John Master

Great evidence for drawing a conclusion! One instance.* Think any of that is a sustainable strategy for a criminal career? The writers crafted a mostly solid episode. The portrayal of Joker as cunning and clever fell short of benchmarks established in other thief-as-protagonist productions (Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair).

*--As for the wallet theft--did the writers depict the bar wallet theft onscreen? Or just present the stolen wallet as a fait accompli for viewers to accept and draw their own conclusion? Because the 11 and Crown both pull off their cunning criminal capers in full view of the cameras so viewers can delight in the cleverness of the thefts. Which means clever scriptwriters must conceive those crimes. J&J may travel that road in later episodes. But so far, Joker's cunning cleverness is purely by reputation, less so by on-screen portrayal. That being a good guy thief is not in dispute.

Standardized tests include any of those where you fill in a bubble with a No. 2 pencil. PSAT, SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, TOEFL. It's a very big business for those companies, so their questions get tested before put into actual exams.

You, on the other hand, cannot test drive your questions. Just throw them out to the world then endure any second-guessing in the comments. Speaking of which: you defended your choice to include both finished series and in-progress series when I challenged you. But...having perused the comments, it is clear that particular concern was widely shared. When that many people raise the same objection related to methodology, it may be worth reexamining your thought process. Some tournament questions might pair unaired/in-progress series against finished series without confusing the issue, but this one certainly was not one of those.

Ever taken a standardized test, where there's a whole section "that does not count in the results of this test but these questions may be used in future years"? Those are experimental questions because writing test questions that dont confuse people is harder than it seems. You got a little taste of that potential for confusion if someone got their results reversed.

"Thief" and "con artist" are different job descriptions. Or perhaps, all con artists are thieves, but not all thieves are con artists. Ep 1 shows Jack is an excellent pickpocket (the wallet in the bar). But his attempt to play con artist (bank manager) went all kinds of sideways. Also, if the goal of theft is not to get caught, how "cunning" is a thief whose crime name (Joker) is one letter different from his family name (Joke)? And who tells a stranger his actual name while in the middle of robbing a bank?

Aside from those quibbles, I agree with your overall assessment. An interesting roller-coaster is hopefully ahead.

Respectfully, Wandee Goodday had one of the most perfect first episodes I have seen in any year. Also, Wandee Goodday got increasingly nonsensical each week. Despite that aupicious start, Doc and Boxer will not be candidates when I contemplate the year's best series. Which is a solid reason why no in-progress series should be on this list at all. You point out J&J's potential, but perhaps no one is voting for it because a show "with potential" is contrary to the spirit of listing "worst" or "best" anything. After all, a potential for greatness inherently includes the opposite--a potential not to be great. How can we tell at this point? Strong starts and good premises do not guarantee extended brilliance.

(You get I am arguing with @Joss_Luke about the nature of the options we were given and not really with you about which series had the better premiere episode? Though since your post created the opportunity, it's only fair to mention: I do stand by my assessment of ep 1 of WG, which did everything a first ep should do. J&J was a solid first episode, and I agree with the idea that J&J has a potential for greatness based on what ep 1 set up. But the entire sequence depending on bank security and how loans get done was just so silly that I cannot quite muster the requisite level of "suspend disbelief" or "just accept it as necessary and move on" to rate the whole episode as best of the lot. For that scene alone, I must downgrade J&J e 1 in the overall pantheon. But I certainly hope it manages better than WG to sustain its strong start.

Glad to provide inspiration for your Mad Genius. I strongly encourage you to avoid setting up your choice in a "reverse" way. And this may be a limitation of MDL games, so that your question's wording nedds to fit what the system lets you do.

Your question was "which is worse," but the statistics show a "win" rate for each option. E.g., every win means a player thought the winner was worse than the loser. When I looked at the statistics, the highest win rate at that time belonged to My Love Mix Up. Except, if the idea was for players to identify the worst, then nomenclature dubbing MLMU a winner is the reverse of the intended meaning.

Phrasing the question as a most/best avoids that. Just try to make the results match logically with however the system wants to present the data.

You replied within an hour, so no need to apologize. Downright timely, frankly. On reading your explanation of the goal, I feel like you created a game meant to suss out which popular series least well lives up to that popularity. (Which popular series is the most overrated?) At any rate, that's what my personal result yielded.

*--the other flaw in this methodology was the inclusion of series still in progress. Two of the choices have aired only one episode. How could a fair assessment of quality involve picking between a finished series and something that has barely begun? (See below.) I just passed those three to set up a final round showdown between finished series. Oops, no. 4 minutes isn't finished yet either. So that's four unfinished series.

(Hmm. Create a new tournament for series that havent aired yet, and we will find out which one people really want to see! "IF YOU COULD ONLY WATCH ONE OF THESE TWO, YOU WOULD CHOOSE...." Now, that would lead to tough choices.)

The results will not indicate "which ones people didn't like." At least not in every case. The game asks people to choose between two options, a lesser and a greater. At the end, I was left with the series I had the lowest regard for from the options given*, but it doesn't necessarily follow I disliked that series. You can conclude I respect that series less than the other "best series this year".

For example, if the game instead involved flavors of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, naming the "worst" one:

R1
cookie dough (greater) over super fudge chunk (lesser)
Everything But the Kitchen Sink over Cherry Garcia

R2
Super Fudge Chunk over Cherry Garcia

Result under your premise: Cherry Garcia is the worst
Reality: Offer me Cherry Garcia (but no other options), and i will absolutely eat it because it's a fine ice cream flavor. If the choice was that or nothing, I would prefer the Cherry Garcia.

