New Evangelizers Post: The Sacrifice of the Mass

                                             

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

Some people express confusion about the Mass when we say that it is a sacrifice. They ask “If this was the case, then wouldn’t we be sacrificing Jesus over and over?” It is a good question, and I am glad to address it here.

To be clear, the Council of Trent in Chapter VIII on its decrees on the Eucharist stated that the Eucharist is a true and real sacrifice (Canon 1) and that it is a “propitiatory” sacrifice, meaning that it brings reconciliation to God (Canon 2).

I am a philosopher by training. I like to always refer to the Father of Philosophy: Socrates. And whenever Socrates struggled with a problem, he would always go back to defining our terms. What is it we are actually talking about? In this case, I think we need to define the word “sacrifice.”

Pope Benedict XVI wrote a book before he was pope called The Spirit of the Liturgy. He addresses our common understanding of sacrifice as “something to do with destruction.” (pg. 41) We often think of sacrifice as giving something up, like our Lenten sacrifices of candy or social media. These are indulgences that hurt to lay aside. Sometimes we think of sacrifice in terms of life. Many ancient religions would kill an animal or even a human being as an act of sacrifice to their gods. But that is not the real meaning of “sacrifice.” Pope Benedict XVI understands the heart of sacrifice is union with God. What God wants is not some external gift: He wants me.

Even thinking about our Lenten sacrifices, what good does it do to give up candy or social media, if it does not draw us closer to God? Because that is the entire point of those sacrifices: to be brought more and more into union with God by letting go of the things that keep us away. It is the same with the sacrifice of the Mass. The sacrifice of Jesus is meant to bring us into union with Him. Pope Benedict writes, “Belonging to God has nothing to do with destruction… [i]t means emerging from the state of separation… of existing only for oneself in oneself.” (pg 42) In other words, the sacrifice of Jesus draws us out of our selfish separation from God and into union with Him through Jesus.

Christ on the Cross is an act of true sacrifice because it is an act of true love. Love is a gift of the self that God wants. Pope Benedict writes, “Such sacrifice has nothing to do with destruction. It is an act of new creation, the restoration of creation to its true identity.” (pg 48) In other words, this view of sacrifice is not about death or killing. Therefore we are not “re-killing” Jesus at the Mass. This view of sacrifice is about transforming us, which is something that should happen at the Mass.

Pope Benedict makes the distinction between two types of sacrifices: representation and replacement. In representation, there is something of the one who sacrifices in the gift. Pope Benedict points to Abraham sacrificing the ram or the Passover sacrifice of Exodus (pg. 52-53). There is something of the one who sacrifices in the offering. But with the replacement image, the sacrifice is done in place of the giver, literally a scapegoat. Someone else pays so that I do not have to. This is why God, in the Old Testament, kept rejecting Israel’s sacrifices: because they were more like economic transactions than tokens of love. If you take out the trash at home so you can guilt your wife into doing the dishes, your sacrifice is not done out of love, but rather it is a transaction. But if you take the trash out seeking nothing in return, and only do it because you love your wife and want to be closer to her. This is the representational sacrifice. This is the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. 

You can read the whole article here.

Film Flash: Street Fighter (2026)

 

15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)

Movie that's dumb and fun but gets less fun and more dumb as it goes.

Trailer Time: Narnia- The Magician's Nephew

 

Click here for the YouTube link to the trailer.

I have been trying to write about the news regarding the new Narnia movies from Netflix.  Every time I have tried, too many thoughts and feelings kept bubbling up.  I had too many things I wanted to say so that my paragraphs would crash together like a cacophony of chaos.  

Part of the reason I had such trouble is because it is difficult to level any kind of criticism against a movie without seeing any of it.  All the news reports have been troubling, but how can I have any sense of the movie’s quality until some of it is shown.

But now that the first teaser has been released, I have thoughts.

