unstructured airing of vague grievances

We do need new terminology for this. "Fiction-adjacent"?

Yeah, that's great and all, but could you send that shrink over here next so he can tell me why I keep taking off my pants at work and telling everyone to call me a pretty ballerina?

I guess you would if you were expecting blockbuster results.

Okay fine, everybody. You got me. It's a blockbuster. It busted all the blocks. There are no more blocks in the wake of the blockbusting blockbustery perpetrated by the bustingest blockbuster that ever busted a block. It's Star Wars x Harry Potter x Titanic. It made more money than is currently in human…

I said "we all love this movie". We is a first person plural pronoun meaning I and another or group of others. I love this movie. I thought it deserved every bit of critical acclaim it got. That does not however make it a blockbuster. It did not make a tremendous amount of money in relation to its budget.

The person who wrote the article said it was a blockbuster hit, and I don't agree with that.

That it's not a blockbuster.

In my world, earning 2x your investment is not a blockbuster.

For an international release that costs $150 million before advertising, that's really not that much.

Yeah, but DDF got there six months earlier, and I'm sure Hook wasn't more than a three week shoot, tops.

They're both just rip-offs of Drop Dead Fred.

True and true, but that math still does not add up to "blockbuster hit."

I know we all love this movie, but let's be honest; it was not a blockbuster hit. It barely made its budget back in the states, and Terminator Gynysysysysys made more worldwide.

Dear Mr. Shakespeare[hey fuckhead]

This kind of perspective would suggest there's no such thing as an innocuous conversation anymore. "Where should we go for lunch?" "Go? Like to a restaurant? Don't you understand how oppressive the food service industrial complex really is?!" Comparing Danny Kanell, an affable ex-jock who seems to give as little…

"He embodies all that is terrible about sports media"

Social progress? It's sports talk. It's about grown men playing with toys for a (staggeringly lucrative) living. Because he has opinions you or I might disagree with, this somehow makes him "dangerous" specifically because he doesn't put much stock in his own stated beliefs?

What, affability? I'm not sure why sports talk must be treated exclusively like bloodsport. If you're all about the hot takes and shouty billiousness, you have your Cowherds and your Baylesses and your Stephens A. Smith. I prefer to listen to people who treat sports as the silly diversion it is; ie a bunch of…

His appeal completely escapes me. He seems embarrassed by himself, and only too happy to keep sports talk from intruding on his sports talk show.