Manotaur’s question seems rhetorical as the author’s inclusion of that parenthetical seems to obviate the reason for the article’s existence. (Sorry for not opting for “raison d’etre” there. It seemed a bit much after typing “obviate.”)

Louie CK has stated that he consciously avoids audience shots in his specials. One reason he’s done a few of them in “the round” (a circular stage surrounded by the audience) is that cuts from one angle to another can be from dramatically different perspectives, and doing that can obviate the filler crowd-shot inserts…

Odie-ous. Sadly, this kind of thing has become the new Nermal.

Not to defend Rowling—against either charges of transphobia or mere pettiness—but the “Harry pocketed it” thing has been pretty resolutely debunked. I agree, though, that she does come off as reflexively quarrelsome, so it’s a believable story.

Casey Kasem disease? I didn’t get to the end of the article. Did she also go off in The Edge and his stupid sissy name?

Kid(ney) Stone.

This is the first article I’ve ever seen claiming that the Brosnan Bond, at least for a couple movies, was aping Jason Bourne. That claim is usually reserved for Craig’s Bond, which makes sense as Die Another Day, the Brosnan vehicle cited as a pivot from that “vain attempt to compete with ... Bourne” came out in…

I don’t know, sundowning on the pre-flop with a solely J-8 twin-suited off-hand is definitely suspicious. Putting the blinds aside, there’s no reason why anyone would pretend to grease the axle there. A lot of people here don’t know what they’re talking about.

Actually, it’s about ethics in gastronomical journalism.

I worked at Jersey Mike’s in the early nineties in Cincinnati, back when there were only a handful of shops across the country and Cincinnati, for whatever reason, was where they decided to establish their beachhead.

“They sent me an Academy screener DVD [of Magnolia] this week. I’ll never watch it again, but I will keep it. I’ll keep it right on my desk, as a constant reminder that a bloated sense of self-importance is the most unattractive quality in a person or their work.”

That’s why you have a talented composer (e.g., the one who did the orignal GoT theme) compose a new one that incorporates motifs from the original show yet at the same time is, like HoD, its own thing as well.

Nice observations.

A little bit too early on the "The Tide is High" chorus there, Gene. Not moving on yet!

My lord, they edited the first sentence, swapping in a different film. And left out the word “such.”

Weird headline. A better word than “contrary” would be “unlike,” as “contrary” is garden path-y, leading you to assume it halfway through reading it that it means means “contrary to what readers think Brad Pitt thinks . . .” (Grammatically, it’s fine, but “contrary to” conventionally concerns two things which are…

Yeah, I was going to lead with this sentiment but instead decided to be cautious and make sure I wasn’t missing anything.

Wait. I’m totally confused here, and I’m not being snarky about that. I’m being genuine. The writer seems to think Dev Patel played the protagonist in Life of Pi (“he’s navigated onscreen situations as dicey as being lost at sea with a tiger”), but that wasn’t him. (He was way too old for the role at that point.)

The thing is, we never saw Saul in Breaking Bad when he wasn’t a character in someone else’s story and serving a purpose in the specific plot of that specific show. I’m sure Gilligan and Gould have an interesting fate in mind for Kim, and she won’t end up just moving across town, but I can’t think of any reason why…

More BS.