie’s 30th anniversary is upon us — and it’s streaming on Peacock in the US — I decided to finally give Waterworld a watch and see if what I’ve heard about it… holds water (sorry, couldn’t resist). FYI, I’ll be getting into some Waterworld SPOILERS below.

Waterworld, directed by Kevin Reynolds (who also directed Costner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) from a script by Peter Rader and David Twohy, is set in a future where the polar ice caps have melted and covered the Earth in water. Costner plays a drifter simply known as the Mariner, a mutant with webbed feet, gills and a dislike of normal humans. However, he ends up having to protect a woman, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn), and young girl, Enola (Tina Majorino), as they are being pursued by a maniacal Dennis Hopper (his character is named Deacon in the movie, but I just kept referring to him as Dennis Hopper) as the girl holds the secret to finding dry land.

Looking at the actual reaction to Waterworld and its box office, I was actually surprised there wasn’t as much vitriol as its reputation had led me to believe. While the movie does have a “Rotten” score of 45% from critics and a 44% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, actually reading reviews from some of the biggest critics of 1995 — Roger Ebert, Todd McCarthy and Owen Gleiberman — the reactions were more middling than downright bad. At the box office, the movie earned $88 million in the US, which today wouldn’t be a lot of money but was good enough for top 10 for the whole year of 1995.

Having now watched the movie with my own two eyes, I can see where those critics were coming from. As pure blockbuster fare, there’s some halfway decent action sequences and it’s not an interminable way to spend two hours. But I wouldn’t go as far as saying Waterworld is good or deserving of cult classic status, but it also isn't so bad it’s fun to watch. It’s more just blah.

Waterworld desperately wants to be Mad Max with boats. Its bare bones plot basically checks all the boxes — loner comes across individuals that he reluctantly has to save from a crazy villain, eventually forming a bond before deciding he must move on and continue his loner ways. The biggest reason why that doesn’t work as well here as it does with the Mad Max franchise is Costner.

Most people today know Costner from his role as John Dutton in Yellowstone (also streaming on Peacock), where a scowl was basically his default setting, but his gruffness was part of the character’s appeal. But in Waterworld, Costner’s orneriness does him no favors. While the movie attempts to go through the motions of establishing why Costner’s Mariner is this way and how his time with Tripplehorn and Majorino’s characters eventually softens his heart, I just don’t buy it. It’s a flat performance and his character honestly struggles to be likeable for a lot of the movie.

I’m just not sure if at the time, Costner could play this type of character. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Costner was best known for roles where he may have had some gruffness to him, but his natural charisma shone through (Bull Durham, Tin Cup) or when he’s playing a much more affable character (Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves). Even if we look at his character in Yellowstone, or his rough cowboy in Horizon: An American Saga, the toughness comes alongside a noble quality that tells us this is someone we can respect even if they’re not dolling out hugs. None of those qualities are present in Costner’s performance as the Mariner.

The other big issue with Waterworld is that there are details that just don’t make any sense. For instance, it’s supposedly been at least a few generations since the melting polar ice caps flooded the Earth, to the point where some believe that any remaining dry land is a myth. Not even the Mariner has found dry land, yet he has a plant (albeit a small one that’s not looking so great) at the beginning of the movie and then comes across a tomato plant on the atoll he meets Helen and Enola on. What we see from that atoll, it’s unlikely it was growing any tomato plants.

Where did these plants come from, and wouldn’t they be arguably the most precious things to these characters? But after we see them, they’re barely acknowledged again.

A couple of other things that I just found odd. I still don’t understand how all they needed to do to understand the tattoo on Enola’s back to find dry land. It whittles down to them translating the Chinese-looking symbols to be latitude and longitude coordinates and something involving the magnetic poles of the Earth being inverted, but it’s not easily understandable in the context of the movie (this video does a deep dive to explain it, though).

Another part comes at the very end, when the group gets to dry land and they find a small village where people once lived. There, they find two skeletons, and one of them suggests they bury them under the dirt, believing it was their way. Again, how would he know this? It’s been generations since anyone they knew would have been on dry land and the skeletons they find are simply lying on a bed, there’s no evidence that these people dug graves, or any that we see at least. This one is nitpicky, admittedly, but it’s just another detail that wasn’t thought out or properly explained.

There are a few things that worked for the movie, particularly Hopper’s fun performance. Still, Waterworld’s biggest fault is that it’s middling at best, with Costner unable to give us a main character worth rooting for. I wouldn’t put it up amongst some of the worst movies I’ve seen, but it’s not one I’m going to have much desire to ever watch again.

However, if you disagree and actually love Waterworld, or want to try it for yourself to see if you agree or not with my takes, then you can stream Waterworld on Peacock in the US; in the UK the movie is available via digital on-demand.

Molly Gordon is best known for her role as Claire on The Bear, the beleaguered romantic interest of Jeremy Allen White’s Carmy, a role that doesn’t get a lot of laughs in the “comedy” series (though my colleague Terrell Smith has made the case The Bear should be a drama). Though The Bear isn’t the best example, Gordon is a rising comedic talent in Hollywood. She’ll be showcasing that in her new movie, Oh, Hi, releasing July 25, but the best example of her comedic chops is in her 2023 movie Theater Camp.

Theater Camp was an indie darling when it was released. The movie is “Certified Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes, it received three Independent Spirit Award nominations, was listed as a Top 10 Independent Film of the year and its ensemble won a special jury prize from the Sundance Film Festival. Unfortunately, where the movie struggled was at the box office, where it made $4.4 million worldwide. In fairness, the movie never surpassed playing in 600 movie theaters nationwide.

I did head out to the movie theater to watch Theater Camp, and I can tell you it was an absolute riot and one of the funniest comedies I’ve seen in the last five years. Thankfully, it’s easy enough to discover Theater Camp for yourself right now, as the movie is streaming in the US on Hulu and on Disney Plus in the UK, as well as being available via digital on-demand if you’re not a subscriber to those services.

Filmed in a mockumentary style, Theater Camp follows the eccentric staff of a rundown theater camp in upstate New York as they try to keep the camp afloat. The staff consists of Gordon as Rebecca-Diane, Ben Platt as Amos, Noah Galvin as Glenn, Ayo Edebiri as Janet and Nathan Lee Graham as Clive. Jimmy Tatro also stars as Troy, the son of the camp’s owner, forced to step in as his mom (Amy Sedaris) is in a coma, but has no knowledge of the theater world.

In addition to starring, Gordon, Platt and Galvin co-wrote the Theater Camp script along with Nick Lieberman, based on a short film that they all made together. Gordon and Lieberman also co-directed the movie.

I did some high school theater, but the level of intensity that these characters show for their summer camp production is at a ridiculous level. That heightened sense of importance is just part of the comedy of the movie.

The ensemble award Theater Camp received was worthy, as everyone in the cast has their moments. Edebiri is great as a new instructor who lied on her resume to get the job but tries to stumble through it. Graham’s veteran and jaded teacher brings some hilariously hard truths to the campers. But the heart, and some of the best laughs, of the movie come from two tandems — Gordon and Platt and Galvin and Tatro.

Gordon’s Rebecca-Diane and Platt’s Amos are best friends who treat theater camp like they’re putting on a Broadway play. Their over-inflated sense of self-importance is so wonderfully juxtaposed to having young teens putting on a show in a small theater in the middle of nowhere, but damn it if you’re not laughing at all the pseudo-drama they’re creating for themselves.

However, my favorite pair is Galvin and Tatro. Tatro’s fish-out-of-water Troy quickly comes to rely on Galvin’s quiet stage/technical manager Glenn to help guide him through all things theater, while Troy helps build Glenn’s confidence, which pays off in the final act in a fun and surprising way.

Summer camp movies have been the setting for a lot of great comedies — Meatballs, Heavyweights, Wet Hot American Summer — and Theater Camp is right up there with those movies with how much it made me laugh. It’s time we started recognizing Theater Camp more regularly among those great comedies.

Watch the Theater Camp trailer for a quick peek at what I'm talking about:

See for yourself by watching Theater Camp on Hulu, Disney Plus or on-demand. You can also watch Gordon’s latest movie, Oh, Hi, in movie theaters starting July 25.

It’s official, Scrubs is coming back, adding another medical show to the TV slate. On July 10, it was reported that ABC has given a straight-to-series order for a Scrubs reboot featuring original stars Zach Braff, Donald Faison and Sarah Chalke, with the show expected to premiere sometime during the upcoming 2025-2026 TV season.

I’m typically not the biggest fan of reboots. Though there can be exceptions, more often than not they’re uninspired carbon copies of the original series that tend to do more harm to a show’s legacy than good. And considering how much I loved the original series and specifically the official Scrubs series finale, there’s every reason that I should be dreading a new edition of Scrubs, even if most/all of the original cast is back.

And yet, I’m cautiously optimistic about the Scrubs reboot. I’m not counting on it to surpass the original run, but I don’t have a fear that these new episodes run the risk of tarnishing the show for me. The reason for that is Scrubs has already gone through a couple of reinventions and the overall series has proven resilient.

Scrubs follows the professional and personal life of doctors at the fictional hospital of Sacred Heart, with Braff’s John “JD” Dorian serving as our main character and providing us narrative and his internal fantasies, setting the show’s wacky, offbeat comedic tone. The series originally ran for seven seasons on NBC, during which it earned two Emmy nominations for Outstanding Comedy Series and a Peabody Award for the season 5 episode “My Way Home.”

However, NBC opted late not to renew Scrubs for a seventh season. Because the fate of the show was up in the air, NBC’s ultimate decision led to the awkward episode “My Princess” being the potential final episode of the series. Thankfully, ABC came in and picked up the series for what was billed as its final season.

Scrubs season 8 ended up being one of the best seasons of the show (earning a 100% “Fresh” score from critics on Rotten Tomatoes) and for my money has one of the best series finale of the 21st century (particularly for a comedy). In the finale, JD is working his last shift at Sacred Heart after taking a new job, leading to a number of beautiful moments with his co-stars and a final daydream where he sees many of the memorable characters and guest stars from the series’ run and a vision of what JD hopes his future may hold (stream Scrubs on Hulu or Peacock if you want to see for yourself).

It was a perfect way to end Scrubs. But turns out, that wasn’t the end.

Scrubs had one more season with a pretty big change. While Braff, Faison and John C. McGinley, who played Dr. Cox, all returned, Scrubs season 9 was rebranded as Scrubs: Med School and focused more on a group of new medical students (even JD’s internal monologue/narration was taken over by one of the new students). That decision was not all that well received, from critics or fans as evident by the Rotten Tomatoes score. Admittedly, I only lasted a couple of episodes before bailing on the new direction.

While we can’t just forget that Scrubs: Med School was a thing (I will be curious to see if/how the reboot addresses it), its impact on the legacy of Scrubs was minimal. The Scrubs season 8 finale is still what I think of when I think of how Scrubs ended, and I’d guess that’s similar for a lot of other fans of the show.

I don’t expect that to change no matter what happens with this Scrubs reboot. If it’s great, fantastic, we get to reunite with these beloved characters (while nothing is confirmed, announcement shared that more original cast members are expected to return), hopefully bringing some whimsy and hope back into our lives.

If it’s not that good, oh well, that’s about par for the course with reboots. If we’ve learned anything from Scrubs’ original run, the show knows how to roll with the punches, and so do its fans.

Drew (Cameron Mathison) humiliated himself again this week when Tracy (Jane Elliot) set him up at another press conference. Even though he’s a world-class jerk and a narcissist, Drew’s also an accomplished person with a long military career and now a political career, so it’s baffling that he keeps underestimating Tracy Quartermaine.

It’s not just Tracy’s money or connections that give her the advantage over Drew, she has many more years of scheming under her belt than he has. Not to mention she’s gone up against much tougher adversaries than Drew.

If Drew doesn’t learn to respect Tracy’s intelligence, she’s going to keep walking him like a dog. And even though I never get tired of seeing Congressman Cutthroat humiliated, at some point Drew has to realize he can’t beat Tracy.

Drew got too comfortable

One of the reasons why Drew keeps thinking he can beat Tracy is that so far she hasn’t put a full stop to their petty squabbles. Going to court to stop him from using the Quartermaine name made Drew think Tracy was just a petty old woman. Maybe that’s why she did it, to lure him into thinking she was a weak opponent who would be focused on petty grudges.

The fight over using the Quartermaine name, the battle over the crypt, having Drew banned from the Quartermaine mansion were distractions that made Drew think he could easily get the upper hand in a fight with Tracy. It’s ironic that someone who is a master manipulator himself got manipulated by Tracy.

But like most bullies, Drew isn’t playing the long game when it comes to Tracy. Every time he gets a small win it boosts his confidence that he can get what he wants and humiliate her. And she lets him get those small wins so she can clobber him later on, which is exactly what she did at that humiliating press conference.

Martin and Drew never saw Tracy coming

Martin (Michael E. Knight) really thought that Tracy had caved to Drew’s demand that she let him use the Quartermaine name and that she would make that ridiculous public statement claiming him as part of the family. Considering how often he and Tracy have faced off, Martin definitely should have known better. He and Drew never saw Tracy and Cody (Josh Kelly) coming.

As soon as Tracy agreed to attend the press conference Martin should have sensed something was up. But he and Drew share a wildly inflated sense of their own importance when it comes to winning.

Tracy played Martin like a fiddle, because she knows how to read people. After the press conference she told Cody she knew if he keep quiet Martin would immediately assume that Cody was going to reveal something bad about Tracy and insist he speak. Which is exactly what happened, and led to Cody saying he bought the ketamine for Hades, and just left it in Tracy’s car by mistake.

Now Drew looks even more foolish, and he and Martin have made it clear they are out to get Tracy Quartermaine. That means the people of Port Charles won’t believe anything Drew says about Tracy now, because he has a history of trying to publicly discredit her and humiliating himself instead.

Battling Tracy is Drew’s biggest fight

Right now Drew is trying to win battles on several fronts. He is trying to get Willow (Katelynn MacMullen) to marry him and get her kids back. Drew is one of the main players in the esplanade project, so the referendum vote about the piers coming up will have an impact on his career. There’s also his fight to get Laura (Genie Francis) voted out as mayor of Port Charles.

But Drew’s fight with Tracy is his most important battle. Tracy has the money and influence to bring his political career to an end. And he’s given her plenty of ammunition to use against him with his ego-driven reckless pettiness. If Tracy really focuses on destroying him she easily could.

I think so far she hasn’t really brought the full impact of her influence down on him because it amuses her to have someone to humiliate; Drew is a fun toy for her. But if Drew doesn’t step up his game Tracy will take him down once and for all.

The Quartermaine family

Family is the most important thing to Tracy, especially the legacy of the Quartermaine family. She will never take any chances when it comes to her grandchildren or other family members. If Drew and Willow do get married there is no way that Tracy is going to let Drew and Willow get custody of the kids she shares with her great-nephew Michael Corinthos (Rory Gibson).

Tracy will do whatever it takes to make sure that all the legitimate members of the Quartermaine family are safe and thriving. Drew is going to learn the hard way just how smart and ruthless Tracy can be if he does try to take the kids away from Michael. I think he will keep underestimating her though, and it will be extremely satisfying to watch her destroy him.

New episodes of General Hospital air on weekdays on ABC. If you miss an episode, you can catch up on Hulu.

As someone who hasn't really enjoyed any Star Wars movies or TV shows in about two decades, I've been sitting on the fence through the passionate debates that have been swirling between fans around the direction of the franchise for the last couple of years.

Some fans malign the changes since Disney bought out George Lucas, some are upset about the changes Lucas himself made, and others are just keen to see endless prequels and spin-offs about random characters hit Disney Plus.

I can't really be called a Star Wars fan, so I was happy not to have a "take" — opinions about the franchise are a dangerous thing judging by the discourse online — so I'm pretty annoyed at Andor season 2 by somehow drawing me back into this franchise that I'd last felt passionate about 20 years ago.

A long history of lightsabers

Two decades ago the Star Wars prequel trilogy was newly out, annoying fans of the original trilogy. I was too young to see any of the films in cinemas but I still managed to watch them at home on VHS tape and, in that unquestioning way that juvenile boys do, I loved all the laser fights and sword fights and space fights.

For a few summers I was nagging my parents to buy me toy lightsabers (which admittedly didn't last very long), bought a John Williams songbook to learn on piano, and was sneaking over to a friend's house to play Revenge of the Sith's tie-in video game. Then 2005 ended and so did 2006 and my interest in the franchise faded; The Force Awakens in 2015 nearly revived my passion but The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker felt so disjointed from Awakens and each other that I stopped myself before getting too invested. And no, before you jump to the comments section, it wasn't because of the politics of the series.

In fact since 2005 the only thing that's really engaged me in the Star Wars realm are its video games; I spent years on the Battlefront titles on my old PS2 (and one summer on the PS4 reboot) and have also wasted many hours on Jedi: Fallen Order, Force Unleashed and the Lego games. But I can easily tell you that I enjoyed those titles despite the Star Wars branding, not because of it.

Because I occasionally pick up Disney Plus deals (and because my job is literally to write about streaming services and their Originals), I've tested my fair share of the spin-off TV shows; I'm pretty sure I finished The Mandalorian, Obi-Wan Kenobi and the Boba Fett one, and definitely saw at least one episode of Ahsoka and some of the animated ones, but as you can tell from my language, none of them really sparked anything in me.

That changed on Wednesday, May 7, and if you've noticed my big omission from the paragraph above (or remember from several paragraphs ago when I name-dropped it), you'll know exactly why that is.

Prequel to a movie you've forgotten

Andor is an origin story for a character from the Rogue One movie, but the show works best when it's ignoring everything to do with that story. I don't remember much from the film, and it seems that series creator Tony Gilroy is more focused on telling an interesting story than simply setting up ideas from the movie.

Since its first season landed in late 2022, people have gone on and on about how Andor is the jewel in Disney Plus' crown of Star Wars live-action shows, telling more grounded stories that comment on real-life politics. And that's definitely true, with way smarter people than I drawing all sorts of parallels between the first season and real-world (well, mainly American) issues.

Admittedly only I binged the entire 12-episode run in the several days leading up to a season 2 panel I attended for What to Watch, but it was one of the most enjoyable work-related-binge-watches I've been on in a while.

Then Andor season 2 came out in April and while I don't need to watch it for What to Watch, I'm currently enjoying another Disney Plus trial thanks to my phone contract, so decided to watch it to see how it stacks up.

If you're not 'in the know' on how to watch Andor season 2, it's been releasing in chunks of three episodes each week, with the individual trifectas representing one year in the life of the titular character Cassian Andor. By nature of this format it's been quite episodic, but it lets us watch the fermentation of various plans over many years, instead of the rushed style that movies require.

Andor's 'Red Wedding'

Wednesday, May 7 brought the release of the third batch of episodes in the UK (the day after the US release, if you're wondering why I'm talking in Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays) which show tensions building over the past six episodes explode in a dramatic style. This is the last paragraph that doesn't contain spoilers, so if you want to watch it, stop right here!

Andor season 2 part 3 shows the Empire finally enact its plan on the planet of Ghorman, which it wants to strip mine for a precious resource and leave it barren; after nurturing the rebellion on the planet they use a protest as a "false flag" attack and massacre the townspeople participating in the protest.

The allegory here isn't particularly subtle. I'd always felt Andor to be a little heavy-handed in its politics (even if I agree with the points it's making).

But I've enjoyed plenty of movies and TV shows that make good political points in a range of ways, without being able to call myself a true fan of it. So why's Andor different?

That's because of its characters, or possibly even character (singular). Through Andor season 2 we've been seeing a fascinating character arc and relationship play out that climaxed in episode 8 of the season, and it's simply some of the best writing and acting I've seen on TV in years. It reminded me of the glory days of Game of Thrones when you'd endlessly put your heart behind a certain character only for them to drop dead an episode later.

This character is Syril Karn, played by Kyle Soller (who's so good in the role that I didn't even realize that he was also one of the leads in Bodies, which I covered extensively).

Karn begins the first season of Andor as a determined but undervalued (and pretty awkward) corporate security guard who makes it his mission to hunt down Cassian Andor; by season 2 he's undertaken a bizarre romantic relationship with Denise Gough's Dedra Meero who's a high-ranking military officer that also wants Cassian's head. She sends him to work in Ghorman as both a spy and an instigator to tempt the rebels to attack; he's basically her agent though he doesn't know to what extent.

How to write a character

I always really liked Karn's character, simply because I love characters who have a mission and take proactive steps towards their goals instead of endlessly hand-wringing about their doubts or shortcomings, as nearly all modern heroes do. The fact that my favorite character in Andor is working for the evil Empire isn't lost on me, but it's a testament to Karn's writing.

Through his stay in Ghorman, Karn's rough edges are worn down, especially in later episodes when he seems to develop an attachment to the daughter of the rebel leader. And as he leaves his comfort zone and sees more of the galaxy, he begins to empathize more with its peoples, and we see him begin to truly doubt the actions he's undertaking for the Empire.

That's doubly true in episode 8 where he realizes that Dedra is lying to him, immediately after she shows him her first true bout of public romantic affection — I'd come to really be attached to this weird romantic couple and seeing one get more invested as the other gets less is a heart-wrenching tragedy (even if, again, they're working for the bad guys).

Despite this, when Karn later sees Andor about to shoot Meero, he barely hesitates before engaging his much tougher and stronger foe — another case of a character working towards their goal no matter the odds. I have to admit that I was rooting for Karn in this fight and, looking online, I know I'm not the only one.

After Karn manages to win the fight and declines to shoot Andor, marking the beginning of his redemption arc... he's shot dead by someone else. No last words bleeding out, no regret from any characters — we don't even see Meero's reaction to the news, and spend only seconds with Karn's teary-eyed mother in a montage. It's an inglorious end to an inglorious character — but perhaps the most interest character that we've ever seen grace the screen in Star Wars, be it in the movies or on shows.

Right now, the day after watching the episode, I'm feeling the same mood I used to feel when a beloved character in Game of Thrones would die — reticence to return next week, but with the knowledge deep down that I would. Wishing I could see an alternative version of the show in which the character survived, but knowing that this was the more interesting decision narratively.

My original angle for this story when I first concocted it last week was going to be describing how Cassian Andor wasn't the main character of Andor season 2, until Karn's death ruined that idea. But it's definitely true that the titular character has been overshadowed in his own story, particularly with a lack of interesting drama having been bestowed upon him this season.

Honestly, though, I don't mind. Despite the title, I didn't come to Andor for Andor, and my interest in Star Wars isn't in the particular characters that Disney decides to release origin stories on. I'm drawn to interesting stories being told well, and Andor season 2 does that better than anything, Star Wars or otherwise, that I've seen in a long while.

So if this is the direction the House of Mouse is going in, I'm all for it, and I'm ready to call myself a Star Wars fan again. I just hope Disney decides to continue in this direction for future TV shows, instead of simple churning out more Mandalorian or incomprehensible action series.

There's no denying that penguins are the cutest of the birds, especially the fluffy chicks like the one you can see in the above image. So when I tuned into Nat Geo's new series Secrets of the Penguins, I was expecting three episodes of adorable footage and some interesting facts. What I wasn't expecting was the most gripping drama of 2025 so far.

Secrets of the Penguins is the latest entry in National Geographic's Secrets of series after whales, octopi and elephants, narrated by Blake Lively and starring roving Nat Geo presenter Bertie Gregory. It airs on Sunday, April 20, and here's how to watch Secrets of the Penguins for air dates and streaming times in various countries.

Ahead of the show's release, I watched the first episode, called "Heart of the Emperors", about emperor penguins living in one of the coldest places on Earth: Antarctica.

The lion's (penguin's?) share of the episode shows us the experiences of parent penguins finding a mate, laying an egg and protecting it during the incubation, but the beginning and end of the series follows a story that was surprisingly gripping and dramatic (slight spoilers ensue, for as much as you can spoil a nature doc!).

These segments follow a large group of juvenile penguins, undertaking their first voyage to the ocean for food without their parents. They're trailed by presenter and producer Bertie Gregory, who investigates their trip and captures most of the footage of it.

Here's where the show diverts from being a puff piece on how cute penguins are, to being a real-life recreation of Lord of the Flies; Lord of the Can't Fly, perhaps.

We immediately begin by seeing a tiny orphaned chick wandering around looking for its parents; with its lost waddling breaking your heart in the show's first few minutes. During the ensuing trip, you know in the back of your mind that this runt of the litter can't survive; we watch as other chicks die from the storm, get abandoned after an inopportune crossing of unexpectedly-melted ice, and then go the wrong direction in a disaster in the making.

No, I won't tell you what happens to our original chick, or all the rest of them; only that it ends with a scene that made me laugh with joy at how cathartic it was and how daft the animals looked. Your only tease is the image two paragraphs above.

We've all seen nature documentaries, and so we know that cute animals like this aren't protected by plot armor. They could die at any minute! And some of the penguins do! I couldn't take my eyes off the screen as I was waiting to see whether the tiny chick (and the rest of his cohort) would survive.

This is the exact kind of gripping drama I want from my TV; Netflix can eat its heart out if it thinks it's made anything close in the last few years! Who needs to wait for A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms if there's already brutality and death already on our screens?

I've only seen the first of the episodes of Secrets of the Penguins, but I don't doubt that the others are just as fascinating as this one, judging by promotional material for the show. There's a good chance it'll end up being the second show of 2025 that I actually finish, and I can't recommend it enough for people looking for their next TV show binge.

Secrets of the Penguins streams on Nat Geo on Sunday, April 20 in the US and on Nat Geo Wild on Tuesday, April 22 in the UK. Here's more info about how to watch the show.

• Here's how to watch the National Geographic channel

I've always been a fan of dinosaurs — not as much as I was at 10, when I could name them all, as my mum often reminds me — but I enjoy seeing them on-screen, whether it's in blockbusters like 65 or random Tubi movies like Dinosaur Hotel. And so I've been waiting for Jurassic World: Rebirth later this year with anticipation and trepidation in equal measure.

I recently watched a touring Jurassic Park parody play — it's called "Hold Onto Your Butts", and I'd recommend seeing it if you can — and it reminded me that I didn't remember the original Jurassic Park as well as I should, prompting a rewatch that evening. Viewing the classic movie with the new one in the forefront of my mind, I was reminded of what made the original so great... and how all of the Jurassic World movies have lived or died by remembering that strength.

• Here's how to watch all the Jurassic Park movies

If you were to ask fans of Jurassic Park what the most iconic scene was, you'd get one of two answers, a fact easily replicable by searching Google for answers (and I'm sure the comment section at the bottom of this article will see some suggestions). Some would say the Tyrannosaurus Rex nighttime paddock scene, and that's certainly a memorable one, but to me, the best one is always the "Welcome to Jurassic Park" scene. You could probably guess as much, given that it's the image at the top of this article.

You've seen it a million times before, parodied to high heaven and used in myriad memes. It's the scene where our main characters see dinosaurs for the first time and totally lose their cool, all accompanied by John Williams' swelling score. The wonder and amazement in our characters is reflected in the viewers: we haven't seen any living dinos so far in the movie, and back in 1993 (and even now) the creatures looked pretty great.

For fans like me, this scene summarises the appeal of the entire Jurassic Park filmography — there's a wonder in seeing these long-extinct creatures brought back to life. Grant, Malcolm and Sattler are just representations of the viewer.

