She got her next job before the Captain Phillips guy. I figured it was 50-50.

I mean, obviously people love it, so I wouldn’t claim to be in the majority, I just have the same issues with it that I would with other comedies of this era. I certainly don’t hate it or anything.

Spinal Tap is a good point, but I don’t know that Top Secret is a consensus “comedy classic.” Raising Arizona definitely combined a number of tones (the over-broad comedy never completely worked for me, anyway) while Planes, Trains and Automobiles might be the epitome of the trend I’m talking about. Over-the-top…

“3-hour comedy” should be a combination of words that don’t go together in English.

Honestly, the entire 1980s are pretty uneven for me as far as comedy is concerned. With the exception of maybe Airplane!, which only cares about one thing, I can’t think of any so-called comedy classics from that decade that don’t seem unnecessarily obsessed with mixing in a lot of different tones and unnecessary…

The whole playboy interview that’s mentioned here is fascinating, but it was 20 years after the John Wayne one, and Murphy says arguably just as incendiary and retrograde things, and yet...his discussion of John Landis is what gets play? I continue to be fascinated by the arbitrary nature in how this stuff works.

Having seen Coming 2 America...we still haven’t.

Criticizing New York City on an internet message board. Where do some people get their courage.

Don’t know that I can buy Mel Gibson as a bad guy. 

Jezebel: Workplace bullying is wrong, and anyone involved in it should be fired immediately

We should all be so “mockable.”

Appreciate the clarification on whether they were fired, although I think the larger point still stands. Also, “terrible” seems like a massive stretch based on what we do and don’t know here (pretty much everything, it seems). 

I have a dream...that someday there will be a story on this that actually describes what these people did that apparently warranted firing.

It sounds like some communication wires got crossed, then, in filming a scene. That being the basis for a lawsuit--and by extension, that being the basis for Franco’s career taking this kind of hit--seems weak.

But he never made a move on any student who’s accusing him, or implying he offered work for favors. That’s what the “couch” part refers to.

“engaged in widespread inappropriate and sexually charged behavior towards female students by sexualizing their power as a teacher and an employer”

Everyone tries to shift it to Soon-Yi. Because the argument of him as a child molester has weaknesses that they’re reluctant to address.

That’s what he’s being accused of, is my point. And my implication is that that feels, if not impossible, implausible.

Oh, it’s vol. Trust me.

1. The series seems to be in line with the way the Farrows have acted throughout this, in that in one breath they go from “believe survivors and let them hear their stories” to hand-waving away the fact that two of her kids claim she was physically abusive.