The teaser starts off in a way that made me incredibly hopeful.  The feel for the world and its child-like sense of wonder is apparent.  Even the fantastical Wood Between the Worlds looks sufficiently spectacular.

But, then when they get to Charon, it all falls off the rails.  The look, sound, and feel developed into something like a psychedelic trip.  

Here is the frustrating thing about all of this: the teaser shows that director Greta Gerwig has the skill to make an adaptation in the spirit of CS Lewis.  

Instead, she chooses not to.

I always remember Peter Jackson stating in an interview that the filmmakers behind The Lord of the Rings were very careful not to put any of their own cultural baggage and instead wanted to do their best at presenting Tolkien’s themes.  They did make changes to the story in adapting it, but all of it was in service to Tolkien.

The Magician’s Nephew feels like it is in service to Greta Gerwig.  She has spoken about her love of pop music and its effect on her.  She seems to be interpreting Lewis through this lens.

One of my biggest critiques is that Uncle Andrew and Jadis do not look sufficiently evil.  Andrew is the classic fool who thinks he is wise, but he also is someone who would be a dictator if he had any competence.  This Andrew looks more quirky than malevolent.  Jadis is the embodiment of the corrupted feminine.  Tilda Swinton was womanly in her intimidating power.

The Jadis in this teaser looks like she stepped out of The Fifth Element and has all the intimidating power of Ronald McDonald.

But the biggest thing that this teaser needed to do was get me to get on board with her version of Aslan.  If you are going to do such a radical experimentation on a beloved character, then show us why your vision should be supported.  But Aslan is barely in it and we get none of Meryl Streep’s performance.

In the book The Magician’s Nephew, Jadis is dissatisfied with her world of Charn, so she decides to destroy it.

I worry that this is what Gerwig is doing to Narnia.

TV Review: Lanterns Season One.

 I have to give it more time, but I think Lanterns might be the worst DC TV series ever made.

And I’ve seen Peacemaker.

There are so many problems with this show that it is difficult to know where to start.  I wrote in my review of the first episode that the darker tone could work if the story went to interesting and satisfying places.  

It did not.

As it got worse, a friend of mine asked, “Why are you still watching it?  Is it self-torture?”  I think it’s because at heart I am a Blue Lantern: I hold onto hope for as long as I can.

But hope for this show died along with Hal Jordan.

I cannot review why this how is so bad without spoilers so be warned:

SPOILERS FOR THE REMAINING REVIEW.

It is difficult to say anything about this show that hasn’t already been said, so if any of my ideas are parallel to what others are saying, my apologies.

The most obvious problem is that the show is morally abhorrent.  This should not surprise based on Peacemaker and the work of Tom King.  The “hero” of the story is John Stewart, who essentially becomes a villain.  In fact, everyone in this story is horrible.  The least horrible person is Hal Jordan, who you are supposed to hate.  Hal is presented as retrograde and out of touch.  But just like Archie Bunker, he is the only one who resonates with the audience.  This is in no small part due to Kyle Chandler’s fantastic performance.  But the show goes out of its way to tear Hal down so that it can build John up.

I wrote in my review for the movie Turning Red that the entire movie was written backwards from the punchline.  This means that instead of letting the natural and logical characters grow out of the story, everything is shoehorned into an essential message or point.  You find this at the end of the last episode where Hal’s hologram says to John, “My gut tells me you’re gonna be better at this job than I ever was.”

And there it is.

The whole point of the show was to tell (not SHOW) the audience that John is better than Hal.  

This is a problem because many people love Hal Jordan.  Hal Jordan means something to people.  To the writers, Hal Jordan is just a vehicle that can trauma dump and use as a stepping stone. Tom King did the same thing to Wally West in the comics in the single worst issue of any comic book I have ever read.  And now he has done the same thing to Hal.