In fact, all the most memorable scenes for me across the six films reflect on the magnificence and grandeur of dinosaurs fitting into the natural world. The ailing Triceratops scene from later in Jurassic Park is a great example, as we watch Ellie literally cry with wonder at the creatures, but there are plenty more: the herd of Stegasaurus in Jurassic Park II, the reveal in Jurassic World of the domesticity of dinos in the petting zoo, the tragic volcano eruption and dying Apatosaurus in Fallen Kingdom and, later in that same movie, the denouement where we see all manner of dinosaurs now living side-by-side with real animals outside the island.

I recently tried watching Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous (not quite realizing that it was a kids' show until I started). And while I bounced off that show quite quickly (I'm several decades too old for it now), I still appreciated how well it conveyed the amazement and fascination in dinosaurs amongst its young subjects.

However in most movies about dinosaurs, this isn't how they're treated. Most times they're featured in media, including the aforementioned 65, upcoming movie Primitive War and in an episode of the latest season of Love, Death + Robots, dinosaurs are defined by the danger they pose to people: they're treated as super-killers, who exist for the sole reason of murdering people.

The Jurassic Park movies have sometimes fallen into this trap, especially with the latter two titles of the original trilogy, to the point that the World movies write it into the story with dinos that have been intentionally bred to be killers that follow signals... but lampooning the trope doesn't stop them falling victim to it themselves.

I'm worried that Jurassic World: Rebirth is going to follow suit, especially with its plot sounding quite similar to Park II & III. If you haven't watched the trailer or read up on the plot synopsis, it's about a group of scientists going to an island of dinosaurs to harvest DNA, before finding the raging creatures put up a fight.

The description of the trailer listed on YouTube refers to the island as "the most dangerous place on Earth" that's "inhabited by the worst of the worst", also referring to the movie as an "action-packed new chapter". So it's clear that this is more of an action entry than the origial Park movies, perhaps even more so than the World ones, something that the trailer itself makes clear:

With that emphasis on action and danger, I'm worried that Jurassic World: Rebirth may have forgotten how importance wonder is in this semi-fantastical world. Dangerous dinos and fatal flyers may get adrenaline pumping, as will new mutant dinos hinted at in the trailer, but we also need slow moments to help us appreciate the dinos (and all the CGI work put into them!).

Now I know what you're thinking: "why would they put the quiet moments in the trailer?" and you're right — I'm hoping that this is an action-packed taster of a finished movie that has more of these touching moments.

I've got good reason for thinking this, and it's because of the movie's director. Gareth Edwards' first movie was the fantastic creature feature Monsters, which was (as the title suggests) about a monster invasion. Like in past Jurassic Park movies, the most iconic scenes in that movie for me were both the slow character moments, and the times when we see these creatures interacting not as monsters, but as wild animals displaced to the continental United States.

With a new Walking with Dinosaurs trailer looking... not quite how I'd hoped, and no imminent release coming for Prehistoric Planet season 3 or one of my most-anticipated movies Flowervale Street, dino fans have got only Primitive War and Rebirth to look forward to this year (not counting that episode of Love, Death + Robots). And since Primitive War is clearly more of an action-horror-slasher, it's understandably not going to lean too heavily on the wonderous and fascinating side of dinosaurs.

Instead, Jurassic World: Rebirth is best placed to do that, so I'm hoping that it has a scene which turns me into Alan Grant in the aforementioned scene: taking off my glasses in amazement at some amazing visual or dino.

Netflix is hitting our wallets once again. The streaming giant announced on Tuesday, January 21, that they are raising their monthly subscription prices in the US across all of its subscription tiers (price hikes are also coming to Canada, Portugal and Argentina). This has me thinking it may finally be time to switch things up and adopt a churning strategy to only sign up for Netflix when they have something I have to watch.

The official slate of price hikes include raising Netflix’s ad-supported tier from $6.99 per month to $7.99 per month; the Netflix’s Standard plan from $15.49 per month to $17.99 per month and Netflix’s Premium tier from $22.99 per month to $24.99 per month. This will make Netflix ad-free options more expensive than Apple TV Plus, Disney Plus, Max, Paramount Plus and Peacock (only Hulu’s stand-alone ad-free plan costs more).

Netflix will argue that it is worth having one of the heaviest price tags because of its slate of programming (which it says it will use part of the increased fees to invest more in, presumably including more live events), but I see it a bit differently. Yes, Netflix may be developing as much or more new content than any other streamer, but honestly a lot of it is stuff I have little to no interest in, and if there is something I am interested in watching, I finish it in a week or two and then have to wait months sometimes for another show or movie I’m actively interested in watching. So why not just cancel Netflix when I’m done watching what I want to watch and add it once again when the next show I want to watch premieres?

Looking ahead at what Netflix has coming in 2025, while I’m intrigued by TV shows like Zero Day, the only ones that Netflix has currently that I am full-on committed to watching are Stranger Things season 5, Full Swing season 3 and the next season of The Great British Bake Off, which won’t arrive until the fall. On the movie side, I definitely want to watch Happy Gilmore 2 for pure nostalgia and Wake Up Dead Man for the next Knives Out mystery.

Outside of those titles, it’s going to be word of mouth that will bring me to a Netflix show or movie. And if there is something that I hear is great and I need to watch, I could always just wait until I’m ready to re-up for Stranger Things or another of my must-see titles and then use the rest of the month subscription I have to catch up on anything else I may have fallen behind on.

The old argument that Netflix is the best place to stream old TV shows and movies doesn’t hold up as well anymore, either. Netflix still has a good sized library, but with other streamers holding tighter to TV shows and movies that they own, there’s less than there used to be. And personally, rewatching series I’ve already seen before isn’t high on my to-do list.

Admittedly, watching TV shows and movies so I can share what are the ones worth spending your time on is my job, so this is not as simple of a call for me (also being married, I wouldn’t dream of removing one of our streaming services without talking about it with my wife first; don’t want to risk that potential argument). But the fact that I’m even considering churning Netflix (and possibly other streamers) should speak to the issue at hand and the viability of it as a strategy for you as well.

Factoring into the Netflix price increase into my monthly budget, I’m paying more than $130 a month for the likes of Apple TV Plus, Disney/Hulu/ESPN Plus bundle, Max, Netflix and YouTube TV. That’s a solid chunk of change, especially over a full year. Am I really getting the value of that cost? What are the services that I absolutely need?

In all honesty, I’m not sure Netflix is one of them, at least not one that I absolutely need at all times regardless of cost. This Netflix price hike has truly brought that into focus.

The movie theater is one of my favorite places to go to, I’m typically there at least once a week to watch something. So in this time where people seem more inclined to stay home and watch things on streaming and the frequent worrying reports about the future of movie theaters, I’m thrilled that so many are excited to see a movie like Wicked and are responding by buying tickets to watch it on the big screen.

But I’m not thrilled about all the reports that people are singing along with Wicked when they go to see it in theaters.

Wicked is of course based on the wildly popular Broadway show that premiered in 2003. People have long committed its songs to memory, including the showstoppers “Popular” and “Defying Gravity.” I can understand the excitement about getting to see the story of Elphaba and Glinda and these iconic numbers reimagined for the movie. I can understand how you can get swept up in the moment — I have not seen the stage production but was completely gripped watching the movie, particularly its final number (read my Wicked review for my complete thoughts). If you’re the same and get the feeling that you want to sing along with Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, I’m imploring you, please don’t.

This is about movie theater etiquette, which sadly is something we may have to remind people about now that they’re going back to the movie theater.

You may be saying, “I bought a ticket to watchWicked, so why shouldn’t I enjoy the movie however I want?” Well, unless you are the only person in the movie theater (incredibly unlikely in this case), the other people in the audience paid the same price for a ticket as you did. While you may want to make it an interactive experience and sing along, that’s not necessarily what everyone else signed up for and you should be considerate of that.

A movie theater is a communal experience. Comedies can be funnier when you’re laughing out loud with dozens of other people; scary movies can be more frightening when you all get spooked by a jump scare. But those are instant, involuntary reactions; even if you didn’t share that reaction, that’s what you expect when you go see those kind of movies. But when I go see a musical, I expect to hear the actors singing, not the people in the audience who consciously choose to sing along even though that’s not a natural reaction to the movie. Individualism is great, but we also have to remember that there are communal contracts that should be adhered to, and not talking, or singing, in a movie is one of them (while we’re at it, put your phones away as well).

Some people have taken the opposite position to me on this topic, including Dwayne Johnson it seems. One that I particularly want to note is from pop culture writer for The Ringer Mallory Rubin, who said that movie theaters should have “a quiet car” experience, like how the Amtrak trains have a specific section where the expectation is that you do not talk (at least nothing above a whisper). I get what she is going for with this idea, but I believe she has it backwards. I don’t have the numbers on this, but I would tend to think that the likelier majority for audiences going to see Wicked are people who aren’t planning to sing along. So why should they be the ones who have to take an extra step to see the movie? The special screening should be the sing along version.

In fact, we’re actually going to be getting a sing along version of Wicked in the near future. Right around the movie’s premiere it was announced that sing along editions of Wicked would screen in theaters, with Variety reporting that nearly 1,000 North American movie theaters are going to show this version, where you can belt your heart out, starting December 25. Clearly they could/should have had this sooner, but that’s a lesson for Wicked: Part Two.

I never want to discourage people from going to a movie theater. If you feel like my opinion is doing that, I apologize, that is not my intention. I want you to see Wicked and enjoy the experience as much as I did. But you should recognize that while singing may add to your experience, it could negatively impact someone else’s and in turn discourage them from returning to the movie theater.

So, if you were planning on seeing Wicked this holiday weekend and were excited to try and match Erivo note for note on “Defying Gravity,” please think twice and remember your time to do just that in an environment where that is the expectation is coming soon enough. So save your voice.

If you look at it from a thousand feet out, the Academy and ABC got what they wanted during the most recent edition of the Oscars. The day after the broadcast the whole world was talking about the awards ceremony. Plus, the show saw a sizeable boost in its ratings from a historic low in 2021. But look closer and the cracks become clear.

The water-cooler moment from the Oscars was when Will Smith hit Chris Rock, live on TV (Rock made an in-poor-taste joke about Jada Pinkett Smith’s shaven head, as he was introducing the Best Documentary award). Smith has since apologized for attacking Rock, admitting that he was out of line. But it became a moment that overshadowed the rest of the ceremony and dampened the joy of the winners, including for Smith — winning his first Oscar for Best Actor in King Richard. The historic wins of Ariana DeBose, Jane Campion, Troy Kotsur and CODA — as well as powerful speeches from Questlove and Jessica Chastain — were relegated to secondary talking points as a result. 

As for the ratings, early reports indicate this year’s Oscars saw a 58% increase in viewership overall and a good bump in the coveted adults 18-49 demographic. But the 16.6 million viewers are still the second lowest ratings for the awards show ever and only the second time it earned less than 20 million viewers, even after multiple efforts were made to draw viewers in.

The Oscars love to be viewed as "Hollywood’s biggest night," with the goal of delivering an entertaining, big, glamorous TV experience all while honoring what its 9,000 or so members have deemed the best in movies from the previous year. Trying to accomplish both goals is a tall task and it may be time for the Oscars to make life easier on themselves and get back to the basics — stop trying to be a TV entertainment show and focus on the awards and the movies themselves.

Let’s do a quick review of this most recent Oscars broadcast. After three years without a host, the Oscars enlisted Regina Hall, Amy Schumer and Wanda Sykes to emcee the evening, the trio taking on one of the hardest jobs in Hollywood. They had a few good bits (I enjoyed Sykes’ Academy Museum remote, Schumer was a pro addressing the audience after the slap and Hall was game and energetic in all her bits), but just as many failed and derailed the momentum of the show. Did we really need Schumer giving us a second monologue after the trio had just done one?

The other big decision, pushed by ABC and controversially implemented by the show’s producers, was to hand out eight awards an hour before the broadcast in order to shorten the show and finish in ABC’s allotted three-hour runtime. Many Academy members shared their disappointment, saying they were disrespecting nominees in key categories. Despite the controversial changes the broadcast still ran almost 40 minutes over the three-hour goal — no better than in past years when they gave out all the awards live. So that idea fell flat on its face.

Everything else was just … fine. Performances by Beyoncé and other nominated songs, as well as a redux of Encanto’s "We Don’t Talk About Bruno," were OK. Montages to The Godfather and James Bond were routine but disjointed — it seemed odd not to have the Bond montage presented by Bond actors (especially since Judi Dench, Javier Bardem and Rami Malek were all in the audience). Finally, the misguided attempt to bring the "fans" into the discussion with social media voted categories for "favorite movie" and "top cheer" moment — both won by Zach Snyder movies (The Justice League and Army of the Dead) — told us nothing more than how well fan communities can mobilize online.

The Oscars’ concern about declining ratings is fair, but it’s also missing the larger picture — it’s not just them, it’s all live TV events. Unless you are the NFL, or another major sporting event, ratings have been declining across the board. It’s not like other awards shows are doing any better. The most recent Emmy Awards in September 2021 had a viewership of 7.4 million; the 2021 Grammy’s last April had 8.8 million. Even pre-pandemic numbers the Oscars were still at the top of the ratings. The 2019 Oscars ceremony even saw an increase in ratings, hitting 29.6 million (a growth of more than 3 million people year-on-year). 

That year there was no host, a "Popular Film" category meant to get big blockbuster movies nominated was proposed but then abandoned, as was attempts to air some awards during commercial breaks to again try and shorten the ceremony. None of that mattered, people tuned in to see how Black Panther, A Star Is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody —  all in the top 15 highest-grossing movies of 2018 — would fare in Best Picture and other awards.

We’re not suggesting that the Oscars should focus exclusively on box-office hits rather than continuing to elevate a variety of movies large and small. What it shows, though, is that when the public has heard of some of the contenders, people tune in to see what wins. Now, I’d be fine if the Oscars were just: "here’s the nominees, here’s the winner and here’s the speech. Now, onto the next one." But we know that others tune into the Oscars for the red carpet glamor, love the comedy skits and the presenter pairings. Finding the balance is key. 

Of course, ABC (which owns the broadcast rights for the Oscars until 2028) should do what it can to boost its ratings, but trying to liven up the show for a younger generation that rarely watch TV, while annoying the existing audience doesn’t make much sense. If the Oscars are going to reach audiences it will likely be because of all the things the Oscars have always done well — glamorous people, dressed to the nines handing out awards for movies that people truly love and care about.

This post contains spoilers for Ted Lasso. 

Ted Lasso has become a beacon of kindness, both throughout its opening season last summer and its second season, now airing weekly on Apple TV+. The show’s high-concept premise -- what if a folksy American football coach was hired by an English football club to lead a team overseas, in spite of having no awareness of the differences between American and English football? -- masked a tender heart, exemplified both by the title character played by Jason Sudeikis and by most of the ensemble surrounding him. As season two has now hit the halfway point of its 12 episodes, Ted Lasso has revealed that its new secret weapon isn’t Ted himself or even any of the other regularly credited cast members: it’s the immensely charming young actor Toheeb Jimoh, as up-and-coming player Sam Obisanya.

Though Jimoh’s been credited as a guest since the pilot episode, he’s been a vital part of the Ted Lasso ensemble. Sam’s mantra is given to him by Ted early on in the series -- to have the memory of a goldfish when heartbreak occurs for the club for which he plays and Ted coaches, AFC Richmond. That mantra steers not only him through the first season, but eventually everyone else on the club. Throughout the first season, Sam is given the chance to step up within the Richmond squad even as he’s bullied by his arrogant teammate Jamie Tartt (Phil Dunster). By the time Jamie’s sent back to his original club in a mid-first-season plot twist, Sam gets even more of an opportunity to serve as a right back improving all the time. 

Sam hails from Nigeria; in the first season, that connects him to Ted simply in terms of the two being characters from other countries who can’t help but have a bit of homesickness in the UK. But in the second season, Sam’s heritage is center stage for different reasons. In the third episode, “Do the Right-est Thing”, Sam’s star is on the rise: he’s getting a photo shoot for Richmond’s main sponsor, Dubai Air, and being treated like a celebrity by local fans, including the daughter of a friend of Richmond’s owner Rebecca (Hannah Waddingham). But when Sam shares the photos with his father, he’s given a bracing wake-up call. His dad calls him a shill because Dubai Air’s parent company is an oil conglomerate destroying Nigeria from the inside out. Sam is quickly inspired to not only back out of the sponsorship deal, but also put black tape over the Dubai Air logo on his jersey, an act of defiance the entire team follows in suit with. 

The storyline could easily read as being more polemical than necessary -- though the spate of racism against English football players in real life over the last couple months has made this a sadly very timely plotline -- but Jimoh’s performance keeps it grounded without ever feeling like a diatribe or a lecture. (Arguably, the speed with which the rest of the team quickly surrounds and supports Sam offers a slight touch of fantasy, but considering the nastiness of the real world, there’s nothing wrong with a touch of implausibility. The one hard-to-swallow aspect is that there's been no negative aftermath from the club's decision.) 

Also early in the season, Sam comes into conflict with Ted, after he sees a surreptitiously snapped photo of Jamie, coming metaphorically hat in hand to the coach to get his old post in Richmond FC back. Sam talks about how rough Jamie made things for him, and in so doing inadvertently encourages Ted to bring Jamie back, just to create some new tension for the team, which has been perpetually stuck in tying game after game in its first season relegated from the Premier League. Jamie, as luck would have it, ends up being the first teammate to join Sam in his in-game protest after turning down the Dubai Air photoshoot, putting black tape over the logo that adorns his jersey. It’s as much a testament to how Jamie’s overconfidence has been cowed between seasons as it is to Sam’s new sense of leadership over the team, communicated so deftly through Jimoh's brilliant work.

But -- spoilers ahoy -- perhaps the biggest twist of the season came at the end of the most recent episode, “The Signal”. (That title refers to how Ted and his fellow coaches signal Jamie to revert to his old, obnoxiously talented form, by flipping him off in full view.) Throughout the season’s first half, one of the subplots has focused on Rebecca and her attempts to find someone new in her romantic life. Though she’s had some casual flings, nothing has stuck except for a mysterious, unnamed person with whom she’s been chatting on a new dating app called Bantr. One episode seemed to imply that her mystery man was Ted (after a careful cut from Rebecca using the app on her phone to seeing Ted on his, seemingly reacting to something with a wry smile). Ah, but it's not so. “The Signal” ends with a real surprise: the mystery man is Sam, who’s as in the dark about who he’s texting with as Rebecca is.

It’s hard to know after these six episodes where Ted Lasso as a season will conclude. Sam and Rebecca’s story isn’t yet a main focus, at least compared to where “The Signal” ends: with Ted cooped up in the office of sports psychologist Dr. Sharon Fieldstone (Sarah Niles), finally ready to talk after suffering yet another panic attack, this time during the middle of a crucial match. But Sam has proven himself to be an impossible-to-ignore part of the show, thanks entirely to Toheeb Jimoh’s radiant charm. Presumably before the season is over, both Sam and Rebecca will realize what’s going on, especially since Sam is now proposing to his mystery woman that they should meet up.

The challenges of a relationship between Rebecca and Sam are easy enough to note: there’s a substantial age difference, and the unavoidable fact that she’s his boss. (Plus the part where they may each be a bit horrified or at least shocked to realize who they’ve been talking to in secret.) But just as Waddingham quickly revealed her performance in the first season to be vastly more layered than that of a harridan owner trying to tank a major sports club simply to screw over her ex (with intentional shades of Major League and its female-owner villain trying to tank her own baseball team), Jimoh’s performance has revealed layer after layer in every episode.

Jimoh has done an incredible job of representing Sam’s indomitable spirit and his mostly unflagging positivity from the start, but it’s thanks to him as much as the writing that the same naive young man from the pilot is now able to stand tall among his club. Keeley (Juno Temple) all but says it when she shares pics from the Dubai Air photoshoot: "You're a mood! You're a moment, you're a mantra." When Jamie meets him on the pitch upon returning, he’s stunned to see Sam get the better of him, as Sam says, “While you were off filming your little TV show, some things changed around here.” Jimoh doesn’t deliver the line with some exaggerated sense of triumph, as much as a matter-of-fact statement on how things changed gradually enough that Jamie can be literally and metaphorically stunned.

And now, in a season where Ted Lasso has already declared that he believes in “Communism...rom-communism”, Toheeb Jimoh gets to potentially play out his own version of a romantic comedy. Each aspect and twist of Ted Lasso comes as a delightful surprise, so it’s easy to envision that either Sam or Rebecca is going to be aghast at the revelation that they’ve been carrying on a secret texting relationship. But it’s just as easy to imagine Sam, at least, trying to see where things go. (If Rebecca dives in more willingly, that would be shocking, if only because Rebecca has been reticent and nervous all season about putting herself out in the world more openly.) There’s still one more half of what has been an excellent season so far for Ted Lasso. But hopefully the second half realizes what’s been clear in the first half: this show has a secret weapon, and his name is Toheeb Jimoh.

If you can cast your mind far back enough, you may recall that Friends: The Reunion was a special that the WarnerMedia empire has been touting for a long time. Back in November of 2019, months before the HBO Max streaming service launched, it was reported that a reunion special of some kind featuring the six leads of what remains one of the most popular TV series of all time was in development. The question by the time that HBO Max was unveiled to the world in May of 2020 wasn’t whether or not we’d ever see the Friends reunite, but when it would be safe enough for them to do so. In the interim, HBO Max wound up releasing another reunion special to another beloved 90s-era sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

That show’s reunion aired last fall, tying into the 30th anniversary of its premiere season. There are some basic similarities in the reunion specials for both of these shows: they were both hit sitcoms of the 1990s that aired originally on NBC and have since endured through the decades to new generations, and both are shows that vaulted its actors to bigger things. But The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air reunion was a far more memorable and successful affair because its entire purpose for existing wasn’t to traffic in nostalgia. That special did something Friends: The Reunion chose not to do: get awkward and deal with the ensuing fallout.

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is still one of the more delightful, high-concept sitcoms of the 1990s, with the setup being that Will Smith, playing an exaggerated version of his young self, is sent away from the rough streets of West Philadelphia (where he was born and raised, as the theme song helpfully details) to the tony neighborhoods of Bel-Air to live with his rich aunt and uncle and presumably get a safer upbringing. While there, he befriends his cousin Carlton (Alfonso Ribeiro), as well as his younger cousin Ashley (Tatyana M. Ali), while finding a surrogate mom and dad in Aunt Viv and Uncle Phil (Janet Hubert-Whitten and Daphne Maxwell Reid, and the late James Avery). 

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air may not have been quite the worldwide sensation that Friends is, but it’s got its fair share of memorable moments, many of them tackling thorny issues of race and representation. But the reunion special focused, in an extended segment, on a one-to-one conversation the now grown-up Smith (who since became one of the biggest movie stars in the world) has with his old ex-co-star Hubert-Whitten, who played Aunt Viv for the first three seasons of the series, before being replaced for reasons that wound up being more personal in nature. Smith, circa the waning days of 2020, is more circumspect and honest about his own mistakes as an actor and producer, and Hubert-Whitten doesn’t hold back in talking about how emotionally damaging and fraught the situation was for her, at home and at work.

Friends is not, to be fair, a show that ever had a major recasting -- it’s not like any of the six friends ended up being played by different actors throughout its 10-year run. But Friends: The Reunion rarely allows any hint of darkness about the behind-the-scenes story of the people who played Chandler, Ross, Joey, Rachel, Monica, and Phoebe. Just as the show itself has served as comfort food to audiences the world over, the presumption is that the special should be similarly comforting. The scattershot special features, sprinkled throughout, a handful of softball questions provided by late-night talk-show host James Corden. At one point, he throws it out to the socially distanced audience for questions, and when the first person asks the cast something they didn’t like about making the show, he mocks the questioner for being negative. (The resulting answer, in which David Schwimmer describes how immensely frustrating it was to have to film with a live monkey so frequently in the show’s early seasons, is one of the few that feels genuinely honest.)

While it’s unfair to presume that there would be a painful heart-to-heart about someone losing their job, there is sadly an easy avenue or two down which the reunion special could’ve traveled. It’s not casting specifically, though there is a tidbit that Louis Mandylor, the actor who ended up playing a guy Joey hires to be his double, was the other actor who nearly got hired as the actual Joey during the show’s first-season casting process. But while he remains the single funniest part of Friends, Matthew Perry has very publicly wrestled with substance abuse over the years. It’s a thorny topic, to be sure, but one that goes almost wholly uncommented-upon, even though Perry acknowledges in the special that he began to crave audience approval to a point where it was unhealthy (something Lisa Kudrow tells him none of the other cast members realized). It’s one of the few points in the special when Perry gets a word in edgewise generally speaking -- Schwimmer and Aniston seem to do most of the talking throughout. 

But there’s not much more explored in terms of Perry’s past, or really anything beyond surface-level laughs about the experience of being massively famous and not being prepared for being massively famous. In a story LeBlanc tells of seeing a live cable-news feed of the six stars’ houses, he laughs about realizing that his roof at the time was a mess. The closest the special gets to sharing something potentially shocking comes late, when both Schwimmer and Aniston say that they harbored serious romantic feelings for each other in the show’s first season or two, but because they were each in relationships of their own, they never pursued anything. If nothing else, it’s a nice moment for fans who can bolster any reading they might have of the earliest seasons and see how those true feelings translated to fictional sparks. That, however, isn’t a terribly edgy or bravely honest thing to share. Chandler Bing was usually the chattiest of the Friends, so it's perhaps most noticeable that Perry says the least throughout the special.

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air reunion is structured loosely, as is Friends: The Reunion. Both specials center around the original cast members returning to the main set in which their shows were filmed, and both specials feature the revival of some memorable gags, whether it’s Ribeiro dancing to “It’s Not Unusual” by Tom Jones or the cast of Friends taking part in a quiz to determine their arcane knowledge about personal subjects. Both of these specials are, at their core, about reviving the audience’s collective memory of why they loved the shows in the first place. But Friends: The Reunion had an opportunity to be more confrontational and open about its production history, or at least the struggles its cast members may have had throughout the years. In the end, it’s just about maintaining the comfort-food illusion of the original series, but...well, the original series does that well enough. Why even have a reunion if you don’t at least acknowledge the good and the bad?

This post contains spoilers for The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

When Steve Rogers first gave Sam Wilson the shield, Sam said that it felt "Like it’s someone else’s". At the time, this felt like a touching tribute to his dear friend. But now, it can also seem like a comment on why being an American hero still feels out of reach for Black Americans like Sam.

In episode 5 of The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Sam Wilson brings the shield to Isaiah Bradley. Isaiah had a lot of important things to say about the country, its history and its symbols. But his most important comment deals with Sam’s struggle from the end of Avengers: Endgame and throughout this series. 

Can this give us a deeper insight into why Sam gave up the shield in the first place and how can he reconciles this conflict? Should a self-respecting Black man even want to be Captain America?

The Falcon and The Winter Soldier has been working through a statement on the Black experience in America and in the world of superheroes. While I may believe this was handled better before (Watchmen Episode 6 is an absolute masterclass), I’m glad Marvel has included it here. In this show, Isaiah Bradley stands in for the Black heroes that America has rejected, abused, and erased. He may be a veteran and war hero, but American heroes can hail from other walks of life too. Even a Black man like Sam who believes in ideal outcomes may choose to avoid the mantle in the face of rejection or abuse.

In this key conversation with Sam, Isaiah makes a quick reference to the history of the Red Tails (which is worth learning if you don’t already know). He also discusses his own experiences with Black soldiers being secretly used for testing super soldier serum. The results of those tests, which mirror the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, are ugly and deadly but the pain of Black military heroes in America goes way beyond the gruesome acts of a few bad leaders.

