I don't think you got my point, and I'm amazed that my comment that was written half in snark has received so much attention.

Those men aren't using an international social movement to whine about how those thin women won't even look at them though. I mean, I'm sure at least one of them is indeed whining to no end,but thankfully it gets no press of any kind.

I'm close to 130, which is rather healthy for my size and body type.

Things like that is why, sometimes, feminists are their own worst enemies.

I think part of the problem is that kickass women are also a trope. No matter how you write a woman, some feminist, somewhere, will be offended. Because if she's a damsel in distress you're calling her useless and if she's a badass then you're probably just playing your rough sexual fantasies on her.

Wouldn't the Adolf fellow have been more likely to appear in the first season of Downton Abbey, which took place in 1912, than in the late 1800s?

Will Maggie Smith still be playing the (not yet so) dowager countess on this? I mean, it would only be fair. As far as I know the character was always ancient anyway.

Only nomination Cooper deserved was playing Rocket the Raccoon on Guardians of the Galaxy. And he didn't get it.

As I recall, both got initially rejected. Rachel got in after Jesse talked with Whoopi to get her in. Kurt got in the year after, when he went to a recital and whoopi saw him or something and told him she was going to give him a second chance but he had to sing there and then. So after all of five minutes to prepare…

Cue to coach Beiste suddenly becoming a transgender character just because. I mean, that's downright disrespectful for the character AND the audience of the show.

This, haha. As much as I loved the Kurt character the writing around him was often unrealistic. Not that the other characters had very realistic writing, mind you, but that episode where Whoopi grants him an impromptu audition JUST BECAUSE HE ASKED NICELY AFTER STALKING HER was absurd.

The artist-centric episodes were easily the worst of the lot. It was as if suddenly everyone in the world stopped whatever it is they were doing to randomly go crazy about some singer. The Power of Madonna alone was quite bad, end even then that one could be called the best one of the lot. Britney spears tribute?…

Even then it wouldn't. 2 Billion dollars = 2 thousand million dollars. Sony is asking for nearly 100 million dollars, which is a 5% of Netflix's yearly licensing budget. Spending 5% of it on a single tv series is ridiculous, considering the other 95% would be spent on thousands of licenses.

But selling user viewing data to companies doesn't equal advertising revenue. Advertising revenue is, for example, what Hulu gets when you watch a show and have to watch a few ads during it, or how open networks make money (and why commercial breaks are a thing).

Netflix has no advertising revenue, and neither does Amazon.

But it isn't a better investment than OitNB or House of Cards, both of which have brought lots of people to the service for a fraction of the price. And don't get me started on Arrested Development (Which I could never get the hang of when it originally aired, but people did love).

I know a handful of people who do. The kind who go all apeshit "HOW THE FUCK IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR HAVEN'T WATCHED FRIENDS?" when you fail to get their Joey reference.

Yet it was also said that those million dollars an episode was precisely why the series got canned. And back then it made sense to pay them that much since, obviously, Sony was making way more than that from advertising alone due to millions of people watching the show.

People who stand by the show tend to hail it in a way I can only compare to how cinema students hail Stanley Kubrick's works. They call the series life-defining and state everyone in the world should watch it since it's perfect.

Yeah, but is such a show really worth $90 million? That's roughly 10 million months of subscription there.