This was her full quote:

The idea that he’s talking about financial risk rather than plot risk is a more compelling interpretation of his argument, but it’s also kind of talking past Scorsese’s point, which was about plot risk.

If they could, they would! But antitrust laws prevent it—United States vs. Paramount Pictures made it impossible for studios to own theaters back in 1948. Unsurprisingly, Disney has been trying to get that repealed.

Yes, this seemed wildly disingenuous to me. Did black people really flock to Black Panther because they thought there would be a real, dramatic possibility that the MCU was going to use their first black superhero movie as a vehicle to showcase white people successfully killing off a black civilization? (That’s his…

Yes.

These things are related to franchises’ dominance, though. When a Marvel movie can afford to take up 80 percent of screens on its opening weekend, or when Disney can afford to essentially enforce how long their movies stay in theaters ... this means all the non-franchise movies out there are competing for…

Yeah, most plot elements in superhero movies inherently can’t be risky, because the genre has normalized virtually everything. Anyone can be brought back for any reason at any time. Alliances can be switched up at any time for any reason, then switched back. Supposedly fundamental parts of characters’ personalities…

It minimizes the power of influencers. Right now, companies pay influencers a ton of money to advertise their products; Instagram doesn’t get a cut of any of that, and they really want it. I don’t know exactly what the end game is, but it’s likely one (or more) of the following:

The Washington Post did an interesting story on CrimeCon this summer that touched on that. I’m generally inclined to agree with you that it trivializes family’s suffering (and a lot of victims’ families agree with that!). But the the reporter also spoke to a lot of families who were very grateful that podcasts or TV…

There were absolutely “high culture” treatments of true crime before Serial, but after they were released, the overall tenor of true crime “fandom” remained lowbrow/tawdry/exploitative. The highbrow releases were exceptions to the rules, not something that changed the rules.

I’m also more than a little gobsmacked that Nike, which is sitting on a giant pile of money and basically rules competitive running, doesn’t have a huge team of support staff that includes nutritionists, psychologists, sports performance doctors, and everything else.

There’s obviously a correlation, but if you have to resort to long-term under-fueling to lose the weight, you’re going to undo any of the benefits of the weight loss. Yeah, you’ll get thinner, but you’ll lose muscle, have no energy, and you’re way more likely to get injured—all of which have the potential to drag you…

Runners don’t tend to peak as early as swimmers, and female runners actually peak later—late 20s or even early 30s. That’s why it was a bit surprising when Mary Cain decided to go pro instead of running in college, especially since she’d harbored serious academic goals as well—she wanted to go to med school. (I think…

Uhh . . . he did, though. Have people really forgotten that part of the story already?

He said that he tried to watch some of them

But saying “I’ve never seen and never will see an MCU film” and then going on at length about why they’re bad is not the best place to write a critical analysis from. 

Scorsese argues that he makes films that are better seen on the big screen, and I believe him.

I think it’s clear from his comments that he got involved with that movie because he thought it would be possible to tell a more character-driven story with it, and got out because it turned out that was not gonna be the movie they were making.

Do you believe that a movie that is obviously trying to get its audience to reach a specific emotional endpoint is weaker than one that is trying to draw some non-specific reaction?

Yes! I wish I could upvote this more than once.