Leaderboard

How's this for a Princess Bride remake?

At this point I can't agree. Both major parties are deeply flawed, yes; but the issue isn't about left or right any more. The Republican Party leadership has chosen to protect and enable a President who's incompetent, uncontrollable, and dangerous to everyone. They know he's all those things, but he's a demagogue who's popular with Republican voters, so supporting him serves their short-term interests. They sold out all they purport to believe for personal gain. Nothing the Democrats are doing or have done in living memory comes close to that.

Good luck, Scott, and stay safe. We'll send our prayers.

I really enjoyed the movie Sneakers (1992). Starring Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, Dan Ackroyd, Ben Kingsley, David Strathairn, River Phoenix, Mary McDonnell, James Earl Jones... lots of major acting power there. Redford heads a team of security consultants, often hired to break into places to identify security weaknesses, and they get involved in something way over their heads. The tech is pretty outdated now, but the storyline is still good (at least IMO) and the characters are great. Strathairn's blind sound expert is my personal favorite, but the interplay between former CIA agent Poitier and conspiracy nutcase Ackroyd is hilarious too.

I'm always concerned when the issue of "efficiency" of private sector versus public sector is raised. I'm concerned because those two sectors have different priorities and different accountability. The priority of the public sector is to serve its citizens, and the success with which they do so is judged by those citizens through the electoral process. The priority of the private sector is to make a profit for those who own parts of a business or company, and it is to those people that they answer. When I've seen governments unload responsibility for public services, such as transportation or utilities, to the private sector, what invariably follows is either a rise in the cost of those services to citizens living where their delivery is more costly, or the curtailment of those services to those areas altogether whether or not the communities affected depend on them. The private sector's "efficiency" is derived not primarily through working harder or smarter, but -- and I realize this wording is harsh -- exploiting their less profitable customers to a greater degree, or else abandoning them. About the only way that I've seen this pattern offset is for governments to provide tax breaks or subsidies to either their affected citizens or to the companies providing the services. So in the end the government is still using tax dollars to deliver those services, albeit indirectly, and with much less control of spending priorities.

"The liberum veto (Latin for "(I) freely oppose") was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and to nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting, Sisto activitatem! (Latin: "I stop the activity!") or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!"). The rule was in place from the mid-17th century to the late 18th century in the Sejm's parliamentary deliberations. It was based on the premise that since all Polish noblemen were equal, every measure that came before the Sejm had to be passed unanimously. The liberum veto was a key part of the political system of the Commonwealth, strengthening democratic elements and checking royal power and went against the European-wide trend of having a strong executive (absolute monarchy). Many historians hold that the liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system, particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings, and the Commonwealth's eventual destruction in the partitions of Poland and foreign occupation, dominance and manipulation of Poland for the next 200 years or so. Piotr Stefan Wandycz wrote that the "liberum veto had become the sinister symbol of old Polish anarchy". In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, about a third failing to pass any legislation, mostly because of the liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from the apparent paralysis." Ironically, the situation got so bad that the last King of Poland whose election was secured by Russian money ran on a platform of getting rid of the liberum veto. But then Russia changed its mind and got rid of Poland, instead. Good times.

I shouldn't have laughed at this--but I did.

