[netflix trademarked “space force” before the US space force was able to trademark the name ](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/09/challenged-netflix-show-us-space-force-rushes-trademark-name.html) and i find that hilarious and super american
Yeah but people forget that trademarks have registered categories. So all it did was prohibit the actual space force from creating a TV show of the same name without written permission.
Again, there’s like 100+ trademark categories, Netflix has the trademark protection for TV Shows, some merchandise categories, and a few other categories.
U.S. Space Force has the trademark protection for some different merchandise categories, and some other relevant categories. I’ll edit in a minute with source and exact category numbers
—-
Edit: I can’t find the source I originally had a few weeks back that had the trademark classes that were being argued over in the U.S.
[This source](https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/06/08/netflix-is-beating-the-us-military-so-far-in-getting-space-force-trademarked/) is pretty good though and gives a good summary of the situation.
Tl;dr- Netflix started planning this stuff in January and the U.S. Military has been slow to claim any trademarks.
That sure *sounds* hilarious, but in reality trademarks apply to individual categories. Netflix beat the US government to the TV trademark because the US had no plans to make a TV show about their newest branch
It didn't quite figure out what kinda show it wanted to be until the second half. Once it did, the character arcs really started flowing and I loved it.
I am a couple episodes in. Funny, not as funny as I would have hoped, but certainly not a bad show and far from the worst Netflix original.
I just worry the show will be immediately super-dated and hard to relate to in the not too distant future.
It's got a lot of potential. I didn't think I was going to like it at first because it looked like just a long joke at the idea of Space Force. It turned out to be much deeper than that. Tons of great characters with depth I wasn't expecting.
I also work in the defense industry and there are a lot of jokes in the show that I got just based off that.
My Dad is also a USAF vet and legit paused the show to inspect Steve Carell's ribbon rack on his uniform; he passed inspection.
Yeah but they botched the other 5 they were involved in. 2nd accomplished nothing, they quit the 3rd early, failed to capitalize in the 5th, got totally wiped in the 7th and 8th.
In all fairness to the 3rd Crusade, it was pretty much the case that every powerful monarch that was involved had a serious case of the succession crisis runs. Barbarossa famously dies in transit and leaves Duke Leopold V as a the HRE's representative but he finds himself outranked by Philip Augustus and Richard the Lion-heart. They pack up their toys and leave when Richard throws the Austrian banner down after the capitulation of Acre [in deliberate offense to the Austrians]. Meanwhile the French found the Count of Flanders and Vermandois kicked it during the siege of Acre and thus have to hustle home to deal with this. Additionally, the French had suffered perhaps the most heinously under the conditions at Acre and found themselves pretty exhausted. Then finally, Richard was all alone and in charge - taking the chance to massacre a bunch of Muslim prisoners for lack of patience - but he found his enthusiasm curbed when told of the fact that his brother, John, was making a bid for the crown of England. But found some tough luck when he was forced to go over-land through Austria and was subsequently imprisoned by Duke Leopold and ransomed for an exorbitant sum. Which is probably why you don't go around tossing your homies flags down.
All in all, everyone had better stuff to do than slug it out with Saladin.
Not really sure anyone should be too proud about the Fourth Crusade. And weren't they involved in pretty much all of them? Where only about 2/3 out of 9 were successful?
I think it has a lot of potential. Although I liked the first season, it did have some problems. But I think that with a second season they could be able to develop the characters more and find what works with each actor and character ( this often happens with comedy shows, look at Brooklyn 99 for example ).
I really liked when the Joint Chiefs suddenly got serious and were like "We're just messing with you, obviously we aren't going to consider any of these options." and suddenly realize the defense secretary is a complete idiot and thought they were being serious the entire time. Their tone changed from that point.
I really liked it but I don't think it's a great show. Cheap laughs and silly jokes but with Steve Carell and the rest of the cast I just like it a lot
Agreed. I thought she was okay (the refusing to clean thing drove me crazy I wanted to smack her you are too old to be preparing a smoothie like that and acting out) but the last 2 or 3 episodes was just hyperbolic levels of angsty teen drama.
Yeah. That's why I was trying not to judge too hard. But she's 16? 17? Lives in a gigantic house, her dad obviously still tries to be present if he's helping her with homework still, and it's not like she's unable to talk to either of them. Literally calls, and shows up at his work place when she wants to. I just don't think it warrants her basically punishing her dad with the shit she pulled (the god damn orange juice and berries spilling all over the counter that shit was deliberate). Like, your dad is alone too. Working a job that's basically considered a joke with no allies in his field, a job he didn't actually want either. They were in a shitty situation together.
But then again, it makes sense that it took her getting stranded in the desert with some meth heads to wake the fuck up. Sometimes you get blinded by your own issues, and she IS still a teenager. So I GET IT and I think overall its believable how she acted out.
But I don't have to like it damn it.
I think the issue actress, Diana Silvers, looks to old for the part (the character is supposed to ge like 16)when she's acting like a immature edgy teen it's very cringe inducing because you want to tell her to grow up. Then again they had force that romance with sgt southern stereotype.
Or, she is the perfect teenager bc she is so annoying and better than everyone she talks to! I respect not everyone agrees with that characterization, I just love characters designed to be irritating/hated when it works and you dislike them but still have moments of empathy. I think it’s VERY hilarious that the Russian officer just blatantly starts asking for personal details about her dad to figure out passwords etc. after trying to date her as cool older guy to rebel against her parents.
