What’s wrong about it?

What a great (Toynbee)  idea

Ive also always been interested in Scott’s views on the It Gets Better campaign as he’s criticized it for encouraging the stereotype of gays as passive or feminine and instead that they should fight, violently if necessary, if theyre facing bullying. 

I did because I thought maybe she was canadian or something but she’s actually from a suburb of Orlando that I used to live in.

Oh whoa, really? Before you said that I would never even considered that they would have done anything together.

Not gay so maybe my take on this is less than needed but always felt Scott Thompson and Amanda Bearse(Marcy from Married with Children) get short changed in the gay history of television(GHT). They were out way before the late nineties when I seem to remember stars coming out being a big deal.

I have honestly heard many musicians and comedians praise Orlando for being a reliably good show. It makes sense,  theres a huge young person population, UCF has like the biggest or second biggest population of any college. 

Hey thanks, the daydream part I would also ascribe to M. Night’s Happening and Lady in the Water, I have a feeling that would be....less than well received.

Listened to one episode of U2 but I thought the joke was that they literally never talk about the band? Is there actually a lot discussion about the albums on each one?

Right, but as soon as everyone after you gets killed its back on your ass buddy.

I’m just gonna list a bunch of stuff that makes It Follows stand out.  For starters, it actually has a pretty interesting and complex mise en scene, the time of the setting is obscured and full of anachronisms and the music is great but theres alot beyond superficial details that makes it noteworthy. It attaches a…

Its crazy how its not like Doc and Jackson have had much of regular gig doing something else in the meantime(that I know of)

What critical thinking do I have to do? You’re the one looking at this from the simplest point of view and I’m telling you why its more complicated than just going by screentime. Absolutely no one, not even Pacino, would agree with you that he should have got more than Brando or that he added more to the film. They…

RGay’s one about lambasting the drive thru employee when they asked whether she wanted a girl or boy toy is my personal fav.

The point of movies are to make money though so believe me they would not pay more for less unless they expect that the casting of the smaller role was going to sell more tickets. But even if you’re just making a case about quality of the film, you can’t really make that analysis on something like a movie. Smaller…

I’m not, I’m focusing on your point that you have a problem with smaller roles getting paid more even, as you say, sexism as nothing to do with it.

You asked how is not a problem that a smaller role got paid more than a bigger one and I answered because the filmmakers can get more value from an actor than just based on their screentime so therefore its worth paying them more.

Because the value an actor or actress adds to the movie has nothing to do with screentime?

How is it a problem per se? You want the only basis for paying actors to be literally the amount of lines they say?

You understand that happens constantly though, bigger names in smaller roles getting paid more is a pretty longstanding tradition so to speak. Literally the last thing hollywood contracts are based on is amount of actual work.