[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Full disclosure: Kumail Nanjiani, in my opinion, is a gigantic douche.

That being said: he wasn't the problem with that episode.

Spoiler!

How everything played out in the show felt like vintage Sterling-era Twilight Zone but with current-day cinematography... except for the vulgarity and the repeated coda of the Comedian's bit slagging on the Second Amendment which just came off like a ham-fisted and tone-deaf attempt at social critique that Sterling was fond of in the 60s.

But.. given how the Comedian came off through the course of the episode it almost seems like the audience is supposed to dislike the anti-2A diatribe... and that was kind of a bizarre musing. Given the front man for this TZ revival and casting two minorities of the same (I am assuming) ethnicity as the dramatic leads, I find it hard to believe the show didn't intend to undermine an anti-2A narrative.

Anyway, the main thrust of the episode is a morality play that has an implication to the widest possible general audience ("How willing would you be to hurt other people to gain success for yourself?") but it comes off flat because, through really no fault of Kumail nor the actress portraying his girlfriend, there isn't anything shown to us that makes us care about the consequences of the Comedian's actions.. and we're not really explained the in-narrative importance of the high-profile guest actor even though the plot is directly kicked off by said character.

I guess I'll give the next episodes a try until I cancel CBS All Access once Discovery concludes for the year but I thought the TZ revival pilot missed the mark. 4/10.

Ive been really curious about this. Feels like they'll have some challenges differentiating from black mirror, which has much more license to push the envelope. How do the two compare?