avclub-07f2d8dbef3b2aeca9cb258091bc3dba--disqus
A Blaffair to Rememblack
avclub-07f2d8dbef3b2aeca9cb258091bc3dba--disqus

The US is basically a police state so yes. He was white though so they might not have.

Malls look the same everywhere. What would you change?

They're not going to use the Cinnabon/mall sequences as anything more than "interesting character work" and that's just fine with me. At least that's my prediction.

Yeah grow up and stop caring about the world!

I thought the same thing. It was definitely deliberate but I have no idea to what end.

You have a touchingly naive understanding of how power and propaganda work.

I actually thought that in some ways La La Land showed a non-idealized, more realistic than usual LA, not in the fact that people were breaking into song etc. but the locations that weren't iconic places like Griffith Park Observatory etc. looked more ordinary than what you usually see in LA-set movies.

I always thought that the standard half hour with commercials was 22 minutes, not 25. Either way reducing to 19 minutes is a travesty I agree.

I LOVE Venture Bros but I don't think it even belongs in this conversation. I mean, most of the voices are done by two guys which makes a lot of the minor characters sound the same.

Chris Parnell is one of the all time greats too as far as I'm concerned.

No you absolutely, demonstrably are not "as pro-freedom of speech as it gets." You're probably even less pro real freedom of speech than the average American, which is really something. It's fine. You have the more consensus opinion on Gawker, but what's maddening is that you still claim to be pro freedom of speech.

Believe it or not there was a time, mostly before the internet, when weekly recaps/reviews were not considered the only possible way to review television shows. What AVC calls "TV Reviews," broad overviews of a new season or a new show based on whatever episodes were sent out as screeners, were the norm.

Why do you care? It's not like they're NOT going to do recaps because this was published. Believe it or not there are people out there who would like to read something like this as an overview of a new season or a new show to see if it sounds like something they'd like to watch, but aren't such hardcore TV fans that

Against Peter Thiel, a billionaire oligarch, virtually any other entity is a sympathetic underdog, other than maybe a rival oligarch or something. Your description of Gawker is absurdly inaccurate but I'm not even going to touch it. You're basically okay with a media outlet where real people work being sued out of

Okay but in and of itself the statement that CK is a "powerful white guy" is accurate.

If you actually support Gawker or any other media outlet being simply shut down for any reason and it makes you feel good that they're shut down you are either simply a bad person or a dumb person or maybe a wonderful person who has one very bad opinion. At any rate, no other context makes that view any more

I see what you did. Really subtle!

Yeah that's my problem with that type of sketch. In theory I guess it's satirizing people who just share articles on facebook (and nmaybe twitter) and think they're really making a difference. The problem is, is there anyone who actually thinks like that? Virtually everyone nowadays shares links on some kind of

Insanely successful in his field, rich. You don't think that adds up to power?

Seems like he's just an asshole in general as a person, but he's a really good comedic (and dramatic) actor and can be charming as himself on TV.