My Grandfather was an Army veteran of two wars and a hero, although he would always bristle if we called him that. He fought on the front lines of both World War II and the Korean War, and he lost many friends and fellow soldiers along the way. When he came home, he found that Black American war heroes were rejected from the GI Bill, including college benefits, government-backed mortgages, and occupational training. After working twice as hard as anyone, my grandfather finally purchased a plot of land in a suburb to build his final forever home. During construction, vandals spray painted swastikas, racial slurs and threats on his foundation, desecrating it. He refused to remove it, and I saw it as a child many years before he passed away. 

I remember him telling me as a teenager that the Army was no place for a Black man in America. I don’t know if I struggled with that in the same way that Sam struggled with Isaiah’s message for him, but it wasn’t easy to hear. I took it to heart, and eventually learned from it. To his dying day, my Grandfather proudly wore the colors of the stars and stripes and his veteran gear. But he never forgot that his country had him wear the uniform and kill for the defense of us all, but did not cover him or his family in the same way it covered other war heroes back home.

These problems not only weigh on the decisions by a current generation of Black men like Sam Wilson, they also keep happening to Black heroes of today. The list of names of tragically killed Black men and women too long to include here. Even with protests and a new generation of heroes rising, the same painful patterns repeat.

Black Army officer Caron Nazario feared for his life while being held at gunpoint and pepper sprayed during a routine traffic stop. Afterwards, he was quoted to say “Your service is not going to save you in this country”. In 2012, my sister and her family found a burning cross on their driveway. This family had been pillars within that neighborhood, as successful business people and active members of their church and community. While two juveniles were arrested, none of the punishments could undo the pain of knowing they were rejected and their home had been desecrated.

Sam may not have lived through the Civil Rights Movement of the of the 1960s, or seen all that Isaiah has seen, but as a Black man in America he has surely had his share of racism and discrimination. As Sam seeks to solve this internal conflict about becoming Captain America, he seems to me to be a bit naïve, but certainly not ignorant. Sam tells us exactly how he is reconciling Isaiah’s powerful statement in a conversation with his sister, Sarah.

“Isaiah has been to hell and back. If I were in his shoes, I’d probably feel the exact same way. But what would be the point of all the pain and sacrifice if I wasn’t willing to stand up and keep fighting?” - Sam Wilson

Like any good soldier and many strong Black advocates for change through history, Sam equates progress with fighting. Black Americans have had to fight for personhood, freedom, every right they have.

There are Black American heroes that lean towards Sam Wilson side despite being rejected, abused or erased. These heroes who fought for freedom through political and social change span the whole history of the country, with Harriet Tubman, James Lafayette, Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Stacey Abrams, and Cori Bush among many others. It’s the words of Frederick Douglass that feel particularly relevant to Sam and Isaiah. In one of his most famous works "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro", Douglass is arguing for freedom for Black American people being held in slavery. Through the lens of history, I see him making a larger argument.

 "The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.” - Frederick Douglass

While the legacy of this country and the shield are both complicated, the answers in hindsight are simple: The principles and inheritance of America should have always been and should always be for Black as well as White and all races. Whether superheroes, founding fathers, or heroes of politics and culture, Blacks shouldn’t need permission for the responsibilities and the victories if they’re willing to take them on. There never should have been two Americas in the MCU or otherwise. America is the birthright of Black men and women like Sam and Sarah Wilson. It has always been the birthright from the times of Douglass and Tubman. Stacey Abrams shouldn’t need to lead the fight to keep the right to vote for many Blacks in this country. That these things happened, and still happen, is painful and pathetic.

Sam Wilson — and any other self-respecting Black man or woman — has every right to be Captain America and carry the shield. Doing so wouldn’t have to be an endorsement of the ugly parts of history the way Isaiah sees it, but a rejection of them. It is their birthright from ancestors who built this country and have been fighting for freedom and justice for all ever since.

This post contains spoilers for Promising Young Woman. 

Emerald Fennell’s feature debut was one of the most talked-about films of 2020. Now that Promising Young Woman is available to rent on-demand, a wider audience will have a chance to see what so many have been debating since its release—the film’s powerful albeit polarizing ending. First things first, Promising Young Woman is a film centered around rape culture, misogyny, victim-blaming, and injustice.

Since the film debuted, there have been passionate conversations surrounding the subject matter. There are those who have called it “enraging at best and problematic at worse,” and one writer even described it as leaving “a nasty taste in [their] mouth.” I highlight those with differing opinions than mine because every survivor is going to be impacted by this film differently. It's important to hear from varying perspectives, and I am in no way trying to shut out those voices. Oftentimes, we view survivors as a monolith, expecting all who have experienced this film's dark thesis first-hand to respond the same way. 

Something to bear in mind here is that all art is subjective. Given the relatability of the film for many, many women, it's absolutely impossible to watch and separate one's own lived experiences. Because of that, it feels as if there are some fundamental misunderstandings of the ending's intentions, difficult to see with the lens of our own personal journeys blocking the view. No one needs to enjoy the story or respect the film, but I did want to add (another) survivor's perspective on the film. 

I personally do not view Promising Young Woman as a rape-revenge film. The victim, Nina, is unseen throughout the film because she tragically ended her life as part of the fallout of her rape. She is not here to enact her own justice. There is no catharsis for Nina. We are left instead with her friend Cassie (Carey Mulligan) — consumed by the injustice and failures that surrounded her best friend that could have possibly saved her — fueled with pain and rage looking to honor her memory by actually doing something.

The story circumvents film conventions from the very start and leaves us scrambling to find our way home after realizing the familiar trails do not exist. We watch as Cassie lures in her latest victim, absolutely positive as an audience member that we know how this situation is going to play out, only to be whiplashed that the perceived blood on her legs during a barefoot “walk of shame” is actually the dripping innards of a jelly donut. Promising Young Woman spends so much time reminding you that this is not a film you’ve seen before, but more importantly, that it’s not trying to be. Thematically speaking, this film is closer to a John Wick or a Death Wish than it is to a Ms. 45 or I Spit on Your Grave. Cassie is acting out her vigilante behavior from the love she has for Nina, except of course, that Cassie doesn’t actually kill anyone.

For almost the entire movie, Cassie’s goal is to terrify a culture and attempt to dismantle a system that contributed to the demise of her best friend in whatever small way she can. She keeps a list of the random names of people she’s hopefully scared straight, adding them to the list only after the fact--never before. Cassie’s motivation is not to live out like Lady Snowblood, Arya Stark, or the Bride from Kill Bill. Her list is not targeted or intentional, it’s merely a document of people that she’s encountered. 

It is only when the opportunity presents itself to come face to face with the people who specifically hurt Nina that her motivations change. From the moment that she hears the name “Al Monroe,”— the name that had skyrocketed to glory while her best friend’s name was relegated as a footnote no matter how hard Cassie tried to keep it alive — everything shifts. Her focus tunnels in on Al (Chris Lowell), her previous generalized tactics we had seen time and time again suddenly flip to something specific to target Al and his friends.

Her old wounds are ripped open. It's then and only then that Cassie starts tracking down the complicit parties in Nina’s rape and subsequent mishandling. The female friend who slut-shamed her and compared it to “crying wolf,” the female Dean who cared more about the promising reputation of a future male doctor and wrote it off as another case of he said/she said, and the male lawyer who harassed Nina until she dropped the charges. In all three cases, Cassie’s form of revenge is giving them a taste of their own medicine, teaching them empathy by forcing them into Nina’s shoes. Cassie realizes these people are only going to “get it” if they feel like they are on the receiving end of the systems and behaviors that failed Nina.

Later, Cassie blackmails her ex-boyfriend Ryan (Bo Burnham) — after discovering he was a participant in Nina’s rape — for the location of Al’s bachelor party and shows up pretending to be a hired stripper for the occasion, dressed like a nurse. She drugs the groomsmen, takes Al upstairs and locks him to a bed using those cheap, fluffy, pink handcuffs normally reserved for bachelorette parties or gag gifts. Cassie then attempts to carve Nina’s name onto Al’s body when he breaks off one of the handcuffs and kills Cassie by smothering her with a pillow.

The next morning Al’s best friend comes upstairs to find him strapped to the bed and still laying next to Cassie’s dead body. The two burn her body on a pyre and move on as if nothing happened. Ryan, knowing full well where Cassie went that weekend, lies to the police and pretends to know nothing when asked if he knew of her whereabouts. 

After Cassie’s death, Al Monroe’s wedding goes on as planned until the police show up to have him arrested for her murder. In tandem, a pre-timed text message shows up on Ryan’s phone indicating that everything is going to plan. Cassie knew full well what would happen if she dared to take on her friend's rapist and yet she did it anyway. It’s the reason she brought handcuffs probably purchased from Hot Topic instead of something stronger. It’s the reason she meticulously planned the aftermath revenge plot that only functions if she dies. Sure, I completely understand why so many people have viewed this ending as “hollow” and “bleak,” but in the world that Fennell has shaped — it’s exactly the way it was supposed to end. It was always going to be Cassie and Nina.

In the end, both women did what they set out to do. They're allowed to go out on their own terms. This is the choice they've made because it's the best one for them after other choices were stripped away.

[Content warning: rape]

I waited until the very end of this piece to incorporate my own lived experience into my read of this film, knowing my admission runs the risk of serving as a distraction. Without divulging too many details, the first time I was raped was similar to what happened to Nina. Seeing that reflected on screen in a way that wasn’t a documentary on Steubenville was jarring, to say the least, but finally having that representation was more than appreciated. 

A few years ago, one of the men that participated in my gang rape took his own life. The day I found out, there was no catharsis. The high I had been chasing from years of consuming rape-revenge films and watching rapists get their comeuppance just wasn’t there. There was no relief. There was no weight lifted off my shoulders. Promising Young Woman knows that there’s no good way for these stories to end, and is brave enough to show it.

This story is not afraid to highlight the horrific and hopeless reality of rape culture in America and points out that catharsis is usually something reserved for movies and TV shows. Once again, the film is practically screaming in our faces that this is not a rape-revenge movie and we probably aren't going to get what we want out of this film, because that's not what the film is. 

The NFL playoffs are serious business. Entire seasons come down to just one game. Injuries, bad calls and just dumb luck can sink a year's worth of work. And at the end of a 2020 season that's been anything but normal, we've all just been hoping to actually see the final 13 games take place.

And serious times call for serious measures. Enter the NFL on ... Nickelodeon?

There's nothing new about log rolling when it comes to live TV. Every morning you see the broadcast networks promoting prime-time events coming up later that night or that week. Same goes for sports, with in-game promos by the announcers who seamlessly go right back to calling balls and strikes, or first downs and touchdowns.

But the Jan. 10 NFL wild-card game between the New Orleans Saints and Chicago Bears ushered in a different level of fun, with the game being broadcast on Nickelodeon as well as on CBS proper. (It also was available on the not-nearly-as-fun Amazon Prime Video.) Both Nickelodeon and CBS are part of the ViacomCBS family, so the pairing wasn't completely out of left field. Or the backfield, in this case.

I hadn't really been paying attention, so I didn't know what to expect going into it. There were different commercials, of course. Some overlapped, but a good many were geared toward a traditional Nickelodeon audience, which tops out at the teenage set (at least the ones not yet glued to their phones). Contrast that to the CBS crowed, which may well have taken a nap a halftime.

But it was the in-game graphics and transitions to and from the adverts that really made the Saints-Bears game that much more fun. Instead of slick animations, sharp edges and metallic-looking logos where was ... slime. If you've somehow never been immersed in Nickelodeon or are outside the late Gen Z window, slime very much is in the DNA of Nickelodeon. The only thing missing on that front was former Dallas quarterback-turned-favorite color man Tony Romo telling Jim Nantz "I don't know," and having a bucket of green goo dumped on his head. Alas, Romo was working remotely due to COVID protocols. (In any other context that might elicit some sort of joke of yet another Romo failure to show up in the postseason, but I am above such things.) That also wasn't going to happen because Nantz and Romo weren't calling the Nickelodeon game, which instead was worked by Noah Eagle, analyst Nate Burleson and Gabrielle Nevaeh Green, one of the stars of All That and Nickelodeon's Unfiltered.

To be clear, outside of what you'd call "furniture" — graphics that visible on screen during the game — and promos and transitions, what you got was a regular football game, just with different announcers than what was on CBS. Nobody was putting googly eyes on Drew Brees while he was scrambling in the pocket.

No, the game was just a lot more fun to watch around the edges.

There also was an overload of Spongebob Squarepants. That's also not surprising, not just because Spongebob lives in a pineapple under the sea on Nickelodeon, but also because 2021 will give birth to the Spongebob spinoff Kamp Koral, as well as The Spongebob Movie: Sponge on the Run, both of which will be on CBS All Access, which is soon to become Paramount+.

In other words, it's all about that cross-promotion, folks. But fortunately for us, it also was an NFL game with a little added fun. And lord knows we need a little more of that these days.

Everything about The Mandalorian is beautiful. Every scene seems as if it was born from some sort of oil painting, transformed onto your screen. (And in a way, it likely was.) It has a rich history and canon in which to explore, and it has not shied away from doing so. (At time to its own detriment, perhaps.) And it has the sort of slow swagger that you don't get much these days.

And you can't mention Disney+ without the word "Mandalorian" following quickly behind.

But here's the thing: The Mandalorian isn't even the second-best sci-fi series streaming right now.

Search your feelings you know it to be true.

1. The Expanse (Amazon Prime Video)

The Expanse — which just kicked off its fifth and penultimate season — is the best sci-fi series on TV right now.

The story of The Expanse, which premiered in 2015, almost is as thrilling as the series itself. It was a sleeper hit on cable's SYFY for its first three seasons before it was unceremoniously killed off, right at a critical juncture for future episodes. Then, in the sort of sequence of events only science-fiction fans could pull off, a fervent grassroots campaign led to Amazon scooping up the series and announcing two new seasons. (A sixth and final season was announced in November 2020.)

The Expanse is based on a series of novels by James S.A. Corey, and it's quite the ride. To recap it makes you sound perhaps a little crazy. But the short version is the solar system has been colonized many years into the future, and divided into three main groups. Earth and Luna (that's the moon) make up one. Mars, which was colonized and then won its independence, is another. And everyone else working out in the asteroids and moons and space stations beyond — particularly in the asteroid belt — are the third.

A series of secret experiments on an extra-solar material called "protomolecule" brings the three divisions together at times, and against each other at others, before finally opening up hundreds of new galaxies for humanity to explore.

The Expanse is fast and brutal. (Not unlike space.) There are multiple stories — all interlinked — at work, which keeps things moving along at a pretty good clip. And perhaps my favorite part is how gravity itself is a character in the entire series and not just one of those annoying laws of physics that gets explained away (or not).

And with Season 5 now streaming, it's proved once again that it belongs in the conversation of the best sci-fi series around. And in my book, atop that list.

2. Star Trek: Discovery (CBS All Access)

CBS All Access is the new home for all things Star Trek, and it has quickly proven that it's making the most of this next generation. (Sorry not sorry.) Its first new exclusive series, Star Trek: Discovery, also is the best in a long, long time.

Discovery has the best production of any Trek series we've ever seen. That's not a huge shock given the improvements in the entertainment industry and in computer graphics. It also has seasoned actors mixed among newcomers in a way that's not unlike the veterans and cadets you'd find in any quasi-military structure.

And it's maybe a small thing, but Discovery (and CBS All Access) opened a door for a new, more realistic Trek. One in which people have emotions and feelings and act accordingly, with the occasional outburst and colorful language. (Wesley Crusher was just before his time, folks, and let's not forget Data's "Oh, shit" moment in Star Trek Generations.) To hear an f-bomb from someone in uniform — it's refreshing, if not particularly safe for the kids in the room.

The Discovery series began in 2017 with a pretty dark tone in its first two seasons, with death and war and captains willing to do anything to win. A few major characters were quickly killed off, with no way of knowing whether it was a great cameo, or if they'd somehow return later on.

The cast is brilliant. Sonequa Martin-Green is Michael Burnham, an orphan raised as Spock's sister, and all the hangups that come with that. Jason Isaacs (as in Lucious Malfoy) gives her new purpose as Captain Gabriel Lorca. Anson Mount follows as Captain Christopher Pike and was so good that he's getting his own show, Strange New Worlds. The likes of Doug Jones and Anthony Rapp and MIchelle Yeoh and Mary Wiseman and Wilson Cruz — and the list goes on — only make the ensemble cast that much stronger. And that's before we get anywhere near Season 3, which brings a wonderful David Ajala into the fold. (Plus: David Cronenberg!)

Star Trek: Discovery has been on its own journey over the course of three seasons. And it's will worth the ride.

3. The Mandalorian (Disney+)

It almost feels weird calling The Mandalorian science-fiction. Star Wars really is a genre unto itself now. And with all the new series and films that are coming up over the next couple of years, it's only getting bigger.

But The Mandalorian was the tentpole series when Disney+ launched in November 2019, and it's remained so ever since. That's both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, The Mandalorian is good. Really good. It's got a huge world from which to draw, and it's done a great job of bringing in characters who have lived just below the level of mainstream Star Wars popular culture but have been introduced in books and other series like The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels.

But for as exciting as that is — and I'm thrilled to see Katee Sackhoff as Bo Katan and for Ashoka Tano get a dedicated series — it doesn't change the fact The Mandalorian has been a slow grind. Almost impossibly so. It has individual moments and episodes that warm the nerd soul, for sure. Kicking off Season 2 with Timothy Olyphant was just plain fun, and the return of Boba Fett is great, even if there's definitely some forced retconning going on.

But each week also comes with a sense of dread. Is the story going to advance mere inches once more? Or are we actually going to make some progress?

And that's before I even start in on the dialog, which gives the term "stilted" a bad name. I recently caught Solo on TV for the first time in a while and the difference talking like a normal human being and what's going on in The Mandalorian couldn't be more striking. That's not to say that Mando shouldn't have a different tone and cadence and that the series shouldn't have a different feel to it — it absolutely is unlike anything in the Star Wars universe, and that's great.

But bad dialog combined with bad pacing too often makes The Mandalorian a tough watch.

There were tons of surprises during Disney's massive Investor Day event. New shows. New movies. Teasers of other things to come. The surprise wasn't that we were getting a look at some new stuff — it was just the sheer amount of new content coming our way over the next few years that was beyond incredible.

And then there was that final surprise. Yes, Disney+ is getting a price increase. 

That actually shouldn't be a shock. When Disney+ went live in November 2019, its $6.99-a-month subscription fee looked like a downright bargain compared to Netflix. It's a little tougher to compare it to Amazon Prime Video, which for most of us is amortized with the rest of our Amazon Prime subscription. (To be honest I couldn't even tell you what mine costs at this point. It's just a thing that exists. But since you asked, it's $12.99 a month, or $119 annually. Prime Video on its own costs $8.99 a month.)

It also shouldn't at all be a surprise when subscription fees start low and then ramp up slowly over time. You can always charge more — and you'll almost never see a company charge less. 

Let's go back to the Netflix comparison for a minute. We'll use the current numbers for that service (and, yes, they just went up), and the upcoming changes for Disney+.

Both services have a world of content. Some exclusive to the service, some that you've probably seen elsewhere before. Technologically, though, there's a world of difference in what you're paying for.

Both Disney+ and Netflix are available in 4K resolution. Both support the Dolby Vision standard of high dynamic range, which allows for more colors and makes everything look better.

But whereas you get the best you can get with that same $7.99-a-month fee with Disney+, you'll have to pony up a whopping $17.99-a-month for 4K support via the Netflix Premium plan.

That's a $10 premium for what basically should be table stakes in 2020. Supporting 4K resolution isn't optional (a fact that many of us have been griping to HBO Max about, though it's finally going to be fixing that missing feature). And there's something that just feels wrong about having to pay that much more for it. For what it's worth, Netflix's "Standard" plan, which gets you 1080p resolution, also costs 75 percent more than Disney+.

And all that is before you even attempt to compare content, which I think is a fool's errand. You'll be comparing apples to oranges. But the simple fact is that if you want Disney and Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar, you'll be heading to Disney+. Netflix has its own series and shows and movies. That's all a matter of preference. 

We'll gripe about the Disney+ price increase. That's what we as consumers do. But there's zero doubt in my mind that technologically speaking, it's still a bargain. I'll make the argument that Disney+ can easily make the argument that its content is worth another $12 a year.

And that's even before diving into the list of things to come.

Due in large part to the Hallmark/Lifetime/Freeform machine, the standard Christmas release is no longer about finding holiday cheer or learning to appreciate life (a la A Christmas Carol or It’s a Wonderful Life) but instead centered on finding your one true love during the most wonderful time of the year. Christmas movies have become synonymous with romantic-comedies, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority are objectively Not Good™. There’s plenty of fun to be had watching the endless parade of regurgitated upper middle-class holiday love stories, but Just Friends succeeds where so many of these films fail--by being both a great Christmas movie and a great romantic comedy.

Ryan Reynolds plays Chris Brander, a sexy, sneering, womanizing music executive living the high-life in Los Angeles. However, our introduction to Chris happens a decade earlier right after his high school graduation. High school Chris is a fat, unpopular, retainer-clad teen, navigating a world of suburban New Jersey bullies and his unrequited feelings toward his best friend Jamie (Amy Smart). A moment of humiliation at Jamie’s graduation party sparks the flame inspiring Chris to completely reinvent himself, leave behind everything about his hometown existence, and prove all of his tormentors wrong.

Now, over ten years later, Chris finds himself back in his hometown by no choice of his own, after an ex-flame, the delusional and potentially sociopathic pop megastar Samantha James (Anna Faris), forces their private plane to land in New Jersey after starting a fire by putting tin foil in the microwave. This puts Chris back in his childhood home for what should be a temporary stay, until he reconnects with Jamie and is determined to win her over after years of being relegated to “the friend zone.”

A short aside--the friend zone isn’t real. Being nice to someone doesn’t mean that you are then awarded with sex from that person. There are plenty that point the finger directly at Just Friends for normalizing the concept of “the friend zone,” but what helps make this film so brilliant is that it dismantles and dismisses the very concept at the heart of its story. Just Friends tells us that the friend zone is bullshit, and that those who believe in it are pathetic try-hards that need to grow up.

The setup for the film is pretty formulaic in terms of both a Christmas movie, and a romantic-comedy. We see a hotshot from a coastal city coming back to their simpler life in the suburbs/small town by happenstance, only to have a revelation about how happiness and love have been waiting there the whole time. It’s rom-com 101, but Chris’ entire arc throughout the film is coming to terms with accepting that the friend zone isn’t real, and that the life he claims to love in Los Angeles isn’t working for him because it’s just not who he is.

Unlike most rom-coms that follow a similar formula, Just Friends is successful because we get a deep insight to what Chris’ life was like before he left. This isn’t an instance of some snazzy lawyer gal giving up her dreams and the career of a lifetime to play house with a farmhand from her hometown with a chiseled jaw, this is a story about someone who allowed spite and heartbreak to turn them into something they’re not, finding their way back to who they’ve always been inside. Chris Brander isn’t a sleazebag who hangs out at Jay-Z’s birthday party, he’s a guy who loves his mother, still picks on his little brother, and lip-syncs to All-4-One in the mirror.

While Chris is the center of the story, both Christmas movies and romantic comedies live or die by their ensemble cast. Just Friends is a tour de force of ensemble acting. Amy Smart is perfect as the effortlessly charming girl-next-door, but seamlessly transitions into justifiable rage when necessary. Chris Marquette plays Chris’ little brother Mike, an annoying pervert not unlike his character in The Girl Next Door. Fortunately, since his offensive punchlines are rooted in sibling rivalry rather than just being a personality trait, the character is a lot more tolerable and he expertly portrays the butthead little brother. Chris Klein shines as Dusty Dinkleman, the inverse of Chris, as someone who puts on a facade of being nice and caring but deep in his core is just another slime ball. Julie Hagerty as Chris’s mom Carol feels like someone granted sentience to a Christmas cookie, and Fred Ewanuick as Clark with Amy Matysio as Darla feel just as beloved as any one of your high school friends still living in your hometown. 

But Just Friends' legacy truly lives in the hands of Anna Faris as Samantha James. There is no one on the planet that commits this hard to comedic roles and it is downright criminal that she isn’t the go-to for comedic actresses in every project, ever. Samantha James is an icon and Anna Faris is a comedic legend. Just Friends may be Chris Brander’s story, but it is Anna Faris’ movie.

As Chris pursues Jamie, he fails over and over again, not because he isn’t meant to be with her, but because he’s desperately trying to cling to his new Hollywood persona, based entirely off of the jerks that Jamie used to date in high school. At no point does Chris have the realization that Jamie being single after all these years means that sort of behavior doesn’t work, because he’s let years of resentment make decisions for him. It isn’t until he screws up royally and goes back home with his tail between his legs that he finally realizes that he not only owes Jamie an apology, but that he can’t keep lying to himself about who he really is. Becoming the guy who gets to go to the Grammys and sit next to P. Diddy wasn’t ever for him, it was to rub it in the faces of those who doubted him all those years ago. While, yeah, that feels great in the immediacy, living your life to spite others catches up with you. That message is great not just in the context of a romantic comedy, but also in regard to a Christmas movie. 

For anyone who has moved away from where they grew up, returning during the Christmas season isn’t always the delightful homecoming that so many movies make it out to be. Sometimes coming home means coming face to face with someone who bullied you. Sometimes coming home means entering a time capsule of mixed-emotions by sleeping in your childhood bed. Sometimes coming home means modifying the way you look/act/communicate in order to accommodate those around you. Just Friends perfectly captures the awkward adjustment of visiting your hometown after you’ve left it behind, but also highlights the joy and comfort that is found in familiarity. The waitress at the diner, no matter how out-of-touch she may be with your new eating habits, still remembers your order after all these years. There’s still that one house in the neighborhood that goes overboard with holiday decorations, and no matter how garish in appearance, is still one of the quickest indicators that you’re back home. 

Here’s the thing--Christmas can be a magical time, but it can also suck really, really hard. Just Friends allows us to revel in the fact that sometimes Christmas is a miserable time without it ever feeling depressing enough to let our own sad Christmas realities settle in. Sure, some of the comedy has aged offensively poorly since it’s release 15 years ago, but that’s a criticism that could be made for every comedy film ever made. Ryan Reynolds’ fat suit is notoriously bad, but many fat people (myself included) have found it to be so ridiculously unrealistic that it crosses the line from offensive into camp. The difference in climate compared to a sunny Los Angeles December and a frigid New Jersey allows for moments of physical comedy that couldn’t exist outside of its Christmas setting. Things like driving a sports car to impress a girl look ridiculous on unsalted roads covered in ice, and accidentally setting fire to Christmas decorations has better comedic juxtaposition than a holiday like Easter. 

The premise of Just Friends could occur at any time of year, but it thrives and reaches perfection due to its snowy Christmas setting. Christmas rom-coms are a plenty, but there are none that capture the subgenre quite like this one. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, Just Friends perfects everything that came before it. By taking physical humor inspired by Home Alone and Jingle All the Way, situational comedy straight out of Christmas Vacation and A Christmas Story and gift wrapping it nicely with a realistic relationship bow, Just Friends becomes the pinnacle of Christmas romantic comedy...I swear.

