From Archer
The complete lack of subtlety about it just makes this funnier to me.

Men in Black and Jumanji got a lot of rewatches when I was 12ish.

...that looks like a parody poster.

Dayamn! Y'all are awesome.

Over the past season, having to regularly explain why I keep watching a show that I have lots of legitimate complaints about, I've rationalized Sons of Anarchy many, many times. Currently where I stand with it is:

Sons of Anarchy is like a restaurant where the food is surprisingly good considering how cheap it is, but the wait-staff have a tendency to spill loads of it on the floor before it even reaches your table.

I would be SO excited about this version of Ghostbusters

Natasha Lyonne as Venkman? Inspired, but fitting.
Gillian Anderson as Spengler? It just makes so much sense!
Though for Stantz, I'd prefer Kaitlin Olson, but Chelsea Peretti makes a lot of sense. Though, come to think of it, maybe Kristen Schaal would be better than either.

Anyway, that's an amusing and thought-provoking article that is relevant to our interests.

Okay, Mike, that'll do. I admire your commitment to it, but it's time to go back to work.

So, recently I've been writing two (ish) papers, and a PhD proposal outlining my work. And it's become pretty clear that I have tunnel vision and things that are obvious to me are not obvious to people who aren't part of a phylogenetics (evolutionary trees) lab.

I figure since y'all obviously have an understanding of good narrative structure (podcast... duh), and you're not in my usual circle of friends (who are mostly biologists), somebody here would be interested in occasionally reading through my work?
Not the usual typos-and-grammar thing, don't worry about that. I'd like a non-biologist to read though and tell me "i have no idea what this concept is and you didn't bother to explain it" or "i don't understand the point of what you're doing here" or "this idea doesn't follow, or contradicts, what came before" etc. I wanna make sure that the papers I write have a logical flow to them, and that there is a clarity to my ideas.

Would anybody be interested in that? My work uses evolutionary trees to make predictions about species/communities, and then we compare them to the real world. No molecular stuff, there's a minimum of number-stuff or tedious methodological detail, so don't worry about that. It's mainly trying to tell a story using ideas.

So, I'm kinda curious about how people felt about the argument/discussion that Riggan has with the theatre critic in the bar.

Do you think we were we "supposed" to pick a "side" of that argument? Because I agreed with both of them.

So, he has flashcards for "YES" and "NO".
Next time one of you visits, take a flashcard that says "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN THERE'S GONNA BE A GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOT?" and ask him the appropriate question. If he's started smiling, I'm sure his sense of humour will start coming back on-line soon, too

I really enjoyed it, and I'm quite keen to go watch it again at the end of the week.
I think it's gonna be a real Marmite film, but I'd recommend it on the grounds that 1) it has its own unique flavour, and 2) you'll still be thinking about it well after you've seen it.

I just really hope the writers don't come right out and explain what they were going for, because as it is right now, it's open to a lot of delicious layers of interpretation.

I thought Lake Mungo was very, very good.