I think this entry entirely exists because of that line, clunky as it is.

Dick in Dixie too. Is that about any person in particular?

Yeah, Zappa's work post 70s is almost entirely diss tracks. Not necessarily on other musicians, just the world in general.

I haven't watched this new version yet but in the book I think it's also clear (to the reader if not to Christie) that the contraption would be discovered by police, so later versions have had to contend with that goof.

Is there someone up there significantly more famous than the others though?

Good point. I found it a bit of a slog to get through once I'd worked out the twist midway through, but I think in its time people would not have even considered the possibility.

Roger Ackyrod is really enjoyable as long as you don't guess the twist halfway through. Then it becomes pretty tedious.

So you don't like the films at all? It is interesting that for a series of movies that is so bloated, they managed to leave out significant enough plot points that non-book readers are roundly confused. I like the films but I don't necessarily think they make sense on their own.

That's true. That whole show seemed a bit more dangerous and political than anything he's done recently with those characters.

I will have to go back and read the books again and then watch the movies again for this line of reasoning to set in for me. I totally get that people wouldn't like one actor's interpretation (for my money, I thought Harris was too old to give the part the energy it needed and Gambon at least got the spry part right)…

I feel really bad for you if you didn't like Hamilton and see it that way but..have you ever actually listened to it all the way through? Lin Manual is the main character and the other performers have great flow too (Daveed Diggs!).Are you familiar with any other musicals because I don't see how you can dismiss…

Oh no, I totally understand. I just thought it was a funny phrase to use about The Great Gatsby. A lot of classics need a reader to understand the greatness, I grant you.

Yeah that multiple Tony-award winner really pulled a fast one on us, writing that Broadway crap.

What's particularly worse about it than the other movies?

Surprisingly good, that classic novel that everyone reveres.

Was every other actor's line reading as described in the book? Movies are a different medium. I'm sorry, I've had this argument here a lot and I know it's pointless, but people harp on this one little thing in this movie and it confounds me every time.

This. Part of why the books were increasingly hard to adapt was that Rowling's plotting often contained pages and pages of someone explaining something after the fact or Harry under the invisibility cloak overhearing a long conversation. They are inherently not visual and, at times, almost impossible to film.

So, the adaptation didn't alter your opinion of the source material.

Towards the end of Gilmore Girls, maybe even from when she started at Yale, her line readings really started to feel like she didn't understand what her lines meant.

It's almost like Borat accidentally had that subtext and literally everything else he's done in film is dumber, more low-brow and gross-out.