If you ordered a Tomahawk steak and you got a Tomahawk steak, why would you assume that it wasn’t the Tomahawk steak you ordered? It’s not like they ordered a beer and got a bottle of champagne.

I didn’t say it was worse. I said it feels like they half made the game so they could make us pay more for the full game.

I don’t want to agree with the worst people on earth, but it feels like they didn’t make Sw/Sh as good as they could make it, so they could charge more money later.

Oh, I wonder who this surprise guest who would make the Judge’s dreams come true. Surely it’s not the actor she’s referenced several times, and therefore my enjoyment of this episode shall not be spoiled.

You’ve just compared an example of cause and effect to an example of coincidence.

Pretty much the only good things on the internet this year involved Nick Ciarelli and Brad Evans.

Oh wow, you mean the thing no one believed except clickbait journalists turned out to not be true?

You should have noticed this, but they completely ignored midichlorians.

It’s not shit canning to subvert expectations. And it’s not like JJ handed Rian a treatment and he threw it out. JJ was never going to be involved in what’s next. It’s only because of Book of Henry that he’s back. There was no bigger story that was disposed of.

What he did was payoffs. Just because they didn’t follow the same cliche template doesn’t mean they’re not payoffs. And they all pay off thematically, too.

Ok, so he put in threads to pay off and Rian paid them off.

There are 2 trilogies before this. One where they didn’t know they were making a trilogy and one where they did. Why do you wish this was more like the one everyone agrees is terrible?

This take is so bad, so out of step with what people love about story telling, that even though I know nothing about you, I still feel confident that if you were to list your favourite movies and television of the past decade, a good chunk of them would be subversive takes on stories.

““There is no evidence that this ever happened” regarding Scruggs’ quid pro quo, and “if the film portrays this, it’s offensive and deeply troubling in the #MeToo era,””

It’s pretty obvious that the criticism is rooted in the editor-in-chief taking issue with the movie inventing something defamatory about one of their former employees and not because he only wants likeable female characters.

Scroll up and read the article, genius.

Man, you sure got those people who are both complaining about the movies list not have pop movies and the music list having pop music.

I tested this theory. It didn’t work.

Why would he back down from being right?

You can’t really use Mel Brooks as an argument for punching up. Sure he punches up. But he punches down, sideways, diagonally... in every direction he can punch. When you’re telling 5 jokes a minute, you kind of have to.