“It’s a fucking gaming site!”

Me too, dawg. I’m bored as hell with myself.

I agree.

I’m definitely a dick, but also wrong? So whenever you discuss NBC, you call them “the Peacock Network”? Out loud? And so does everyone else, to the point that you would say they are COMMONLY referred to that way?

I have not once suggested they don’t call themselves that. I contest that the general public EVER calls them that. Deputizing crossword puzzles into an argument about things the public commonly says is particularly silly. Crosswords are renowned for their obscurity.

Why would anyone choose to use a LONGER name as a nickname for NBC? I’ve never heard a human say “the Peacock Network” in my life, and I’m a HUGE TV nerd. There’s no justifiable way to suggest it’s in “common usage” at any time in the last thirty years.

Do I believe that they have branded themselves that way in the past? Absolutely. But have I ever heard a human being say, “Hey, did you catch Friends on the Peacock Network last night?” Absolutely fucking not. That’s what “commonly called” means - it is their name in common usage. And that is false.

“and is commonly called the “Peacock Network”.”

Yep. So? You’re still not telling me why I should give two figs what they think about a movie I haven’t seen yet. The fact that they focus on Phoenix’s performance tells me exactly zero about what I will feel when I watch the film. Your need to analyze their opinions ALSO tells me nothing about the film itself. It is…

It’s advertising for the reviewer and how clever they think they are. They get paid to attract readers, not for the “correctness” of their opinions.

And I’ve seen plenty of director interviews that DID come off this way. Some were for shitty movies, and some were for genuinely great movies. My point is that judging anything based solely on the advertising (and that’s what all Hollywood interviews are) is asinine. Advertising is not worth any thinking person’s…

Reviews are advertising. Interviews are advertising. And trailers are advertising. It’s just incredibly boring to me to dissect the advertising. I simply don’t see the appeal. I’ll save my analysis for the product itself.

What a boring waste of space you are. Clearly you’ve never cared about anything or anyone. It’s sad to see such a coward trying to call others out. Troll better, darling. 

Have you never read any interview with a director? He’s getting paid to PROMOTE the movie. Of course he’s going to praise the damn thing - that’s literally his job.

Nothing like extrapolating based only on coverage. If you don’t want to see it, don’t see it. But definitely also don’t pretend you can have a credible reaction to it without seeing more than the trailer.

Funny how the world is rarely just “what it sounds like” based on a tiny snippet of a promotional interview. If you want to hate it, there’s no need to make up a strained conspiracy theory to support your prejudice.

What a bizarre reaction. Do you question the existence of every animated series that gets good live-action actors for the voices?

I keep “hard” digital copies of the couple dozen albums I like that aren’t on Spotify yet. To own all the different records I enjoy, I’d be spending at least $500 annually. Spotify costs me $120 a year, so... the value proposition is pretty obvious. If someone removes an album from the service (which hasn’t happened…

a) You can cache anything on Spotify to your local device on wifi and never stream on cell data at all.

Who said TOS isn’t problematic? Nice strawman you built there.