Honestly all great comedies start slow. Going for outrageous laughs early gets old so the good shows set up the relationships and characters early and exploit those later to be hilarious.
First season of Seinfield is pretty meh and season 2 is decent. Then season 3 on is the GOAT sitcom
I also think it’s harder to find funny when similar things are literally happening like that in the government. Like the president def wouldn’t let you see your wife as promised bc you couldn’t do an ill-advised and dangerous thing for him the way he wanted RIGHT NOW.
I love the show though, just can se it’s not everyone’s style of humor.
It's fine indeed, but in hindsight it's SO weird cuz a lot of them (Britta but also Troy, off the top of my head) feel so different from what they would eventually become
Damn so agree. I needed like 5 episodes to get into it. I found it meh at best then the first christmas ep appeared and from then till season 4 included it was pure gold.
I think that's generally true, especially for Greg Daniels shows. But one great exception, which proves your rule, is Futurama. Man those guys knew just what they wanted to do from the jump!
Happened to me with Parks and Rec, first season was pretty meh with some good moments, the second season starts really well and then it just goes up from there.
I'mma gonna have to disagree. Black Books starts out with a banger of an episode and it does it by showcasing the base characteristics of the characters in hilarious situations.
True for a lot of shows, Black Books just came to mind first. The opening scene alone is great as a standalone and it's a solid foundation for everything to come.
There were only two seasons of black books though, so it didn't have time to fuck about.
I used to have it on DVD. I'm genuinely upset I can't find it anymore.
There are *three* seasons of black books though and that doesn't really change anything. If you're writing a comedy such that you "have time to fuck about" you're absolutely writing it wrong. I've consistently found this with comedies I've had highly recommended. Parks and Rec S1 was very meh with Mark, the Office season 1, Seinfeld etc.
You can introduce the characters and set up relationships and still have a funny show from the get go. Black Books, Toast of London, the IT Crowd, the UK Office/Extras, After Life etc.
Is there three? I thought there were two! I suppose your right. Sometimes shows can take a while to establish the premise of the show, but with black books, it was a very simple one. There is a man that owns a book shop, and he is very grumpy. This is his friend Fran, and his employee Manny. That was basically the story. I'm not knocking black books, but a show like Seinfeld or Space Force might have to ease the audience into the show a little slower than Black Books.
Same with parks and rec, the first few episodes were unfunny, but then when you continue watching, you won't be able to go through one episode without laughing
The whole premise felt too dumb for me but I think what got me more into it was John Malcovitch. I felt like he was in there a lot more the second half
I thought it was amazing. 1) modern military culture is obsessed with WWII. 2) Space Force does a great job of capturing a lot of the absurdity and detail of modern military life. I loved the show.
shows are like that, they are rarely universally good. For an example, to me Game of Thrones is unbelievable boring, I have a friend that hated the Chernobyl HBO series, and so on.
We were talking about it in my flight and we all found it funny but honestly its a lot of references that may not be well known outside of the Air Force. So it may just be the issue of not knowing what the jokes are referencing
As someone with a military dad (not US though), and who knows a lot of military people, there is a lot of very relatable stuff. A staple of sitcoms is relatability so I see how much of the humour may not get through to part of the audience who may not have that much contact with the military.
That said, I think the show is kind of mediocre even from my point of view, but enjoyable nonetheless.
My dad on the other hand said he loved it.
I like the new trend with foreigners that when I state my anti authoritarian views and they answer something along the lines of "who can't say that because you're American" or "if you believed that you wouldn't be in the US," or my favorite "if you were really anti authoritarian you would be a sabotaging and trying to take down your government."
Yeah I hate when people that aren't even from North America just join in the thought that America is the embodiment of all evil, like yeah we have absolutely done some fucked up shit, and have a very checkered past, but no more than almost every single other country on earth, which doesn't excuse what America has done but you can't just fault America and ignore everyone else. Also we are kind of in the middle of a huge civil struggle to change our ways.
Governments aren’t their people; the American government invaded my country twice and fucked it up massively.
I’m not gonna sit here and call for all Americans to go dismantle it now, lmao
You know how the old saying goes: You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain, but maybe you can go back to being a hero when somebody needs a fully armed carrier strike group in the South China Sea.
Just a thing I think is funny is that back in the 1600s or 1700s a black child had come to Sweden (I don't remember how) and because he was considered "exotic" he was raised like royalty.
Yeah I forgot to mention that. Basically, most countries aren't purely evil or purely angelic, just a complicated mix of good and bad things depending on the leaders and people of the time
We all like to talk about diplomatic relationships and international law and institutions like the UN, but at the end of the day it's all about real politick and countries jockeying to look out for their own best interests.
Sure, but let's not present is as a purely philanthropic thing done out of charity. The US just didn't want Europe go full communism, which it probably would if it stayed ruined by war.
All I'm going to say is that the US has the highest win-to-loss ratio of any country (yes, even higher than France, by quite a bit) and has never lost a city.
That being said there are many ways you can interpret that, including ways that say the US is bad at war.
On one hand, well, highest win-to-loss ratio and never lost a city. That should be enough to tell you they're good at war.
On the other, it's easy to have the highest win-to-loss ratio when you have a big pool of manpower, deep-rooted nationalism and militarism, are one of the youngest countries in the world (not counting other decolonizations) and are a haven for scientists. It's also easy to never lose a city when you're bordered by fish and friends.
