Jay

ChainsawAsh said:

oojason said:

SPOILERS for S2xE04…

Forgot to mention I’m very happy Felix and Sylvester are still alive (for now…); some great chemistry and humour in there 😃

 

Really enjoying the music used so far this season too (just like the quality used last season!) - some if it can be found on here:-

https://www.youtube.com/user/WaterTowerWB/featured

and the Season 1 Soundtrack to Westworld is well worth a listen too.

(I hope Ramin gets to work on that Season 5 soundtrack for Person Of Interest soon, though that ship has likely sailed…)

 

I adore so many of the “old-timey” covers of songs, particularly the Radiohead ones. Exit Music in the S1 finale was perfect, and the Vitamin String Quartet version of Motion Picture Soundtrack used in that one Maeve scene was great, too. And, of course, the version of Paint it Black in the first (?) episode was gorgeous.

It’s a great metaphor for the blurring of realty with fiction.

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

fewer guns is of course good.

I said this earlier and Jay clearly doesn’t believe it because he asked how it solved anything. Good luck.

Clearly you read what you want to. This is what happens when you respond emotionally instead of engaging in a rational dialog.

I asked how banning scary-looking guns would help and you provided no meaningful response. If anybody should be asking themselves why they even bother, it’s me, not you.

ChainsawAsh said:

Jay said:

ChainsawAsh said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.

Alright, I’ll summarize.

It’s staggeringly easy for someone to get a gun in this country (or at least, it is in Indiana). It’s harder to get a driver’s license. For a lifetime license in Indiana, I was fingerprinted and supposedly given a background check, and lightly scolded that my driver’s license had an outdated address and was told to fix it, but that’s it. And in Indiana, a gun license and concealed carry permit are one and the same. I never had to take any kind of classes on gun safety, was never given any kind of test to prove I knew how to use a gun, didn’t have to provide any kind of evidence that I had somewhere to properly store my gun where it wasn’t accessible to kids or other unauthorized people - nothing like that. I didn’t even have to register my gun with anyone because it was a gift, so if I use it to kill someone tomorrow, there’s literally nothing to tie the murder weapon to me.

Here are the steps I think need to happen:

• Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a class on the safe handling and use of firearms, with hands-on training.
• Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a standardized test to prove that the information taught in the class was adequate, and retained by the applicant.
• Everyone applying for a gun license should have some sort of mental health screening.
• Everyone applying for a gun license should have to provide proof that they have a secure place to store it when not in use, such as a combination or key locked safe.
• Everyone should be required to register every weapon they own with the state, tied to their license, including serial number and a ballistics sample, and any guns that are given or received as gifts should be required to have their registration transferred to the new owner, just like a car.

That’s just for licensing. As for sales:

• Fully automatic guns should be outright banned (which they are).
• Anything that allows for the conversion of a semi-automatic gun to a fully-automatic gun, or for otherwise increasing the rate of fire through external attachments, should be outright banned. (Last I knew, in Indiana you can buy a full-auto conversion kit, you just aren’t legally allowed to install it. That’s fucking dumb.) This includes “burst” fire.
• Anything classified as an assault rifle should be banned outright.
• Semi-automatic shotguns should be banned outright.
• Semi-automatic rifles should have the same waiting period that handguns do.
• In fact, the only guns that should have no waiting period are bolt-action rifles designed for hunting, and that’s really just me throwing the pro-gun lobby a bone.
• High-capacity magazines should be banned outright.
• There should be a limit on volume of ammunition able to be purchased by any one person.

That’s all I can think of at the moment.

TL;DR - Guns don’t need to be banned entirely, but pretty much every aspect of their sale and licensing needs to be overhauled and tightened considerably, at the federal level.

I have yet to hear a single argument against any of this that doesn’t sound like “But mah gunz!” to me.

We could probably go back and forth a bit on some of these points (like the “assault rifle” classification), but overall, I mostly agree with what you propose. Thanks for responding and engaging in a dialog.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

fewer guns is of course good. it isn’t a cure though. but when you have to summarize a point in a few words… it is pretty accurate. (fewer nukes is also good)

I view it as a copout. Most issues, including guns, are complex and can’t be boiled down to a simple equation. It may sound crazy, but not everyone would agree that fewer guns is a good thing because they don’t view guns as inherently evil devices. However, by positioning them as such, it shuts down discussion before it can even start.

for your point about being all for improving background checks and following up on police reports. i don’t know your politics, but I really get annoyed when these lines come from people who also want to lower taxes / cut funding.

I’m still left-leaning on a lot of things, but have moved towards the center (maybe even right) on issues regarding personal liberty. Nobody likes taxes, but most people like roads and cops, and I’m not the type to bitch about taxes as long as I feel I’m getting my money’s worth. I’m willing to exchange a bit of my liberty (keeping my money) for the niceties of modern civilization (paved roads and first responders).

and finally, the why. It is true there might be a ‘scary’ (to borrow your way of speaking about guns) reason behind all of this. but again, are you really solving anything by blaming some shadowy underling cause? This again is the way that people who ‘care’ speak, but not the way that people who want to solve problems speak.

