I personally will not be satisfied that SNL is properly diverse until it includes the following groups in its cast:
- Physically disabled
- Indian/Indian mix (one parent descended from the Indian subcontinent, the other parent an American Indian with a blood quantum of 1/8 or greater)
- Identical twins

There's no audience for three-camera comedies? Well, that explains why The Big Bang Theory is doing so poorly. I mean, if it were doing well, it might suggest that there are so many people starved for good examples of the format that they all crowd around the one that's sometimes half-decent, but I guess that we live…

I thought the take was pretty clearly "this is America, where the rich and powerful pay lip service to freedom as a way to manipulate the working classes into doing what they want." Though I saw Foxcatcher and Nightcrawler within 2 nights of each other, so it could be a case of themes creeping between movies.

"How can I reach theez kidneys?"
"Shift him a little to la derecha."

Edward James Olmos, right?

Well then, you're just going to have to deal with people typing things that provide a counterpoint to your opinion.

Really? Someone is saying that there's NO racism in the academy? Funny, I've only seen people saying that racism is probably not the primary factor in Selma's lack of nominations. I mean, there's definitely some racism. I'm pretty sure Mel Gibson's a member.

10 GoTo film
20 Is director=minority?
—-if Y GoTo 40
—-if N GoTo 30
30 OUTRAGE
40 Is director=woman?
—-if Y GoTo 60
—-if N GoTo 50
50 WELL, IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
60 Is director=nominee?
—-if Y GoTo 70
—-if N GoTo 30
70 Is director=winner?
—-if Y GoTo 10
—-if N GoTo 30

Yes, exactly. Representation of blacks and women in directors' roles has been going up recently; hopefully the trend continues.

If you don't want to have an opinion that people disagree with, you should choose to have only opinions that everyone will agree with.

I don't think that quite works- I think one party would have to nominate a minority as their 2016 candidate, that candidate would have to lose, and someone would have to write a column arguing that, say, Marco Rubio losing the election proves that America is racist. And then someone says, "why are you saying this…

Stupid white people! Didn't they know that they needed to vote for all movies about black injustice forever now? They weren't assuaging their guilt, they were signing a contract!

Yes, it just barely squeaked by the David O. Russell movie that won absolutely no awards that year. A real voter favorite, that one.

The dialogue is pretty similar to how people likely talked in the mid-1800s. It might feel archaic or unnatural to our ears, but it's erring on the side of naturalism.

Spoilers below.

No, you're not the only one. The great thing about it is that despite the accent and the makeup, it's an incredibly internal performance. But I did think that Tatum and Ruffalo had a better chance at awards- both of them captured the physicality of wrestlers very accurately, and Tatum's hotel room meltdown looked like…

I actually think Carrell was cast because he brought some comic levity to a film that threatened to drown in its own Big American Movie self-seriousness. He earned his nomination the moment where he tells Channing Tatum, "Don't call me 'Mr. Dupont.' I consider you a friend, and all my friends call me- Eagle. Or Golden…

Yes. The American blockbuster is born in that scene.

I guess they'd have to be in first class, though, right? Otherwise, the person sitting in the middle seat is going to be seriously freaked out by their conversation.

Since Affleck is playing an actor rather than a tennis pro, I can't wait for the scene where he has to nail a Shakespearean soliloquy in three or fewer tries, in order to have enough time to stop the murderer from planting false evidence at the crime scene.