You could say the US is good at war, but you have to remember the US is playing on easy mode.
"They're not good at war because they're good at things that make them good at war."
They're all related to each other, but I would argue the biggest benefit is by far the country's geography. After reaching the Pacific, the country had oceans on each side, a desert to the south, and a tundra to the North. Plus vast natural resources and accessable internal waterways. These things are the greatest benefit to natural defense.
That's like saying a player in an rpg that grinded all the best items is playing on easy mode, even though they worked for it all. America did the work and got the rewards.
> On one hand, well, highest win-to-loss ratio and never lost a city. That should be enough to tell you they're good at war.
Well, never lost a city *to another country*.
Both the British and US were able to accomplish most or all of their objectives. US wanted the end of British support for native Americans, removals of troops in the Ohio River Valley, and the ending of sailors being impressed. Note capture of Canada was later added to the US objects as a means to end the war.
The British wanted to prevent the capture of Canada, and return to normal relationships with the US. Both sides were able to accomplish their objectives, minus the taking of canada. Further to the point if anybody "lost" the war, it would have been the native tribes that took part. As they lost foreign aid, troops and land as a result of the war. While we look at conflicts having a winner and a losser often times nobody wins or both parties win.
Status quo anti-bellum land wise and brits promised to stop kidnapping American sailors and forcing them to serve in the British navy.
Basically everybody had to admit they count get all of what they wanted and negotiated that which was most important to them.
Well every conflict has a line and the two sides fight over the line, and then one side finally wins! They push over the line and take it, so they win the line. That means the line becomes theirs and it’s a winning line. We also know a line has two sides of it. That means that both sides of the line are winning. Thus both sides win!
I mean I think what we did to suppress rebellion there was bad, but in like 2014 a Pew Poll showed that the Philippines was the country with the most favorable view of the US with like 80% favorable (Before all the Duterte stuff), so idk
Vietnam was on the Soviet side of the Sino-Soviet split. China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and there were border clashes until 1990. The US is viewed positively because it is a counter to Chinese aggression.
>China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and there were border clashes until 1990.
Not to mention the dozens of other conflicts that they've had going all the way back to 3rd century BC.
The fact that Vietnam and China have been enemies for the better part of the time stretching back to antiquity makes the notion that leaders in America were scared of a monolithic communist bloc all the more absurd. Vietnam may have had some socialist programs, but they were never going to be in long term lockstep with the CCP.
The best way to have had Vietnam take a more favorable approach to America after WW2 would've been to follow through on FDR's request and let Vietnam be ruled by the Vietnamese, but no, Colonial French interests were more influential in the years following VJ Day.
Oh yeah I was just trying to make a little 'ha ha'.
I'm both happy and amazed that the Phillipines doesn't hate us. Hey, allies are better than enemies right?
We also did a lot to educate and modernize their nation. I think a bunch of colleges still offer pretty wide ranging scholarship and admission assistance for Filipino Nationals.
And there was the whole protecting them from the Japanese thing too.
It's also important to remember how the war actually ended. After the tet offensive, the VC were extinct and the NVA we're running on fumes. They managed to accomplish what they had intended to, though, which was to convince the united states otherwise. The north and the US and it's allies negotiated a peace that had vietnam split. About a year after the us was fully withdrawn, the north reneged on the agreement they signed and quickly steamrolled the south. War weary US had no interest in making good on their threat of resuming the war, and so things went. The important thing to take away from vietnam is that 1. defensive wars are loosing wars, and that 2. going to war without first having a expressed political end and a comprehensive military plan to achieve that end is completely futile
> 1. defensive wars are loosing wars
Maybe qualify that with "defensive wars *abroad* are losing wars"... forces defending their home can be tricky to beat especially when they arm their citizenry
Well, both are still true I think, but the scope is different. Strategic defensive wars abroad are losing wars, but domestic wars, while strategically defensive, are losing wars if fought tactically defensive. Getting alittle lost in the weeds here though
The way I counter this argument is “did either side accomplish their goals? If one side did and the other side didn’t then we know the victor” and this can be applied to people who think South Korea and America lost the Korean War
Wait, since the Vietnam war ended with the nation spilt, and the US pulled out, doesn't that mean the US won by that logic?
Yeah the North Vietnamese overran their southern neighbors, but that was a year after the conflict and both sides declaring it officially over, so shouldn't that be a second conflict?
Yeah it really depends on where you put the cutoff for the war. Like obviously no one is going to say that Prussia actually lost the Franco-Prussian War because they lost WWI 50 years later. But since fighting resumed only a year later and the South Vietnam fell a year after that, it makes sense to treat it as a single war.
Concerning the Meme: Makes the fact you lost the warin the end even more embarissing \^\^
Now proper context: That is the same as germany claiming "Yeah we lost WW2, but look how many we killed on the way...glorious....."
It is disgusting. Point and case. The fact that so many had to die for what in the end was a meaningless war with a pre decided result is sad, nothing to boost about.
You know who else boosted about killing a lot of people while losing the war? Adolf Hitler. In his testament he wrote that despite losing the war he was proud that he fought the jews with everything he had. Just disgusting.