First, you've got to understand that what you're describing is incredibly powerful. With even 1D6 of such an ability, with one action, your character can take out an opponent for up to 6 phases. For most characters that's an entire Turn. It's not quite a one-shot knockout, but it almost is. You can incapacitate opponents for a huge amount of time, and you want it to auto-hit. In other words, it's going to be very expensive. So what you're really looking at is building a power that takes an opponent out of a fight with one shot, but has a limitation on it so it operates according to your "roll a D6, lose that many actions" system. Because basically the guy is hosed for however many phases you roll on the dice. So you build a power to completely take him out, and then limit it from there. So let's go over some possibilities (to give a sense of scale, this is assuming a standard 12D6 game, and I'm using 5th edition rules): The blasty way to do it 30D6 Energy Blast, area effect accurate (+1/2), no knockback (-1/4), only to "KO" to prevent target from taking actions (-1), target recovers automatically in XD6 phases (-?) You knock the target unconscious with your mega-oversized attack. You knock him to -40 Stun or something and he's in the GM discretion range. But the limitation means that he's not actually "unconscious" -- he didn't actually lose any Stun, he didn't take any Body, he didn't fly backwards from knockback, he doesn't take x2 Stun if he's hit by someone else, he's still aware of what is happening, etc. He's only "unconscious" in the sense that being at negative Stun prevents you from acting, and that's the game mechanic you want to duplicate here. The value of the last limitation of recovering in XD6 phases depends on how many D6 you roll. 10D6 would not be a limitation at all. 1D6 might be somewhere between a -1 and a -2. The flashy way to do it 20D6 Flash vs Sight, Hearing, Radar, Touch, Mental, Smell, Spatial Awareness, etc., area effect accurate (+1/2), target still peripherally aware of surroundings (-1/4), target recovers automatically in XD6 phases (-?) It's the same general idea. They get Flashed enough so that they can't sense anything, and therefore can't target anything. So they can't shoot, can't fight, can't really even move around. While they could technically blindly fire off energy blasts or something like that, they can't sense their environment in any way. There's a "peripherally aware of surroundings" limitation which means they won't blindly run into a fire, or fall off a cliff, and if somebody says something to them they might remember it once they can take an action again. But the power is intended to stop them cold when it comes to actual useful actions. The final limitation on automatically recovering will be lower than in the first example, because being at -40 Stun recovers far more slowly than does a 20D6 Flash. Since you're "waking up" faster anyway, you get less of a limitation for a rapid recovery. The scary way to do it +100 Presence, only for presence attacks (-1), only to make target stand still (-1/4), target recovers automatically in XD6 phases (-?) Again, we're taking a power that can totally eliminate a target from play, and limiting it so he isn't as removed as he would normally be. The limit of "only for presence attacks" might actually be too high -- it's in a book somewhere, but you generally don't need +100 Pre to defend or for skill rolls, so it's clear that the only purpose here is for attack anyway. The XD6 limitation will be very very small, as Pre attacks don't tend to last more than a single turn anyway. The go-away way to do it Extra Dimensional Movement, usable as attack (+1), ranged (+1/2), area effect accurate (+1/2), target can still be seen (-0), target comes back XD6 phases (-?) You make them go to a different dimension where there's really nothing for them to do. The upside to this method is that it's a lot cheaper, as you only need the base level of XDM before advantages. The downside is that unless you have Transdimensional attacks, you can't hurt them while they're looking at your magic trick. The "target can still be seen" represents the fact that they haven't really gone anywhere, and it doesn't make sense for them to vanish from view. Effectively they haven't gone anywhere, but since they've technically been moved to another dimension, they aren't a legal target until they come back. For some reason nobody shoots at them during this time. The grabby way to do it 12D6 Entangle, area effect accurate (+1/2), takes no damage from attacks (+1/2), target released after XD6 phases (-?) I think you all get the gist of it by now.

I'm thinking about the idea of publishing "editionless" stats. Characters, at least, with point costs hidden, except for the total at the end. I'm on my phone at the moment but I'll try to work up some examples later.

When Avery Brooks shaved his head on DS9.

On a related note, John Lithgow has a new book of art and poetry entitled, Dumpty.

It has happened to a better President. Several, in fact. But "better" in this case is a very low bar.

It is a problem in every game. It is important for the GM to find ways to keep players involved, even if characters are not. I have found that handing one of the players, whose PC is hors de combat, a villain to run for the duration of the combat keeps the player very much engaged. I am content for those players to see the powers and skills of my villains (though I keep some of the the complications hidden) and I find that those players play that villain far more effectively than I would have. There is obviously nothing more satisfying than driving your friend's hero through 6" of battleship plate armour... 🙂

Q: How many hipsters does it take to change a light bulb?

Indra's elephant putting his foot down.

New one up! http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1184.html

Well that's your problem right there! If you don't have any way to know how much is enough and how much is too much, you'll never be able to find the right numbers. I'd recommend sitting down with your friends and figuring some guidelines out. Your book should have a handful of suggested guidelines, but my experience is that they're way too loose to be useful. Pinning down some more exact numbers is far more useful.

To be fair, the hobby itself suffered a general downturn. Only a few of the tabletop games are really prospering today, having absorbed most of a diminished player base.

