ValueSubtracted

It's a shame, but I can also understand why - council meetings and other open events are increasingly security risks, full of wingnut conspiracy theorists.

But, the way we designed the transformation of Sam, we called it sort of colloquially in the writers room, “Sam 1.0” and “Sam 2.0.” Sam 1.0 was just a couple months old and was a baby in so many different ways. And the contrast that you start to see in episodes 9 and episode 10, but in a big way in season 2, is that Sam 2.0, while she does carry the memories of Sam 1.0, she really is a totally different person. She feels things that Sam 1.0 never felt.

I'm very curious to see how this plays out.

That is helpful - setting a series after King of the Monsters would be...expensive.

While it seems unlikely that Brie Larson and Tom Hiddleston will reprise their roles as Mason Weaver and James Conrad, Monarch can mine plenty of unexplored story between the isolated events on Skull Island and the eventual world-changing events of Godzilla in 2014.

Seems like a good candidate for the "Cold War thriller"?

it is weird that they did not introduce a trained psychiatrist/counselor

Ake did say the cadets had been attending counselling sessions, and that they weren't working (actually, I think she said that they "weren't enough").

Maybe they could have included a scene or a montage of those ineffective settings - IIRC, the most comparable "classic" episodes, "Family" and "It's Only A Paper Moon" showed them, however briefly.

It's wild to think that this SFA season finished filming a year ago, and was written even earlier than that.

Yeah, I'm not sure it quite worked in this one - it seemed about as well thought-out as Thanos' plan in the MCU - but it's interesting ground to cover.

just cool af stylistic vision.

Yeah, this can't be emphasized enough. It's just fun.

True, I did forget the Must Reply To Everything in the Hot Feed rule.

Skull Island has had a lot of negativity from longtime fans.

I can see that - I'm a big fan of the 1933 film, and enjoyed the 1976 and 2005 versions well enough. But I didn't have any expectations that this movie would bear any resemblance to those. Taken as its own thing, I thought it was fun. And if you have to build a Cinematic Universe, you're going to need some kind of point of origin for all of these monsters.

Wandering the internet to loudly declare your disinterest in things?

Besides time-consuming (it's a big Fediverse, so you must not get a lot of sleep)...yeah, kind of toxic.

Hey look, it's the guy from the article!

Understandably so.

Here's my question: is it better to boycott the company outright, or to show them that you are willing to pay for progressive content?

I don't have an answer. I think you can make a good argument for either.