But that would be the intent of the twist, wouldn't it? To say that the "new" people are just wrapped in the shells of the old, indicating that your later relationships or "ideal partner" is a person/concept/perception/pursuit/whatever shaped by your former flames. To me, from what the above describes, that seems to…

Thanks. So, roughly, while the twist might have some meaning or undercurrent in the immediate, it feels unclear in its relationship to the material overall?

Well, having not seen it and only going off of what the above tells me, this part of the above causes me some confusion:

No. It really isn't.

How high are you?!

Don't mistake bromance for ho…mosexual-mance? Homosexual…uh…? Just don't mistake guys being completely gay together for guys being completely gay together.

Not really. It's saying it's got intentional homoerotic subtext. Which is quite different to most of them, even those completely slathered in it.

"Do you still get along with [Ace Frehley and Peter Criss]?"

Ah, windows. I remember those…

So Big Bottle finally got their surprisingly clean hands on Downton? Consider this one fan lost.

The only kind of twist that doesn't suck has a cone at the bottom.

So if he was giving, that means Rocket was…

Harvey Weinstein…interfere with the narrative of a film? Surely you jest.

His views aren't contradictory in the regard they're alluded to as being here as he insists one thing was said in private and another is a very public concern to begin with. Of course, this doesn't change that he's an asshole. But it does indicate that AV Club has a bias against assholes.

I don't know how to pronounce "ni**a." "Nee-asterisk-asterisk-ah?" What is this word? What does it mean?

"Fantasy." Right…

Five seconds of research revealed that the song is basically about a rich fatcat being invited to a poor person's neighborhood to see what it's like.

…*sigh*… Well, I expect no better from Goyer. But the possibility of inclusion in the long-term remains, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure tons of people here think I'm overly optimistic or wish to construe my views as being "too forgiving' of people purposefully distorting characterizations or something but…

I did get the context you put forward for what they "could have said" from what they said. From what I saw, they basically said he was seen with men a couple times over the course of a few decades so it didn't seem likely to come up - but it wasn't being written out. As in, he is bisexual but heavily prefers women…

It means forced in. In the context I'm using it, forced in to the narrative at the expense of organic/meaningful storytelling.