It's nice to see you trivialize his opinion by characterizing him as absurd with a one-line joke rather than address his arguments.

I think you're right about the author's point, but I doubt that none of those shows dealt directly with the character's weight; _Girls_ certainly does.

This article is rife with internal contradictions. Consider:

How did an entire panel of pop culture sophisticates manage to avoid mentioning Joss Whedon?

nmiller7192, you're right of course that that's what the article is saying.

I feel like the author's complaint here parallels my conservative Christian friend Joe's complaint about our High School AP English syllabus: "Why do all the stories have to be about sex sex sex??"

That re-wording is inaccurate. In this comparison, Natalie's line should read: "Boyfriend, I want you to visualize the many men who fucked me before I got to you."

Does your face look like someone injected it full of vanilla pudding?

OH NO YOU DIDN'T JUST SPOIL WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP MOTHERUCKER!

So why *don't* more movies just leave them in? That was the title of this article, right?

Or maybe just Robert Khoo.

However valuable the message or cogent the rationale, this video fails the common-sense test for fair use by blatantly using copyrighted music to sell toys.

Re-watching made it clearer for me. The key to understanding the plot is to understand who the three Aarons are later in the movie (the two who fight in the kitchen and the third they plan to manipulate).

Why am I coming to The AV Club to read a plot synopsis?

Hoverbikes????? Is this The AV Club or The Purse Forums?

>Whedon shows (except Firefly!) always suck for the first several episodes.

Just be glad there's at least one race/sexual orientation we can still deride.

If they don't say "jaunt," it's not The Tomorrow People.

Not you too, AV Club!  Nobody actually says "throwing shade." It's just something Gawker Media is trying really hard to wedge into the lexicon.

God that setup was stilted.