• The Best Christmas Movies
• The eternal allure of the Hallmark Christmas movie
• All the new Hallmark Christmas movies you can watch in December 2020
• Ranking every Lifetime Christmas movie by its obvious horror set-up
• 'The Good Witch' is the biggest spooky franchise you've never heard of
• Freeform's 25 Days of Christmas lineup

This piece contains mild spoilers for Netflix's Dash & Lily. 

It's only November but Netflix is already blessing (or cursing, depending on your tastes) us with holiday fare. One of their better offerings is the modern New York fairytale Dash & Lily. The show follows two teens lost in NYC over Christmas. Dash (Austin Abrams) hates the holiday and is very much a peacoat-wearing JD Salinger-reading cynical sad boy stereotype. Lily (Midori Francis) loves the season but is alone without her usually festive family. In an attempt to help her find love, Lily leaves a notebook in The Strand bookshop, beginning a city-wide scavenger hunt and love connection between the pair. It's all very cute, charming, and utterly unbelievable. But just in case you think that it's meant to be realistic, Nick Jonas turns up as himself to play a free concert in the snow and offer some brief but meaningful romantic advice. 

So yes, this piece is not about Dash & Lily--which is legitimately enjoyable holiday fare--this is about Nick Jonas, who when he appeared on screen made me yell "IT'S NICK JONAS!" out loud. In case you aren't well versed in pop music and Disney Channel original movies, Jonas is part of the recently reunited Jonas Brothers who are... you guessed it, musical brothers. As a kid he was the face of Disney's creepy purity ring push, and performed around the world--I know, I took my kid sister to see the band play live at Wembley Stadium--but most importantly he began an acting career in a Jonas-themed show and later in the perfect Kenny Ortega Disney Channel class war musical, Camp Rock. That might seem irrelevant to Dash & Lily but that wonderful little movie gets a shoutout during Jonas' brief yet impactful Christmas-themed cameo.

During the series' climax, Dash attempts to find his friend Boomer (Dante Brown) in order to reconnect with Lily and make amends before she leaves the city on New Year's Eve. It's all very epic and romantic, but as he rushes across the city he ends up at an outdoor concert by none other than the Jonas Brothers. It's a vital moment that also signifies a shift in friendship with Boomer, who appreciates his pop-music-hating friend appearing at one of the poppiest bands to ever-pop-music just for him. But this isn't a simple music cameo, oh no. In fact, as the crew of handsome teens head "somewhere quiet" they end up in Nick Jonas' trailer, which you don't realize until the man himself walks in and asks what the random children are doing there. 

Jonas - who co-produced the series through his Image 32 studio - essentially plays a magical role here, appearing to give Dash some much needed advice. It's a silly Christmas movie trope that's both familiar and totally corny, but the series is self-aware enough to cut it off before it becomes too much. In a silly and hilarious twist, Jonas only gets to offer his opening gambit of "When I proposed, I really had to dig deep inside myself" before being cut off by the eager teen who has already heard enough from ol' Jonas. There's a charm and absolute refusal to take himself seriously that adds an extra layer of humor and enjoyment here as well as his relaxed-yet-magical arrival fully cementing the series in absolute fantasy.  

There are plenty of well established Christmas movie moments that are seemingly designed to take you out of the film and reality. In Hallmark and Lifetime movies, any iteration of Santa Claus is always real. Those same stories often feature people with unbelievable careers that could never sustain a real human person... professional sock designer, anyone? But I'm hoping that Jonas' appearance will introduce a new holiday trope: the magical pop star who arrives just in time to tell you what you need to hear before disappearing back into their charmed life. And even better if they're almost immediately disregarded by whomever they've deigned to help. 

But as fun as this twist was there's another reason that Jonas' appearance is so fun and it all goes back to Camp Rock. See, it turns out that the reason the kids are chilling in the star's trailer is that Jonas went to "Band Camp" with two of the teens who just happen to be Jewish rappers known as the "Challah Back Boys." Now that's my kind of easter egg! Does that mean that Dash & Lily takes place in some kind of Camp Rock extended universe? Could we see Demi Levato appear if the show gets a second season? Probably not, but it would make this Camp Rock fan incredibly happy. Either way, it was a super fun self-aware nod to Jonas' own ever so slightly corny but totally charming teen movie acting roots. 

Sadly there was no reference to the brilliance of Jonas' underrated B-movie Careful What You Wish For, the film that made me a true Nick Jonas stan. The 2015 flick is a totally outrageous erotic thriller that lifts heavily from the '80s classic Body Heat. Seeing as he ends up having an affair with his neighbor and getting up to all kinds of trouble before winding up in jail, I can understand why the creators didn't want to reference it. But seeing as we're talking about Jonas, you can watch the wild yachting thriller for free on Tubi now... I couldn't not bring it up! 

Even without a nod to that direct-to-video masterpiece, Dash & Lily succeeds in its biggest aim: to make us all smile this holiday season. And Jonas' brief cameo acts as the decorative holly on top of this proverbial Christmas pudding. 

• What's new on Netflix
• The best comedies on Netflix
• How much does Netflix cost?
• The best Netflix shows
• The best horror movies on Netflix
• The top 10 movies on Netflix right now

This post contains mild spoilers for this season of The Bachelorette.

My sister is a truly amazing person. She has two incredible kids, a wildly successful career, and an absolute dedication to reality TV shows that I rarely understand. But 2020 is a strange year; it's been a long and terrible time with far too many spare hours to fill with inane viewing. So a couple of weeks ago I put on The Bachelorette at her behest. It was a drama-filled time as the titular single woman abandoned the show and its hunks for a man she fell in love with in 12 days. It was interesting to see the show's format fall apart, but seeing as the series airs against Swamp Thing - which I review weekly here - I hadn't checked back in on the show... until last night. 

So I'm counting last night as my first TRUE Bachelorette experience as it was a wild ride that was not waylaid by the love games of two people who maybe knew each other. No, as far as I understand this was the real Bachelorette experience as the newest--replacement--single woman, Tayshia Adams, made out with a series of badly suited himbos and it was magnificent. 

1. Is this show really just about a woman making out with a ton of dudes?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge around this show as this is about as far from my usual beat as you can get. But honestly I couldn't believe that--when I tuned in late to the show... Swamp Thing, remember - Tayshia was at the "after-party" where she just invited different men to sit in a room and make out with her?? It was incredible. The power that she wields cannot be questioned, and while this was going on the other dudes just sat outside on garden furniture being sad that they're not the ones currently making out with her. There's definitely a lot of unresolved tension here and the boys were making allegiances like they're in Lord of the Flies, and they've already picked their Piggy... but we'll get to him later. 

2. Good for her!

I literally yelled this multiple times during my watch. Tayshia was looking fab in her silk jumpsuit and just lavishing in the attention that this eclectic group of men were throwing at her. Who knew you could collect a real life harem and then have them compete for you on broadcast TV? Not me. I do know enough about this show to know it's based on a version where a man gets to play women against each other--no thank you--but without any other context this is clearly the superior version. Is Tayshia stomping on the patriarchy by making a group of adults in Men's Warehouse suits sit on benches and wait for her to bless them with her attention and kisses while she makes out with other men on an overstuffed sofa? Undoubtedly YES! 

3. Chasen is a real name?

The real reason that I tuned in to the most recent episode of The Bachelorette was that a man named Chasen was religiously referring to himself as Wolverine. Apparently it was not in reference to the animal but to the classic X-Men character created by Len Wein, Roy Thomas, and John Romita Sr. Alas, by the time that I tuned in Chasen was too angry at the clear villain of the series, Noah, to bother to talk about Logan, but I did learn that Chasen is a real name. So there was that. Also, I would never have learned the magic of The Bachelorette without Chasen's strange obsession with Wolverine and Twitter reporting on it, so thanks Chasen. 

4. Where do they get these suits?

Look, sure a cursory google could tell me this - actually, it didn't... the dresses, yes... but suits, no - but I just want to know where they got these ugly suits. Maybe I'm biased as I think that most standard suits are ugly, but these ones are really ugly. They seem like they don't ever really fit, it makes me itch just looking at them. Also, do they get to pick their own clothes for the other segments? Like are there whole groups of men who only wear button down shirts even when they're relaxing? Seems fake and/or uncomfortable to me tbh. 

5. Which of these men will inevitably hook up?

Maybe it's because of the fact their first Bachelorette abandoned them, maybe it's because of how much they all clearly hate Noah, but there are some connections here. Many hands on each other's thighs, plenty of bro-hugs. I love platonic friendship among men as much as the next person but I also want everything to be more gay. My research tells me that on international versions of The Bachelor, women have fallen in love and left the show. So why couldn't it happen here? There are so many men and only one Tayisha. Plus, all that time sitting on those uncomfortable benches waiting for your turn must get lonely... why not turn to a friend?

6. Noah sucks!

Truly this guy is the worst. Not only is he breaking the unspoken etiquette of The Bachelorette by interrupting another guy's potential make out sessions---by jumping over fences into their dates-- but he's also just a gross person. His moustache is bad, he looks creepy when he kisses, and he's definitely out to cause as much trouble as possible. That brings us to the next point... which I am truly beginning to believe. 

7. Wait a minute, is Noah a plant/producer? 

IT WOULD MAKE SENSE! No one can legitimately be this annoying or want to get punched by a group of suited men this much. Plus, it would add some much needed spice to the show after the boys were mourning the loss of Claire. I'm no conspiracy theorist but it would not shock me if Noah was actually a plant or a producer they pulled in at the last minute when all the men started to bond over their shared loss and started being way too respectful. 

8. Why don't the larger bachelors simply eat the smaller bachelors?

Seeing as the whole season is in a bubble this could all go very Lord of the Flies very fast. Noah has set himself up as the villain of this entry into The Bachelorette canon but this is no normal year. Sure, being a heel might seem like a way of adding longevity to your time on the show, but this is 2020 baby and the bachelors (?) bachelorette-ettes (?) have already been shunned once and they didn't take it particularly well. So don't be surprised if Noah gets sucker punched more than once and maybe even gets bum rushed by the bigger boys who are sick of his sh*t. 

9. Why do none of these men wear socks with their dress shoes?

Full transparency I did think this during my original Bachelorette fiasco but still. Even though I only saw them in some suits during the "coming next week" section I have to say I find it incredibly stressful that none of them seem to wear socks with their dress shoes. Maybe they're wearing really low cut socks so they can show off those muscular ankles? It's all very Victorian and as long as they're wearing socks I can support it. Otherwise, I just can't stop fearing for the state of their bare feet in those shiny leather shoes. 

10. Why didn't she give the rose to Joe?

Sorry, just on an objective level - I have eyeballs and an attraction to all genders - Joe is the only hot person on this show who also seems not annoying/like he's going to kill you! Clearly made a mistake here, my friend. Although honestly Tayisha has been a part of The Bachelor world for a while so she's probably playing a long game, especially as I refuse to believe anyone was legitimately impressed by someone (whose favorite fictional character is definitely Deadpool) allowing her to shave his moustache...even if he did only do it after she made the demand. So really it was just another dynamic power play by Tayisha. Who knows what she'll do next?

There's a fallacy in the streaming era that goes something like this — there's a war going on for the eyeballs and attention of Americans, and in the end there can be only one.

That statement is half true. Indeed, pretty much every company that does anything digital is competing for our eyeballs and attention. That's just the way it is. But it's not a "war," and there won't only be one winner. And that's evidenced anew with the revamp of T-Mobile's TVision service.

As a refresher, TVision is built into three or four parts. There's TVision Live, which comprises three plans of live television channels, starting at $40 a month. Then there's TVision Vibe, which is a $10 bundle of entertainment channels that you can have on their own, or package along with TVision Live. And finally there's TVision Channels, which (for starters) lets you subscribe to the premium movie services EPIX, STARZ and Showtime, and manage them all through your T-Mobile account. (Just like Apple TV Channels or Amazon Prime Video Channels.)

The optional fourth part is the new TVision Hub — a $50 streaming dongle that's based on Android TV and probably will give you the best experience for all of the TVision services.

That's all well and good. But what TVision is not going to do is take away from the major streaming services anytime soon. Not Hulu with Live TV, which is the biggest live streaming service in the U.S. Not YouTube TV or Sling TV, which are Nos. 2 and 3 (though not necessarily in that order). And it's probably not even a big threat to a low-cost service like Philo, which gives you more than five dozen channels for just $20 a month.

Here's why: T-Mobile TVision is all about maximizing revenue for T-Mobile, not robbing users from elsewhere. And that's clear because in order to take advantage of T-Mobile TVision, you have to be a T-Mobile subscriber in the first place. And to be fair, there are some 98.3 million T-Mobile subscribers (remember that it swallowed up Sprint) out there as of its Q2 2020 earnings, placing it just behind Verizon Wireless on that list. (AT&T is third.) That's nearly 100 million subscribers who now have the opportunity to give T-Mobile even more money every month. 

Should someone hop over from Verizon or AT&T or one of the smaller names that actually use the services of the Big Three and sign up for TVision, great. But chances are even with churn levels being what they are, TVision itself isn't going to be a huge differentiator. AT&T likely would be the bigger draw due to the discounts it gives if you bundle wireless and home internet and streaming TV, plus sweeteners like HBO Max on top. (There's a joke to be made here about Verizon's defunct Go90 video service, but only something like a dozen of us in the industry would get it.)

If TVision — which very quickly can hit $50 or $60 a month, never mind the "starts at $10 line" for TVision Vibe — keeps you from signing up for YouTube TV, or FuboTV or Sling or any of the others, TMo is happy to take your money. Somewhere there's a chart showing acquisition costs and ARPU and it almost certainly is up and to the right.

Just don't expect it to kill off any of the competition anytime soon.

As much as I enjoy the theater experience, I’ve long wanted the ability to pay a little more to be able to watch some films at home — even when they’re still in theaters. 

With much of the world shut down, movie studios have had to adapt and release some things to an entirely digital audience. The latest comes Sept. 4 when Mulan lands on Disney+ Premier Access. But instead of taking the opportunity to create something new to address the challenges consumers face, the film industry took what it already had and tried to force it to work.

As a result, we’ve got movies hitting the rental section for $20 or more. While I’m actually fine with that price, in some cases this “rent” button is sitting right next to a similarly priced “buy” button and causes me to make a choice I don’t want to make. 

In the Before Times, I’d go see a movie, and if it stuck with me I’d buy it when it came out later that year. With everything digital and at home, I can now rent and buy at the same time during the theatrical release. If I don’t feel safe going to a theater or there are no theaters open around me, I only have these digital choices available to me.

Even if I rent the film for $20 and deeply enjoy it, I’m not super likely to spend another $25-30 right after to "own" it. And because of that increased price, if it’s not something I’m totally sold on I may just wait until the cost of that rental goes down. Either way, the film industry is making far less money from me, which isn’t great when applied to millions of other people. 

How does this get solved? The film industry needs to adapt to this new environment and make the rental experience part of owning the movie. If I spend $20 on a theatrical run and deeply enjoy that movie, but then after the credits am told I can own that movie if I pay the extra $10, I would happily do so. And I doubt I’m alone, with so many people unable, unwilling, or uninterested in sitting in a theater right now it’s important for this theatrical release rental system to either include a more compatible path to owning a copy of the movie.

This could be done from any app currently selling movies with relative ease, at least from a technical perspective. I suspect the real challenge is adjusting contracts between the film industry and distribution platforms. And it could be that folks in film have no interest in creating long-term solutions involving new purchase pipelines for a new type of film consumer.

But if the goal is to continue to release movies digitally alongside a theatrical release, or even within a few weeks of a theatrical release, a better solution for the path to ownership needs to be included in those plans. 

The year 2020 did not kill Chadwick Boseman. 

It did not kill John Lewis or C.T. Vivian.

It did not kill Kobe Bryant.

It did not kill Naya Rivera, or Regis Philbin, or Olivia de Havilland, or Grant Imahara, or Wilford Brimley, or Peter Green, or John Saxon, or Kelly Preston. It didn't kill Nick Cordero, or Earl Cameron, or Mary Pat Gleason, or Gregory Tyree Boyce, or Bollywood's Sushant Singh Rajput, or Jerry Stiller, or Little Richard, Ian Holm, or Max Von Sydow.

The year 2020 did not kill Caroline Flack, Nikita Pear Waligwa, James Lipton, Danny Tidwell, Fred Willard, Phyllis George, B Smith, Lynn Shelton, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Betty Wright, Lynn Cohen, Pop Smoke, Silvio Horta, Buck Henry, Harry Hains, Stan Kirsch, Kirk Douglas, Orson Bean, Kenny Rogers, Fred "Curly" Neal, Irrfan Khan or Roy Horn.

Let us pay higher tribute to that brief list of "celebrities" — they were more than that in so many ways — and all the others in the worlds of entertainment sports and elsewhere not listed here by not subscribing their deaths simply to the fact that the calendar changed on Jan. 1. They were taken by illness. Or simply by time. Or by fate.

Many of those names will be lost to time. Others will remain at the forefront for much longer. Boseman will be one of them.

Boseman, whose death was reported on the evening of Aug. 28 after what can safely be described as a secret four-year fight with colon cancer, simply is the most recent, and perhaps the most shocking loss — certainly since the death of the NBA legend Bryant, his daughter and seven others on Jan. 26 in a helicopter crash in California.

But to blame the loss of an acting talent such as Boseman — his portrayal of R&B legend James Brown in Get On Up is haunting — on a mere year does a gross disservice to his legacy.

I'm not equipped to say what Boseman his role as King T'Challa and Black Panther as a whole meant to young Black Americans. And older ones, for that matter. I've never had to walk past movie posters and wonder why so few of them look like me. I've never had to wonder why there weren't more white superhero films. Or why the white guy was so often the bad guy.

But I do know I'll never forget the feeling of pride that I felt for the young boys and girls when we all walked out together after seeing Black Panther in 2018. The excitement for the characters — for T'Challa, Shuri and Nakia and Okoye, for M'Baku and N'Jobu and Zuri and Ramonda and W'kabi and, yes, even (and perhaps especially) for Erik Killmonger. The excitement for the actors — Boseman, of course, but also Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o and Danai Gurira, for Winston Duke and Sterling K. Brown and Forest Whitaker and Angela Bassett and Daniel Kaluuya and Michael B. Jordan. The feeling was palpable, and incapable of being properly described by someone of my persuasion.

I hid tears on the way out of Black Panther because I knew there was something bigger at work. Bigger even than the superheroes being played on screen. Even bigger than Wakanda. I hid those tears because I hadn't earned them. I hadn't (and couldn't) earn the feeling that so many of the other patrons around me were experiencing. But that doesn't mean I couldn't let their pride wash over.

Black Panther was an example of film doing what film can do better than almost any other medium — bring all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds and experiences together for a couple hours to lose themselves and just enjoy a story. That's what movies are meant to do. That's what theaters were once for. (And they will be again, someday.) We were two years into a national struggle. And, it turns out, Boseman was two years into what would be his final struggle. That he worked throughout his cancer treatment — including the final two Avengers films and Spike Lee's Da 5 Bloods, while also doing all the promotion that goes along with being an A-list actor — will only strengthen Boseman's legend.

No one will be able to replace Boseman, who died at age 43, as Black Panther. But just as T'Challa followed in the footsteps of his father, King T'Chaka (John Kani), someday someone else will put on the necklace of Bashenga and be crowned King of Wakanda. They won't replace Boseman — they'll follow him. Their king.

Wakanda forever.

• Where to stream Chadwick Boseman's best movies

If you jumped on your favorite streaming app today looking for the NBA Playoffs, it’s possible that you were confused or surprised when you saw there were no games being played. Today’s NBA game postponements began with the Milwaukee Bucks, who decided as a team to not take the floor for their 4 p.m. game against the Orlando Magic in response to the killing of another unarmed black man — shot in the back just 35 miles away from where they play. The boycott spread quickly as the Magic players left the court, and then the NBA teams in the remaining games announced similar boycotts. MLB's Milwaukee Brewers quickly followed suit.

These actions came in response to the Wisconsin police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 23, 2020. I certainly cannot recommend that you watch the video of the event, which I cannot bring myself to see. However accounts of the video and witnesses on the scene say that Blake was punched, tased and then shot in the back seven times while unarmed. Blake reportedly was trying to reach his three children, who were in the back of his car.

The NBA players, and the country as a whole, witnessed this all developing in the context of the movement towards racial justice that has dominated the spring and summer — but has been going on for decades — sparked by the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor among others. A majority of NBA players are black, with recent statistics putting it at approximately 75 percent, including a large majority of the biggest stars in the game.

Through the NBA Restart after the COVID-19 related break, players were pushing social issues to the forefront of what they do. This has included silent protests, as well as painting the message “Black Lives Matter” on the court and some team buses. Many NBA Players opening struggled with the decision to return to the court while they were watching and participating in a movement that was much bigger than sports.

The Milwaukee Bucks hail from Wisconsin, so this particular shooting is clearly close to their players even as they are in the NBA bubble down in Orlando. It was fitting that they made the initial decision not to play, even as their brothers on other teams stood with them and chose not to play.

So, what are you going to stream instead of the NBA Playoff games? I hope that fans will tune in anyway. Instead of a game, which is usually a welcomed and enjoyable diversion, fans will find thoughtful coverage of NBA players, coaches, analysts and reporters talking about the painful issues facing the Black community, including these police shootings.

Many will say “Stick to sports,” which has always been a false choice to me. People with power, money and fame regularly use their platforms to speak on so many different issues that are important to them. Our country has had athletes become politicians in both major parties, and serve in offices from Mayor to Congressperson. There is also the deep hypocrisy of team owners and organizations participating in political and community activities while telling their players to just dribble.

You may feel like you care about basketball but you don’t need to care about all of these social issues. In an interview on Tuesday, Los Angeles Clippers Head Coach Doc Rivers said “You don’t need to be Black to be outraged.” For decades and decades, Black communities have complained about unacceptable behaviors by police, and now the cell phone has become the tool that brings these cries to life.

NBA players are hoping that by making this move, people who watch the games and enjoy their capabilities can also learn and understand their lives and struggles. For those who dismiss these players as rich, and therefore removed from the struggles of everyday life as a Black person in America, I urge you to listen to their words and see the pain, anger and determination in their faces.

As a Black man myself, I can tell you firsthand that professional and financial success does little to remove the struggle, danger or hurt of being Black in America. These problems are gigantic, and urgent and they are not simply the problems of one race to solve for themselves. Turning a blind eye to widespread injustice in the name of sports, entertainment, or simply “not my problem” can crack the foundation of this country as much as any threat of socialism, authoritarianism or an enemy at the border.

Tonight, I’ll be watching this coverage more than I will news coverage, but I know I’m not who the players need to have tuned in. I’ve lived a life full of experiences as a Black man, and I know a lot about what they have to share already. Instead of turning to Netflix or old highlights, please consider streaming the coverage on TNT as well as other sports networks like ESPN. If you care about these Black athletes on the court, try to care about their lives in the streets. There is a fine line of breaks and luck that separates Giannis Antetokounmpo from Jacob Blake.

When the NBA and the players go back to playing games, fans of all races, ages and experiences can choose to cheer, yell and enjoy the best pro basketball available anywhere. If you remember this time out in a few days, hopefully it will be because you are more aware of the pain and urgency of the issues faced by NBA players and coaches, as well as all of their families and communities.

The closure of theaters for months and months — with no real end in sight in the United States — keeps taking its toll on the entire film industry. Tentpole movies keep pushing back their dates. That's understandable for some, and worthy of a shrug for others.

Meanwhile, some movies have opted to go the streaming route, and Disney+ has quickly found itself on the forefront of that movement. Hamilton was one of the first big ones. The One and Only Ivan is up next. And on Sept. 4, the long-awaited live-action Mulan will see release on Disney+.

Only this time Disney is doing something different. It's taking a page out of its UFC playbook. To watch Mulan, you'll need a Disney+ subscription. And at $6.99 a month (or $12.99 for the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle), that's not a horrible deal. But like UFC pay-per-view events, you'll have to pony up extra for the big show. Mulan is being released as a $29.99 "Premium Access" deal — and we're awaiting details on what exactly that means. Will the movie be available in Disney+ forever after you pay? Or is it just a rental period? And how long would that period last?

The move may be controversial (what isn't these days), but it's also a good one. 

• How to stream Mulan on Disney+ Premier Access

Releasing Mulan for a premium fee on Disney+ is good for Disney+. It's going to attract new subscribers who haven't been lured in already. (Disney+ now has 60.5 million subscribers, by the way, but there are certainly more to be had.) And that extra $30 on top of the Disney+ subscription fee (which Disney certainly hopes will be recurring revenue) will help make up some of the difference of what Disney is going to lose by Mulan not seeing a theatrical release. It won't make up the full difference, but it's better than nothing.

And releasing Mulan on Disney+ is good for Mulan fans. We don't have to wait any longer to watch the movie in theaters and instead can kick back at home and enjoy it that way.

Is it the same experience as taking yourself or your kids to the theater? Certainly not. It's not as special. (Or as sugary.) You won't be watching it on a screen anywhere near as large. Chances are your audio setup at home isn't as good as what you'll get at the theater.

But on the other hand, there's a pretty good chance you're going to come away from Mulan having spent less than $37. (Hell, my kids spend that much on the junk food alone, never mind the tickets.)

None of this is ideal. Disney CEO Bob Chapek said as much in announcing the move to Disney+.

"Like many companies, we've had to find innovative ways to conduct our business during the pandemic. While view this as a devastating situation for everyone affected, it's also forced us to consider different approaches and look for new opportunities."

Disney found one. And it didn't have to look too far.

And it's not like Mulan isn't going to eschew the theater experience altogether. The film will be released simultaneously in theaters in markets that don't yet have DIsney+, and in which Disney hasn't yet announced plans for its streaming service. That's still a pretty big chunk of the world. (Before you try to book a plane ticket, though, remember that those of us in the U.S. are currently allowed in only a handful of countries, thanks to our poor response to the coronavirus. Want to see Mulan in theaters? Wear a damn mask and let's beat this thing.)

"We thought it was important to find alternative ways to bring this exception, family-friendly film to them in a timely manner," Chapek said.

He's right. It's maybe not the way anyone wanted. (Or maybe it is.)

But film in a can isn't any more than an extremely expensive paperweight. 

This story contains major spoilers for the first season of The Umbrella Academy and the comic book series The Umbrella Academy: Apocalypse Suite.

In the final issue of The Umbrella Academy: Apocalypse Suite, the first volume of the comic series by My Chemical Romance co-founder Gerard Way and artist Gabriel Ba, the world is about to end. Eccentric scientist Sir Reginald Hargreeves adopted seven infants born on the same day to women who had previously shown no sign of being pregnant, and trained six of them as child superheroes. But the most powerful, Vanya, had her sonic manipulation abilities suppressed and was ostracized by her family.

Over the course of the book, Vanya found out about her past and decided to punish her family by ending the world. She tore apart the moon, sending enough of it hurtling towards Earth to ensure humanity would meet the same fate as the dinosaurs. Then her brother Klaus saved the day with his telekinetic powers.

Before then, Klaus was only shown to have the ability to talk to the dead. A text box explains that he always was capable of moving objects with his mind, but that the scope of that power came as a surprise to Klaus and the rest of the siblings. That explainer comes across as a sloppy deus ex machina, with Way falling into one of the easiest traps in comics by just inventing a new ability to get a hero out of a situation.

Season one of Netflix’s The Umbrella Academy series also concludes with a hunk of the moon hurtling towards Earth, but the solution is very different. Vanya (Elliot Page) and Klaus’ (Robert Sheehan) time traveling sibling Five (Aidan Gallagher) whisks the family into the past in order to save them from the immediate threat and possibly help Vanya come to terms with her trauma so she won’t be driven to destroy the world. It’s a much cleverer resolution, using a power that had previously been established and setting up the show’s excellent second season where the entire family is living in Dallas in the early 1960s.

