I don’t think I fully said what I was thinking. So, if I could add an addendum:

That was a great article.

“OYAHYTT” was robbed.

At the same time, I think they’re very different entities with very different ambitions.

Isn’t this sort of how Crichton’s Lost World came about?

Some more Filmstruck recs, which people have probably seen but are worth rewatching anyway:

Not sure why there’s a dig at Tom Cruise other than pettiness.

That sounds fun in theory but not so much in execution. I’d point you out to that Last Shot book.

Hasn’t Waititi always been upfront that Ragnarok was supposed to be a farce, though?

I don’t think I’d ever given Cage enough credit for a deep film knowledge. 

When I first saw this title, I mistook “preppers” for “preppies.”

Agreed. I have no idea why this movie is even included anywhere on a “Best of” list. 

O-R they?

I’d also suggest the same for DeLillo’s Underworld as a prologue being better than the rest.

Not a single one of those is a legitimate plot holes. They are all convenient.

A.) You’re applying a basis of logic the movie has no interest in using. Hyperspace in Star Wars takes however long the story needs hyperspace to take.

Do you know what a plot hole is? Because the movie didn’t have any. Plot conveniences, sure. Plot contrivances? I mean, that’s what I think a lot of people are arguing. But no plot holes.

A lot of 2.35 widescreen ratios crop it this way. I think a lot of it is because anamorphic lenses are a lot more difficult to use (and way more expensive for effects shots) than spherical ones. I recall Deakins talking about it on his message board.

I disagree with this. Much like the aforementioned Edge of Tomorrow, the Mission: Impossible movies are always a treat.

Aren’t you a contributor to this site? Are you just making bad puns or legitimately thinking Shape of Water has nothing it wants to discuss?