To sum up the story:

A manhunter (a shapeshifting violent alien) was brought to Earth by the previous Green Lantern of Sector 2814, Abin Sur.  In mercy, Abin spared the manhunters life and the manhuner murdered him.  The manhunter set up in a small town called Rushville where she made the inhabitants follow her like a cult leader because she could cure all their diseases.  A fugitve named Kate Kane came to Rushville and was saved by the manhunter who made her sheriff and impregnated her with a manhunter baby.  When Hal finds out there are aliens in Rushville, he investigates and his trainee John comes with him.  They find out that the manhunter has a giant stockpile of weapons that work against Green Lanterns.  Meanwhile some other aliens want revenge on the manhunter for killing their planet.  Also, the Guardians of the Universe want John to take away Hal’s ring because he was trained by Sinestro.  Hal decides he can’t trust John and abandons him in a crashed car which later catches fire.  The manhunter (who in an earlier episode had sex with John) saves his life.  The manhunter begins killing the people of Rushville indiscriminately as Hal tries to save them.  When his ring runs out of charge, John tries to take the ring from him.  When the manhunter shows up, John assassinates her with a sniper rifle, takes the ring, but chooses not to be a Green Lantern.

Hal Jordan goes to prison because of the death and destruction in Rushville.  When he gets out, he starts a romance with Kate Kane, who is still sheriff.  He moves back to Rushville where the people blame Hal for all of the destruction and try to kill him.  Kate’s teenage son saves Hal and Hal discovers that he is a manhunter who has broken Sinestro out of prison so that Sinestro could make him a power battery that could kill a Guardian.  When Hal tells Kate, he says that he wants to protect her and her son by leaving Rushville and laying low until they can find a place safe from the Guardians.

Her response to this is to shoot him in the head.

She then calls John Stewart who comes to investigate and discovers everything.  He digs up Hal’s corpse and takes his ring.  We also learn along the way that Hal’s father and grandfather committed suicide, so Hal is broken.  John finds Sinestro, tortures him and takes the power battery.  Kate’s son finds John and beats him up but then tells John to kill him so that he doesn’t turn evil.  John then finds Kate tells her he figured out she murdered Hal, but he doesn’t turn her in because “Hal wouldn’t want that.”  He then tells Guy Gardner to leave Earth and that he is the only lantern for the planet.  And top it off, he decides that the Green Lantern oath is stupid so he comes up with his own (which sounds a lot more like the Sinestro Corps oath).

And that’s Lanterns.

As you can see, John is pretty much evil.  He becomes an accessory after the fact to murder, steals Sinestro’s power battery and bullies away the actual Green Lantern of Earth because he can.  He assassinated the manhunter because he says, without evidence she wanted to die.  He tries to steal Hal’s ring while he is trying stop people from getting killed.

Going back to this point, the manhunter was the one indiscriminately murdering the people of Rushville, but Hal is the one who is blamed even though is the ONLY ONE trying to save them.  When he returns to the town they try to murder him, but that is all swept under the rug until he is actually murdered.

His murder also makes no sense.  If he was saying that he was going to expose Kate’s son to put him in danger, making some kind of threat, then there would be some logic.  But he was literally telling her his plan to save them.  But she was so upset at the idea of having to leave her stupid, violent community that she put a bullet in his brain.  This was not an accident, like the gun just went off.  She pulled it out of the holster, took off the safety, pointed it at his face, and pulled the trigger.  

And because we are not supposed to like Hal, she shouldn’t go to jail.

The writers think they are incredibly clever, but the plot holes are so numerous that the story cannot hold water.  It is even more infuriating because it is clear that the writers think that they are high-minded and sophisticated.  It’s like Prometheus where you had supposedly smart characters constantly doing stupid things.

Why would the murderer bring to town the one man who could figure out you are the killer?  If the manhunter did want to die, why did it go out of the way to use its husband as a decoy to save its own life?  If the Kerry’s son didn’t want Hal to know who saved him, why didn’t he just not show himself to Hal?  If the power ring can cross interstellar distances like nothing, why can’t it take out the handful of satellites that are killing the townsfolk?  Why can’t Sinestro forge a power ring if he can make a power battery, which is much harder to make?

