I've been - loving his character is a running joke on that site. I don't think any of that is sincere.

He does?!? I thought that was a joke…

Also, plot contrivance (e.g., Tyrion knowing Littlefinger framed him for murder and doing all of jack shit about it).

And why he was neither imprisoned nor guarded?

I would agree with this except I've watched the show with casual viewers and it completely justified the existence of features like this.

Willow herself was pretty rapey that season, so that might be more a case of the opposite.

While in general Ontari could stand to be a better developed/more nuanced character, believing Jaha over Murphy was pretty reasonable. Jaha just said a bunch of stuff he only could have known if Murphy squealed, and she and Murphy have only known each other for about 10 minutes.

I thought it started kind of weak but got a long stronger as it went along.

I'm convinced this series will end with a robot apocalypse.

The critics who wrote the articles this article is complaining about. Like I agree the author says "Hollywood" in an overly generalized way but surely you're aware critics don't finance films.

The financial success of all of those movies he isn't saying they were good

fine a small part of his argument is that she doesn't actually play the same character in everything but the central argument is in response to articles about her box office draw not the quality of her movies meaning these comments are mostly irrelevant.

That I couldn't tell you, and he does seem to be inventing a phenomenon out of a couple stray articles, but apparently my annoyance with people who derisively comment on shit they clearly didn't fucking read outweighs my annoyance with poorly researched blog articles.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a great article (I mean, his point isn't that unclear to me, but you're right that it's contradictory to both say she wants control and that she isn't getting better quality opportunities), but most of these comments are straight up "but her movies are dumb" and/or "but they make a lot of…

Sure, 'in a way,' but about 99% of these comments seem to think the author's entire argument was about the quality of her movies. "Her movies are stupid" is not a counterargument to this article, and "boo hoo she made a lot of money" is basically the author's whole point.

132 comments and counting and not one of you seems to have read the damn article. It doesn't argue her movies are good; just that they make a lot of money. The author isn't annoyed critics don't respect her talent; he's annoyed critics pretend she isn't successful. Saying she's just like Adam Sandler isn't a…

THE ARTICLE WASN'T ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HER MOVIES. IT WAS LITERALLY JUST ABOUT HER BEING A BOX OFFICE DRAW.

The article makes 0 arguments as to the quality of her movies. Just that they're super profitable, and that she doesn't actually play the same character in each one.

It has both (as in both boarding and day options, though you are correct that it has both male and female students as well).

But not the Harvard of Princeton day schools, which would be Lawrenceville.