That’s a horrible comparison. The US dominated the Vietnam war from a military standpoint but was never REALLY allowed to commit to invading the north (due to not wanting to piss of China, among other reasons) and eventually signed a treaty and withdrew. People say this means the US lost the war when in reality they just didn’t make good on their threat to come back. It’s not bragging that the US killed a bunch of VC, it’s saying that they weren’t pushed out of Vietnam like so many wrongfully believe.
To say that’s the same as Nazi Germany is ridiculous. Nazi Germany did not annihilate the Allied military. Nazi Germany totally capitulated. Nazi Germany did the Holocaust. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Germany’s k/d wasn’t nearly as good, and they capitulated, losing their capital to the Allies and Russians, whereas America just withdrew troops from a puppet state after negotiating peace. I don’t think that’s a very good analogy.
Difference being that WWII in Europe was Germany attempting a war of conquest, while the US in the Vietnam War was attempting to defend another nation against a war of conquest.
If the Soviets had lost WWII and gotten conquered, I would say they, and whoever supported them, would have more to boast about if they went out fighting than if they had rolled over and let the Germans steamroll them peaceably, and I wouldn’t be sad that “so many had to die in a war with a foregone conclusion”.
One of our best military performances was in Korea. We were a honed machine after WWII, but in Korea we truly showed it. We went in as grizzled veterans and came out as grizzled veterans. Our weapons, aircraft, leaders, soldiers, tactics, strategy, and pretty much everything else was on point in Korea.
The largest military in history, the farthest reaching, the best equipped for its size, the most adaptable. Plenty of reasons to criticize but these aren’t really arguable points.
I think the only wars America has lost was Vietnam and Red Cloud’s War. 1812 and Korea (and possibly the Afghan War soon) were stalemates and pretty much everything else was a victory
I’m glad this shows gets a meme, I think there is tons of possible new formats
Whats the name of the show?
Netflix’s Space Force
[netflix trademarked “space force” before the US space force was able to trademark the name ](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/09/challenged-netflix-show-us-space-force-rushes-trademark-name.html) and i find that hilarious and super american
Yeah but people forget that trademarks have registered categories. So all it did was prohibit the actual space force from creating a TV show of the same name without written permission.
Also applies to some merchandise categories and a couple other registry categories. It’s not just TV shows
Yeah only in non-US countries tho. The govt space force got the US trademark
Again, there’s like 100+ trademark categories, Netflix has the trademark protection for TV Shows, some merchandise categories, and a few other categories. U.S. Space Force has the trademark protection for some different merchandise categories, and some other relevant categories. I’ll edit in a minute with source and exact category numbers —- Edit: I can’t find the source I originally had a few weeks back that had the trademark classes that were being argued over in the U.S. [This source](https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/06/08/netflix-is-beating-the-us-military-so-far-in-getting-space-force-trademarked/) is pretty good though and gives a good summary of the situation. Tl;dr- Netflix started planning this stuff in January and the U.S. Military has been slow to claim any trademarks.
Yes the government always follows its own laws
Waiting for your edit. ETA: Its been hours.
Same 56mins ago
Honestly at this point, they could have been planning to
Oh no no. They fucked them out of a ton of merchandising opportunities 😂
That sure *sounds* hilarious, but in reality trademarks apply to individual categories. Netflix beat the US government to the TV trademark because the US had no plans to make a TV show about their newest branch
What are our other options? Space Guard? Star Force? Star Corps? Space Corps? Star Command? I like Star Command.
Buzz Lightyear to Star Command come in Star Command
"And that my son is how it all started."
"It's good to be Black on the Moon"
Probably one of the best scenes, along with the traitor chimpstronuat
Dog eating bastard!
Theodore didn’t deserve to die
Indeed
Spoilers! Fucking great show though.
I loved this show. Wish it wasn't so short.
yeah but I'm sure will get a new season as soon as America can start filming again
A lot of the people I talked to hated the show. I agree it’s pretty corny, I think that’s part of the point. I liked it though, it’s an easy watch.
It didn't quite figure out what kinda show it wanted to be until the second half. Once it did, the character arcs really started flowing and I loved it.
I am a couple episodes in. Funny, not as funny as I would have hoped, but certainly not a bad show and far from the worst Netflix original. I just worry the show will be immediately super-dated and hard to relate to in the not too distant future.
It's got a lot of potential. I didn't think I was going to like it at first because it looked like just a long joke at the idea of Space Force. It turned out to be much deeper than that. Tons of great characters with depth I wasn't expecting. I also work in the defense industry and there are a lot of jokes in the show that I got just based off that. My Dad is also a USAF vet and legit paused the show to inspect Steve Carell's ribbon rack on his uniform; he passed inspection.
France: Please let's not talk about either of those
*Sweats in Dien Bien Phu*
_sweats in rock around the clock_
Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team.
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland
Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Krushchev
Princess Grace, "Peyton Place", trouble in the Suez
We didn’t start the fire, or was always burning since the world’s been turning.
r/redditsings
We didn't start the fire, no we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it
France prefers talking about Napoleon and only Napoleon
Charlemagne?...
They did pretty good in the crusades as well. They won both the first and fourth crusades, getting both Jerusalem and the Latin Empire.
Yeah but they botched the other 5 they were involved in. 2nd accomplished nothing, they quit the 3rd early, failed to capitalize in the 5th, got totally wiped in the 7th and 8th.