Also, Sinestro is trapped on an island where you can’t swim across the water.  He complains about not being able to leave.  So to be clear, he can forge a lantern power battery, but he can’t cobble together a canoe?  I could go on and on, but this article is already too long.

All of this is so wasteful.  Hal Jordan and John Stewart are fantastic characters in the comics.  They don’t always agree or get along, but they are both heroes.  Nothing about Lanterns is heroic.  

I'm not saying that Hal and John are paragons of virtue in the comics. But the moral relativism that is spread throughout this entire series is so repellant to me as a Catholic. I could put up with the language issues, though to bizarre incorporation of nudity and sexuality is baffling. But above all, the show feels like an inversion of morals.

Going back to Hal, the writers definitely have John Walker Syndrome with him: they want you to hate him, but they are so morally out of touch that he is the only one who makes some kind of sense.  For me, the most outrageous scene was during the mass murder in Rushville, Hal looked completely out of his depths and overwhelmed.  Hal may be reckless, but they wrote him in this scene as incompetent.  He also left John to die in the wrecked car,which makes Hal an attempted murderer.

Honestly, the treatment of John isn't better. The writers mean to elevate him, but instead, his morally compromised view of the world is so bleak that none of the heroism of the comic book version of the character can be found.

The main problem from this show is that the writers don’t care about these characters.  They mean nothing to them.

But even if they had used completely original characters, the show would still be morally repugnant.  That’s what makes this so much worse.  It would be like someone beating you to death with your favorite childhood toy.  There is a deep-seated level of hatred for the DC heroes and their fans that I cannot fathom.  That hate the Green Lanterns, joking how “Green” is stupid so the show is just called Lanterns.  They tried to excuse it as a stupid joke, but it clearly wasn’t.  They disdain everything about the Green Lanterns and want to strip it away and reforge it in their own broken image, even rewriting the Green Lantern Oath.

It is supposed to be “In Brightest Day, in Blackest Night, no evil shall escape my sight…”

But in Lanterns, Day is NIght and evil is seen as right.

These lanterns cast only darkness instead of light.

New Evangelizers Post: Know Scripture, Know Christ

                                            

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

“Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ.”

This might be the most famous quote from the saint whose feast we celebrated a few days ago: St. Jerome.  There are many legendary stories about him, his temper, his austerity… but one thing he is best known for is his dedication to Scripture.  He was one of the driving forces of the Latin Vulgate: the translation of the Bible into Latin.  Knowing that many people in the Christian community of the 4th century could not read things like ancient Hebrew, Jerome set out to make the Word of God more accessible to the people.  

That is why St. Jerome wrote in his commentary on Isaiah: “For if, according to the Apostle Paul, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God and the one who does not know the Scriptures does not know the power of God and his wisdom, [then] ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”  But then just a few sentences later, he says “let no one think that I desire to summarize the subject of this book in a few words, when the Scripture at hand contains all the Lord’s mysteries.”  He said that ignorance of Scripture was ignorance of Christ, but that he did not intend to summarize the book.

This got me thinking about what he could have meant.  I’ve quoted St. Jerome for many years since I teach Scripture to high school students.  And year after year we go over many of the tools of Scriptural analysis: exegesis, the 2-source Theory, form criticism, and the like.  I give them a basic overview of the content of the Bible.  In this way, in coming into contact with the Word of God written in human language, they also encounter the Word of God who was in the beginning with God.

And here in formation, we continue to learn and overcome our ignorance.  But it is only recently that I think I started to understand what St. Jerome was really getting at.  If ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ, then knowing Scripture is knowing Christ.  For many years, I thought this meant that the study of Scripture brings us closer to God.  And that is very true.  But I don’t think that is all St. Jerome meant.