They bought into the whole "movies are to enlighten the unwashed masses" BS. I don't know anyone that liked Goodfellas because it was art. They watched it because it was a good gangster flick. Like many people in various types of entertainment, they have been in their personal echo chambers so long they have completely forgotten the entertainment part. I've stopped caring about various directors film pedigrees. Once the worshiping starts they tend to forget what their real job is. And then they get snippy when their masterpieces start returning less and less $. Kind of like the awards shows highlight the boring and uninspired over the new and entertaining.

They are reserving Batman for poorly made mediocre movies. They can't allow a TV show version outshine a movies version can they?

Yeah. No pressure. Looks like my home repairs are going to get rained out this weekend. I hope to get back to work on it during my "break."

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.” ---Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect, and author (1743-1826)

They wanted a female McCoy to bounce off Data in a Spock stand in. Problem there? Spock gave as good as he got and banter aside both men clearly respected each other and even kinda sort of were friends. Pulaski going after Data was more like some stranger coming in and kicking a puppy that couldn't fight back. Data could claim he didn't have feelings to hurt, but we were insulted on his behalf. Add that and her moments of disregard for Picard and it was clear the writers and director had missed the mark. As a fan of the character of Riker, the growing the beard trope tickles me greatly. For examples.. I liked farscape, but I think the introduction of Scorpius really got it going. Hardly modern I guess, but MASH for me really picked up with Potter and WInchester joined on Season two of the Justice League cartoon really revved things up for me. I liked Season one, but season two improved it dramatically... I guess we could give credit to Darkseid- he'd assume credit for greatness was his anyway

Night Duck roams the wilds of the city and dispenses justice, a caped vigilante that is the terror that flaps in the night CES

Sure I liked the film. And this thread is not a competition. Plus, my description is better.

How long before I can force you to take my money?!

Thanks, Drunk, it ended up being maybe a bit too grim for my own tastes, but the grim parts are buried deep under a chunky layer of good and kind people. For instance, there's a very low-level super-villain called Dr. Mischievous, who is totally harmless and does some petty crime, like stealing candy or pets. He makes sure to harm no one and generally works with new rogues to get arrested by them in the most flashy fashion, to get their fame up. Also, each time he gets arrested, he's broken out by a mysterious super-villain group called the Black Parlor. They're all dressed in black owl costumes and only appear to break out low-level super-villains like Dr. Mischievous and rogues. In truth, the Black Parlor is made up of rogue super-heroes (from that group the ASHRRaD is investigating) who don a super-villain costume just to help their friends. They're a close knit, kind, cooperative and very wholesome community. They help each-other, get together every second Friday of the month for a barbecue, work with villains like Dr. Mischievous (who is actually an important part of the community, he's the one serving the sodas) to brighten up the day of the people, put stars in the eyes of children and make sure the community sees rogues with a good eye again. They also do things like giving blankets to homeless people, work as unpaid volunteer at shelters and might even try to work with schools to sensibilize children and teens to important matters, like drugs, sex, crime, bullying etc. Thanks Tjack! Unfortunately I'm French and I'm bad at DMing in another language, tried for 4 months, each Saturday, but it didn't really work 😕 I'll make sure to post session reports! And if there's enough demand, I might actually do that roleplay Discord server that's been in my drawers for almost a year now...

Tonight was working on Martial Arts manoeuvres: - and last minute addition before bedtime .. added detailed information regarding the martial manoeuvre Only the person making the martial manoeuvre can see the detailed information.

Johnny Thunder springs to mind. The only good thing about his comic is the introduction of Black Canary.

I was right with you until this. Immediately portraying the authorities as unable to keep captured supervillains captured is a very dangerous move. There's a pretty significant subset of players who will immediately ditch the prospect of handing over villains if jail doesn't keep them in. Be it hidden superdungeons, orbital space prisons, extra-dimensional exile, or summary execution, these players will find their own way to "solve" the problem. Doubly so for any villain who actively threatens innocent lives. And the instant those start failing, more and more extreme measures are going to be taken. And this can be downright toxic to the tone of a game. I've seen superheroes assaulting the police arresting a villain, or once even storming a jail, just to make sure that villain goes somewhere secure. It permanently taints the entire idea of "respectable authority".