That shift is just one of many ways that The Umbrella Academy showrunner Steve Blackman has pulled off the rare feat of making an adaptation that is strictly superior to the source material. The show makes the plot more coherent and adds depth to characters while keeping much of the bizarre plot and capturing the spirit of Way’s comic.

Another prime example of the changes is found in the characters Hazel (Cameron Britton) and Cha-Cha (Mary J. Blige), hitmen in charge of protecting the timeline from the machinations of unauthorized time travelers. Their deep and complicated relationship is fraying as Hazel decides he might want to leave their violent life behind and begins working to help the members of The Umbrella Academy instead of trying to kill them. Hazel and Cha-Cha’s banter, pathos, and acts of spectacular violence are among the highlights of the show’s first season.

Yet, almost all of that was invented by Blackman and his writers. In the comics, they’re quite literally cartoonish villains, never showing the faces beneath the cartoon character masks they wear. They’re both unrepentant murderers killed by Klaus after he manifests still more abilities: the power to possess the living and survive being shot in the head. They never show any of the internal conflict or sharp humor found in their incarnations in the show, who only wear their masks when fighting – a costuming decision that better humanize the characters.

Way has only penned three volumes of The Umbrella Academy, so the writers of Netflix’s show were always going to have to invent a significant amount of content to stretch that work out into series length. But what’s really impressive is that the new material never feels like out of place padding. The writers have also made excellent decisions on what to change or omit entirely.

Much of that effort is focused on making the series less aggressively weird than the comic books it’s based on. In both versions, The Umbrella Academy’s Number One, Luther (Tom Hopper), is critically injured on a mission and Hargreeves uses science to save him. In the comics, his head is attached to the body of a gorilla. In the show, he’s injected with a serum that gives him some simian qualities like excess hair, oddly proportioned hands, and enormous bulging muscles.

The original design could have been pulled off with CGI – which still needed to be used heavily in the show’s first season to bring to life the family’s talking chimpanzee caregiver, Pogo (Adam Goldey). But the more subtle approach is still extremely off-putting without being distracting. Similarly, Vanya’s skin turns paper white when her powers are unlocked in the comic, but in the show, she just projects a white aura and bleaches her clothes as she unleashes devastation.

Blackman could have easily gone too far in the other direction, trying to make The Umbrella Academy too serious or hammering it into a more standard superhero mold. But thanks to an absolutely phenomenal cast with the chemistry to make their sibling rivalries and affections believable, Blackman and his writers have struck the perfect tone. The Umbrella Academy delves into heavy themes like abusive relationships, dealing with trauma, and racism while also having fun with playful banter, absurd scenarios, and charming music numbers.

The comic series was a side project for Way, but in the show, he can has the opportunity make use of his musical talents as well. He’s penned both the original song “Here Comes the End” and a cover of Simon & Garfunkel’s “A Hazy Shade of Winter” for the series, adding to an incredible soundtrack that brings whimsy and drama to fight scenes, shopping sprees, and the memorable scenes in both seasons where members of the family blow off some steam by dancing.

The plots of the comic and show have diverted pretty extensively by season two. The show’s writers have kept some aspects of the comic story, like parts of the family traveling back in time and getting entangled in the Kennedy assassination, but the focus on different aspects of the era and have created a host of original characters. While you might want to check out the comics to spend more time with the loveable misfits and see Ba’s often unsettling artwork, the series is mostly a testament to Blackman’s impressive ability to turn some good ideas into something truly great.

One of the most impressive parts of Apple TV 4K isn't that the hardware will last you for years, getting update after update. It isn't that it supports just about every streaming service out there, and that you can watch nearly any movie or TV show you want on it. It's not the access to millions and millions of songs, or the smart home features, or even the awful the remote. (OK, it's definitely not the awful remote.)

No, one of the best features of the Apple TV platform continues to be the screensavers. The ultra-high-definition views of our plant — above, below, and on the surface — that will capture your attention as much as anything else you'll ever actively do on the platform. So much so, in fact, that it's my screensaver of choice on Android TV and in my new Chrome tabs.

And while there's no beating real-live footage, the latest trailer for the upcoming version of Microsoft Flight Simulator — coming Aug. 18 and available for preorder now — is the only other thing I've seen in recent memory that I'd even consider running in the background while the TV's on but nobody's watching.

The landscapes are gorgeous. The shadows and highlights look as real as ever — maybe even more than real.

And what better way to see the world than by air. Fly over New York City of Las Vegas or Hawaii — wherever Microsoft wants to make you. Visit parts of the world you might never get to visit otherwise. (Particularly while U.S. residents are essentially landlocked thanks to our handling of the global pandemic.) 

And there's something in it for Microsoft, too. There already is ample product placement seen in just the trailer — airplane manufacturers and airlines already are in on the game. Tourism boards could take part, too. Airports could use it as promotion. And they could all do it in an unobtrusive way while also giving you a stunning 4K background in your living room, instead of just a blank screen.

A couple things would have to happen to make this a reality, though. First is that Flight Simulator 2020 is going to be a PC-first affair, and we'd need to see it on Xbox to really get any sort of traction. (Even better would be to see it as some sort of purchasable app or option on other platforms, too.) Second is that Microsoft would have to want to make this happen.

Because right now it's just stuck in the imagination of someone who's been stuck on the ground way too long.

Streaming prices are going up again. OK, not all of them. Sling TV says it's not changing anything before August 2021 , which is great. But YouTube TV just ratcheted things up by 30 percent . FuboTV is taking prices up by $5 a month across he board. Even ESPN+ is said to be adding a buck to its monthly price.

Why? Because it costs money to get permission to shows your shows. That's why. It's basic economics, and it's nothing new. We said exactly as much in July 2018.

And the price increases aren't anything new, either. YouTube TV started life in 2017 at a mere $35 a month as it slowly made its way across the service areas of the United States. In January 2019 Google said 98 percent of the country was covered, followed by 100 percent of the MSAs in March 2019. In April 2019, the price increased to $49.99 . In August 2020, it'll reach $64.99 a month.

It's worth noting, however, that the two most recent price increases also came with the addition of a number of channels. The April 2019 price increase came with Discovery Networks content. And the summer 2020 increase comes with the addition of ViacomCBS content. Those are two networks that are not known for inexpensively licensing their content.

Or take Sling TV. It's long been known as one of the least expensive live TV streaming services, due to its near-"a la carte" nature. There are two main plans — Sling Orange and Sling Blue. They cost $30 apiece, or $45 if you get them together. They have a fair number of channels, but there are obvious holes. That's there the Sling Extras come in. You add on whatever additional packages you want, and Sling hopes you don't notice the price going up.

Sling last increased its prices in December 2019 , adding $5 each to Sling Orange and Sling Blue. Extras went up, too. And before that? We saw an increase in June 2018 . Sling is not immune.

Or let's do Hulu — which has the most live TV subscribers of any of the U.S.-based services. In November 2019 it increased its rates for Hulu with Live TV $10 and now stands at $54.99 a month — $60.99 if you don't want ads on the on-demand catalog.

AT&T TV Now raised its rates in November 2019 , about eight months after completely revamping the plans amid the transition from DirecTV Now.

And let's not forget the Playstation Vue, which increased its rates in July 2019 before shutting down completely in January 2020.

The point is, prices were always going to go up. There was no way they couldn't. In fact, we said exactly that back in 2018. Google and YouTube TV almost certainly were losing money on the endeavor. (It's OK — Google has the money to spare.)

Nobody ever likes a price increase. It costs us money. The service providers know it'll cost them subscribers. But content does cost money, and the economics are what they are.

But in many of the instances above, the services were adding channels, which was causing the price to go up. It's OK to grumble at that — especially, if like me, you couldn't care less about MTV being added.

And while your mileage absolutely will vary depending on where you live and what options you have, there's still a very good chance that your streaming options will cost less than a cable subscription.

But there's way in which streaming absolutely still wins out, and it's a hill I'm going to die on: Rental fees.

I, for one, absolutely do not want to ever again have the pleasure of renting a box from a provider. I'll gladly pay a premium for a piece of hardware I know is going to work — and going to work well — for years, minimize any sort of nonsense tracking, and it's something that I own . (The piece of hardware I'd recommend is still Apple TV 4K , or NVIDIA Shield if you refuse to do Apple stuff.)

And none of that changes the foundation of this entire streaming thing: You have to do the homework. If you're paying more than you'd be paying for cable (or satellite, or AT&T's hybrid AT&T TV service), then use what makes the most sense.

It's all just electrons being piped into your home and converted into a visible picture on your screen. How that happens is less important than the quality — and the price — of what you get.

One of our favorite mediums here is TV, thanks to the breadth of stories you can check out and the experiences you can witness. This is especially important during Pride Month, where we want to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and the progress its made over the past few decades. To do that, why not pop on your favorite inclusive show or rewatch some of your favorite moments?

TV has had a rocky relationship with LGBTQ+ representation, with a lot of moments that are often sanitized for advertisers or networks. So a lot of the moments on this list are celebrated simply for existing. A lot of them could even be seen as coy or basic by today's standards, especially with some of the later moments on this list. However, that doesn't diminish how much they mattered to viewers at the time of their airing, or how they impacted TV. This is definitely not an exhaustive list, but here are just a few of our favorite moments, in chronological order.

My So Called Life — Rickie comes out as gay (Season 1, Episode 19)

Audiences always knew that Rickie Vasquez was a part of the LGBTQ+ community on My So-Called Life. Throughout the series' sole season, he dealt with a lot of issues that people in the community would be familiar with: abusive relatives, conflicts with trying to find where you feel comfortable to express yourself, and others. However, the character only came out as fully gay in the final episode after spending the series identifying as bisexual.

It wasn't surprising in hindsight, but Rickie as a character, and his coming out, are remembered fondly by TV watchers of the mid-90s. Just take a look at the clip above to get an idea of who Rickie was.

Deep Space Nine — Rejoined (Season 4, Episode 6)

Star Trek is Star Trek. It had the first interracial kiss on TV back in the 1960s. It's a downright iconic and groundbreaking franchise and that reputation extends far beyond the original series.

Deep Space Nine featured one of the earliest televised lesbian kisses on TV between Jadzia Dax and Dr. Lenara Kahn. Dax is one of the series' most intriguing characters, an alien species that swaps bodies, so while technically they're reliving a once heterosexual love, that doesn't seem to matter since the plot focuses on just the relationship. The episode is a beautiful look at what happens when you relive love once thought lost, but it was one of the first times a lot of people saw a same-sex kiss on screen as well.

Friends — The first lesbian wedding (Season 2, Episode 11)

Back in 1996, the sitcom was downright revolutionary. In the Season 2 episode "The One with the Lesbian Wedding" the gang attended — you guessed it — a lesbian wedding between Ross's ex-wife, Carol, and her partner, Susan. It was the second gay marriage seen on a TV sitcom (that honor goes to Roseanne ) but it was the first lesbian wedding.

What also made it such a big deal was that it wasn't treated as a gimmick; it was just something the titular friends were a part of. Back then, to have a wedding treated like it wasn't a big deal was unheard of.

The Ellen Show — Ellen comes out (Season 4, Episodes 22 and 23)

The Ellen Show flirted around with star Ellen Degeneres' sexuality for many seasons, having her date men. However, in the two-part "The Puppy Episode," which aired in 1997, the series finally confirmed that the character was gay, which then coincided with the real comedian's very public coming out.

This was a huge deal at the time, and the episode was a huge ratings success. But there was, of course, a lot of backlash. Advertisers backed out and right-wing groups complained. But worst of all, the actors involved in the episode had trouble finding work. Guest star Laura Dern said she couldn't find work for a year and a half after appearing on the episode.

But considering that since then Dern has won an Oscar and Degeneres has been one of the most successful talk show hosts of all time, we think it worked out OK.

Dawson's Creek — Jack and Tobey's long, romantic kiss (Season 4, Episode 20)

People in same-sex relationships had kissed on TV before, but it wasn't until Dawson's Creek that the kiss actually seemed to mean something.

Jack had already been a part of a gay kiss before, with his partner, Ethan, but his moment with Tobey was long and passionate. It wasn't just a peck. It was a full-blown smooch. It seems strange to rate kisses on TV in terms of how long and seemingly real they are, but back when TV execs and advertisers were deathly afraid of any representation on screen, it all means something more.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer — Willow and Tara kiss (Season 5, Episode 16)

It's tough to distill the iconic, groundbreaking relationship between Willow and Tara into one moment, but we're going to try. The couple, which began timidly in Buffy the Vampire Slayer's fourth season, became one of the first lesbian relationships many young viewers saw back in the early 2000s. And for a while, it was a dream. Them sharing a forlorn-and-emotional (but romantic!) kiss in Season 5's "The Body" was one of the first times audiences just saw a kiss not meant to boost ratings on screen. It was just something that happened. It was a part of them, and it was beautiful.

Of course, it would go downhill from there, but for a while, Willow and Tara was what we had.

The Wire — Omar Little (Season 1, Episode 6)

Omar Little is one of the greatest outlaw characters in modern television, and he broke ground by defying stereotypes in the black gay community.

Omar's sexuality was central to his character through all five seasons of The Wire, contrasting his intense robberies with calm embraces with his boyfriends out in front of his Baltimore row home. A critical moment for Omar comes in the sixth episode of Season 1, where Omar's first boyfriend, Brandon, is killed after a bounty placed on his head is doubled for him being gay.

This sets off Omar on a quest for revenge against a gang that lasts several seasons and leads him to become a street informant. -Roy Delgado

Legend of Korra — Korrasami (Season 4, Episode 13)

A genre often lagging behind in terms of LGBTQ+ representation is kids' animation. There have been huge strides made in this space thanks to cartoons like (Adventure Time and Steven Universe, but Legend of Korra was one of the first to have an on-screen canonical lesbian relationship.

Sure it came in the last minute of the show, but Korra and Asami going off into the Spirit World holding hands, looking into each other's eyes is a milestone moment in representation. Even more important was how open the showrunners were about the scene's intended purpose.

Hannibal — That finale (Season 3, Episode 13)

Hannibal had been toying the audience concerning the relationship between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter since Season 1 and it often had a will they/won't they quality, with some accusing the show of queerbaiting. However, the show went completely for it in the final episode, not only confirming that the two had a love for each other, but that Hannibal's plan to turn Will into a monster actually worked (to an extent).

I won't spoil the finale, so watch the clip above at your own risk, but believe me when I say that screams were heard from Fannibals everywhere when they embraced each other.

Black Mirror — San Junipero (Season 3, Episode 4)

Black Mirror is a dark anthology — sometimes too dark for its own good — which is part of the reason why the episode "San Junipero" shines so brightly. It's also a lesbian love story about coming out, acceptance, feeling comfortable in your own skin (or lack thereof), the meaning of life and death, and so many other topics.

We can highlight this episode simply because it's uplifting and wonderfully written, but the relationship at its core feels real despite the futuristic tech on display. In a world where gay relationships are often met with tragedy, to have a happy ending with one feels groundbreaking on its own.

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend — Gettin' Bi (Season 1, Episode 14)

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is a musical show that touches upon a lot of subjects, including mental illness and sexuality. It also just happens to have one of the best explanations of bisexuality on TV with the song "Gettin' Bi," sung by the character Daryl as he comes out to his coworkers.

It's a joyful proclamation of coming out, but it also breaks down some of the stereotypes concerning bisexual people in the process. Send this to anybody in your life who might not get what bisexuality is, and no, it doesn't mean you're just gay. Bi's legit!

One Day at a Time — Elena coming out (Season 1, Episode 10 and 11)

One Day at a Time is a prime example of how you remake a series. It takes the basic formula of the original sitcom and updates it for the modern age, and that includes some more modern problems, like racism, classism, mental illness, and coming out.

Elena Alvarez had been struggling with her sexuality for most of Season 1, but then she finally came out to her family in "Sex Talk." It took some getting used to by her family, but they eventually accepted her (minus her father) in a way that felt honest. Her sexuality then became just a part of her character as she was able to build a relationship with her non-binary partner.

How grounded One Day at a Time kept the story is what puts it on this list, even if it's imperfect. Her story later with her father (pictured above) only adds to her character.

Brooklyn 99 — Rosa Diaz comes out as bisexual (Season 5, Episode 10)

Brooklyn 99 already had great LGBTQ+ representation in the form of Captain Holt and his struggles to not only get recognized by the NYPD for his years of service as a gay black man but also became the best boss of the 99 ever.

When Rosa Diaz came out as bisexual on the show, however, it took the sitcom to a whole other level. Actress Stephanie Beatriz came out as bi not too long before her character, so that imbues the episode with a personal touch. The sensitivity with which the show handled the coming out though is imperfect, but it's sweet and shows that you can find a support system in the unlikeliest of places.

Steven Universe — Ruby and Sapphire's wedding (Season 5, Episode 23 and 24)

For a cartoon primarily aimed at children, Steven Universe is unabashedly queer. The show had featured same-sex relationships and commentary on gender expression since its first season, but no characters encompass that better than Ruby and Sapphire, a.k.a. Garnet when they fuse. The reveal that Garnet was in fact two Gems in love in the episode "Jail Break" was jaw-dropping, but they affirmed their love for each other with their wedding a few seasons later.

As we've previously discussed on this list, same-sex weddings are serious business when it comes to representation and the build-up and payoff to Ruby and Sapphire's wedding shows how important the relationship is to both the show and its characters.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia — Mac comes out as gay to his father (Season 13, Episode 10)

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia isn't known for its sincerity, especially in those earlier seasons and when it came to Mac's sexuality. His homoerotic tendencies were treated as a joke early on, but he finally came out in Season 12 to his friends over a lottery ticket. (Yes, really.) It's when he truly embraces who he is in Season 13 and comes out to his father that the character becomes iconic.

In typical Sunny fashion, Mac puts on an interpretive dance that is actually extremely well-choreographed. While his real father rejects him, the true emotional crux of the scene comes when Frank, who's become Mac's surrogate father, finally understands and is in tears. It's Always Sunny isn't known for playing it straight ever, so it really punches you in the gut when it does.

Pose — Angel and Papi get engaged/Candy dies (Season 2, Episode 10)

Pose has been knocking down barriers in its quest for absolute TV domination, and that's especially true in its LGBTQ+ representation. It's rare to see a trans character on TV, although shows have been making huge strides on that front, and that certainly includes Pose.

Angel and Papi are so in love with each other, so when they propose to each other in the Season 2 finale it's just a joyous moment. In contrast, the death of Candy, also in Season 2, is a huge moment for how we talk about trans lives and the impact of the AIDS epidemic in the 1990s.

These two moments couldn't be any different, but they do show one thing: trans lives matter.

What did we miss?

There are so many moments and iconic shows we couldn't include. We wanted to put Will & Grace on here just for existing and introducing many Americans to gay lead characters. We had hoped to include some recent moments as well, like Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy becoming a canonical couple in the Harley Quinn animated series, or Catra and Adora's kiss saving the world in She-ra and the Princesses of Power.

What else did we miss?

It's been 20 years since two witches found love on Buffy the Vampire Slayer . In 2000 we were living in an entirely different world. There was no marriage equality, the issues of trans folx were largely ignored, and the tragic murder of Matthew Sheppard was only 2 years old. In the decades that have since passed we've seen massive steps forward for the LGBTQ+ community in the real world. But movies haven't kept up, and the lack of representation on screen is galling at best.

Token representation isn't representation at all

Chances are if you're alive in 2020, you know a queer person. (And if you're reading this, you are and you do.) Gay, bisexual, trans, and nonbinary are just a few of the identities people may call their own. While LGBTQ+ folks are more open and visible than they have ever been, the same isn't true of the media we consume.

Somehow, executives have decided that at best, we deserve a token mention in the biggest franchises of movies and television. Unless an openly queer person is involved, it's rare to see more than one LGBTQ character in a film. Instead of actual characters that we can identify with and call our own, the gay community is left with nothing but scraps.

We get a mention of a gay character in Marvel movies, arguably some of the biggest blockbusters on the planet. A brief on-screen kiss in Star Wars between two minor characters isn't acceptable. If television can give us big, beautiful, in-depth arcs as we've seen from the likes of Grey's Anatomy , then why aren't movies following suit? They can blame Chinese censors, or conservative watchers, or a hundred different things. Still, the truth of the matter is that we deserve better.

LGBTQ+ folks are a huge demographic. We consume movies and television, we purchase Blu-rays and go to conventions. We deserve to see ourselves on the big screen. Plenty of people would like to celebrate the small moments that we do get, and I'm not saying they aren't worthy of being celebrated. What I'm saying is that it isn't enough. Token representation isn't enough, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, or deliver a golf clap when it arrives. All that does is compound what we do get. If the people in charge of making movies think they can get away with minor representation and not worry about it, we as consumers should make it clear that isn't the case in whatever way we can.

If it isn't inclusive and intersectional, it's wrong

In so many cases, what little representation we do get is overwhelmingly white, and that's a problem. LGBTQ+ people run the gamut. We're white and Black and brown. We are lesbians, and gay men, genderqueer, trans, nonbinary. We are rich and poor, fat and skinny, healthy and disabled, and our representation deserves to show us in all of the shades that we exist.

That means when it comes to representation, it has to be more than a token. It has to be inclusive and intersectional. People don't exist in a single aspect. They are complicated and multi-faceted, and heterosexual people get to see themselves in a hundred different ways onscreen. We deserve the same thing. Gay kids deserve to see themselves on the screen, to know that they can be happy no matter what they look like. No matter who else they are.

If we're going to demand representation, then we have to request that it's done right. That means being inclusive of everyone who identifies as LGBTQ+ even when it's complicated. It means that our representation has to be intersectional. It's more than white, affluent lesbians in LA. It's more than white, working-class gay men in Philly. These may have been the beacons of allowing more LGBTQ+ people onto the screen, but it's 2020, and it's honestly time our pop culture caught up.

Television is catching up but movies seem to be stalled

When considering representation in pop culture, there's a significant gap between the small screen and the big one. TV shows have delivered fantastic arcs that humanize LGBTQ+ people. It may have started with Buffy and The L Word , but its reach goes so much further. Shows like She-Ra , L Word: Generation Q , and Grey's Anatomy have helped to humanize and normalize queer folks across the spectrum.

It's clear that borders have been broken down by TV writer's rooms, and that those shows have gotten significant boosts in watchers, and popularity because of it. So if it's clear that engaging with LGBTQ+ viewers pays dividends for shows, why are movies so slow to catch up? I don't have an answer, but it's a question queer people are asking. I'd like to believe that it's only a matter of time until we see the queer representation in movies that we deserve. Still, it's becoming more evident that the only way we'll get that is by having LGBTQ+ people making movies. To be very frank, it isn't enough.

What comes next?

Queer people aren't going anywhere. We've always been here, despite what some people would have you think. While representation is slowly coming to the big screen, it's not enough. We should be light years past where we are, and only by being critical of piecemeal representation and demanding more are we ever going to see the changes that we deserve.

Growing up as a queer kid in the 80's and 90's was tough. Beyond just the general discrimination from the government or bigotry by average folk, there was absolutely no LGBTQ+ representation in any of the kids' books or shows I could find. Even when I started watching anime that did feature LGBTQ+ characters, those characters were all but wiped from the dubbed versions (and subbed versions were so expensive!). I can't tell you how excited I was for Haruka and Michiru to be introduced in Sailor Moon, nor how deeply crestfallen I was when they were dubbed as "cousins" for Cartoon Network.

Fast forward 20 years later, and I'm sitting with my children in tears as we watch Ruby and Sapphire's wedding in Steven Universe on the very same network. To say that Steven Universe has been lifechanging for me and countless queer kids and adults alike is not an understatement. Rebecca Sugar, the creator of Steven Universe, as well as many of her crew have spoken at length about their desire to create a show full of diversity and representation and just how hard they had to fight to tell these stories.

When Steven Universe first aired in 2013, we were introduced to a cast of strong non-binary women who were all but idolized by the young half-alien boy who serves as protagonst. The Gems were almost all voiced by and coded as women of color, and they all had body types unlike the cookie cutter Barbie figures we so often see in the women characters kids are told to look up to. In fact, with each new character introduced, Steven Universe continued to showcase diversity. While it would take dozens of articles to explain the diversity in this show, to celebrate Pride Month, we're going to delve into some of the highlights of LGBTQ+ representation in Steven Universe, which comes down to the different characters. Fair warning, there are most definitely spoilers ahead!

Garnet, Ruby, and Sapphire

Garnet is, in and of herself, an incredible character. She is powerful without having to be emotionless. She is as close to a leader as the Gems have thanks to her future vision. She is deep, as well as deeply passionate, and Steven clearly adores her. However, Garnet is also so much more than an individual character. Beneath it all, she is also a relationship.

Although the hints were there from the very first episode, it wasn't until the show had been on the air for nearly two years that Garnet was confirmed to be the fusion of two other Gems. When "Jailbreak," the Season One finale, aired in March 2015, Steven finally got the chance to meet Ruby and Sapphire, the queer couple whose relationship creates Garnet.

After waking up on a spaceship having been abducted by Homeworld Gems, Steven meets Ruby. She is fiery and loud — an eternal flame, you could say! She is also deeply distressed because she needs to find Sapphire. Steven offers to help but they soon end up separated again.

Then Steven meets Sapphire, a petite blue Gem whose face remains hidden behind her hair, speaks softly, and sings sweetly. She is so very much the opposite of Ruby. She also immediately recognizes Steven, and once he is able to set her free from the prison cell, she speeds off dragging him along in search of Ruby.

The two reunite with Sapphire kissing away Ruby's tears and Ruby scooping Sapphire up. They spin and laugh before fusing to reveal Garnet. Fusion, for those new to Steven Universe, is the combination of two characters into a single new character. That character has their own name, voice, personality, and drive. Up until this point, Steven, and the audience, didn't even know Garnet was a fusion.

Garnet sends Steven to find the rest of their family while she takes on one of the Gems who captured them. When Steven expresses his concern for leaving her to face Jasper alone, Garnet smiles and tells him, "It's okay Steven. I'm never alone."

While Ruby and Sapphire were rarely shown apart during the course of Steven Universe, their relationship in the form of Garnet was given plenty of focus. Rebecca Sugar has spoken in a number of interviews about why it was so important for them to showcase Garnet. Ruby and Sapphire represent Rebecca Sugar and their partner, Ian Jones-Quartey. The pair of creators were once physically attacked because of their interracial relationship and they came out of that hurt wanting to showcase a love like theirs as something powerful and admirable. In doing so, they came up with Garnet and their love has always shown through in the way Garnet is written.

From the moment Garnet was revealed to be a fusion on, the confirmation of that relationship being a loving romantic relationship was subtle — and in some countries, censored entirely. Steven described them saying, "Ruby and Sapphire are so close, that they can't stand to be apart." A fight causes them to unfuse as the focal point of another episode. Each of these little moments were easily cut or downplayed by those who didn't want to think of a queer couple in a children's show.

Then, in 2018, the moment that Rebecca Sugar and their team fought for finally happened. The undeniable proof that Ruby and Sapphire were truly a romantic couple: a marriage proposal and wedding. It became clear that the characters wanted their love to be solidified as both separate people but as one couple, but so did the creators behind the show itself.

By this point, plenty of other LGBTQ+ representation had been included in Steven Universe, and plenty more was yet to come.

