5/4 is basically 2/4 being hugged by 3/4, so I'll allow it.

I think it's an interesting question about depicting violence more realistically though, making the weight of it less easy to dismiss. When I was a tiny person, violence was someone shooting a gun and then someone else falling down without any blood. And then I distinctly remember seeing a bit of Die Hard on tv and for whatever reason, the bullet squibs detonated pretty chunkily and I remember thinking that this was more serious, on a different level entirely. So that did do something to me in terms of making some distinction between consequenceless images on a screen and something to take seriously.

Though, the other part of the equation is the way in which you're exposed to these films. As I've gotten older, I've really appreciated my mum's approach to the films she let me and my brother watch. It came down to:
*if there's swearing: "they shouldn't be saying that, and I don't want you to say those words in public"
*nudity: "it's natural, and there's nothing wrong with it."
*violence: "it's not real, it's just a film, but it's wrong to hurt people in real-life".

And 99% of the time she would still let us watch the film. It sounds almost stupidly straightforward. Don't just throw a movie on, have a teeny little talk with your kids and they'll turn out fine.

edit: i think most of the times she vetoed a film was 'cause of sex. but even that she would treat on a case-by-case basis. she was fine with us watching Beverly Hills Cop, which has a stripclub scene with boobies.
the one film i never understood her vetoing though was The Usual Suspects. hmm.

This was a delightful, hilarious episode, cheers.

P.S. I loved the midichlorian gag. Though I also kinda like to think that the link between midichlorians and The Force first started 'cause of some Jenny McCarthy type in the SW universe.

P.P.S. Teague, I thought your "only Al Ladd" joke was great.

You'll get it, soon. For most people, the shoe drops by the 15 minute mark. Can't really say too much more without spoiling it though.

edit: and the first few minutes is obviously all the "hello, how was your week?" stuff. film review starts about 7 minutes in

As an aside, you know what's really funny (to me) about this?

A couple of months ago, there was another show that everyone was raving about. It kinda came out of nowhere, and the hype was similarly disproportionate. Everyone was raving about how it was one thing in particular and how it offered conspiracy and it led to hundreds/thousands of people picking apart the tiniest details in hopes of finding clues, of predicting the end.
When the end came... a sense of deflation, disappointment, and in extreme cases, anger and betrayal.
Meanwhile, most people either ignored, or were silent about what a good character study it was, about how different people saw their world and tried to make sense of it. On that front, I thought it was an excellent show.

The name of it? The appropriately titled... True Detective

Well, I thought that was kind of implicit, right? As evidenced by reddit, you can of course construct a coherent narrative with the phone calls corroborating the Adnan, the Jay, and the Jay&Adnan theories.
I kind of took them throwing up their hands as saying "see? all these facts we've gathered and we're no closer to a provable, beyond reasonable doubt, truth", but I think the ending was strong. Sarah explicitly says that she thinks he's probably guilty, but couldn't vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, I think should be the takehome message (12 Angry Men, anyone?).

Yeah.
Spent the past two days listening to it. Were people really expecting a podcast to solve a 15-year old murder case?
I see it more as a meditation on the mercurialness of memory, and how the exact same facts can be used to perpetuate at least two opposing narratives. It's fascinating, and scary.

That is delightful! I warmly embrace this as a new Christmas tradition