Calling it “shadowy” makes it sound not real, like a Harry Potter villain. There’s definitely something real going on and it’s much easier to respond emotionally and try to take things away from people than it is to solve complex societal issues.

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

I was asking ChainsawAsh, thanks. If he doesn’t want to rehash, no big deal.

Didn’t realize only the person addressed is allowed to respond. Thanks for clarifying that.

Of course you’re allowed to respond. I just prefer meaningful responses, and ChainsawAsh is capable of answering for himself (if he wants to, or not…cool either way).

TV’s Frink said:

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

I was asking ChainsawAsh, thanks. If he doesn’t want to rehash, no big deal.

TV’s Frink said:

Nope.

So artists shouldn’t be free to create the characters and stories they want to create? I’d appreciate a more substantive response.

ChainsawAsh said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

What rights? Voting is a right, free-speech is a right, carrying a knife isn’t a right.

Rights don’t need to be defined to exist. The government doesn’t grant you rights; it restricts the rights you have by calling them “privileges”.

Tyrphanax said:

what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death?

Were humans, I’m afraid that comes as part of the package. Although things are being done anyway.

New and glorious ways will be found to kill each other regardless.

Tyrphanax said:

I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

It’s quite difficult to stab each other without knives.

Improvising a knife from common items isn’t terribly difficult. At least the argument for banning guns kind of makes sense since I can’t easily make a gun out of a household item.

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

“Except”? I never said it wasn’t 36, I never mentioned numbers.

EDIT: Oh I see what you meant. You thought I was saying one murder in the whole year, and not one murder a day, or whatever the exact average was. Seems like trying really hard to go through what I said and find something to misunderstand, so the rest can be ignored. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.

So you make a vague argument, I misunderstand, and naturally I’m the one being obtuse. Got it.

TM2YC said:

I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried. I’ll just highlight this number-22-based observation and if anybody wants to debate it, then I don’t really care:

Number of school shootings in UK + Strict Gun Control = 0 in the last 22 years.

Number of school shootings in US + Almost no Gun Control = 22 since this year began.

And yet their murder rates aren’t anywhere close to zero. Weird.

But they do have cops who get overpowered by criminals, people getting prosecuted over jokes, and 8-month prison sentences for giving traffic cameras the finger. Sounds rational.

This is what happens when a country is ruled by feelings.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

Less guns = good

Same question.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

I think anybody who supports gun control would do themselves a tremendous favor to go shoot a gun a few times.

Decades from now we’ll look back in shame.

Hopefully because we actually set ourselves on a path to figure out why some mentally unstable people aren’t just shooting lots of people, but driving trucks into cafés and knifing random strangers. Maybe figuring out why we’ve gotten so ill is a better alternative to curbing our liberties.

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I just marathoned the first season and haven’t decided if I should dive into season 2 or wait until it’s over so I can marathon that.

The production quality on this show is some of the best I’ve seen. Beautiful cinematography as you mentioned and stunning landscapes. The writing is spot-on also. Being a coder, I’m not rolling my eyes over tech talk like I usually am in sci-fi. They discuss builds and QA and other stuff that sounds very familiar 😃

I also love the contrast of the polished interior sets with their sophisticated, yet minimal technology held up against the raw, wide-open wilderness of the park.

Throw in some good plot twists along with HBO’s reliable V-N-AC-AL rating and we have a winner.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The lack of gun control is the only reason that these school shootings happen so often in America.

Or society is sick. Machine guns were readily available many years ago — actual machine guns, not black plastic rifles that look like something out of a movie, but are functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Where were all the mass shootings back then?

Banning scary-looking rifles won’t solve the problem. I went shooting with family and friends a few weeks back for my dad’s birthday. I can tell you that someone packing a couple semi-automatic handguns and a few magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a short period of time.

Background checks and mental health checks would probably help. There’s something going on out there that goes beyond availability of firearms.

There were more people incarcerated in mental institutions decades ago, which is why I think there were less shootings then.

We still put many people with mental issues in jail. In fact, I’d guess we put more mentally ill people in jail today than we did back then. It’s easier to throw them away in prison than to tackle something as complex as mental illness.

I didn’t say prison. I’m talking about mental institutions. I don’t believe in putting mentally ill people in the same facilities as sane criminals. I’m a staunch advocate of reforming our justice system.

Agreed. My point is that we still don’t deal with mental illness appropriately. Mental institutions from 40 or 50 years ago were nightmares and today’s prisons aren’t much better in terms of mental healthcare.

Also, who said anything about rifles? I don’t even know if this shooter used rifles. I want almost all guns to be nearly inaccessible.

Never happen.

It’s what needs to happen.

And then what? Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night while the police confiscate garden tools, get cuffed by their own suspects, and the mayor talks about banning fast food ads.