Stevonnie

While fusion served as representation of Ruby and Sapphire's romantic relationship, not all fusions were romantic and none were so long lasting. When fusion was first introduced as a concept, it was Pearl and Amethyst whose constant bickering kept the two from fusing often or for long. The second time fusion was featured in the show was between Steven and his best friend Connie. The fusion was accidental and unprecedented — the Gems weren't even sure Steven could fuse because of his human half. Their fusion and friendship became the focal point of several lessons on communication and consent, but their LGBTQ+ representation was also huge.

Stevonnie took traits from both Steven and Connie. They used they/them pronouns, and were presented as canonically nonbinary and intersex. They're also positively beautiful. The other teens Stevonnie meets, male and female alike, all seem to find them attractive, tripping over their tongues and blushing. Described by Garnet as "an experience," they were very much a good one, and a character who meant worlds to many trans, enby, and intersex people.

Although some watching the show didn't quite get that Stevonnie wasn't a woman, it becomes clear in a later episode, where they get stranded for an extended period on an alien planet. They end up growning facial hair, which they then shave using their sword. To further clarify, Stevonnie was featured in a Dove Self Esteem Project spot , in which their social media specifies intersex, non-binary, and those they/them pronouns.

I've heard from so many non-binary adults who desperately needed even a bit of this sort of representation growing up. Growing up never seeing yourself in the stories you read and watch is so isolating. Lacking the terminology to even describe your experience builds so much self doubt. As a parent of a non-binary kid, the joy I see in their eyes every single time Stevonnie comes on the screen is indescribable, but once again, I find myself so grateful that kids growing up now can see themselves in these characters.

Pearl

While Steven's mother, Rose Quartz, died long before the events of the show, we get to know her through the people who loved her, and no one loved her longer than Pearl. Pearl's love and devotion to Rose Quartz defines her character for so much of the show, and at no point is that love presented as anything other than romantic. In fact, there is even an episode and song built around Pearl coming to terms with Rose having chosen Steven's father instead of her.

Eventually, Pearl does move on past her unrequited love. She is shown crushing on a human woman, and eventually having a whole fan club of humans whose numbers she collects. Although we don't ever see if Pearl ends up in a romantic relationship with any of these admirers, we do find out by the time Steven Universe Future wraps up, that it's not just humans who have an eye for Pearl, but one Gem in particular.

Bismuth

Although she spent much of the series in a bubble, Bismuth is another awesome LGBTQ+ character from this series. Bismuth was an old war buddy to the Crystal Gems who ended up in a bubble thanks to her desire to shatter the Diamonds. It took a lot of big reveals, and the impending wedding of Ruby and Sapphire, but eventually she was brought back as a permanent addition to the team. After some comments suggested Bismuth might just have a crush on Pearl, she admits as much in Steven Universe Future.

And me? I just want to know what their fusion would be called!

Shep

Even when it comes to background characters or side characters that only show up in one or two episodes, Steven Universe continued to provide LGBTQ+ representation. Take the introduction of Shep, a non-binary character who was introduced as Sadie's partner in Steven Universe Future. Shep only speaks in one episode, but their inclusion — and the fact that their being non-binary didn't need to be explained with Gem magic and wasn't a plot point — was great for many of the enbies watching.

What now?

Steven Universe, Steven Universe Future , and even the Steven Universe comics are all over now. Fortunately, the work Rebecca Sugar and their crew did in getting LGBTQ+ representation on air has helped so many other creators showcase their own LGBTQ+ characters. There are lots of LGBTQ+ inclusive shows to watch after you've finished Steven Universe and more coming every day. The future is definitely bright!

Something struck me as I was reviewing the new TiVo Stream 4K . It had nothing to do with TiVo, and everything to do with Android TV. See, the thing about TiVo Stream 4K is that it's mostly and Android TV device (and only $50, at that), with a little bit of TiVo special sauce on top — plus a little something extra for Sling TV.

So I went into the Stream 4K wondering if anything else had been neutered because of that special relationship with Sling. Would competitors be shut out somehow? Would something else just be broken? Strange (and often unexpected) things happen all the time on the Android platform.

The answer, it turns out, is no. I didn't see any obvious changes. You can still use competitors like YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV. Services like Pluto TV and Tubi actually are installed as bloatware — you don't have a choice in the matter. (Though you can uninstall them later.)

But something else stood out to me, and it's actually something that I should have noticed quite some time ago, given that YouTube TV is among the Top 3 live TV streaming services in the United States. (Hulu With Live TV is No. 1. YouTube TV and Sling TV are second and third; though we don't know which is which because Google hasn't given anything more accurate than "more than 2 million subscribers.")

Sling TV (which isn't my everyday streaming service) shows up in Android TV's excellent Live Channels application, which aggregates various live services in one place. Other apps also can use Live TV, such as an integrated over-the-air antenna, or if you use one through an HDHomeRun box, or Pluto TV.

But know what's missing from the Live Channels aggregator? YouTube TV . Google's own live TV streaming service doesn't partake in Google's own live TV aggregator.

On one hand, that sounds crazy. Google's a notorious dogfooder. That is, it uses its own products all the time, and it's certainly not shy about pushing one service inside another. (Example A: Google Meet now takes up space inside your Gmail sidebar.)

On the other hand, I get it. The YouTube TV app allows for in-app promotions that you just can't do in the Live Channels app. How else would Google be able to bombard me with recommendations for Cobra Kai , if there's no longer any place for it to do so? There's space in the YouTube TV app. Not so much in Live Channels.

It's just weird, is all.

• Canceling YouTube TV? These are some great alternatives
• What is the biggest streaming live TV service?

Seems like everybody wants a piece of the early days of NASA. First Apple TV+ took a fictional look at what things might have looked like had women gone into space much sooner. (And under much different circumstances.) Now, Nat Geo and Disney+ are taking on not just one of the best stories about the space race, but one of the the best films about it. Hell, 1983's The Right Stuff — based on the excellent Tom Wolfe book — won four of the eight Academy Awards for which it was nominated.

The question, then, is whether a new 8-part series can hold a candle to the 3-hour-plus movie.

For the unfamiliar, The Right Stuff — both the movie and the book — is the story of the earliest astronauts. The "Mercury Seven." Seven men plucked from a pool of the best the U.S. military had to offer. (Those who went to college, anyway, leaving the likes of the legendary Chuck Yeager on the sidelines — never mind that the first third of the movie is about him trying to break the sound barrier, paving the way for spaceflight.) It was an imperfect bunch, of course, with an impossible job ahead of them: Get to space, and return safely home.

You know the rest, of course.

But it's going to be damn hard to do better than the movie, even if it did take more than a few liberties with the facts.

Let us start, then, with casting.

Look, those are some seriously big shoes to fill. And that's not even mentioning Sam Shepard as Yeager — for which he was nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role — and Barbara Hershey as Yeager's wife. The film won for the more technical categories in which it was nominated: Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score. But in addition to Sam Shepard's nomination, it also was up for Best Art Direction, Best Set Decoration, and Best Picture.

Philip Kaufman's movie — despite being a 3-hour flop in theaters — was anything but a failure.

The less-than-great trailer for 1983's "The Right Stuff"

So what is this new series going to bring to the table, besides a lesser-known cast? Here's the synopsis from Disney:

The two men at the center of the story are Major John Glenn, a revered test pilot and committed family man with unwavering principles, portrayed by Patrick J. Adams ("Suits"), and Lieutenant Commander Alan Shepard, one of the best test pilots in Navy history, portrayed by Jake McDorman ("What We Do in the Shadows," "Lady Bird").

The rest of the Mercury Seven includes Lieutenant Gordon Cooper, portrayed by Colin O'Donoghue ("Once Upon a Time," "Carrie Pilby," "The Rite"), the youngest of the seven who was selected to everyone's surprise; Wally Schirra, portrayed by Aaron Staton ("Mad Men," "Narcos: Mexico," "Castle Rock"), a competitive pilot with a gift for pulling pranks; Scott Carpenter, portrayed by James Lafferty ("The Haunting of Hill House," "Small Town Crime"), a soulful man who was dubbed "The Poet" by the other astronauts; Deke Slayton, portrayed by Micah Stock ("Brittany Runs a Marathon," "Escape at Dannemora"), a taciturn but incredibly intelligent pilot and engineer; and Gus Grissom, portrayed by Michael Trotter ("Underground," "The Evening Hour"), a no-nonsense test pilot who eventually becomes the second man in space.

The astronauts' strengths are equaled only by their flaws. As the men succumb to the temptations that surround them, Project Mercury threatens to come apart. At the heart of the historic drama populated by deeply human characters are two men who become icons — Glenn and Shepard — as they jockey to be the first man in space. The entire program is nearly brought to its knees by their intense rivalry.

The series also follows NASA's engineers, who work against the clock as pressures mount from Washington and a transfixed public. And we witness the underbelly of a myth-making propaganda machine headed by NASA's PR department and aided by the writers and editors at LIFE Magazine.

The series definitely looks like it'll dive deeper into that last bit — how the story of the Mercury Seven was portrayed to the world. (The film touched on that a bit.) And that's not an unimportant part of the story. It's as much about morale as it was propaganda, never mind that the Soviet Union still beat America into space.

And with (we're assuming) an extra 5 hours or so to play with to tell the tale, it's entirely possible that Nat Geo will be able to go higher and faster and farther than the 1983 movie. But we'll have to wait until this fall to see whether The Right Stuff can live up to its name, or its predecessor.

And one more ace of its sleeve? A certain executive producer named Leonardo DiCaprio.

This damn Coronavirus . It's sucking all the fun out of everything. We can't travel. We're not supposed to shake hands anymore. Kiss kissing goodbye.

And, ya know, people have died. And more will die.

Pretty much every major, nationally televised sport is taking a break at this point. The entirety of the NCAA basketball tournament — both men and women — is canceled. Major League Baseball is pushing things back. MLS is taking a break, having just gotten started. NASCAR is racing without fans.

It's the prudent course of action, and it certainly was not an easy one to take.

Here's just a smattering of the news coming out amid the spread of COVID-19:

College sports

From the NCAA :

Today, NCAA President Mark Emmert and the Board of Governors canceled the Division I men's and women's 2020 basketball tournaments, as well as all remaining winter and spring NCAA championships. This decision is based on the evolving COVID-19 public health threat, our ability to ensure the events do not contribute to spread of the pandemic, and the impracticality of hosting such events at any time during this academic year given ongoing decisions by other entities.

##NASCAR

From NASCAR :

"At this time, NASCAR will hold its race events at Atlanta Motor Speedway and Homestead-Miami Speedway without fans in attendance. These events will be restricted to competitors, crews, officials and other necessary personnel to conduct the race. We will work with public health officials as we determine future scheduling beyond these events."

National Hockey League

From the NHL :

"In light of ongoing developments resulting from the coronavirus, and after consulting with medical experts and convening a conference call of the Board of Governors, the National Hockey League is announcing today that it will pause the 2019‑20 season beginning with tonight's games.

"The NHL has been attempting to follow the mandates of health experts and local authorities, while preparing for any possible developments without taking premature or unnecessary measures. However, following last night's news that an NBA player has tested positive for coronavirus — and given that our leagues share so many facilities and locker rooms and it now seems likely that some member of the NHL community would test positive at some point — it is no longer appropriate to try to continue to play games at this time.

"We will continue to monitor all the appropriate medical advice, and we will encourage our players and other members of the NHL community to take all reasonable precautions – including by self-quarantine, where appropriate. Our goal is to resume play as soon as it is appropriate and prudent, so that we will be able to complete the season and award the Stanley Cup. Until then, we thank NHL fans for your patience and hope you stay healthy."

National Basketball Association

From the NBA :

The NBA announced that a player on the Utah Jazz has preliminarily tested positive for COVID-19. The test result was reported shortly prior to the tip-off of Wednesday's game between the Jazz and Oklahoma City Thunder at Chesapeake Energy Arena. At that time, Wednesday's game was canceled. The affected player was not in the arena.

The NBA is suspending game play following the conclusion of Wednesday's schedule of games until further notice. The NBA will use this hiatus to determine next steps for moving forward in regard to the coronavirus pandemic.

Major League Soccer

From the MLS :

Major League Soccer has suspended match play for 30 days, effective immediately, as the league continues to assess the impact of COVID-19 with its medical task force and public health officials.

At the appropriate time, the league and clubs will communicate plans for the continuation of the 2020 season and update the status of league events.

"Our clubs were united today in the decision to temporarily suspend our season – based on the advice and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and other public health authorities, and in the best interest of our fans, players, officials and employees," said MLS Commissioner Don Garber. "We'd like to thank our fans for their continued support during this challenging time."

Obviously, that's not good. And on the much lighter side of things, it's tempting for folks to say that there's no longer anything on TV, now that sports are shutting down longer than most of us can remember.

But that's simply not true. There's still more on TV than ever before. More original content. More specials. More networks and services than ever before.

The final season of Westworld kicks off this Sunday on HBO, and undoubtedly it's going to mess with our heads some more.

Devs is available on FX on Hulu . I have absolutely no idea where it's going, either — but it's already one hell of a trippy ride.

Netflix still has more content than you could ever watch.

Amazon Prime Video is the same  — more new stuff in March to go along with the vast catalog of movies.

And that's to say nothing of all the movies and shows on all the other services Disney+ is still a thing. HBO Max is coming.

We'll miss sports. We'll think of all the folks who won't be going to work during the shutdown. And we'll continue to worry about those who have contracted the novel Coronavirus.

And, yes, we'll continue to argue over the trivial. We'll watch The Batchelor and Love Island and Below Deck . We'll watch the news. We'll fight about politics.

And when our favorite professional sports teams make it back onto the field and the court, we'll be there — both in person, and on TV.

In the meantime, we'll just have to see what else is on.

Not everyone had the opportunity to enjoy every episode of the show Cosmos as it aired. The first season, in which Carl Sagan took everyone on a journey of the mind, aired in 1980. By comparison, the jump from Season Two (2014) to Season Three (2020) is fairly minor. Even with a gap that small, there will still be a lot of people tuning in to Cosmos: Possible Worlds and watching this show for the first time.

The second season of this show brought in an extrordinary number of viewers , and with the diversification of TV consumption into streaming services over the last couple of years, there are far more opportunities for people of every age to tune in live.

Knowing that, I really only had one question for the show's inimitable host Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the incredible writer/director Ann Druyan. What do you hope kids who have never seen anything like this before take away from Cosmos: Possible Worlds ?

Ann Druyan

When I was first trying to bring Cosmos back to television, and going from network to network, what I really wanted to do was bring back the family hour. I wanted people to be together, to be exposed to thrilling ideas and concepts. The beauty of nature. I wanted them all to bet together in the same place and watching together. These were these executives who sort of chortled at this impossible dream, and I felt tremendously vindicated in the second season when the global conversation showed families enjoying Cosmos together.

With this new season, I hope children walk away understanding that science is real, that objective truth and facts are things that are important, and that it's a worthwhile endeavor to ask "what if" and explore those answers using science.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

I think the idea that science matters, that truth matters, objective truth matters. That science gets you to the objective truth, and that science may be our only hope to save us from the shortsighted decisions that we are all part of today.

I'm less worried about the next generation because they tend to be a little more woke than the older generations. It's really the older folks that need to be hit with this. I think younger people will embrace this, and it will empower them to do more of what they are already doing to ensure the world that they inherit from us, the world we're borrowing from them, is something they'd be proud to say their parents were good caretakers of.

This third season of Cosmos is named Possible Worlds because it explores a lot of those "what if" moments. There's an episode dedicated to colonizing another planet and another where a new World's Fair is imagined in the not-so-distant future. The show takes facts about the world around us and what we know about what is possible now to envision these near-future events to stunning effect, backed by commentary and details from scientists of many different backgrounds.

Cosmos: Possible Worlds also exists in book form , written by Ann Druyan. The book covers some of the same topics you'll see in this season but also takes the opportunity to dig deeper on these concepts than you'd expect to see in an hour of television. It's a worthy companion to the show, but also a spectacular standalone read if you want to learn more about what could be possible in the future.

How to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds online

Cosmos: Possible Worlds will be a joint broadcast production of the National Geographic channel (Nat Geo) and Fox. The series will first air on National Geographic starting in March, and then come to Fox in the summer of 2020. The best way to get National Geographic channel for Cosmos: Possible Worlds online and without cable is with a live TV streaming service. Here are the options that include National Geographic. You can review the options and select one that works best for you.

Cosmos: Possible Worlds livestream — How to watch Season 3 online from anywhere

Hulu with Live TV

• The cost: $55 a month after a one week free trial
• Watch Hulu on: Apple TV, Android TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast, Roku, Xbox One, Xbox 360, Nintendo Switch, iOS, Android, and browsers
• Local channels on Hulu: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and others. Find your local channels here .
• Cosmos: Possible Worlds on Hulu: Yes, with National Geographic. You can also see episodes again this summer on your local Fox with Hulu.

More on Hulu with Live TV:

• Hulu Plans and Pricing
• What's new on Hulu this month

Fox Sports and its parent company, Fox Corporation, have been having a big 2020 so far. (And, yes, we're just a few days in February.) Fox Sports is coming off of a successful NFL season with high ratings and increased ad rates. Fox Corp. just announced that its popular broadcast and cable channels produced a 5 percent increase in revenues for their second quarter. Plus the Fox Sports Super Bowl LIV broadcast showed a 1 percent increase in TV viewers, and a 30 percent increase in streaming viewers. Instead of celebrating, however, the company should be thinking bigger and be ready to make a big bet on itself.

Fox should launch a Fox Sports standalone streaming service in 2020. Such a service would allow it to compete for the next generation of sports viewership with services like ESPN+ and DAZN . ESPN+ has proven to be more than successful so far, which lessens the risk that streaming customers won't pay for sports. A Fox Sports service would also position them to vie for new opportunities as digital-only sports' rights expand. Plus it could help their company catch up in the direct-to-consumer arena, where Fox Corp. has fallen behind their competition.

Here are five reasons why Fox Sports should launch a standalone sports streaming service in 2020.

No. 1: Fox Sports has the parts in place already

Fox would have a running start in a race to create a Fox Sports standalone streaming service because it's already put together most of the parts it would need. This could allow it to roll out to customers quickly, and attract the growth they'd want to make a service worthwhile.

Fox Sports has a high quality app with a large install base on streaming platforms. The apps are pretty well rated across the platforms, and rank as the top ranked sports app on Amazon's App Store and No. 2 on the Apple App Store and Roku Channel Store. Also, Fox Sports has more than 5 million installs on the Google Play Store.

Those installs become even more valuable when you consider that many of the streaming sports features require people to become registered users . Games that air on Fox broadcast channel, FS1 or FS2 require users to login with a TV service credential, and encourage them to create a Fox Sports account. If people wanted the app to watch the Super Bowl in 4K or a Fox Sports' Pay-Per-View event, they also need to register for an account.

Fox Sports is close — it already supports a plethora of cable and streaming services as a means of login. That is, if you're a Sling subscriber (or any of the other majors), you can log in to Fox Sports. But it's what it's missing is any sort of standalone option. (Conversely, ESPN+ requires a separate registration and payment. Different strategies is all.)

Once registered, users have a lot of content to watch thanks to a robust video back-end that can draw content from all of their networks reliably. By all reports so far, the system handled a record number of streams for Super Bowl LIV, including upscaled 4K HDR feeds, with few problems.

Fox Sports could avoid some of the growing pains that DAZN has faced in the U.S. thanks to its wide reach for cross-promotion . Unlike DAZN, Fox could lean on its games on broadcast and FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network to reach new fans more easily. They would also have their Fox Sports website, where they could integrate channel promotion with sports scores and news.

No. 2: Fox Sports has deals with popular sports leagues & advertisers

Contracts can be complicated things, especially when you are dealing with something as valuable as sports distribution rights. While Fox Sports would need to make new deals or adjustments to existing ones to fill a streaming service with games, they would already have the relationships with many of the most popular sports leagues as well as with advertisers.

Fox Sports has games across all of its channels from the following sports:

• NFL
• MLB
• College Football and basketball incl Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12
• Big Ten Network
• FIFA World Cup
• Boxing with PBC
• NASCAR
• U.S. Open
• and more

It would be far from certain that they could instantly bring all of these sports over to a Fox Sports streaming service, but they would be able to follow Disney's model with ESPN+. Many of the early deals for sports on ESPN+ involved renegotiations of existing contracts . As the NFL or MLB look around for a new digital platform with which to negotiate, Fox Sports would be a familiar and reliable partner.

Fox would also have a decent chance to make the whole thing profitable by leveraging their relationships with advertisers. Instead of needing to land all new buys, it could be possible to bundle digital ads on the new service with ads on the traditional channels for the same buyers. This would be key considering the growing role of advertising in the new streaming business models.

No. 3: Fox Sports can fit the business model that most are moving towards

Streaming has come a long way since the early explosion of Netflix, and ads have come back into fashion in a big way. New services from heavy hitters in the industry like Comcast and AT&T have settled onto a new business model built on a mix of live and on-demand content.

This new business model takes a tiered approach to streaming, offering a free or low cost with-ads tier (AVOD), a step up paid-with-ads that includes more content or less ads, and a premium subscription tier without ads (SVOD). One of Comcast's main selling points in Peacock has been the inclusion of a free option with the opportunity to pay for more. WarnerMedia also announced plans for an ad-supported level of HBO Max

Fox Sports would be well positioned to take a similar tiered approach. The company could create a low cost tier with-ads that features some new over-the-top sports content, and then provide extra content, including crossover from the Fox broadcast or FS1 & FS2 shows and talent for a higher cost. Video on demand shows could come with fewer ads compared to similar shows using TV Everywhere credentials or from the lower tier. Then Fox Sports could offer premium add-ons for Pay-Per-View events like high-profile boxing matches or sports league subscription packages. Now would be a good time to have a home for those types of events.

No. 4: The demand for sports is shifting to streaming

That's because the demand for sports is moving to streaming at a steady but increasing rate. As the value in the old cable bundle has fallen for many households, fans appetite for more of their favorite sports has only increased. The current sports streaming landscape proves this out.

ESPN+ has grown rapidly, going from 1.4 million to 7.6 million subscribers in just over one year. While the overall number has clearly benefited from the Disney+ bundle, the service has also seen big jumps from hardcore MMA fans and college football fans as big events and major schools have come to the digital platform.

DAZN reportedly has 8 million global subscribers , with nearly a million of them in the U.S. for a much more expensive service. Monthly DAZN costs four times more than ESPN+, with an annual price that is twice that of their rival streamer. However they've managed to offer value for their subscribers by including Pay-Per-View level fights without the $75 per event cost.

Fox Sports has seen for itself how many fans are drawn to the idea of streaming their sports. This week, Super Bowl LIV hit a record 3.4 million average live streaming viewers just through Fox, NFL & Yahoo digital properties. That doesn't include those who streamed the game on a Live TV streaming service like Hulu. Also, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch said that approximately 135,000 people stream NFL games on the Fox Sports app using a TV service login each Sunday during the season.

Fox Sports would clearly be starting behind ESPN+, but there are reasons to believe they could grow with them instead of it being a zero sum game. With a major boxing promotion upcoming for Fury vs. Wilder II, they already have a big event to gather more registered users, and gain attention to announce a service and launch details. Fox scored over half a million total buys for their 2019 Pacquiao vs. Thurman Pay-Per-View fight with a growing number of those being direct digital purchases. Future Pay-Per-View events could bring in customers who are already primed to spend money on their favorite sports.

If Fox could launch with access to their Sunday afternoon and Thursday Night NFL games, similar to how CBS Sports provides games through CBS All Access, they could start with an immediate draw. If they could land a big exclusive, like the rumored digital rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket or a digital version of Fox Saturday MLB baseball similar to YouTube's MLB game of the week, things could grow big enough for a service to help launch a platform. That could be just what their company needs.

No. 5: Fox Corp needs a plan for the digital future

After the sale to Disney and subsequent spinoff, Fox Corporation is made up of a broadcast channel along with some very profitable and focused cable channels. However, they are lacking a clear streaming future. Unlike Disney, Comcast, AT&T Time Warner, or even CBS, Fox has no flagship service or roadmap leading to streaming-first. Disney+ , Peacock , HBO Max and CBS All Access are in different stages of growth or development, but it is clear that they set the stage for an online future for their companies. These companies have already begun using synergy and bundles to increase the overall value of their branded services. The Disney+ bundle has raised all of their services' numbers. CBS uses free news and sports channels to support All Access and Showtime.

Fox currently has two approaches to streaming, and neither are particularly exciting or forward thinking. They have Fox Now, and the other network apps for their channels. These TV Everywhere apps serve as a digital extension to their traditional cable channels, and usually only have value if customers have a login for a pay TV service. While Fox gets carriage fees under that model, the digital part is more of a brand extension.

They also have Fox Nation, which is an OTT streaming network related to Fox News, but it doesn't directly share content with the main network. Reportedly, Fox Nation has had some success with a high rate of free trials going to paid, and low cancellation rate. But they haven't put out any subscription numbers so far, and there is no indication of a long term plan beyond Fox Nation being a companion channel to Fox News.

A strong push behind a Fox Sports streaming service could set the table to create similar properties long term behind their Fox News and Fox Business channels. They could even evaluate a CBS All Access model for Fox Now, with the potential for their prime time shows to stream commercial free for a price.

Go For It

There is no guarantee that such a gamble would hit, but standing still can't be the only answer. Fox Corp. channels, like Fox Sports, waiting on a direct-to-consumer plan would be profitable in the short term, but could find them hurt much more in the long term. As Media Analyst Rich Greenfield noted on Twitter, ESPN is losing subscribers at a rate of 4.5% per quarter which is faster than any other time in the channels history. Public numbers for FS1 are a little older, but they have also faced similar subscriber drops in recent years.

Starting a Fox Sports standalone streaming service would be an expensive gamble. But as the TV bundle fades further and faster, this profitable company won't want to be late building a platform to transition their best properties into the digital future.

From the day that pricing was announced for Disney+ — including the $12.99 bundle with ESPN+ and Hulu  — it was pretty clear what was going to happen. You didn't need to be some grand prognosticator of the media industry to see it. Just a lover of cliches, really.

Rising tides and all that.

And, in fact, the prognostication came true less than six months later. Disney+ has more than 28 million subscribers . (Disney CEO Bob couldn't help but blow past the Dec. 28, 2019, fiscal quarter numbers and tack on another couple million for January 2020. And it's brought with it Hulu and ESPN+. The latter already was seeing huge increases on its own, thanks in no small part to its exclusive deal with the UFC. (By the way, be sure to check out Jon Jones and Dominick Reyes in UFC 247 this weekend

Hulu was the one that really stood to gain, though. And gain it did, with a 29 percent increases in its basic SVOD service year over year — that's the basic on-demand catalog stuff — and a whopping 88 percent increase in SVOD and live TV from 2018 to 2019. (Those numbers balance out to 33 percent for both.) Some of that growth undoubtedly was organic — people who were going to be trying Hulu anyway. But there is no doubt that the Disney+ bundle is strong. Very strong.

As I put things back in August, in "The Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+ bundle should sure the hell out of folks".

You're going to see Hulu and ESPN+ significantly buoyed by this deal — by Disney, really. You're going to see the number of Hulu subscribers increase in a way that's going to make you ask what dumb thing some some other service did to lose so many folks.