GA comic superheroes can also have very silly and/or nonsensical powers or ways to use their powers. And how they acquired their powers can be nonsense as well. In a good way, of course! This book has some gems in it: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1631407457/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I think the question of "What happened to HERO?" treads into territory that can't be meaningfully addressed by "a few highly motivated people" unless those people are very wealthy. I have not seen the intersection of "highly motivated" and "sufficiently capitalized" appear within the ranks of the HERO player community in all the time I've been a part of it (which goes back to 1982). That, combined with the lack of resources available to the current brand holder, is the primary reason the Hero System has not seen any measurable growth while the hobby as a whole has expanded thanks to the explosion of popularity of D&D 5e.

Perhaps you should have two or more stages of magic. The first stage is the simple stuff that any beginning mage can do. It doesn't cost points, other than a magic skill roll and maybe a weapon familiarity with that type of spell. You pay money for your spellbook or scroll, but the spells themselves are just like mundane weapons. So we've got Bob, a wizard's apprentice, who has snuck out of the tower and made off with a book of magic, a couple of scrolls, a talisman, and about a year's worth of training. He's got Magic Skill at 12-, and has to make this any time he wants to cast something from his book of magic. He's got WF: Fire Magic, WF: Divination Magic, and WF: Transmutation Magic. Since these are "categories" of magic they cost 2 points each. It's the equivalent of having WF: Swords or WF: Bows. So Bob has spent a total of 11 points to know how to do basic magic, and he'd have to spend however much money the book is worth to replace it if he lost it (he begins with it as starting equipment). Unlike a warrior, Bob has to make a skill roll to do anything, and the spells that this works for are all created by the GM and balanced as if they were mundane equipment. An arrow from a crossbow may do 2D6 damage, while Bob's Spell of Fiery Bolt does 2 1/2D6 but requires a skill roll first. You can take away the warrior's crossbow, but you can also take away Bob's spellbook. Perhaps you can raise an undead skeleton warrior if you've got WF: Necromantic Magic, and all you need is a dead body and 10 gp worth of rare powders (which might be enough money for a normal person to hire a generic mercenary for a week). Magic is a bit more powerful but also a bit less reliable. Eventually Bob has gained some experience and wants to be a more successful wizard. So he buys Deadly Blow or whatever it's called with his Fire Magic. Now instead of a 2 1/2D6 Fiery Bolt, he does 3 1/2D6. Now he's cooking with gas, and he's actually pretty impressive. He can reduce an orc to cinders with one shot. But he's also poured quite a few points into that ability, and he's gonna be similar to a fighter who has a weapon he's specialized in. If this were a video game, the archer character would be shooting arrows at enemies while the wizard is shooting glowing energy thingys at them. Functionally they're very similar. The final level of magic would be to just buy your spells outright. Things like this probably shouldn't duplicate normal powers. Raising the dead, creating an undead legion, now you're into what we might call "strategic level magic". You can bring down the walls of a castle, or summon a storm. They aren't necessarily things you'd use in combat, and they aren't necessarily spells that you'd have a lot of. A full-scale wizard who can change into forest animals, mesmerize people with his voice, and knows how to build golems is a devastating opponent even for a kingdom. He's just not the kind of guy who goes running around dungeons.

