The groundwork for their post-midterm excuses is being laid before our very eyes.

Also in the joint package, Ottawa is easing greenhouse gas regulations as U.S. tariffs pressure Canada’s automotive sector.

Canada’s emissions standards are now set to flatline until 2030 — maintaining 2026 levels for new light-duty vehicles through the 2029 model year. Annual increases are set to resume in the 2030 model year.

Ottawa initially proposed increasing emissions standards from 2026 through 2035 to reach its goal of 75 per cent EV sales by 2035.

This change comes after the Trump administration made similar changes on Monday.

This is the first of three previously-announced Irwin Allen projects from Goldsman - it was described as a “new universe,” but I’m not certain how connected they will actually be.

Looks like they’ve made some significan progress since that original announcement in February '25.

I think one can reasonably assume that he consented to being identified, since the CBC regularly protects anonymity.

Why he consented, considering his concerns, is a valid question.

I agree - the new government in Quebec has an obvious stake in reopening the Constitution, and Ford’s the kind of guy who would jump on it. They meet the 50% of the population stipulation all by themselves, and between them and Alberta, they have 3 out of the 7 provinces required. It’s not implausible that they could find four more.

BUT, the current version of Ford might not be too excited to be seen climbing into bed with separatists.

Sure, they’re going to press on with a bunch of initiatives that are plainly unconstitutional, get smacked down by the courts after a lengthy battle, use it to fuel anti-federal sentiment, and try again later.

The wheel turns.

I’m still not quite sure what the witches were meant to be doing.

They really are just stereotypical witches doing stereotypical things, aren’t they?

The Sycorax blood magic in “The Christmas Invasion” was a much better execution of the idea - equally vague in motivation, but at least it had some flair.

I was prepared to come in with a half-assed gag about how this is one of the episodes of all time…but I disliked it even more than I remembered.

It’s not silly enough to be a romp, and it’s not scary enough to be a horror (despite seeming like a Halloween episode, this one apparently aired in April). It doesn’t really engage with the time period or Shakespeare himself in a meaningful way. It’s just blandly there, for the most part.

It’s not very kind to Martha. The Doctor dismisses her concerns about being a Black woman in Elizabethan London. She doesn’t get to do any meaningful doctoring, which would have given her some agency in the story. They didn’t even make her a theatre nerd - she seems to have about as much familiarity with Shakespeare as the average person. But hey, she got to feel sad about the Doctor being hung up on Rose. Character development.

Shakespeare himself doesn’t get much, either - I actually think his initial “rock star” introduction is pretty fun, but he’s little more than a series of gags after that. Much is made about his genius, and his grief over losing Hamnet, but neither comes through in the writing or performance.

Sprinkle in too many references to Rowling that have aged like milk, and we’ve got an episode that I have no desire to revisit again any time soon.

Seven dead as of current reporting, with an unknown number of injuries.

Let’s hope those numbers don’t grow too much.

Edit: Revised down to four (for now), which was a nice adjustment to see.

I don’t think I can agree with that - plenty of Lower Decks episodes seemed reverse-engineered around whatever legacy actors they were able to book, and other legacy actors were just sort of…stuffed in there.

I would agree that they always crafted meaningful stories around that stuff, but that stuff is still pretty foundational - moreso than perhaps any show besides the third season of Picard, which I would enthusiastically hold up as an example of “fan service” (I don’t love the term, but whatever, it fits) done very poorly.

I don’t recall saying I liked the idea. That has no bearing on my interest in discerning what the hell you were talking about.

That interest has reached its limit, though.

Where’s the comparison?

You seem to be taking the fact that they rejected a pitch for a show that you think is a bad idea as evidence that they don’t know what they’re doing, which is…truly dizzying.

Edit: Holy autocorrect.

That’s an awfully strong reaction to a rejected pitch…

It’s very unclear when, exactly, this pitch was made.

But heck, Jean-Luc Picard was 59 to Stewart’s 47, so I’m not sure it matters.

I don’t think the CBC can say “fraudulently” because fraud is a crime and he hasn’t been charged, let alone convicted.

“Allegedly” doesn’t work, because the facts aren’t in dispute.

But I agree, “erroneously” also seems wrong. They probably should have just left the adverb out of it.

Are they comfortable?

Opinions vary (naturally), but I think it’s pretty darned good.

I would expect any comic crossover to live in the realm of “banging your action figures together.”

And hey, the third season of Picard proved that that formula can work in any medium!

The nice thing here is that what he’s saying has been corroborated by Henry Alonso Myers and Akiva Goldsman - it feels much more like his side of the story, rather than the usual RTD bluster and bombast.

As for SNW…I’m sure I could write essays about it, but this is hardly the right community (maybe we should set something up for Star Trek…?). I think the bottom line is that I’m glad they’ve been pushing the boundaries of what people expect in the 2020s, and have embraced the chaotic TOS Season 3 energy. I also have a weird appreciation for the fact that they’ve been so episodic, it may have given the “I want episodic Trek” crowd some things to reconsider.

But it is not my favourite series of the current era, and has been pretty squarely up the middle for me. I suspect its overall reception will be revised upward over time, as tends to happen.