I feel like you’re missing my point. I’m not denying that technically this incident happened in Chelsea, I’m saying that meaningfully it did not. This wasn’t an instance of “horrible crime happening in otherwise gay friendly and progressive neighborhood;” it was “horrible crime happening in horrible neighborhood that…

If it doesn’t ‘feel’ like Chelsea then there’s no point referring to it as Chelsea in this context (i.e a supposedly gay-friendly neighborhood). 29th and 7th is the epicenter of the bleakest, most coldly uninviting corporate district in Manhattan. It’s not at all surprising that violent crimes happen without comment…

Horrible story but a word about that neighborhood: it’s the Garment district and within a, say, quarter mile radius from that corner it’s anything but gay-friendly-and-cool Chelsea, and actually a rather bleak area. 2-3 blocks north, the stretch between 7th ave and 6th ave is basically a shantytown at night.

Oh I get that, but think 99% of people would get the gist that sword=gun without the dramatic zoom-in. It betrayed a distrust for the audience’s ability to suspend disbelief (which is supposed to be the whole point of Shakespeare anyway, so I found that lame).

Personally I thought the R&J was far too self conscious and lapsed into camp frequently (I mean seriously...they need to emboss the word ‘sword’ on their guns and zoom the camera in?).

You’re right about him in The Mummy. He’s aggressive as fuck and you should be like “Ew this guy is almost kinda abusive” but instead you’re like “hngggggg...”

Bad example. The Baz Luhrmann R &J wasn’t anachronism so much as it was an ‘updated production’ (in the mold of german regietheater opera). A Knight’s Tale drifted anachronistically both visually and in and language/culture (and it also borrowed from a wide range of time periods/styles) whereas R&J was visually 100%…

It was - allegedly, mind you - meant to take place in the mid 1300s, so ‘Medieval’ isn’t inaccurate.

That movie is underrated as fuck. Like, it’s popular, but people need to say more often, out loud, from their chest, how fucking enjoyable that movie is. I’ve watched it maybe 40-50 times. It’s tremendous.

I first saw Name of the Rose when I was 14 and I saw it again at 25 and it was no less uncomfortable. Excellent film; massively unpleasant experience.

It usually refers to hippie coffee-house types. You know, Joan Baez, Jewel etc. I wouldn’t really put John Mayer in that category, though. His best music was electric. Jason Mraz would be closer to that.

You didn’t so much ‘state your belief’ as you sneered at mine.

You said ‘name a singer with higher highs and lower lows in the last 20 years.’ Michael had both, in spades. He was -inarguably- a bigger star, and yes, being a dodgy testimony away from imprisonment for child molestation is a much ‘lower low’ than being a bit of a crackhead.

You must be trolling. Michael was a bigger star than Whitney ever was.

Michael Jackson. It’s not even close. He was the biggest star in existence and over a couple weekends he was ‘Wacko Jacko’ the emaciated, drug addicted child molester.

Antifa annoys the fuck out of me. They pick soft targets. When Trump started bombing Syria Antifa hinted that they would protest Trump but as soon as they realized Richard Spencer was alsoholding a rally against the Syria airstrikes they kicked into overdrive to protest Richard Spencer. Essentially, they decided that…

It just seems awfully silly, to obsess over what sex would be like without the minute changes in sensation that may have been caused by circumcision.

WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF MY PENIS???

Literally the first comment I wrote was “I love my penis.” It’s blindingly obvious to everyone but you that I’m taking the piss and you want to come for MY reading comprehension skills?

Ahem.