My thoughts on Duke Bushido's concerns (most of this is extremely basic and everyone already knows it, I'm just outlining my philosophy on it): Playing an RPG is a cooperative task. We get together and agree to what we want to play (Hero System), where we want to play (at Bob's house), when we want to play (Saturday afternoons), and who we want to play with (Bob, Joe, Steve, and Mike, but not Dave -- he's not invited anymore after the incident with the tuna fish). The Hero System takes the position that the players should have more control over what kind of character they play. Ever played D&D and you really wanted to be a Paladin/Ranger/whatever, but you rolled crappy stats and were stuck as a cleric or something? Ever thought it would be neat to play something unique, like a farm boy who found a magic hat that gave him unusual abilities to compete with the big sword/big fireball crowd? Well the Hero System allows you to do that. In the Hero System, you can take powers and abilities through something called a "focus". A focus is an object that is required to use the power. This gives you a discount because the object can then be taken away from you. If they take away your suit of armor/magic hat/special shield/freeze ray, then you can't use the associated powers. But one of the inherent assumptions of this particular game is that you have a degree of control over your character concept. If you want to be the farm boy with the magic hat, then you get to be the farm boy with the magic hat (subject to the agreement of the rest of the people in your group, of course -- I'm sorry Wayne, you can't play Captain Bitch-Rape in a game based on Saturday morning cartoon characters). That means that even though a focus can be taken away, you can be secure in the knowledge that you're going to get it back at some point soon. Yes, the orcs can capture you and take away your magic hat. But normally they aren't going to send it away to the evil wizard on another continent, not before you manage to escape the dungeon and find the hat carelessly left sitting in a storage room. The magic hat, you see, is an integral part of your character concept. The discount you received for taking a focus is based on the problems you incur for losing it temporarily, not permanently. Now, as I said, games are a cooperative effort. You have some degree of control over your character, but not total. In some circumstances, the GM may decide that the story demands you spend a period of time without that hat. You've got to go on a quest to reclaim it or something. And it's entirely possible that halfway through that quest, you say "screw the hat, I want to do something else". And that's fine too. But generally you'll get your focus back, because this is a cooperative game we're playing, and it's not real life. The genre you're playing should have more influence on what happens than what would "realistically" take place. In real life if you lose your special hat, there's very little guarantee you'll ever get that exact hat back. But in a cartoon, the animators always draw you with that same hat, so you're probably gonna get it returned pretty soon. When Rocket Pack Man gives the alien rocket pack that he found on the street to Gary Groundpounder, and Gary flies off, that focus may be gone until the GM and the player have a conversation. Things like "why did you do that? Do you want to change your character? You know he wasn't planning on coming back, right?" And the player is like "I dunno, I didn't think about it." One of the guidelines for playing in a cooperative game is not to try to ruin the fun -- don't do things that put the other people at the table in a difficult situation (as opposed to putting the characters in a difficult situation, which is fine). If you wanted to keep your irreplaceable rocket pack, why did you give it to the alien who was going back to his home planet? Now the GM has to come up with some kind of in-game excuse for how you get it back. Or he can let you change your character. -- The most important thing to realize is that the game rules exist to give us options for playing. "Focus" is a limitation that generally reflects people being temporarily deprived of an ability. The easier it is to deprive them of it, the more points it is worth. But that doesn't mean that everyone with a sword has a focus. Let's look at some examples. He-Man has a sword. He-Man is almost never deprived of his sword. He almost never gets disarmed, though it may happen very occasionally. Of course, He-Man almost never hits anyone with the sword anyway. The sword is really He-Man's method of transformation. He-Man's player and the GM talk about this before the game begins, and they decide that Only In Hero ID is the appropriate limitation here. The sword is basically an infinitely durable thingy that he holds in his hand and uses to change form, but it doesn't actually do any real damage (because it's a Filmation cartoon and he isn't allowed to stab people). The sword isn't a focus, it has no powers. He just has a big boost to his stats with -1/4 "Only in Hero ID" written beside it. And the way to change is to hold up the sword that nobody ever pays attention to you carrying around. It's occasionally possible to get stuck as Prince Adam, but it'll be rare. Joe the Fighter is just a standard heroic fantasy character. He has a variety of swords, some better than others. They aren't really a focus, they're just a weapon he found. He didn't pay points for them, he can't sell them for points. It doesn't matter if Joe is carrying a +2 longsword or a two-handed sword, no particular sword is a core part of his concept. He is a more normal RPG character, where his equipment is gained or lost entirely through the events of the game. None of his equipment has "plot protection" where you know that's his special weapon and he should always have a version of it (I'm looking at you, Simon Belmont from Castlevania with that whip you always have). Nope, Joe the Fighter just uses what's available, and even if he likes a certain weapon, it isn't special enough to him to become a part of his character concept. If it were, he'd have spent points on it. Darth Vader has a red lightsaber. Vader is so good with his lightsaber that nobody can ever disarm him (unless, you know, you actually cut his arm off). Vader may not have actually put the focus limitation on his sword power. He may not have any limitation on it. While it looks like a lightsaber and he wears it on his belt, he never loses it once in the entire trilogy. He just always has his sword when he needs it. "But couldn't he be captured and the lightsaber taken away?" Mmmmmaybe. But he probably cleared that with the GM first. "Don't worry, you aren't gonna be captured. This isn't that kind of story." Vader doesn't get the focus limitation, but also no matter how many times you try to disarm him, it won't work. He can just use the Force and now it's back in his hand, no questions asked. Vader comes up with a semi-plausible reason for why people can't take it away from him and therefore they don't. Remember, there's cooperation in this between the player and the GM.