That wasn't a tough call to make. It's basic math. And the services that have taken the hit? AT&T TV Now, for one, which lost more subs in the fourth quarter to fall to about 800,000, give or take. And quite possibly Sling TV — which, for now, has lost its crown as the top live TV streaming provider in the U.S. Its latest quarterly report should be out soon, however, and we'll have to see where its numbers fall.

But that also doesn't mean the game is over. The first season of The Mandolorian — the big initial exclusive draw for the service — has come and gone. There will be more new, exclusive content, of course. But Disney (like all the services that have their own content) needs to keep that momentum to keep gaining new subscribers.

So where does that leave Sling? Is it simply not enough to be a less-expensive live-TV option anymore? Maybe they're just choosing between YouTube TV vs. Hulu?

I'd argue it's not. (I'd also argue that there's a good bit of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the whole cost thing — the monthly bill for Sling starts to add up when you add in all the "a la carte" stuff you get by default on other services.) YouTube TV has found itself squarely tied at the No. 2 spot, with more than 2 million subscribers as of Google's latest earnings call. It's likely at fewer than the 2.686 million subscribers that Sling last reported , otherwise Google would have said so.

In other words, there's a real chance that Sling could find itself squarely in the No. 3 position at some point in 2020.

What could Sling TV do to avoid that? Some rather obvious options come to mind.

No. 1: Streamline the options

Sling's claim to fame is that it's the service that gets you closest to true "a la carte" TV, in which you can pick the channels you want. It's not actually a la carte, but it does have more discrete options than, say, AT&T TV Now, whose plans add on more channels as the price increases. But the whole "No useless channels" thing — while certainly being subjective — also isn't true until we can individually choose what channels we pay for.

That's never going to happen, though. But the bigger problem may be that there's a lot of mental overhead when it comes to choosing your Sling plan. Some of that is built in, no doubt. Do you go with the Orange plan? Or the Blue plan? Some of the "Extras" are only available on one track and not the other, so maybe. You just go ahead and get both Orange and Blue for $45 a month, and tack on the Extras as needed.

Or, you can just go with one fo the other options like Hulu or YouTube TV or Fubo or Philo and have much simpler options.

No. 2: Fix the on-screen guide

This one's certainly is more subjective, but it's worth noting. Sling's on-screen guide is a mess, sorting things by plan rather than some other method that makes sense to human beings.

And this is one where I'd say that YouTube TV blows everyone away, with the option to customize the order of the channels — and hide ones you don't care about — however you want.

Streaming live TV already is more difficult than having everything piped in to a single cable box. The services need to make the switch as painless as possible.

No. 3: What's the value ad?

This ties back in to No. 1. If potentially saving money is the value ad for Sling, fine. But in world in which the Hulu/ESPN+/Disney+ bundle exists, it's going to have to offer more. Hulu has the help of the exclusives on ESPN+ and Disney+ to make that sale.

What exclusives does Sling have that will actually hit at scale? Niche channels are important, but they're still niche.

And Hulu has the bonus of having its own exclusive content — and that was before the Disney acquisition, and the move to premiere new FX content on Hulu.

Sling needs something more exclusive to attract more subs.

But even that might not help

There's another problem here, though: Sling TV's parent company, Dish, has been bleeding satellite customers (the traditional "Dish" subscribers) for some time now, even as Sling has been adding subscribers.

But Sling subscribers aren't worth as much to Dish as satellite subscribers. From Dish's filing with the IRS :

Sling TV subscribers on average purchase lower priced programming services than DISH TV subscribers, and therefore, as Sling TV subscribers increase, it has had a negative impact on Pay-TV ARPU.

How much is a Sling TV customer worth to Dish? It's a little hard to tell, because they get lumped in (and in fact drag down) Dish subscribers. But the average revenue per user for Dish as a hole is a little more than $85 a customer.

Fixing Nos. 1 and 2 above will help, but even then there's no guarantee that it would be enough to help Sling reclaim the top spot in the United States. And No. 3 is expensive — just ask Disney and Netflix and Amazon how much money it takes for quality exclusive content.

In the meantime, though, we'll just wait to see what Sling's latest numbers are — or whether Hulu and Google are going to start to run away with things.

Google had plenty of new things to share at Google I/O last week, and that included Android TV . The service wasn't featured in the keynote address, but that's OK. Android TV is not dead , and in fact it's getting some interesting features, including easier subscriptions to services, Google Assistant in Live TV services, and a fresh new Play Store — all coming soon (read: eventually). Google also has said hardware announcements are coming, but no other details have been shared yet.

The Android TV team spoke candidly during their Google I/O session about how far they have come, and how hard they have worked to get to this point. Even without time in recent Keynotes, the platform has grown in features, operator tier partnerships, and smart TV brands. There are still changes I would like to see Google bring to their streaming solution, so this is my Android TV wish list.

Make things easier and more friendly

Google has already made it clear that it plans on fixing Android TV app discovery. They previewed this with a new version of the TV Play Store during a Google I/O session. That will be a big improvement, and a step forward for the platform. It doesn't have to be the only way they try to make this better.

If you have used a Roku or Fire TV, you probably already know how easy it is to browse channels or apps for your TV on almost any device. In theory, this should be easy for Android TV, too, since the Play Store website can push apps to any device. However, there is no easy way to see or search for apps that are just for your Android TV. The closest you get is a promotional page . It isn't a complete collection and it lacks categories or the ability to sort or filter the TV apps.

The platform would benefit from a TV-compatible app portal for the Google Play Store on the web and mobile. It would function as a dynamic portal that lets users navigate only TV-compatible apps and push them to a device with one click. Images could default to the TV view first, instead of needing to scroll through the mobile or tablet views first. Users would not need to check each individual streaming app to see if each is compatible, making apps easier for users to find.

There is another natural fit for a TV-compatible app version of the Play Store.

An expanded companion app

The official Android TV app is a remote control app for your phone or tablet. It is worth installing if only for the ability to use your phone remote to type in passwords or searches faster than with an on-screen keyboard. Otherwise, the app has more problems than benefits. It's slow to connect, and needs to resync far too often. The last update for this app came over two years ago.

A proper companion app has the potential to help users more than just a simple remote. The remote control experience could be updated to match the newer Google design and features like the All Apps button. Mobile access to a TV-compatible version of the Play Store would be convenient, and regularly check for new TV apps that match apps on the phone. It could even tie into the Google Assistant, and help users find new features and ways to use their Android TV to the fullest.

An entry-level hero device

Many of us own an NVIDIA Shield TV , and it is a fantastic showcase for Android TV. It is still the only Android TV device you should buy right now , even though it's years old. Google has a capable and dedicated partner in NVIDIA. For this wish list item, it may help to explain why I want a new kind of hero device for Android TV by comparing them to Superheroes.

I think of NVIDIA Shield TV like the Hulk. It is a powerful green monster that can move faster than almost anything you compare it to. When you want to game, or run a local media server like Plex on device, it is worth it to have the green goliath handy. But one hero doesn't make a team. Superhero teams excel by having a variety of abilities. Android TV needs more heroes, and they should start with a friendly neighborhood Spiderman.

In this case, I think of Spiderman as an efficient and low-priced Android TV stick. Spiderman is small, flexible, powerful and available. People who run and hide if they see the Hulk might walk right up to Spiderman to ask for help. Android TV needs a portable and affordable over the top option to go head to head with a Roku Streaming Stick+ and Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K at about $50.

An Android TV stick doesn't need to be as fast as NVIDIA's Hulk as long as it could run streaming video apps well and handle the best 4K HDR standards. Developers have access to a similar device in the ADT-2 , but it is for developers and is not for sale to the public. Until any announcements are made, my wishes for a Google Nest TV Stick or Shield TV Stick will exist only in my dreams.

Parental Controls

One of the biggest problems I have with smart TV platforms, including Android TV, comes from the family experience with these devices. We are all so used to having our own profiles, and parental controls, that the shared TV experience feels cluttered and a little too open. I have had to talk to my 7 year old twice after finding out he used the full YouTube App instead of YouTube Kids. For the most part, proper parenting has been our answer to this problem, but it would be nice to have some help from the technology.

Something as simple as the ability to set a PIN to access specific apps would be a big benefit. We have tried the restricted profile, and could use it again if we find the kids aren't following directions, but it's not a full solution. It is understandable this will take time and thought to get right, but if Android TV can do just that, it would be a big advantage.

An Official Google Universal Remote

This is by far my craziest idea, but with the announcement of the Stadia controller it doesn't feel as far fetched as before. Remote controls are key to the living room experience. Universal remotes can be fantastic, but they usually come with sacrifices like losing voice controls or complex setups.

Google could create an Universal Remote designed to work with any Android TV device. They would be able to design it to work well with the Google Assistant, and offer new standard buttons like All Apps to older devices. They could even include an IR blaster for TV power, volume and Input controls, with setup integrated into the OS or Assistant as well. With dedicated buttons for YouTube or YouTube TV, it could drive users towards other Google products and services.

I admit this is unlikely, but a Google Universal Remote could be just the thing to bring consistency and harmony to Google's media strategies in the home.

Bonus Wish: Filling a few remaining app gaps

The Android TV team spoke proudly at Google I/O and in interviews about growth in the number of apps on the platform. It has been a change users can see, with several big name apps arriving for the first time recently, and other major apps seeing updates after months or years without any changes. Users, hardware partners and Google all hope this trend continues.

As a bonus item on this wish list, here are some key apps that aren't on Android TV. Hopefully Google and the app developers together can find a way to bring these to users.

• The modern Hulu app with Live TV, Profiles and My List
• DirecTV Now
• EPIX Now
• Discovery Network family apps (Discovery Go, TLC, Science Channel, etc.)
• Nick Jr
• NBC Universal family of apps (USA, E!, Bravo, SyFy)
• CBS Sports HQ with Live streaming

I've been watching an absolutely ungodly amount of cartoons and movies and specials and series over the last few weeks since Disney Plus (Disney+) launched. Looking around you'd think, sure, it's got everything. However, when I go looking for even more to watch, I always find myself wanting more. There are hundreds of shows and series already on Disney+, but there are still hundreds more that are missing. These are the ones I miss the most on the new service.

Movies

Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella (1997)

This is perhaps the most stunning omission from the Disney+ launch library considering that not only is this one of the most iconic Wonderful World of Disney telefilms ever made, this was a groundbreaking film both financially and culturally. More than a decade before Princess and the Frog , Brandi gave us a black Cinderella that was sweet but still headstrong and smart. Heck, the whole cast was amazing, from Jason Alexander's Lionel to Whoopi Goldberg and Victor Garber's royal rulers to Bernadette Peters as the best Wicked Stepmother since Elanor Audley — sorry, Cate Blanchette — this telefilm is just gold, and the only travesty greater than this not being available on Disney+ is that there's not a soundtrack available for it anywhere.

Brave Little Tailor

Of all the Mickey Mouse shorts to skip in the initial Disney+ offerings, why leave out Brave Little Tailor, which not only is a classic short but also is the inspiration behind the Ye Olde Mickey's in Fantasyland at Walt Disney World?

My Date With The President's Daughter

You just started hearing the theme song, right? I know I did! This Wonderful World of Disney film is hilarious and 90s to a holographic T and lets young Will Friedle do what he does best: get into and out of trouble with ridiculously smooth ease.

The Music Man (2003)

Yes, I'm a freak, but this is the version of The Music Man that I think of when I hear 76 Trombones or Shipoopi. Matthew Broderick's Harold Hill is extra-playful and Kristen Chenoweth's Marian is adorably spunky, but my favorite actor from this remake of the classic musical is David Aaron Baker as Marcellus, who absolutely runs away with Shipoopi and makes a wonderfully honest huckster-gone-good. This version also had My White Knight, which Chenoweth absolutely slayed.

Princess of Thieves

Kiera Knightly is all I should really have to say for this Wonderful World of Disney film, but if you needed more, Johnathan Hyde makes a delectable deplorable Prince John and Malcolm McDowell's Sheriff of Nottingham is prime evil lawman. Headstrong female protagonists that break the princess mold and forge their own destiny were important to little millennial girls and in the age of "Dream Big, Princess", Princess of Thieves deserves to be in the Princess Collection just as much as Princess Diaries or Princess Protection Program!!

Angels in the Outfield

Man, the cast in the movie was just amazing. You've got Christopher Lloyd playing a playful but still insightful angel that only the kids can see, you've got perfectly pint-sized Joseph Gordon Levitt, you've got Danny Glover playing a troubled Angels Manager, and then you've got gems scattered throughout the Angels lineup like Neal McDonough, Matthew McConaughey, Adrien Brody and Tony Danza. The world needs more cute sports movies, and so does Disney+.

Goofy "How to" shorts

There are two of these shorts already on Disney+ right now: How to Fish and How to Swim , but there are 23 Goofy "How to" shorts from the first batch in the 40's to a big batch in the short-lived "Mickey Mouse Works" shorts anthology series to How to Hook Up Your Home Theater in 2007. These shorts are hilarious and if Disney+ is about bringing all of the Disney content under one umbrella, all the Goofy How-tos should be together in one place, be it a collection, a playlist, or compiled as its own series.

Anastasia

Hey, if we're going to keep joking that Anastasia is a Disney Princess now that Disney owns her, let's at least put her on Disney+ so I can dance around my living room to Once Upon a December. This film is on Hulu's HBO add-on at the moment, but I'm very hopeful that Disney gets it back and gets it on Disney+ sooner rather than later. Kelsey Grammar's Vlad and John Cusack's Dmitri are partner-in-crime goals and again, Christopher Lloyd is amazing in everything, even when he's playing an undead Russian sorcerer.

Fun fact: the singing voice for Rasputin is Jim Cummings, who is also the current voice of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger. Every time I hear In The Dark of the Night, my mind pictures Tigger doing some overdramatic dark summoning in his treehouse. (And now, you will, too!)

WDAS and Disney/Pixar Shorts Collections

I don't care if they're all in here as two anthology films or as separate individual short films, but we need more of the recent shorts like The Ballad of Nessie, Frozen Fever and Oscar-winner Paperman, as well as some of the older shorts like John Henry and Paul Bunyan. Matter of fact, just bring the whole Disney Favorite Stories VHS series to Disney+ so I can watch Mickey and the Beanstalk without the creepy puppet in the frame narrative. Ludwig von Drake makes a better host any day of the week!

Series

Buzz Lightyear of Star Command

Considering Toy Story's franchise is still going strong in 2019, it's kind of stunning that this Disney's One Saturday Morning show isn't on Disney+ to help pad out the Toy Story Collection . Yes, it felt weird to have a drastically different voice for Buzz Lightyear in the TV show, but Patrick Warburton puts his own spin on it, and the worldbuilding in that show and the dynamics developed between the team members — and with the plethora of villains — were refreshingly fun. The comedy on this show was aces, and it's worth putting on Disney+ for this joke alone .

Fillmore

Yet another ABC Saturday Morning show that I want to see on Disney+, if for no other reason than I think this is the show that trained me to like cop procedural shows. It also started me on a love of Tara Strong-voiced goths that would catch fire when Teen Titans launched the following year.

The Muppet Show

Most Muppets movies and shows are on Disney+ except for the original, The Muppet Show. This was the show that made the Muppets an icon that endures to this day, and while the rights for this show might be trickier than most, it's worth the fight. This needs to be on Disney+.

This was the show that made the Muppets a household name and is where many of its most iconic skits and comedic bits originated, like Pigs in Space and The Electric Mayhem, and a new generation is ready to discover it again.

House of Mouse

Like the Muppet Show, this anthology show is one that helped re-introduce the more classic Disney shorts to a new generation while also giving us some shenanigans-of-the-week with a performance flair. It also allowed us to see the many, many characters in the Disney family interacting in a casual setting, and I'd love to see another show like it on Disney+ in the future — maybe in the same style as the Disney Princesses in Ralph Breaks the Internet — but until then, let me watch the original, please.

Disney Sing-Along Songs

Admittedly, this is a VHS/DVD series, not a TV show, but it's part of my childhood and I know I'm not alone. Sing-alongs and lyric videos are still a thing, so why shouldn't Disney get in on the nostalgia and offer Sing-Alongs that they already have sitting on a shelf somewhere? There's dozens of these kicking around and better that the kiddies watch them on Disney+ instead of piece by piece on YouTube.

American Dragon: Jake Long

There's an impressive amount of Disney Channel shows already on Disney+, but it's just the tip of the iceberg, and of the many shows that aren't, this is one I'd binge in a heartbeat. It was a show that underwent a lot of changes between its two seasons, but it was fun and I want to see it again.

W.I.T.C.H.

This is a Jetix throwback, but W.I.T.C.H. is a cool comic series and it deserves to be on Disney+, even with all the nonsense that went on during its production. Also, if Disney is looking to reboot some series for D+, this would be a great place to start so that we could have a consistent vision and throw the focus back on our female superhero girls.

Galavant

Galavant was a kitschy musical miniseries that was just as shocked as the world was when it got a second season, and now that Disney+ is here, it's time to put the series on D+ and get Alan Menken and the gang back for a third season of singing and insanity. The whole cast is amazing, but Karen David's Isabella perfectly spin-kicks the medieval movie stereotypes while Timothy Omundson's King Richard is hilariously charming as a hapless buffoon who starts out an evil overlord and ends up a— oh, just watch it and you'll see.

Agents of SHIELD

This show is currently split between Netflix for the older seasons and Hulu for the current season episodes, but I'm hoping that once this final season finishes airing, it'll all wind up on Disney+ in the Marvel section. After all, this was a game-changing series for Marvel and remains the long-running Marvel TV series, it makes sense for it to live with all of Marvel's movies and cartoons on Disney+.

What's on your Disney+ wishlist?

Again, this is a very limited portion of a list that is pages and pages long, and I know that there's still more I'm adding to it every time I turn around. What are you missing on Disney+? Tell us in the comments — and then go request them

There are so many different ways to be a CordCutter, but internet access is a must for almost every option available. Often people will switch from a bundle of TV and Internet to an internet-only plan, and then add the streaming devices and services they need to watch what they want online. The biggest internet provider wants to help users with that, but they may want more in return then it seems at first.

Comcast will now include a free streaming device called Xfinity Flex with any Internet-only subscription. Previously, users had to pay $5 a month for the Xfinity Flex, which is based on Comcast's X1 platform. $60 a year was far from a bargain for a 4K streaming box with some WiFi and smart home controls, especially when most features could be found in sticks with only a one time cost. Free feels like a more appropriate price, especially considering the potential motivations of Comcast's move.

In mobile gaming, free-to-play has emerged as a popular and profitable way for a company to have a successful game. These can be good games like Clash Royale, which allows players to purchase faster upgrades even though gameplay stays the same. They also can be frustrating games, where paying is the only way to advance or complete the game. "Game of War" is cited by a lot of gamers as an example of this pay-to-win model. If you don't pay up in these kinds of Freemium model games, they stop being fun quickly.

The Xfinity Flex is the Free-to-Press-Play step in Comcast's plans to have a bigger part in the future of television. The streaming box is like a little sibling of the bigger X1 cable box. It can run streaming apps, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Pandora, DAZN, and more including Hulu coming soon. The Flex also has Wi-Fi controls, including displaying the password, using parental controls, and pausing devices so the kids know they're really in trouble. It can show your security camera feeds and find your smartphone, with an important catch we will get to later. Biggest of all, Flex gives Internet-only subscribers access to thousands of on-demand shows and movies for free . This feature is so big, we should start there.

Back to Cable

Those 10,000 free shows and movies sound very similar to the benefit offered to Comcast cable subscribers, and I should know because I used to be one. If the Xfinity Flex can get internet-only customers the same shows, movies and guide offered in their paid TV service, the distance between the two sides can't be too far. In fact, the two sides of Xfinity are connected.

Comcast announced that, beginning this Fall users can upgrade to a full cable TV subscription right in the on-screen guide. How convenient, especially for Comcast. Everyday they can have internet-only customers using and relying on a device that can convert them to the bundle. These free shows and movies can be the taste, or the grind of the game to convince players to buy the expensive season pass. In the end, some streamers may end up back at cable and the Flex makes that more likely than a Roku or Apple TV.

Peacock Coming, Ya'll

Not every Xfinity Flex user will end up deciding to go back to cable, but Comcast's strategy with the free Flex doesn't end there. It may be more than coincidence that the Flex became free the same week that Comcast announced their streaming service would be named Peacock . They also announced many of the shows, movies and originals the service would offer.

Peacock enters a crowded field, where it's expected to compete with other new services like Warner Media's HBO Max , Walt Disney's Disney+ , and even Apple TV+ . It will even have to compete for attention and dollars with Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video. It's doing all this with a different business model, as it will be included with ads for cable subscribers and available as a stand-alone subscription too

That's a lot for a new service to take on, even if it is stocked with movies and big names shows like "The Office". One way to get a leg up is to be the featured service on streaming devices. That's easily done when the company controls the box. Freemium games pop up offers to sell players coins, upgrades and lives constantly while they are playing. It's a safe bet that customers will see the Peacock app a lot, and a paid Peacock subscription will be a remote button away.

Add-on services

The Xfinity Flex won't be just about Comcast's TV efforts, so let's look at the other features it offers, and that catch mentioned earlier. It will let customers see their security cameras, control their WiFi and find their smartphone using their remote. Pretty cool, for users and for Comcast.

This is where the micro-payments of the Freemium model come in, and the user needs a regular fix. That security camera feature isn't built to work with Ring or Nest. Instead, buy some coins and sign up for Xfinity Home Security($). Want to save money and buy your own compatible modem instead of renting from Comcast? It's very likely you'll lose the WiFi controls. Want to find your smartphone using the Flex? Are you an Xfinity Mobile customer? You see where this is going.

The free Xfinity Flex can only be used to the fullest if you add other paid Xfinity services. Similar to a pay-to-win game, players won't get far without paying more through in-app purchases. In the end, will users still be internet-only customers?

A new form of contract

Even if an internet-only subscriber manages to resist the siren songs of Xfinity's other paid services, Comcast can get one other big benefit from the free Flex. Customer retention is another key, and the Flex can work a lot like a contract. The purpose behind the contracts Comcast loves to offer isn't just to lock in your price; it's also to lock you in as a customer. So why say the Flex is a new form of contract?

If your home streaming service is setup with Roku devices, you can switch internet provider with ease. You won't need to buy all new equipment to keep streaming. If you own your own WiFi router, you might not even need to change any passwords. However, with Xfinity Flex, the box is unlikely to work on another internet provider. If you do decide to switch boxes, how long will it take, and how much will you spend to be ready to switch?

Any speed bump or barrier that makes customers think twice before switching makes it more likely that some of them won't switch. Freemium games regularly remind users of things they've already accomplished, or what they are close to achieving. This helps players feel like they would lose something, like the crops they've planted, if they stop playing. Anything that locks customers in to a service, with a cost to get out of it sure feels like a contract.

Other revenue in B2B

Comcast has other ways to recover the $5 a month they lose by making the Xfinity Flex free. Beyond everything already mentioned, and money from other apps or digital rentals and purchases, they can profit on the business to business side too.

Comcast licenses their X1 technology platform to other cable providers, and that earns money for the company. Beyond licensing fees, they have a larger base of users to gain insight from using data, and have more leverage in negotiating apps for the platform. Now, they can license the Flex technology as well. Cox has already begun offering a box based on the Flex tech called Contour Stream . It can work like a game publisher who turns a popular app into a game engine that they can sell. This will help them further expand their reach, and amplify all of the benefits listed above.

Flex the Future?

Will the Xfinity Flex be enough to take market share away from Roku, Amazon or the other streaming hardware makers? I don't believe so. Will Comcast eventually offer an over-the-top version of Flex than can stream on any network? Not without a seismic shift in the landscape. Could the Flex X1 apps expand enough to offer YouTube TV or AT&T TV Now? Don't bet on it.

But I can see a world where it picks off exactly the kinds of customers big cable wants. Persuadable customers who go internet-only, but want things simple and integrated are the ones most likely to take this, and most likely to convert to more paid services. Keeping them, and increasing how much they pay will be worth far more than the cost of the free device. Like a freemium game, with the right kind of customers the free Flex could earn enough other payments to end up on the Top Grossing list.

Disney just held its annual D23 event, jam-packed with new programming and information about their upcoming Disney+ streaming service and Apple has released more trailers for the shows set to debut on their upcoming Apple TV+ streaming service .

And… one of these things is not like the other. So, what does it all mean for Disney, for Apple, and for us? Let's figure it out.

Disney+

Where to start with Disney+ ? Specific to my interests, in addition to the already announced Falcon and The Winter Solider — and, please, Marvel, the man's name is Captain America now, get it right — WandaVision, Loki, and Hawkeye shows, Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige added three more to the list: Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, and Moon Knight.

All with the same star-power you see in the MCU movies, and with stories that intertwine with those movies — probably the most successful and certainly the most audacious in history.

For Star Wars, in addition to the Mandalorian and the Cassian Andor show, which we knew about, and the return of Clone Wars, which alongside Rebels, is so good it kinda just clowns all the movies since Empire, we'll be getting a new Ewan McGregor Obi Wan show.

And, since, with the Fox purchase, Disney now effectively owns 80% of our childhoods, there was even more for fans of the other brands, from High School Musical to Lizzy McGuire, to Muppets.

We won't get all of it all at once, of course. In fact, we'll get barely any of it at launch beyond the Mandalorian. And it won't be dumped for binging. It'll be weekly releases like Game of Thrones was on HBO. But it'll start flowing hot and heavy going into 2021 at launch.

It will have catalog content though, including the Simpsons from the Fox purchase.

Disney+ is set to debut in the U.S., Canada, and The Netherlands on Nov. 12, 2019, and in Australia and New Zealand a week later, on Nov. 19, 2019, and to continue rolling out to the rest of the EU in early 2020, and Eastern Europe and South America in 2021.

It'll be available on pretty much every streaming screen and box, including Apple's and the TV app — but strangely not Amazon. At least not so far.

And it'll cost $7 a month or $70 a year in the U.S., though D23 fan club members in the U.S. can get an even bigger discount for a limited time if they sign up for 3-years. There'll also be a Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu-with-ads bundle for $13 a month.

Apple TV+

Apple, by comparison, has said relatively little about Apple TV+ .

I was at the big event they held in March, when the lights went out and came back on, and every time another huge star was on the stage, from Spielberg to Aniston to Corel to Mamoa, to Oprah.

There are no huge franchise plays, like Disney is pulling with Marvel and Star Wars. No, I'm a Mac: The Series, or the Adventures of Liam, Robot Deconstructor.

But there's a galactic ton of the aforementioned star power, and programming like The Morning Show, For All Mankind, Amazing Stories, See, Dickinson, Peanuts in Space, and more.

Many of which just got their trailers pushed out.

Since Apple doesn't own a studio or production house, at least not yet, and hasn't licensed any older shows that we know of, TV+ won't have any catalog content available at launch.

No official launch date has been given yet, other than this fall, but it will hit all 100+ countries that already have Apple's recently updated TV app.

And, it'll be available on Apple devices, Samsung, LG, Sony, and Visio smart TVs, and streaming boxes including Roku and Amazon.

No word yet on pricing either, which is where this all gets very interesting.

Apple's currents subscription services, News+ and Music both cost $10 a month for standard, single subscriptions.

Rumor has it, Apple's upcoming Arcade video game service will be $5, but there's been no official word on that either.

The fractured fiefdoms

Netflix pricing has gone up and become kind of convoluted over the last few years. It starts at $9 a month for 1 screen in standard resolution, or 480p, then goes to $13 a month for 2 screens in HD 1080p, or $16 for 4 screens in 4K.