It's an interesting tournament to discern which popular series is regarded as "least." But the results will not yield what the original post claims ("worst.") If the choice was the last BL series standing or nothing, Id still choose to watch. If it were truly a bad series, I wouldn't even bother to watch no matter how popular it was.

Nearly a day later, and i finally figured out what has been bugging me. Three little tidbits that make for horrifically bad crime writing:

1. When first introduced, we see that Joker signs his work so everyone knows it was him.
2. During the news report at the dinner table, the news anchor refers to the criminal as Joker. Suggesting, again, that his criminal exploits feature some trademark of ownership.
3. In the scene at the bank loan department, Jack asks the manager his name. And Joker, who is in fact not a real bank manager and is in that moment smack in the middle of robbing the bank, tells him HIS ACTUAL NAME.

I kept replaying these scenes in my head, lumping them together even though they were not sequential. Why did they bother me so?

It took me far too long to identify Home Alone (1990) as the reason this methodology nagged at me. But at least that film's Wet Bandits were supposed to be comically inept crooks. Joker is [I think] meant to resemble the suave, smooth, genius crooks of Ocean's Eleven or The Thomas Crown Affair. I.e., crooks whose top priority is making sure people DO NOT FIND OUT who is responsible.

The writers nailed the good guy turns bad while the bad guy turns good dyanmic of the series' romantic leads. As the tension inherent to that set up builds up, I hope their crime writing tightens up to match the level of the romantic interplay.

Praise to the creative team that runs Dee Hup House. Their productions are seldom perfect. (Whose are?) And the quality can be uneven from series to series. (Also true of everyone else). But...this company mixes up its genres. Mixes up its actors. Mixes up the tone. (That is unique!) What it delivers consistently is ambition to tell compelling stories anchored by characters who happen also to like each other. Their mutual attraction unfolds in the context of these disparate plots. I have yet to feel as if the studio is repeating itself. (NOT true of everyone else!) Watch for the romance. Watch for the story. Either could sustain a watch. But so nice to have a company that knows how to deliver both without making the result feel stale or formulaic.

I Saw You In My Dream. Airing concurrently.

Tan disappeared because Putter, who apparently plays him, is busy saving Ai from accidents caused whenever Ai tries to stop his own dreams from becoming real, but instead creates the events that cause the accident. Once Putter's Dream-y shooting schedule lightens up, he will reappear as Tan to complicate the love triangle Beer--Wan-Tan. Busy guy.

Put another way: I am totally with you in wondering why it has taken seven episodes to reveal specific details regarding 30 seconds worth of exposition. Move Beer and Wan along already.

The Chordettes predate the rock'n'roll era, so the style of the 1954 version sounds dated. Singing in close harmony was a typical '50s style, and the Chordettes exemplify that trait. This version reached #1 on US pop charts and has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame due to its lasting influence.

https://youtu.be/PKnPrbPK5vA?si=Wwu5LV_n-MvZkZd1

Having avoided the Comments section for this series til now, I am curious if others have commented on the recurring use of a musical motif from the 1954 pop song "Mister Sandman." Most famously recorded by the Chordettes, the lyrics include the line, "Mr Sandman, bring me a dream. " That notion certainly ties into whatever is going on with Ai's sleep state, so I hardly think the riff is coincidental. The telltale notes, which comprise the pop tune's introductory measures, have punctuated numerous episodes, and they actualy lead the viewer into ep 6. Spanning the first 20 or so seconds of that episode, the music provides an aural cue that the scene we are about to see is not reality, but another of Ai's dreams.

Given the fame of that earworm tune, I would guess someone has pointed out its use already. But sampling those specific notes to indicate a scene belongs to a dreamscape is such a clever choice by the music supervisor (or whoever selected it) that it merits additional recognition. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that some younger fans and some international BL fans wouldn't even notice a melody borrowed from a 70 year old song....eh?

Perhaps, although the condition "really in love" can cause loss of self-awareness even in individuals normally quite composed . But on the other hand, my comment is only superficially about Shan, and at some level is really about Tutor.

I am always most bothered by a series that has a compelling premise but botches the execution. In a genre rife with formula and cliché, to see a nice idea fall short of its potential wounds the soul.

Excellent breakdown. Allow me to add this complaint:

Had Shan possessed the merest glimmer of self-awareness, he ought to have understood his considerable "swoon-worthiness" on its own would suffice to entice any guy inclined to notice other men. All that other stuff he did was superfluous.

The idea that a grown man has the same natural scent he had as a preadolescent boy suggests whoever wrote that moronic detail has no clue what either boys or men actually smell like. Or how puberty transforms the body.

Now, a twinkle in the eye? A spark of personality? A particular curve in the smile? Those are details of a preadolescent self that might (might!) remain recognizable after the raging hormones of puberty finish transmogrifying the youthful body into the adult version.

But adult Shan thinking adult Ob Aun smelled the same as the preadolescent version? That is writing that stinks.

Question not whether they execute ALL the ambition well, question whether ANY of it is done well? After all, most people can do one thing well, even if few can do it all well. Except Shen, of course. CEO, author, housemate: he excels at everything. Well, almost. Apparently, measuring salt when cooking remains a hurdle to be surmounted.