Thing is, and I’m a fan of his to some extent too, he does seem to be trying. What made an impression to me in his rant is that he knows he unable to take valid criticism (or invalid criticism or internet snark) due to his emotional problems and yet he’s still interacting with the internet. It seems...self-destructive…

I was aiming for heavier on critique than I was on snark, but likely didn’t quite hit the mark...which I don’t mind (though it’s ironic since that’s what I’m criticizing), that’s the bread and butter around here, I’m just surprised it made such an impression and Harmon.

So fun little story.

Came here to post this. 

This comment got singled out on Dan’s Instagram as something that a lot of people wanted to discuss. Worth looking at if you’re bored but Dan read this comment and has thoughts.

I know, and he’s also read it which brings the things to levels of recursive irony I can’t begin to dissect. 

Oh wow, Dan not only posted about this article on his Instagram but clearly read the comments. I don’t no if to be proud or ashamed but it is funny to see someone seemingly get very emotionally bent out of shape over the exact equivalent of his original action (i.e. picking apart some pointless and mostly harmless). 

That one was also annoying because he didn’t manage to make a good story out of it. At least when he spent an episode complaining about Inception, we ended up with a masterpiece of sorts. 

I don’t doubt the film has very little, but as a general trend in bad criticism, I stand by it. 

Under normal circumstances yes, but you left off ‘for being too on the nose’.

We’re stretching the term ‘very funny’.

I mean this is just the normal internet pop culture opinion that says acknowledging unstated nuance, suspension of disbelief, or vagueness, be it in a good film or a bad one, is the same as insightful criticism. It chapter 2 may have been pretty bad (haven’t seen it), but this…

Ding ding ding. This is the correct take I was looking for.

As with most of the 80s british invasion writers, he straddles the line. 

I find with Netflix it depends on the project. Obviously Irishman and Roma look perfect, but some of their shows look weirdly blank even when they’re based on stylish source material (Series of Unfortunate Events and Locke and Key come to mind). 

I’ll say this for the Walking Dead, it remains the only post-apocalypse on a TV-budget in which the sets look convincing. This looks so...clean. 

It’s not your opinion, it’s mathematically provable, but it would require a long proof to be written up.

Thanks Norm Macdonald. 

Thankfully not watching Kimmel has been a soothing piece of normalcy that’s stayed unchanged throughout COVID.

My point is not economically why people wouldn’t shut it down, my point is that code would have to be severely glitching in an impossibly complex way to produce the events depicted in the trailer. 

I know it’s dumb, but the logic of this always bugs me (see also Wreck-It Ralph). Ryan Reynolds’ character is code, so if he’s glitching, can’t they just reset him. If he has free will and consciousness where does that possibly exist? It’s a soul and mind put into a few lines of code?

Please be here next weak for my…