Guns, trucks, knives…sick, determined people will use whatever they have at their disposal. You can’t ban every potential weapon and you can’t legislate malice. Something is wrong, and it’s not guns, which have been readily available in the US forever.

I live in a relatively secure apartment building at the moment and don’t own a gun currently, but if I hadn’t moved out of my downtown condo, I’d have a gun by now. With my front door at street level, I had random drunks pound on my door late at night and try to force their way in because they had the wrong house, as well as someone who kicked in one of my first floor windows in an attempt to break in. And as a kid, someone broke into our house when only my sister and I were home; he thought my sister was there alone, so he bolted as soon as he heard me coming (with my trusty pitching wedge, no less), but he could’ve easily overpowered both of us. This shit happens and I’m not going to be left with only a golf club to clumsily defend myself in an enclosed space.

I’m buying a gun and getting training as soon as I’m back in a private residence.

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The lack of gun control is the only reason that these school shootings happen so often in America.

Or society is sick. Machine guns were readily available many years ago — actual machine guns, not black plastic rifles that look like something out of a movie, but are functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Where were all the mass shootings back then?

Banning scary-looking rifles won’t solve the problem. I went shooting with family and friends a few weeks back for my dad’s birthday. I can tell you that someone packing a couple semi-automatic handguns and a few magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a short period of time.

Background checks and mental health checks would probably help. There’s something going on out there that goes beyond availability of firearms.

There were more people incarcerated in mental institutions decades ago, which is why I think there were less shootings then.

We still put many people with mental issues in jail. In fact, I’d guess we put more mentally ill people in jail today than we did back then. It’s easier to throw them away in prison than to tackle something as complex as mental illness.

Also, who said anything about rifles? I don’t even know if this shooter used rifles. I want almost all guns to be nearly inaccessible.

Never happen.

moviefreakedmind said:

The lack of gun control is the only reason that these school shootings happen so often in America.

Or society is sick. Machine guns were readily available many years ago — actual machine guns, not black plastic rifles that look like something out of a movie, but are functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Where were all the mass shootings back then?

Banning scary-looking rifles won’t solve the problem. I went shooting with family and friends a few weeks back for my dad’s birthday. I can tell you that someone packing a couple semi-automatic handguns and a few magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a short period of time.

Background checks and mental health checks would probably help. There’s something going on out there that goes beyond availability of firearms.

It’s unfortunate the drama overshadows the actual discussion.

If the artist wants to include minority characters, transgendered characters, etc., cool. They don’t need an HR person and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer hovering over their desk telling them who to include, though. Let the market sort it out. If gamers and comic readers don’t like the stories or characters, they won’t buy the media.

In my experience, OPPO has done everything it’s ever said it would do, and since the parent company isn’t going away (just the org responsible for A/V stuff), I feel pretty good about it if they say they’re going to continue making firmware updates.

It looks like Panasonic has some high-end UHD players coming out also. Not sure if they’re destined for the US, though.

I put myself on the notification list for when OPPO restocks the 205. Just hoping they’ll add HDR10+ support via firmware. OPPO is saying they will later this year as long as the hardware can do it, so I have my fingers crossed.

I had the 83 and currently have the 103, both with region mods. Great players.

Mrebo said:

For those uninterested in the random and higher drama threads it’s probably nicer. I don’t mind.

This was the exact reasoning behind the split.

Expect low tolerance for trash posts and baiting behavior in the Media section.

Loved this show as a kid. The pilot is a classic and it’s stuck with me all these years.

And the talking fruit episode, though I’m not sure why.

Thanks, I never noticed this during my testing. I’ll have it fixed by tomorrow.

Woops, sorry. Fixed.

moviefreakedmind said:

Oklahoma

Ah, I see now.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

And those people should still get a shot at life. There are buttloads of actual successful people who started from literal crap.

I think you underestimate how miserable the average person is.

Most people — believing they are normal, reasonable, and typical — tend to assume they are representative of the majority and project their thoughts and feelings onto the majority, which is often incorrect.

I wouldn’t presume to tell someone with a shitty life that they’re better off not even having the opportunity to improve it.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Jay said:

I enjoyed it. I rolled my eyes at the frequent “emergencies” designed to create action/tension, but overall it was solid. It was cast well, the effects were seamless for the most part (the physical sets were great), I liked the Robinson family dynamic, and Dr. Smith came across as a genuine sociopath.

couple of eye roll moments, yes. But I actually enjoyed some of the cheese. Would we have gotten to see them escape from a submerged humvee using a helium balloon if he hadn’t stupidly jumped back into a humvee sinking in tar???

I guess he could’ve left his wife behind and explained the whole thing to his kids later.

It was a nice diversion from the hard sci-fi I usually watch.

I enjoyed it. I rolled my eyes at the frequent “emergencies” designed to create action/tension, but overall it was solid. It was cast well, the effects were seamless for the most part (the physical sets were great), I liked the Robinson family dynamic, and Dr. Smith came across as a genuine sociopath.