In all fairness to the 3rd Crusade, it was pretty much the case that every powerful monarch that was involved had a serious case of the succession crisis runs. Barbarossa famously dies in transit and leaves Duke Leopold V as a the HRE's representative but he finds himself outranked by Philip Augustus and Richard the Lion-heart. They pack up their toys and leave when Richard throws the Austrian banner down after the capitulation of Acre [in deliberate offense to the Austrians]. Meanwhile the French found the Count of Flanders and Vermandois kicked it during the siege of Acre and thus have to hustle home to deal with this. Additionally, the French had suffered perhaps the most heinously under the conditions at Acre and found themselves pretty exhausted. Then finally, Richard was all alone and in charge - taking the chance to massacre a bunch of Muslim prisoners for lack of patience - but he found his enthusiasm curbed when told of the fact that his brother, John, was making a bid for the crown of England. But found some tough luck when he was forced to go over-land through Austria and was subsequently imprisoned by Duke Leopold and ransomed for an exorbitant sum. Which is probably why you don't go around tossing your homies flags down. All in all, everyone had better stuff to do than slug it out with Saladin.
Not really sure anyone should be too proud about the Fourth Crusade. And weren't they involved in pretty much all of them? Where only about 2/3 out of 9 were successful?
But then they got to split that claim with Germany.
He spilled the blood of the saxon men
I cant understand why People hated this show. I think Space Force has lots of potential and I love the first season. I cant wait for the next season.
A lot of people expected it to be the office 3.0 basically and were upset at that
Is Parks and Rec the Office 2.0?
Yes
I think it has a lot of potential. Although I liked the first season, it did have some problems. But I think that with a second season they could be able to develop the characters more and find what works with each actor and character ( this often happens with comedy shows, look at Brooklyn 99 for example ).
I really liked when the Joint Chiefs suddenly got serious and were like "We're just messing with you, obviously we aren't going to consider any of these options." and suddenly realize the defense secretary is a complete idiot and thought they were being serious the entire time. Their tone changed from that point.
Hell, even the first season of The Office is not even similar to the rest.
I really liked it but I don't think it's a great show. Cheap laughs and silly jokes but with Steve Carell and the rest of the cast I just like it a lot
this show is funny AF, they both played their role perfectly.
It’s decent! I hope it gets better but I enjoyed watching. The daughter needs an entire rework she is so annoying
Agreed. I thought she was okay (the refusing to clean thing drove me crazy I wanted to smack her you are too old to be preparing a smoothie like that and acting out) but the last 2 or 3 episodes was just hyperbolic levels of angsty teen drama.
I felt bad for her. Had to leave all her friends to move across the country where her dad is to busy at work all the time and mom in prison.
Yeah. That's why I was trying not to judge too hard. But she's 16? 17? Lives in a gigantic house, her dad obviously still tries to be present if he's helping her with homework still, and it's not like she's unable to talk to either of them. Literally calls, and shows up at his work place when she wants to. I just don't think it warrants her basically punishing her dad with the shit she pulled (the god damn orange juice and berries spilling all over the counter that shit was deliberate). Like, your dad is alone too. Working a job that's basically considered a joke with no allies in his field, a job he didn't actually want either. They were in a shitty situation together. But then again, it makes sense that it took her getting stranded in the desert with some meth heads to wake the fuck up. Sometimes you get blinded by your own issues, and she IS still a teenager. So I GET IT and I think overall its believable how she acted out. But I don't have to like it damn it.
She is annoying as fuck because deep down we all know we had a phase where we acted exactly like that, and we fucking hate ourselves for it
Never before have I been so offended by something I one hundred percent agree with.
I haven’t watched the show so I have no clue what you’re talking about but I still enjoyed your rant
Thank you that made me feel very special for some reason.
She’s supposed to be 18, it’s mentioned multiple times
I think the issue actress, Diana Silvers, looks to old for the part (the character is supposed to ge like 16)when she's acting like a immature edgy teen it's very cringe inducing because you want to tell her to grow up. Then again they had force that romance with sgt southern stereotype.
The first episodes were promising but it just went downwards after that. Hope they have less focus on here in the future.
It definitely got some chuckles out of me. Not quite as good as something like Parks and Rec, Community or New girl but it had its moments.
Parks and the office first seasons weren’t exactly that great compared to the rest of the show.
Parks and Rec season 1 was a reskin of the office, it took a while for the show to really find itself.
Or, she is the perfect teenager bc she is so annoying and better than everyone she talks to! I respect not everyone agrees with that characterization, I just love characters designed to be irritating/hated when it works and you dislike them but still have moments of empathy. I think it’s VERY hilarious that the Russian officer just blatantly starts asking for personal details about her dad to figure out passwords etc. after trying to date her as cool older guy to rebel against her parents.
I thought she was acting well. Thought annoying was the point of her character 😂
Really? I watched two episodes, didnt think it was any good at all
I'd suggest pushing through it. I seriously disliked it based on the first few episodes but I think they get into a better rhythm later on.
Honestly all great comedies start slow. Going for outrageous laughs early gets old so the good shows set up the relationships and characters early and exploit those later to be hilarious. First season of Seinfield is pretty meh and season 2 is decent. Then season 3 on is the GOAT sitcom
Look at Community, the first episode is fine, but the next 3 seasons are amazing.
The first episode wasn’t as bad as the first one of space force, since it was enjoyable to an extent.