What does it really mean to “know” Scripture?

I think of how when I entered diaconate formation, we became obliged to pray the liturgy of the hours every day.  My apologies to you who are holier than I, but when I started praying morning prayer and evening prayer, it felt more of a chore than anything.  I remember during my interviews before entering formation, I asked if we could do virtual classes from home instead of driving in when it got snowy.  I remember that the head of formation not only said no, but he said that it was important to come so that we could pray the liturgy of the hours together.  And I will tell you that I did not understand.  I was ignorant.

I fulfilled my obligation to pray the liturgy of the hours, to pray the psalms and canticles.  I began to memorize them from repetition, like the Magnificat or the Canticle of Zechariah.  But imperceptibly, something else was happening.

I remember I was driving down the street one day, feeling a little down.  And without realizing it, I started praying, “Oh God, you are my God.  For you I long.  My body pines for you like a dry weary land without water.”  Or I’d be taking out the garbage on a cold morning and I think, “Frost and chill, bless the Lord.”  Or I would be kneeling after mass and pray, “at the name of Jesus, every knee must bend in the heavens, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue proclaim to the glory of God the Father, Jesus Christ is Lord.”

This felt different than just rote memorization.  I asked my spiritual director about this and he said that this is part of what should be happening.  The Scripture isn’t just something external to us that we read.  Instead, the Word of God is being woven into the very fabric of our lives.  

You can read the whole article here.

Summer/Fall Mini-Review Roundup 2026

 Hello, Dear Reader.

The beginning of the academic year is usually an incredibly busy time for me, but moreso this year than any year previously.  Not only am I spending more time in the early days of the classes that I teach, but my Diaconate Formation classes have been eating up a great deal of my time along with my parish assignment.  Many nights I am not home until after 9pm.  I am not complaining, but I am trying to explain why my blogging has slowed down to 1-2 posts per week.

As a result, I have fallen behind on my film reviews.  In fact, looking back I have seven film flashes this year without reviews attached (I also have 3 streaming movie reviews that I will be adding)

Previously, in order to catch up I did a mini-review roundup for all of the movies that I had been missing.  With apologies, Dear Reader, I will do the same now.

Enjoy!

Solo Mio

I am a big fan of Kevin James and gives his full commitment to this movie about an American school teacher jilted at the altar while in Rome who decides to experience his non-refundable honeymoon package.  The supporting cast including familiar faces like Allyson Hannigan and Jontahan Roumie is endearing and charming.  The movie doesn't have as many big laughs as I would like, but it earns enough good will so that you will be smiling through most of it.

Power Ballad

Paul Rudd plays Rick, an American ex-pat living in Ireland who is making a living with a wedding band.  At one wedding he happens to meet Danny (Nick Jonas), an ex-boyband member who is trying to make a serious solo career.  The two get intoxicated and Rick plays Danny one of his songs, "How to Write a Song Without You."  When Danny goes home, he passes the song off as his own and it becomes a gigantic hit.  Rick becomes obsessed with proving to everyone that the song is his, even if he has no proof.

The movie starts enjoyable, but then takes a bit of a darker turn as Rick becomes more obsessed.  This causes a gigantic strain on his wife and teenage daughter in a way that is unpleasent to watch.  However, to my surprise, the movie turned on its head with one line.  When Rick finally confronts Danny, he says that he knows Danny couldn't have written it. When Danny asks him why he says, "Because you think it's a love song!"  What follows is an interesting character turn that moves the film to a much more satisfying conclusion than I was expecting.

Minions and Monsters

I have never been a big fan of the Minions series.  I don't have anything against it, but it always seemed like disposable fun nonsense, which is fine.  The same could be said about this one, but what I liked about it was that it was a real love letter to old Hollywood.  I teach a little bit of the history of film and I loved all the homages throughout to Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplain, and the like.  I also like the humorous incorporation of a Lovecraftian villain.  Someone asked me about the supposed satanic imagery.  There is one scene with an evil wizard that could be interpreted that way, but I saw it more like an evil Gandalf.

