You get an upvote for being provocative but we're well past the point of them legitimately having a right to disagree. I would say in the early seasons when white walkers were basically unknown and nobody had seen them in centuries then these conservatives would have reason to disagree with a radical like Snow. But…

I don't think so. I think it's clear that Jon did horrible things and let horrible things happen for the greater good. Olly is perfectly reasonable to not give two damns about the seven kingdoms, his life was a farm in the gift that was ended by wildlings.

It's something I noticed several years ago, mainly because I took some theatrics classes in college. Most stage actors eat very little and it's rare to see a movie show actual food being eaten (though you'll see some light snacking sneak in on occasion).

Nah, Mailer vs. Buckley never came to blows but is so intense because Buckley always tried to play the upper class snob and Mailer would being the quintessential blue collar machismo in a suit would eat Buckley up. Two men who hated each other but kept their cool is an intriguing situation to watch.

So, you're serious? >.>

You mean a horrible remake where Hanks plays against type? Do I really need to rattle off the list….Don't make me, I will.

He really did spend the 80's doing sit-com movies that evaporated in the 1990s and he fell into hard-core romcoms. He was kind of forced to change with the times but he's not really meant for those molds, Big > Sleepless in Seattle.

Haters goin' ta hate! >:(

Ramis is too similar, Murray is too lazy/artistic/indifferent depending on who you believe. But I think if the three of them stuck together for shared buddy comedies, just adding in ensemble pieces as needed they could have had a great run. The big issue if I remember correctly was Murray was doing things for money…

Wright's best 3 films are Simon Pegg & Nick Frost works. Then you have Ant-man which he had a falling out over. I'm not saying Wright isn't a good comedy director but he's not Harold Ramis or the ZAZ collective who switched up players far more often though to be fair, David Zucker almost exclusively stuck to…

Oh as a historian, I totally am aware of this. It's already happened with my students who were born in the mid-90's. To them 1960 is the same as 1990. It's all pre-internet & pre-smart phone. They really just don't have a concept of how we lived (I'm 32).

. . .So nothing funny happened in the church? The music shop? The restaurant?

and that day we knew that Jordo was a soulless container. He wasn't a bad man…but we knew he could no longer be trusted with secrets.

Exactly, Dan was the Brain, John the Heart. You can't keep making films without either.

That's what I love about period pieces…I keep getting older and they stay in the same period…

. . .WHOOOOOOOSH.

I'll up it to ten, we'll pool our money.

Hating Ghostbusters II is a pretty recent thing, I gather. It wasn't beloved but it was something you could catch on cable more often than the original. It was made during or right after the cartoon though and it was heavily influenced by that and created issues. So I think it comes down to the movie purists vs.…

If you only have Failure, fiasco, or secret success I would comfortably label it none of the three. There should just be an 'N/A' on this one. To call it a failure is unfair, it's not a kid trying to make the Varsity squad because his older brother died after setting the HS record in a tragic car accident a week…

He is a white nerdy guy at heart. The motorcycle riding, the stache….all that is butch makeup on a guy who spent his 20s and into his 30s reading high fantasy novels while awkwardly asking girls out. If he wasn't a comedian I picture him working in a factory as an industrial engineer measuring samples all day.