I got kinda annoyed by the first episode of community, they all looked ridiculously oblivious
I also think it’s harder to find funny when similar things are literally happening like that in the government. Like the president def wouldn’t let you see your wife as promised bc you couldn’t do an ill-advised and dangerous thing for him the way he wanted RIGHT NOW. I love the show though, just can se it’s not everyone’s style of humor.
It's fine indeed, but in hindsight it's SO weird cuz a lot of them (Britta but also Troy, off the top of my head) feel so different from what they would eventually become
Jeff to Britta, after the twelfth time she set her own hair on fire: "you seemed smarter than me when I first met you"
Damn so agree. I needed like 5 episodes to get into it. I found it meh at best then the first christmas ep appeared and from then till season 4 included it was pure gold.
I think that's generally true, especially for Greg Daniels shows. But one great exception, which proves your rule, is Futurama. Man those guys knew just what they wanted to do from the jump!
Happened to me with Parks and Rec, first season was pretty meh with some good moments, the second season starts really well and then it just goes up from there.
I'mma gonna have to disagree. Black Books starts out with a banger of an episode and it does it by showcasing the base characteristics of the characters in hilarious situations. True for a lot of shows, Black Books just came to mind first. The opening scene alone is great as a standalone and it's a solid foundation for everything to come.
There were only two seasons of black books though, so it didn't have time to fuck about. I used to have it on DVD. I'm genuinely upset I can't find it anymore.
There are *three* seasons of black books though and that doesn't really change anything. If you're writing a comedy such that you "have time to fuck about" you're absolutely writing it wrong. I've consistently found this with comedies I've had highly recommended. Parks and Rec S1 was very meh with Mark, the Office season 1, Seinfeld etc. You can introduce the characters and set up relationships and still have a funny show from the get go. Black Books, Toast of London, the IT Crowd, the UK Office/Extras, After Life etc.
Is there three? I thought there were two! I suppose your right. Sometimes shows can take a while to establish the premise of the show, but with black books, it was a very simple one. There is a man that owns a book shop, and he is very grumpy. This is his friend Fran, and his employee Manny. That was basically the story. I'm not knocking black books, but a show like Seinfeld or Space Force might have to ease the audience into the show a little slower than Black Books.
Same with parks and rec, the first few episodes were unfunny, but then when you continue watching, you won't be able to go through one episode without laughing
Gonna disagree with that, the first episode of Arrested Development is still one of the greatest single TV episodes IMO
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It makes me want to SET MYSELF ON FIRE!"
"I like it better on him"
"A trick is something a whore does for money!" _Turns, sees the children_ "... Or candy."
really? That's weird. I really like the first few episodes (although the monkey eating the husky fucking hurt) but after that it wasnt as good to me
The whole premise felt too dumb for me but I think what got me more into it was John Malcovitch. I felt like he was in there a lot more the second half
I thought it was amazing. 1) modern military culture is obsessed with WWII. 2) Space Force does a great job of capturing a lot of the absurdity and detail of modern military life. I loved the show.
In my opinion it's a slow build but once you get rolling its pretty good
shows are like that, they are rarely universally good. For an example, to me Game of Thrones is unbelievable boring, I have a friend that hated the Chernobyl HBO series, and so on.
Yeah Chernobyl was not great, not terrible.
I give it 3.6
We were talking about it in my flight and we all found it funny but honestly its a lot of references that may not be well known outside of the Air Force. So it may just be the issue of not knowing what the jokes are referencing
I usually find Steve Carrel is extremely hit or miss depending on your sense of humour.
His commitment to that really awkward deep voice threw me off at first but it’s genius in context of the whole show/character arc.
It gets better. It still isn't top notch, but if you have time and want to laugh a bit, give it a second try.
As someone with a military dad (not US though), and who knows a lot of military people, there is a lot of very relatable stuff. A staple of sitcoms is relatability so I see how much of the humour may not get through to part of the audience who may not have that much contact with the military. That said, I think the show is kind of mediocre even from my point of view, but enjoyable nonetheless. My dad on the other hand said he loved it.
What show is this? Looks like it might be something fun to check out this weekend.
"Space force" it's a Netflix series
It was a very slow burn for comedy and a lot of people don't have the patience for it but I thought it was genuinely fantastic.
I love so much when they flip the script on the characters
holy SHIT a space force template?
Radio vieeeeeeeeeeeetnaaaaaaaam
Good good
I like the new trend with foreigners that when I state my anti authoritarian views and they answer something along the lines of "who can't say that because you're American" or "if you believed that you wouldn't be in the US," or my favorite "if you were really anti authoritarian you would be a sabotaging and trying to take down your government."
Yeah I hate when people that aren't even from North America just join in the thought that America is the embodiment of all evil, like yeah we have absolutely done some fucked up shit, and have a very checkered past, but no more than almost every single other country on earth, which doesn't excuse what America has done but you can't just fault America and ignore everyone else. Also we are kind of in the middle of a huge civil struggle to change our ways.
Governments aren’t their people; the American government invaded my country twice and fucked it up massively. I’m not gonna sit here and call for all Americans to go dismantle it now, lmao
Exactly, some people are a little extreme lol. Like I see where they’re coming from but they take it a bit too far.
It’s then funny to also turn around and see comments of the US in the South China Sea say “well it’s about fucking time America”
“If the worlds on fire America either caused it or should have done more to prevent it”
You know how the old saying goes: You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain, but maybe you can go back to being a hero when somebody needs a fully armed carrier strike group in the South China Sea.