Young Washington

The first act of this film feels like a made-for-TV movie.  They do a lot of heavy-handed dialogue moments where they do set-up and pay-off only minutes apart.  But once you get past the first act, the movie really picks up.  The performances are very good and you get a strong sense of Washington's character, both in his ambition and his determination.  You feel all of his horrible mistakes that he makes along the way, which is why you root for him when he steps up and tries to make up for them.

Voicemails For Isabelle (Netflix)

Zoey Deutch plays Jill,  a struggling chef in San Francisco who copes with life by leaving voicemails to her dead sister on her old number.  She does not realize that the number has been reassigned to a young real estate agent in Austin, TX named Wes, who unwittingly falls in love with her through her messages.  Wes decides to enter into her life and start a relationship with her, all the while struggling with the secret of how he knows her.

This is traditional rom-com stuff and the movie handles it decently.  But there are too many b-stories that really don't go anywhere and the movie lacks a lot of heart and charm.  It is unnecessarily sexual in ways that you find in Netflix productions that only serve to distract from the story.

The Dink (AppleTV+)

The movie is trying to be Happy Gilmore for pickleball and it only works sporadically.  Jake Johnson is funny as the lead, but his character is so unlikeable that he never really pulls you in.  He has great chemistry with Mary Steenburgen as his pickleball partner, but for some reason the movie kills off any growth in their relationship.  You also have a funny turn by Ed Harris as Dustin's father, but other than that, there isn't much to write home about here.

Mayday (AppleTV+)

This is one that I wish was in the theater.  Ryan Reynolds plays a Navy pilot who gets shot down behind Soviet lines in the 1980's.  He is found in the wilderness by a former KGB agent played by Kenneth Branagh, who is willing to help him if he can defect.  The two then go on a comedic and action-packed ride through Cold War Russia.

The movie was incredibly charming.  Directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, who also made the criminally underated Game Night as well as the most recent Dungeons and Dragons, know who to film an action set piece and they know how to use the camera for laughs.  I laughed more in the movie than most comedies in the theater.  The directors have the confidence to know when to just let a visual gag sit without having to do an MCU-style quip.  There is one sequence in particularl when Reynolds and Branagh are hiding in a closet that is particularly memorable.  Reynolds and Branagh have great chemistry and I cannot believe how believably Branagh plays an action hero.  The movie occasionally cannot help itself to make some kind of ham-fisted social commentary, but that is the only part of the movie that feels flat

Coyote vs. Acme

This is a very clever movie.  It stays true to the spirit of the Coyote and Roadrunner characters in a way that was pleasently unexpected.  The use of Foghorn Leghorn as the villanous corporate shill was a very insightful choice.  It isn't as smart as Who Framed Roger Rabbit or even Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers.  The human elements are the least interesting part, except for John Cena who seems very at home in the Looney Tunes Universe.

By Any Means

This movie could have been a lot better.  Set in 1966, it focuses on FBI agent Wayne Strider (Yaha Abdul-Mateen II) who is investigating a murder led by the KKK, but Strider is hampered because of all the racism he encounters in his investigation, even from local law enforcement.  So his boss partners him with Greg Scarpa (Mark Wahlberg), a sociopathic mafia hitman to break their way into this underworld.

The movie does a great job at showing us Strider's struggles, both interior and exterior.  And unlike most movies of this nature, he and Scarpa don't form a kind a unlikely friendship where they learn from each other.  Scarpa is a violent monster who has been set loose on even worse monsters.  That was an interesting take.  However, the main problem with the movie is that just when Strider starts really enter into challenging moral territory where his character is stretched, the movie just ends.  It feels like there is no strong resolution to the good set up.  So you will leave the theater a bit unsatisfied.