Unlike Disney and Apple, which have massive revenue generators outside of content streaming, Netflix has to make all its money off of this one, single business. They're Palm or BlackBerry compared to Samsung or Microsoft in the phone space. Their strengths include their investment in original programming, like Stranger Things, and their back catalog, primarily of licensed content.

But, that part is changing. Office is leaving. So is Friends. The Marvel stuff like Daredevil and Jessica Hones has also already been canceled. That's because every other studio is launching a streaming service or several of their own, and bringing everything home.

This, as a consumer, is the fundamental problem with video streaming today. Apple Music, Spotify, all of that is great. $10 or so for effectively all the music. But imagine if it was like video today. $10 for Sony Music. $10 for Warner Music. Oh, U2 and the Beatles are big, they charge $10 just for themselves. $20 for Taylor Swift and Metallica.

Video doesn't want to end up like music but they're quickly creating a fractured set of fiefdoms that we, their customers, may not want to end up in either.

People have already talked about subscribing to Netflix for one month, binging everything from that year, then unsubscribing and doing the same with Disney+, HBO Max, TV+, all the streams. At least until the services try to restrict that too.

It's unclear exactly how much compelling content Disney+ will have for me at launch. I hope the Mandalorian will start to redeem Star Wars again, but all the Marvel stuff will take a couple years to roll out. Maybe the catalog content will defray that a bit, but the problem catalog content solves is primarily boredom. I just finished watching the hot new show, now keep me entertained.

Netflix has tons of that, even with the losses, and I often don't find anything to solve my boredom fix. At least not compared to all the stuff I can find on YouTube. And, yeah, I pay for Premium.

But, Apple isn't even going to have a catalog to fall back on, again as far as we know. Just a few hot new shows now with more on their way. And, if they get a Game of Thrones or Stranger Things, hell, if they get a couple or even a few, that'll be great. But how much will it really be worth in terms of monthly dollars?

Amazon, I think smartly, bundles its original programming and licensed content with its annual Prime subscription. It's just one of the many benefits of the program.

I'm not suggesting Apple give TV+ away for free. That's almost anathema to the company. And I'm sure there are some fans who'll pay $10 just to see Aniston or Oprah. But maybe not in service-sustaining numbers.

That's why I continue to think a low price like $5 or even $6 makes sense. But offering it as part of an Apple+ bundle makes even more sense. Hell, they can charge $10 by itself if they absolutely feel they have to, but make it just a couple or five bucks extra to every existing Apple Music customer. Apple News customer. iCloud customer. And then offer a grand unified bundle for like $20 that just has it all.

A billion devices in our pockets isn't cool. A billion people suddenly added to all the services, that's cool.

Three things that should be taught in school: Sex-ed, basic personal finance, and good password hygiene. Sadly, at least for those of us here in the United States, all three are sorely lacking.

The latter point was laid bare in a study from members of Google's Spam and Abuse Research Team. Too many passwords are being reused — and that opens the users to credential stuffing, which is where a bad actor tries a username and password combination leaked from one service on all kinds of other services, just to see if they'll work.

Or, to put it simply, if your Netflix email and password is the same as the what you used for MySpace and was part of that 360 million-account breach, there's a good chance someone can get into your Netflix account if they want.

The researchers (which also included one from Stanford University) came to their conclusions from Google Chrome's Password Checkup extension, which securely checks passwords saved in Chrome with more than 4 billion unsafe username and password combinations that were at some point caught up in a breach.

The pattern of behavior shouldn't be terrible surprising. Big targets like banks and other financial institutions would more typically have strong, unique passwords. Softer targets like streaming services and other entertainment sites (and, I'd wager, things that you might also log in to from some sort of TV remote control) pinged the list of unsafe logins far more often.

How much more often? The nine entertainment sites listed in the study (they didn't say which ones) made up just 0.8 percent of the total number of visits, but accounted for 6.3 percent of the warnings. The next highest warning rate was "adult" websites at 3.6 percent. (Which made up just 0.2 percent of the total number of visits. Seems low, but whatever.)

The scarier number is the "ignore rate," which means users were warned that their passwords potentially had been breached at some point — but they chose not to change them. Adult sites made up 38.5 percent of ignored warnings, and entertainment sites were second at 27.1 percent.

Here's how things were put in the study, which you can read in its entirety here as a pdf :

Domains that we categorized as related to finance or governments exhibited the lowest rate of reused, breached credentials (0.2–0.3%). Possible explanations include the password composition policies of these domains, the fact that users adhere to popular security advice to have one strong password for their bank, or that the sites actively identify breaches and previously forced password resets.

In contrast, entertainment sites like streaming video platforms and adult websites had the highest warning rate for breached credentials (3.6–6.3%). Users may adopt disposable passwords due to perceived lack of risk, or in the case of streaming sites, they may use shared accounts. Surprisingly, users ignored our breach warnings nearly uniformly across categories, with the exception of adult websites. For the latter, users ignored nearly twice as many of our warnings—potentially to hide the domain from our persistent warning tray.

That bit about "perceived lack of risk" is interesting. As far as I'm concerned, a password is a password is a password. I also strongly believe that we tend to look at security completely wrong. We tend to trust the services we use, considering them to be secure until proven otherwise. That's backward. We should assume everything we do — every new service we sign up for, every new. credential — can and will be breached, and we should do whatever we can to mitigate that risk.

Strong, unique passwords are the first step in that fight. You can use what's built in to your browser, or you can use a third-party password manager. Here are but a few that are worth exploring:

And you absolutely should use two-factor authentication whenever possible. Hardware keys are best , though I can't think of a single streaming service that uses them. (Save for, I suppose, YouTube TV, since it uses your Google login.) Software tokens are OK, but they can be spoofed. Time-based SMS codes should be avoided if at all possible.

And employ a service like Google Chrome's Password Checkup extension , or the Have I Been Pwned? service to see if your credentials have been caught up in a breach.

But as often is the case, the simplest solution may well be the best one: Don't reuse passwords. And if something warns you that your Netflix password may have been breached somewhere else, it's time to change it.

Update: We're now halfway through 2019 and every word of this is still true, which is just ridiculous.

While I'm quite adamant about there not being a single streaming service to rule them all, this much is true —  DirecTV Now , especially now that it's in its second-generation form, is excellent. It's excellent on Apple TV . It's excellent on Roku . It's excellent on Amazon Fire TV .

Where it's not excellent is on Android TV. Because it's not actually available on Android TV. There is, officially, no native Android TV app for DirecTV Now.

That doesn't actually mean you can't watch DirecTV Now on an Android TV.

Both the Android and iOS apps for DirecTV Now support Google's Chromecast feature, which lets you easily "cast" a video from a phone or tablet to an Android TV, or to a Chromecast dongle. And that's a perfectly fine way to watch the occasional video.

What it is not , however, is a particularly fun thing to do if you don't know exactly what you want to watch and know that you'll be there watching it for a while. In other words, it's awful if you're going to flipping around a bit.

AT&T, when reached for comment, said it didn't "have any additional information to share at this time."

What's equally frustrating is that we know DirecTV Now has at least flirted with a proper Android TV application. It was an exclusive on Le Eco televisions — before that company shut down in the United States, leaving its devices to rot . (The DirecTV Now app was preloaded in an OS update, but later killed on the server side of things.)

At this point there's a decent chance one of you has your hand raised and is shouting "But you can side load the Amazon Fire TV app!" And, indeed, you can. But that's not the point in the slightest.

Android TV is one of the major hardware platforms when it comes to cord-cutting. It's far past time DirecTV Now (and its parent company, AT&T) remembers that.

I remain amazed at my kids' ability to watch shows on a phone. It's a generational thing, of course, as well as a matter of convenience. You use the device that's best available to you. And for kids of a certain age, it's all about the phone.

(Yes, I'm absolutely working on that. But I see it as no more different than when I couldn't keep my paws off our Apple IIc when I was young.)

Our eldest daughter is in the market for a new phone, seeing as how she's practically battered my original Pixel XL. She's lobbying hard for an iPhone.

I have other plans.

The bottom line is that the Pixel 3a (and the Pixel 3a XL) are the perfect phones for young teens, and for young teens who are going to ingest way more online video than is healthy. (Again, I'm working on that.)

It all comes down to two things: Price, and performance.

You almost can't beat price, in this case. The Pixel 3a runs $399 . The Pixel 3a XL is $479 . Either way, that's damned near half the price of an iPhone Xr, to say nothing of the $999 iPhone Xs. Even the iPhone 8 — no spring chicken anymore, even if it still is a good phone — still retails for $599.

And I'll use that same argument against the recently discounted Pixel 3 ($599) and Pixel 3XL ($699).

Don't worry that the Pixel 3a uses a "lesser" processor than the Pixel 3. Don't worry that the screen is a lower resolution of 1080p. (Well, the Pixel 3a XL anyway.) We're not streaming anything live higher than 1080p on a phone anyway. And 4K video is wasted on a display that size. Most folks simply can't tell the difference — to say nothing of a teenager who's doing a million different things at once anyway.

So, yeah. You can't beat the Pixel 3a on price. And performance should remain right up there for quite some time as well. The only two companies I trust to not screw me on software updates are Apple and Google. The Pixel 3a will continue to get software updates for quite some time. (And while that's more important to Dad than it is the kid with her nose buried in YouTube, it doesn't make it any less important.)

So that's price, and that's performance. My two boxes are checked. And as far as content, that's taken care of, too. It doesn't matter what you use to stream video, be it YouTube or Snapchat or DirecTV Now or Hulu or whatever, it's available on Android. And generally speaking the experience of using Sling or YouTube TV or whatever is exactly the same on Android as it is on an iPhone. (Not that my kid believes me, but this is the sort of thing I get paid to try, right?)

Plus, Chromecast is still very much a thing. And while Chromecast also is available on iOS, it's a better, more native experience on Android.

Again, tell that to the kid who really wants iMessage. But me? I'm more concerned about getting the best bang for the buck. And if all you're mostly doing is watching video, you simply can't beat the Pixel 3a for that.

You might be tempted, having watched Tuesday's Google I/O keynote, to declare Android TV a dead operating system. After all, it's quite a long time since it's seen any new hardware for which we can be excited, and the scant bit of Android TV news to come out Shoreline was decidedly developer focused.

But, no. Android TV is not dead. It's just that the operative words this week have been "Coming later this year."

Consider:

• A revamped Google Play Store on Android TV. Coming later this year.
• The ability to use your voice and Google Assistant to easily switch over to live TV. Coming later this year.
• PIN logins for easier access to your favorite apps, and for easier payment. Also coming later this year.

And that's just the stuff we know about and was discussed at Google I/O.

Plus Google was still promoting the fact that there are more than 5,000 apps for Android TV , and 1,000 streaming content providers. Those are vanity numbers, to be sure. There certainly are not 5,000 apps you just have to download, and 1,000 streams you just have to watch. But neither is the ecosystem a barren wasteland, even if it's still being shunned by the likes of DirecTV Now, and stuck with a hamstrung app from Hulu.

The dearth of new hardware – or at least new hardware worth talking about, given the decided thud produced by the last couple of U.S. releases from Xiaomi — is annoying, for sure. There are only so many ways we can say that NVIDIA Shield remains the best Android TV box you can buy , even years after its release. (And it's certainly not a perfect device, even as powerful as it is.)

But more certainly is coming later this year. At the very least, updated home screens and Play Stores and features. More likely something a little more definitive, in the form of a standalone event, or perhaps part of the fall bonanza that has become an annual thing for Google. New hardware isn't certain until it is, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it.

Was Android TV news slow this developer conference? Yeah, a little. That's not to diminish what was announced, though. Discovering apps is important. Being able to more easily sign into apps — and to reduce payment friction — is hugely important, if not all that sexy a headline.

But, no. Android TV is not dead. Not by a long shot.

"Up at the black school here?" That's the not-quite-a-sentence uttered by Officer Lasky to Nina Harrison and her son, Dorian.

It didn't even take that long to figure out that the third episode of Jordan Peele's The Twilight Zone — with new episodes streaming Thursdays on CBS All Access — is going to tackle race. With the first two episodes mostly traditional thrillers , it's not too surprising to find ourselves in the middle of one of the tougher social issues of our time in the third episode, Replay.

Nina (Sanaa Lathan) is driving son Dorian (Damson Idris) to Tennyson University. It's her last outing her with her baby boy, and the duo grabs a bite to eat in a diner. That's when we get our first look at Officer Lasky. (Played by Glenn Fleshler — yes, the serial killer in the first season of HBO's True Detective .) Something bad obviously is going to go down between them all. It's just a matter of time.

Actually, Replay is all about a matter of time. The old-school camcorder (ask your parents, kids) Nina is lugging around — it's her father's old camera, actually — is able to reverse time, which she finds out after Dorian squirts ketchup on his shirt. She hits rewind, and we all go back 30 seconds or so. Dorian is unaware, but Nina knows something isn't right. (Had she never used the rewind button before? I'd like to think it worked fine — before she entered The Twilight Zone.)

Back on the road, with Dorian at the wheel. He'd toyed with the idea of swinging by his uncle's house — Nina's brother Neil — on the way, going so far as to put the house into the GPS. But she quickly puts an end to that idea.

Why, exactly, does she refuse? What's kept her away for so many years?

Dorian and Nina get pulled over as he's driving — and filming her with the camera.

It's obvious that Officer Lasky is giving them a hard time just because he can, but he positively loses it when he realizes the ancient camcorder is recording. A struggle ensues, and the rewind button is hit again.

They go back a few minutes, and Nina groggily realizes what's about to happen and gets Dorian to pull over. And up pulls Officer Lasky, who resumes being an asshole.

(Lasky, for what it's worth, does show a flash of humanity at one point. But it's not explored at all, and he quickly reminds us that it doesn't mean a damn anyway. It may explain his actions, but there's no way it can excuse them.)

Nina's only way out of what's about to happen is to hit the rewind button again, and to try to find another way through things.

The Groundhog Day trope is hardly new, and it's often poorly used. Because you know at some point something is going to work, somehow. But in this case it's used to build the tension and suspense. We don't know that things are going to end well. At least not for certain. While this is The Twilight Zone , which takes a decidedly more positive outlook than, say, Black Mirror , that's not to say that everything will be OK in the end.

And everything isn't necessarily OK in the interim, either. Nina begging the camera — "Please. Take me back. Take me back." — and sense of desperation after it works is a gut punch to anyone who has kids.

Ultimately Nina tells Dorian what's been happening and asks for his help. It's all she has left. (Or at least she explains how things have been happening. She leaves out some things in telling her son.) Dorian believes her immediately, and just as quickly knows what needs to be done.

"Nothing magical about knowing the only way we haven't taken can get us to school."

And that brings us to the home of Uncle Neil (the always excellent Steve Harris), which also is where Nina and her other brothers grew up. They're the only ones left, though. Them and Dorian.

Nina quickly tells Neil about Officer Lasky and the camera. He also immediately believes her and knows just what to do. Or at least what to try.

In the end it's not about avoiding things. It's not about hiding. Replay maybe ends up being a little too on the nose as it comes to its conclusion. The message is obvious, and it's not subtle about it.

And it's also not at all wrong, and unfortunately is a message that absolutely needs to be repeated in 2019.

There's something missing from most of the posts you'll find over the weekend after MacRumors discovered that Netflix had removed AirPlay support form its iOS apps. That those carrying iPhones and iPads would be forced to (gasp) use the native Netflix apps on Apple TV or smart TVs instead of using AirPlay.

What's missing? A sense of history, and irony.

First, the irony. Netflix is doing a couple things here. First is that it's taking control over its own experience. As it said in a statement to The Verge , "With AirPlay support rolling out to third-party devices, there isn't a way for us to distinguish between devices (what is an Apple TV vs. what isn't) or certify these experiences."

It's ironic as hell to see anyone who who lives and dies with Apple complain about a company taking a firm grasp over what can and can't work with its products. That's quintessential Apple. It's part of what makes Apple products great — and also at times infuriating.

The sense of history requires us to go way back to the days of the Palm Pre, which played cat-and-mouse for what seemed like years with Apple. The Pre was able — for a time — to talk to iTunes using the somewhat-specious method of spoofing its identifier via the USB cable. That'd definitely not the sort of thing Apple had in mind, and it would "fix" the problem with a software update, only to see Palm "unfix" things again. It was only a matter of time until Apple shut things down for good, though.

And this hardly is the first time we've seen Netflix crack down on AirPlay-type streaming. It still doesn't allow you to use Chromecast to play back video on a Lenovo Smart Display , for instance. (And that's via Android or iPhone.) The why doesn't really matter — the simple fact is that you can't, and we won't be able to until Netflix wants us to be able to.

The other thing with this little to-do is that it really doesn't matter. Netflix has native apps on pretty much any ecosystem you can find. It's almost certainly going to be a better experience than using a phone or tablet to control things — and that goes for Android or iOS.

Why, then, does Netflix bother with Chromecast at all, when there are so many native apps available? Because of the inexpensive Chromecast dongles that have sold for years.

Apple doesn't have that. It doesn't have a $50 Apple TV dongle. It's got a $200 streaming box with an excellent Netflix experience unto itself. Netflix doesn't need to waste the time or the money (just kidding — those are the same things when it comes to coding) on AirPlay for an experience that it ultimately cannot control, be it from the Apple side of things, or the smart TV side of things, now that the likes of Samsung, LG, Vizio and more are getting support for AirPlay.

And I'm not buying the gnashed teeth from iMore's Rene Ritchie .

While most devices have Netflix either built-in or easily downloadable now, if you're visiting a friend or family member who has an Apple TV or TV set with AirPlay built-in, simply being able to stream from your account, without having to get them to subscribe or having to log yourself in, is way more convenient.

No, convenient is just finding what you want to watch, and then watching it. Just like you always would.

There's no real reason to log yourself in to someone else's Netflix app. (Unless, I guess, you just don't want them to see what it is you're watching.) Create a separate Netflix profile, perhaps, but even then that's not really necessary. It's not like you get different content whether you're signed in as yourself, or your friend.

Not bothering with AirPlay may be an unexpected move for Netflix, but it shouldn't lead to a degradated experience for Apple fans.

They're just not used to being the ones having a feature taken away from them.

Hulu and Netflix each released a documentary about 2017's failed Fyre Festival. The question I've heard most is "Which one should I watch?"

Faced with a choice between Fyre Fraud on Hulu and Fyre on Netflix, my first answer has been "Why not both?" They're both entertaining, well-made, and different enough to each stand on their own. However, after hearing friends who are so used to turning to Netflix for originals, I started making a case for Fyre Fraud on Hulu .

Hulu describes the movie as a true-crime comedy, but I think of it more as an Autopsy of a Con. The movie takes a deep dive into what made the organizers and the festival into the phenomena, failure, and fraud that many regard them as.

If you managed to avoid the events behind these movies, Fyre Fraud is a Hulu Original Documentary about the Fyre Festival concert event in the Bahamas. The event was built on a slick social media campaign that quickly went viral. However, the show did not go on, crashing on opening day in a similarly viral fashion. From guests arriving to a lack of promised accommodations, a lack of any organization, and none of the promised music acts performing, Fyre failed in every area of being a luxury music festival. The behind-the-scenes context in the documentary explains how Fyre, and the people behind it, went from failure to fraud.

It doesn't matter if you've seen the Netflix doc already or you are coming in with fresh eyes. Here are the reasons why you need to watch Fyre Fraud on Hulu:

The interview with Fyre CEO Billy McFarland

Fyre Fraud builds its narrative around an interview with the CEO and organizer of the festival, Billy McFarland. Hearing directly from McFarland as he looks back on everything that happened, in his own words, is mesmerizing. The way he handles the questions, which grow more challenging as it goes on, reveals more about him and his motivations than any behind the scenes footage could.

McFarland gives continued denials throughout. He has hesitation and double-talk regarding what his business partner, rapper Ja Rule, knew about the planning of the event. When faced with follow-up about facts that can be researched and verified, Billy McFarland stares and repeats his original answer word for word, like a rehearsed testimony.

The way McFarland behaves during the interview gives the viewer a sense of how the festival pushed past so many red flags without being postponed or cancelled. There is a real feeling by the end of the interview that, to Billy, the truth is whatever he says it is. The closest he comes to taking responsibility for the many failures of Fyre is an answer regarding poor financial dealings. "I was a big boy. I knew what I was getting into."

More: Technobuffalo's take on Fyre Festival

When contrasted with his guilty plea to fraud charges, and the details of the event laid bare, his answer is as difficult to understand as it is to believe. It's hard to understand why he agreed to do this interview at all. However, as his girlfriend Anastasia Eremenko said in Fyre Fraud , "He wanted to tell his story. And he wanted to go deeper than the festival failure."

The background context

Fyre Fraud on Hulu provides a huge amount of background detail, and it is helpful in understanding the context behind the Fyre Festival. This context makes all the difference once the worst parts of the Fyre festival decision making unfolds.

This documentary goes back to Billy as a child entrepreneur, and it takes the time to understand what motivated him. From his obsession with Mark Zuckerberg to his trips to Silicon Valley to pitch venture capital without a real product, Billy McFarland as shown in Fyre Fraud appears much more focused on his image of success than on the work or decision making needed to achieve success.

Fyre Fraud is patient with viewers, taking the time to walk through his early business of Magnises, a strange company that specialized in credit card perks. It explained how he used money invested into that company to instead create connections for himself with celebrities, including Ja Rule. It even walks you through his close relationship with an early investor, Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy, who was indicted himself on charges of rigging business practices.

All of this context is helpful even when watching the Netflix documentary, Fyre . I watched the Netflix documentary after Fyre Fraud , and I was happy with how much more sense it made by understanding the company, and the founders behind the concert.

Scam of the Social Media Influencer Era

Movies about scams have been popular for years, from The Sting to The Big Short . Documentaries about scams have even made a mark before, including Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room . What makes Fyre Fraud unique is its profile of the first major scam of the Social Media Influencer Era. It tries to make this commentary a part of a bigger observation on the millennial generation as a whole, but it feels less heavy-handed when applied to a narrow slice of social media and influencer culture.

Fyre Fraud does an excellent job of addressing the role social media, and influencers, played in the rise and fall of the Fyre Festival. The organizers paid high level influencers to be involved in the announcement and launch commercial for the festival. They generated curiosity and interest by having them all post a simple orange square simultaneously. Many ticket buyers assumed that these same models and celebrities would be attending the Fyre Festival, but they would not be there.

Fyre Fraud particularly focuses on the involvement of Elliot Tebele's social media company, known by several colorful names but here let's call them Jerry Media. Hulu's documentary questions their involvement in building the monster that this festival became from the very beginning. It highlights how the Jerry Media team avoided the obvious question of if Fyre could deliver on their promises. And they strongly imply that the team contributed to what Ja Rule labeled as "false advertising", especially when removing social media comments and questions that hinted at the failures that were to come.

This link is much stronger in the Hulu documentary, and there have been theories of why that may have been. Fyre Fraud itself points out that Jerry Media is one of the production companies behind the Netflix documentary Fyre . It leaves us all to draw our own conclusions on how that would affect the focus on the social media promotion role in the ultimate failure of Fyre Festival.

Still, one of the key moments of the Hulu documentary happens when an interviewer asks Oren Aks, a former employee of Jerry Media, a key question about responsibility.

"Who's guilty?" the producer asks.

"Everyone," replies Aks.

Fyre it up

Fyre Fraud is more than just a guilty pleasure. It's a modern documentary version of a disaster movie. In the same ways that you can enjoy The Day After Tomorrow or The Towering Inferno , you can make some popcorn and enjoy Fyre Fraud on Hulu without feeling any guilt at all. Leave the guilt to those the movie focuses on, because by the end you may hope that's all they're feeling.

Whenever I tell my friends they need to watch Steven Universe they always watch the first two episodes and say the same thing: "This is just some stupid kids show, I just can't get into it."

Yeah, alright. It's a silly kids show. I can see why it's hard to get into the show when the first few episodes make it seem like a pointless and random cartoon, but it's so much more than that.

It's a revolution that not only challenges you as a person but dares you to look at things from a perspective that you never even thought to. Kids and adults alike are watching Steven Universe and being taught the importance of love, acceptance, family, friends, self-love, and self-care. Not even just that, but the story of the show is absolutely captivating in its own right!

Let's get right to business. These are all the reasons you need to start watching Steven Universe .

Watch Steven Universe on Comedy Central

What this show offers society is monumental

Steven Universe is cut from the same cloth as shows like Adventure Time and Over the Garden Wall . Sure. It's cute, it's silly, and it's wholesome. As you learn about these characters and witness their adventures, you'll grow attached. The humor and exemplary content will absorb you in with smiles, but when these characters experience something traumatic you're just as heartbroken as they are.

Every season is full of life lessons for the real world that creep up on you like a shiver in the night and you'll never see them coming. One minute you're laughing at a joke and the next minute you get hit with a line that makes you stop and contemplate everything you just saw. You're ever so slowly inched behind the eyes of each character and into a mentality of understanding very real struggles you may not have even considered before.

You learn life lessons without ever having to experience them. The writers of the show make the story flow so perfectly you don't realize it's happening until you're a sobbing mess on your couch. Don't let that discourage you. There are just as many triumphs in each character as there are hardships. For every struggle you witness you'll also see an equal amount of love, support, and baby steps into a better future. Perhaps one of the best lessons that Steven Universe teaches is that not everything happens overnight. It's OK to not be OK , and it's okay to take your own time when it comes to healing or discovering yourself.

"You're allowed and expected to invent who you are."

Steven Universe is about the uprise of humanity, teaching us all what it means to discover ourselves, and how to stand up for our right to do so. It's about equality, rights, dealing with emotional baggage, and the importance of family and friendship. There is nothing I haven't seen or heard from this show that hasn't changed my life or made me a better person. It's shaping the way the next generation understands love and self-expression and I couldn't be more proud of its existence.

Real diversity among the characters

If there is one thing Steven Universe isn't short of, it's diversity. There are characters of all shapes, sizes, genders, color, style, and so on. Each character has a variety of interactions with the other characters that promotes an extremely realistic sense of society.

Instead of pointing out each individual for what makes them different the citizens of Beach City just treat them like any other person in this world. Heck, even the alien space rocks (who are very clearly not usual for this planet) are treated equally to all the other townsfolk.

The fact that these people can just exist and be loved is teaching the generation growing up with this show that nothing needs to be made out of the ordinary about someone who's a little different. You can just exist as who you are and still matter to the world. That's such a beautiful thing that I hope never goes unnoticed.

Steven Universe is subconsciously teaching it's viewers that it doesn't matter if you have a face full of piercings, what you look like, how you like to spend your free time, or anything else. You are all extraordinary for just being you and it's okay if that changes or you go through something that changes how you identify.

Last, but not least, the music

Last, but not least, the music. There are over 40 original songs (and growing) on the Steven Universe Soundtrack. Each one is unique, captivating, and sometimes even hauntingly beautiful. Each one has found its way onto a playlist on my phone.

Even when you're not watching the show you can jam out to the music you heard. It's basically the same thing that happened with "Let it Go" from Frozen. Everyone that I know that is a fan of Steven Universe will sing "Giant Woman" or "Stronger Than You" if it starts playing in a room. Just another way to bond with your loved ones, right?

Long story short: This show should be on everyone's list to binge watch and I will die on this hill.

Already a fan of Steven Universe?

Shoot me a Tweet and tell me all your favorite parts, songs, and what lead you to love the show as much as you do. How did it change your life? How do you convince your friends and family to get into it? I want to hear it all!