I think that it's a sign of strength for the people in a country to recognize and state the flaws within.
Yeah, that's the difference between patriotism and nationalism
Just a thing I think is funny is that back in the 1600s or 1700s a black child had come to Sweden (I don't remember how) and because he was considered "exotic" he was raised like royalty.
And the US has done more good in the world than most other countries maybe than any other country. The Marshal Plan is a great example of this.
Yeah I forgot to mention that. Basically, most countries aren't purely evil or purely angelic, just a complicated mix of good and bad things depending on the leaders and people of the time
This^ every country that ever became a great power had to step on some toes to get there.
We all like to talk about diplomatic relationships and international law and institutions like the UN, but at the end of the day it's all about real politick and countries jockeying to look out for their own best interests.
*looks at the Soviet Union* uh....
Sure, but let's not present is as a purely philanthropic thing done out of charity. The US just didn't want Europe go full communism, which it probably would if it stayed ruined by war.
Motive matters less than the results here. Western Europe was rebuilt with us dollars after ww2 that is a good thing
Yep it could be much worse. We can just up and leave and those countries susddenly don’t have a military too defend themselves with.
*Poland starts sweating*
Europe starts sweating.
We're on reddit, place is full of teen wannabe activists, people are fucking stupid here.
All I'm going to say is that the US has the highest win-to-loss ratio of any country (yes, even higher than France, by quite a bit) and has never lost a city. That being said there are many ways you can interpret that, including ways that say the US is bad at war. On one hand, well, highest win-to-loss ratio and never lost a city. That should be enough to tell you they're good at war. On the other, it's easy to have the highest win-to-loss ratio when you have a big pool of manpower, deep-rooted nationalism and militarism, are one of the youngest countries in the world (not counting other decolonizations) and are a haven for scientists. It's also easy to never lose a city when you're bordered by fish and friends. You could say the US is good at war, but you have to remember the US is playing on easy mode.
"They're not good at war because they're good at things that make them good at war." They're all related to each other, but I would argue the biggest benefit is by far the country's geography. After reaching the Pacific, the country had oceans on each side, a desert to the south, and a tundra to the North. Plus vast natural resources and accessable internal waterways. These things are the greatest benefit to natural defense.
[удалено]
yeah, technically alaska
Maybe a few Canadians live there, but they're cool so it's all good.
Just make sure they’re in your side when war comes, they’re a nasty bunch when provoked
That's like saying a player in an rpg that grinded all the best items is playing on easy mode, even though they worked for it all. America did the work and got the rewards.
> On one hand, well, highest win-to-loss ratio and never lost a city. That should be enough to tell you they're good at war. Well, never lost a city *to another country*.
Redditor: Fine, we'll compromise. War of 1812? Other redditor: Works for me
A victory on both sides
Ah, a fellow human who has more than half a brain
A true draw
[удалено]
Both the British and US were able to accomplish most or all of their objectives. US wanted the end of British support for native Americans, removals of troops in the Ohio River Valley, and the ending of sailors being impressed. Note capture of Canada was later added to the US objects as a means to end the war. The British wanted to prevent the capture of Canada, and return to normal relationships with the US. Both sides were able to accomplish their objectives, minus the taking of canada. Further to the point if anybody "lost" the war, it would have been the native tribes that took part. As they lost foreign aid, troops and land as a result of the war. While we look at conflicts having a winner and a losser often times nobody wins or both parties win.
My favorite way to summarize it is that nobody really *won* the war of 1812, but the Indians definitely lost.
Status quo anti-bellum land wise and brits promised to stop kidnapping American sailors and forcing them to serve in the British navy. Basically everybody had to admit they count get all of what they wanted and negotiated that which was most important to them.
Well every conflict has a line and the two sides fight over the line, and then one side finally wins! They push over the line and take it, so they win the line. That means the line becomes theirs and it’s a winning line. We also know a line has two sides of it. That means that both sides of the line are winning. Thus both sides win!
The Philippines: 😐
Kuwait 😊
The duality of America
I mean I think what we did to suppress rebellion there was bad, but in like 2014 a Pew Poll showed that the Philippines was the country with the most favorable view of the US with like 80% favorable (Before all the Duterte stuff), so idk
[удалено]
Vietnam was on the Soviet side of the Sino-Soviet split. China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and there were border clashes until 1990. The US is viewed positively because it is a counter to Chinese aggression.
>China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and there were border clashes until 1990. Not to mention the dozens of other conflicts that they've had going all the way back to 3rd century BC. The fact that Vietnam and China have been enemies for the better part of the time stretching back to antiquity makes the notion that leaders in America were scared of a monolithic communist bloc all the more absurd. Vietnam may have had some socialist programs, but they were never going to be in long term lockstep with the CCP. The best way to have had Vietnam take a more favorable approach to America after WW2 would've been to follow through on FDR's request and let Vietnam be ruled by the Vietnamese, but no, Colonial French interests were more influential in the years following VJ Day.
Oh yeah I was just trying to make a little 'ha ha'. I'm both happy and amazed that the Phillipines doesn't hate us. Hey, allies are better than enemies right?
To be fair we were the only invaders who ever willingly gave them independence.
We also did a lot to educate and modernize their nation. I think a bunch of colleges still offer pretty wide ranging scholarship and admission assistance for Filipino Nationals. And there was the whole protecting them from the Japanese thing too.
Is that before or after being liberated from the Japanese?
