Flags wave in the breeze.

Sam should have a business card that says “I don’t exactly understand what I write about”

This right here. The results of this lawsuit were due to bankruptcy law, and would have happened regardless of whether it was Harvey Weinstein’s former company or one ran by someone with a squeaky clean reputation as a human.

I mean, this is just how bankruptcy works. It has nothing to do with HW being terrible at all.

The logic in this story is non-existent. The basis for the non-payment rests on a legal determination about which debts remain under bankruptcy and which don’t. This means that Weinstein’s company could’ve been led by a saint, gone bankrupt, and people still would have lost out on those payments.

I mean, “be careful of who you go into business with” probably applies even more so for “shitty businessman”, but yeah, this article is silly.

Well they would be marginally better off in the sense that they would be the subject of one fewer barely-there barrel-scraping AV Club post.

This same legal reasoning could be used to stiff people for work they did for studios that go bankrupt for non-scandalous reasons as well, so no, karmic retribution for working with problematic people is not the main lesson from this.

Supervillain Harvey Weinstein Teams Up With Supervillain Private Equity Company To Make Life Shitty, Not Just For Weinstein’s Victims, But For Innocent Bystanders Some Of Whom Are Famous Celebrities

So if Weinstein were a really nice guy, completely fair and ethical, never assaulted anybody, was a really crappy business man who lost all TWC’s money, had to declare bankruptcy, then sold off the company, how would these stars be any better off? Because the way I understand it, it’s the bankruptcy that gets…

Suuuuch a weird take, dude.

Asking that actors not play roles based on them not being the same as fictional characters is daffy and is the complete opposite of what acting is. Then demanding it on voicework where no one even can see the actor is bizarre. Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman. Then demanding it on a voice over comedy where the…

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Oh, he didn’t “read the room”? Fuck “the room”. “The room” should have no influence on a logical and considered opinion. Rowling is weird and wrong, but Atkinson hasn’t said anything inaccurate here, even though he is rich and white. There is a problem with cancel culture. It’s not always right. Check out ‘So You’ve…

What are you talking about? You should be ashamed of the title you chose. He presented an opinion... one in which he is actually right. Bullying does not fix bullying and that is exactly what cancel culture is- just another form of bullying. 

A ‘creepy old man’? Why is he creepy? Has he stalked someone? Harmed someone? Done something wrong? He’s literally a lonely old man just doing his job whilst fantasising about the love and companionship he could have maybe had, even though he himself realises it was always gonna be a long-shot. So fantasy is now off…

I disagree on your take of the protaginist as an “incel.” To me, he’s everyone--all of us--who have regrets in life.

Taking the Janitor as an incel might mean you missed all of Kaufman’s pleading to treat the elderly as human beings, often with long and unfulfilled lives that result in a messy whole, rather than just creepy old nuisances.

Disagree that the janitor/Jesse Plemons’ character is an “incel” so much as just as a lonely old man.

To dismiss such a character as an ‘incel’ because of modern culture war bollix is so reductive. He’s a sad, socially awkward lonely man who has never been able to form meaningful relationships. More of a tragic figure. He’s had never harmed anyone, seemed relatively caring to his ageing parents and who uses his…