Taxi and Barney Miller still hold up really well. So does Rockford Files, obviously

How many points would the equipment that the warrior has access to through coin cost? Armor, weapons, horse, etc. Is it equivalent? Because he's not paying one single character point for that suit of plate armor.

Godzilla: King of Monsters It was a fun popcorn movie. I liked the 2014 movie better, but the addition of more monsters was great. I feel this movie was too long though. It really needed a quicker pace. Too much of the plot was stretched out longer than it needed to be. It could easily have been streamlined by at least 20 minutes and still hit all the same story beats. And I don't what this says about the lack of character development in these movies, but I was never emotionally moved by any of the character deaths. However, I was saddened by the destruction of that underwater city; that was a find of immeasurable archaeological value and now it's gone forever. I'm looking forward to Godzilla vs. Kong next year, but I have to confess that I'm just not into the idea of these two fighting to determine a "winner" (especially since I just don't think you can make Kong a credible contender against this Godzilla). Moreover, I can't shake the feeling of cultural warfare in the subtext, even though that is most certainly not the intent of the film.

Meh, they made a movie and hung the name Joker on it. But beyond the name it can only be very very loosely connected with the comic. Of course many of the so called comics these days are only loosely connected to their actual characters and stories by a name so I guess people can consider Joker to be a "live action comic movie" too.

To me it sounds like a Drain Intelligence attack, powerful enough to take most people down to 0 INT. And at 0 INT the INT Roll will be 9- on 3d6 or a 37% chance of doing anything that Phase. So while the characters might make their roll and be able to take an action some phases, for the most part they will be "distracted" by what they saw the Magician do and can't stop thinking of it. So they might stare in wonder on their first Phase (failed roll), then force themselves to move the next phase (made their roll), then stop again and ponder what they saw the next phase (failed roll) and the phase after that (failed roll). And so on, until they slowly recover from the drain and their INT score returns to normal over a few turns and they get over what they witnessed. So maybe built like this: Befuddle: Drain INT 7d6 (standard effect: 21 points), Area Of Effect Nonselective (12m Radius Explosion; +1/4) (87 Active Points); OAF (magic tools) (-1), Target(s) must be watching/looking at Player (-1), Gestures (Requires both hands; -1/2), Requires A Roll (Skill roll (Magic tricks); -1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Incantations (-1/4); RC: 18 (The area of effect (radius) with Explosion, is to simulate that the further away a target might be the less effective the power is because they can't see what is happening in detail)

True, but that's always been the hardest part for me. Disadvantages/Complications/Situations always take me forever.

Thunderbirds (1964-66) A puppet show that has some of the most iconic models ever seen in the Thunderbird craft. International Rescue is an organisation that exists to save people from potential (or certain) death while shunning the media and any sort of reward financial or otherwise. Thunderbird 1 does the reconnaissance and co-ordinates the rescue while Thunderbird 2 brings the rescue equipment. Thunderbird 3 can go into space and takes a replacement astronaut to Thunderbird 5 which is a space station monitoring communications traffic. Thunderbird 4 is a small submarine used for underwater rescues..The Thunderbirds are piloted or manned by members of the Tracy family. Scott Tracy was voiced by Shane Rimmer who appeared in several James Bond films most notably The Spy Who Loved Me where he was the American submarine commander. The organisation also had a London agent who travelled in a pink Rolls Royce which had a machine gun hidden in the radiator grill. The series had one of the best openings starting with a countdown showing off the Thunderbird craft and then showing what was going to happen in the upcoming episode. Avoid the live action 2004 film like the plague

Finally started watching The Good Place, I'm about halfway through season 1. Enjoying it a lot. Was just going to watch an episode or two, but I got sucked right in.