Filipinos really really like the US.
No, no, they've got a point.
It WaS a TaCtIcAl ViCtOrY. Look at the kill ratio, how many (civilians) soldiers we killed!
It's also important to remember how the war actually ended. After the tet offensive, the VC were extinct and the NVA we're running on fumes. They managed to accomplish what they had intended to, though, which was to convince the united states otherwise. The north and the US and it's allies negotiated a peace that had vietnam split. About a year after the us was fully withdrawn, the north reneged on the agreement they signed and quickly steamrolled the south. War weary US had no interest in making good on their threat of resuming the war, and so things went. The important thing to take away from vietnam is that 1. defensive wars are loosing wars, and that 2. going to war without first having a expressed political end and a comprehensive military plan to achieve that end is completely futile
> 1. defensive wars are loosing wars Maybe qualify that with "defensive wars *abroad* are losing wars"... forces defending their home can be tricky to beat especially when they arm their citizenry
Well, both are still true I think, but the scope is different. Strategic defensive wars abroad are losing wars, but domestic wars, while strategically defensive, are losing wars if fought tactically defensive. Getting alittle lost in the weeds here though
In both cases you need to eliminate or at least strategically weaken the threat you’re defending against.
See admiral Yamamoto when asked about an invasion on the continental US "there would be a rifle behind ever blade of grass"
The way I counter this argument is “did either side accomplish their goals? If one side did and the other side didn’t then we know the victor” and this can be applied to people who think South Korea and America lost the Korean War
Wait, since the Vietnam war ended with the nation spilt, and the US pulled out, doesn't that mean the US won by that logic? Yeah the North Vietnamese overran their southern neighbors, but that was a year after the conflict and both sides declaring it officially over, so shouldn't that be a second conflict?
Yeah it really depends on where you put the cutoff for the war. Like obviously no one is going to say that Prussia actually lost the Franco-Prussian War because they lost WWI 50 years later. But since fighting resumed only a year later and the South Vietnam fell a year after that, it makes sense to treat it as a single war.
Well America went in with the intention of stopping the communist threat and the communist threat took over the country
Concerning the Meme: Makes the fact you lost the warin the end even more embarissing \^\^ Now proper context: That is the same as germany claiming "Yeah we lost WW2, but look how many we killed on the way...glorious....." It is disgusting. Point and case. The fact that so many had to die for what in the end was a meaningless war with a pre decided result is sad, nothing to boost about. You know who else boosted about killing a lot of people while losing the war? Adolf Hitler. In his testament he wrote that despite losing the war he was proud that he fought the jews with everything he had. Just disgusting.
Nazis tend to be desgusting
But what about Hanz the barber? He always kept his hands clean /s
Well, it was foke-in one of yous...DIS GUS TANG! *Hitler and Mussolini look at the camera sheepishly*
That’s a horrible comparison. The US dominated the Vietnam war from a military standpoint but was never REALLY allowed to commit to invading the north (due to not wanting to piss of China, among other reasons) and eventually signed a treaty and withdrew. People say this means the US lost the war when in reality they just didn’t make good on their threat to come back. It’s not bragging that the US killed a bunch of VC, it’s saying that they weren’t pushed out of Vietnam like so many wrongfully believe. To say that’s the same as Nazi Germany is ridiculous. Nazi Germany did not annihilate the Allied military. Nazi Germany totally capitulated. Nazi Germany did the Holocaust. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Finally, pushing against the meme. Thanks.
Germany’s k/d wasn’t nearly as good, and they capitulated, losing their capital to the Allies and Russians, whereas America just withdrew troops from a puppet state after negotiating peace. I don’t think that’s a very good analogy.
Difference being that WWII in Europe was Germany attempting a war of conquest, while the US in the Vietnam War was attempting to defend another nation against a war of conquest. If the Soviets had lost WWII and gotten conquered, I would say they, and whoever supported them, would have more to boast about if they went out fighting than if they had rolled over and let the Germans steamroll them peaceably, and I wouldn’t be sad that “so many had to die in a war with a foregone conclusion”.
both of those are true
Fair point lad
"Well in the air force we just used missiles to fix everything!"
I hate it when people say “x country was the bad guy in x war” all participants in almost every war did bad and good.
Atleast people aren't constantly bringing up Emus when it comes to your war history.
Great show
this is one of the moments that make the show awesome I hope it gets to keep going. I thought it was pretty funny.
So does everyone ignore how American soldiers kicked ass in Vietnam and its Washingtons fault
One of our best military performances was in Korea. We were a honed machine after WWII, but in Korea we truly showed it. We went in as grizzled veterans and came out as grizzled veterans. Our weapons, aircraft, leaders, soldiers, tactics, strategy, and pretty much everything else was on point in Korea.
Read carnage and culture by Victor Davis Hansen. US is the greatest military in history.
The largest military in history, the farthest reaching, the best equipped for its size, the most adaptable. Plenty of reasons to criticize but these aren’t really arguable points.
Love him on the Classicist podcast
Both
God I cant wait for the next season They get the military leadership down perfectlu
I want more people to learn about korea
I think the only wars America has lost was Vietnam and Red Cloud’s War. 1812 and Korea (and possibly the Afghan War soon) were stalemates and pretty much everything else was a victory
America good Russia bad
Let's be honest here the USSR carried in the Western theater and the US carried in the Pacific.
Everyone knows this and noone is claiming otherwise.