They don’t enjoy it that much as it did horribly at the box office.

“Just because a horrible thing happened to Sharon Tate doesn’t mean that her story doesn’t deserve to be told.”

Just because a horrible thing happened to Sharon Tate doesn’t mean that her story doesn’t deserve to be told.

GYeah. Those perpetually offended mad that the one man who could have ended Harveys reign of terror had at least three direct accounts of his assaults did nothing. How dare they go into silly little details like that time he was aware that Daryl Hannah was being taken off the European leg of the promotion because she…

Wait. I’m confused.

I have liked most Tarantino movies, but what happened to Sharon Tate is perhaps the most horrific violence against a woman imaginable and I see absolutely no need to put it up on the big screen. I am not on board.

I’m seriously hoping that they don’t plan on making Streep’s character (spoiler I guess?) ...

Or even a recent history of the true crime revival genre.

Too many of these networks don’t realize that the popularity of Serial/American Crime Story isn’t because the public decided they like true crime, it’s the innovation that a genre that had been relegated to Lifetime movies could be done really well and could be more than the sum of its timeline of events.

This seems like a pretty selective reading of film history

I mean, we don’t even need new technologies though; the atomic/nuclear bomb is plenty scary. That, and global warming/climate change, is all we need to be more than a little nervous about humanity’s future.

SUSPECT: He did security for Snoop.
DETECTIVE: Snoop… Dogg?

Is the Matrix getting respect again? I can’t tell what part of the cycle we’re at it. Obviously it was super popular when it first came out, but then in the late 2000s, early 2010s, I felt like there was a backlash and it was thought of as a glorified action film of sorts. Are we back to liking it?

I went on the redpill sub once just to check it out. I read one of the recommended reading things and it was a long boring story from someone in my generation that grew up with a 50s mindset and thought anyone having sex outside of marriage was impure or whatever. It was super sexist and weird, but then in the middle…

I think a lot of those early adopters forgot (or more likely, given the anarcho-libertarian nature of a lot of those people, specifically opposed) the importance of gatekeepers and curation of the full stretch of human knowledge. Most of human knowledge through history was bad takes, propaganda, porn and unhinged…

My Facebook feed is almost nothing but corgi videos and photos now. It is the only reason I haven’t deleted my account.

The discussions about what would happen, between the few who were using the technology, were wildly optimistic speculation about how the inevitable explosion of bandwidth and memory, would usher in a new age of enlightenment as the vast compendium of human knowledge was placed at the finger tips of all humanity.

“It was written and directed by a pair of trans women, a fact that has caused no small amount of hand-wringing among the Neanderthals of the men’s rights movement; Lilly Wachowski has even cautiously allowed that her films can be read with their identities in mind, turning it into a parable for transcending binaries.”

Can remember getting the first computers (IBM clones and a Commodore) in the late 70's early 80'. Prodigy and then AOL accounts in the mid 80's and early 90's.

This is all very disheartening, but can someone explain what she means when she says she “sandblasted” him? I can’t get the full meaning from context and I can’t seem to find a definition for it outside the traditional sense.