Runner

This is a simple, straightforward buddy-action film that feels like a lot of the mid-budget movies you would get in the 80s and 90s.  Alan Ritchson plays a recovering alcoholic courior with a military background who ends up escorting Owen Wilson who is transporitng a liver to a dying girl in a hospital.  But a very powerful drug cartel is out to get organ with the clock ticking on the liver's viability and the little girl's life.

The action sequences are very compentantly shot and actually very enjoyable.  Ritchson and Wilson have surprisingly good chemistry.  The only time that the movie loses steam is when the character stop pushing their forward momentum for some comedic dialogue or some heartfelt backstory.  These moments take the wind out of the sails, which is a shame because if they were able to keep up the intensity consistently, it would rank a notch above.

Sunday Best: Best TV Shows of the 21st Century (so far)

 Recently, the New York Times posted their list of the greatest TV shows of this century so far.  You can google their choices.

These are shows that began in the 2000's, so Friends and That 70's show are not on there.  Also, they included mini-series as well.  

Of the 100 shows on that list, I would say I have seen only 35 of them, and many of them only a few episodes.  However, there are many on there that should not be on there and many that have been overlooked.  

I decided to make my own list.  I have also decided to divide them between dramas and sitcoms.  The NYT list did not do this, but I think when you compare the two, it is often apples to oranges.

So here is my list of 100 best shows of this century.  I've divided them into REALITY, SITCOM, and DRAMA.

Because the list is so large, there will not be any commentary as to the rationale.  Feel free to follow up later.

REALITY

6. The Floor is Lava

5. Welcome to Wrexham

4. Shark Tank

3. Dancing with the Stars

2. Survivor

1. The Amazing Race

SITCOMS

35. Georgie and Mandy's First Marriage

34. DMV

33. Truth Seekers

32. Animal Control

31. Malcolm in the Middle

30. Modern Family

29. Andy Barker PI

28. Son of Zorn

27. Undeclared

26. The Paper

25. The New Girl

24. Brooklyn 99

23. Bless this Mess

22. Ghosts

21. Schooled

20. The Goldbergs

19. Single Parents

18. Clerks

17. A Man on the Inside

16. Only Murders in the Building

15. Ted Lasso

14. Mythic Quest

13. The Middle

12. Frasier (Reboot)

11. Raising Hope

10. How I Met Your Mother

9. Roseanne (Reboot)

8. The Good Place

7 The Office (UK)

6 Scrubs

5. Parks and Recreation

4. Arrested Development

3. The Big Bang Theory

2. The Office (US)

1. Community

DRAMAS

59. Suits

58. Chuck

57. Cobra Kai

56. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

55. Stargirl

54. Locke and Key

53. Obi-Wan Kenobi

52. Will Trent

51. Paradise

50. The Rookie

49. Castle

48. Jessica Jones

47. Agents of SHIELD

46. The Amazing Digital Circus

45. Justice League

44. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

43. The Hollow Crown

42. High Potential

41. One Piece

40. The Fall of the House of Usher

39. Bad Monkey

38. The Penguin

37. Death by Lightning

36. Smallville 

35. Presumed Innocent

34. The Pitt

33. Stranger Things

32. Andor

31. Game of the Thrones

30. The Flash

29. 24

28. Daredevil

27. Broadchurch

26. Sherlock

25. The Orville

24. Picard (because of season 3)

23. The Mandalorian

22. Alias

21. Severance

20. Firefly

19. Dopesick

18. Blackbird

17. Arrow

16. This is Us

15. Doctor Who

14. Gilmore Girls

13. Veronica Mars

12. The Walking Dead

11.  Superman and Lois

10. Chernobyl

9. Band of Brothers

8. John Adams

7. Fargo

6. Freaks and Geeks

5. Battlestar Galactica

4. Buffy the Vampire Slayer

3. Breaking Bad

2. Lost

1. The Chosen

Thoughts?