Sure, but dead persons can’t be libeled, so, unless I’m mistaken, the legal argument here is that free speech is secondary to emotional hurt*, which I can’t get behind. He’s obviously a mentally ill dick, but Kanye made his money fair and square, and his punishing his idiocy isn’t worth bulldozing the freedom of speech…

On the one hand, I don’t doubt that Floyd’s kid could spend Kanye’s money better than he could. On the other hand, being owed $250m because an idiot said idiotic things about your deceased father on a podcast? Come on.

“Because I don’t like the actor now” is a potentially solid reason to recast a role and reshoot their scenes, but a lot less solid of a reason to rewrite the script itself.

So the headline writers think we have to be told what roles Robbie Coltrane is known for, but assume we know who Sydney Sweeney is? (And the first three paragraphs don’t offer any clues beyond “actress”?)

And I thought the Star Wars sequel trilogy, as a three-part whole, was spectacularly narratively incoherent! This makes it sound as smooth a storytelling ride as LotR.

*Andrew Garfield waits anxiously by the phone, fidgeting with his web shooter props.*

Will audiences really care about a Top Gun sequel in 2022? :)

I don’t much care about the serial killer stuff, but I can’t wait to see the World’s Fair recreated in color HD glory.

Is the site going to review the show, then? (Or would that subtract ink from the desperately needed recaps of every single Drag Race episode?)

But, he was such a charming and noble unrepentant former Confederate officer!

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for a proper adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World...

You don’t know a damn thing about my political/historical views, but I know that you implied The Crown should have been primarily concerned with the matter of historical slavery, which is objectively dumb.

Indeed, there’s never been a major biopic of George Washington, which would be odd for a nation that loves movies so much, until you realize that, yeah, it’s almost certainly because of the whole slavery thing. Even when old-timey Hollywood was happy to churn out endless westerns in which Indians were the villains,…

I welcome thoughtful, informed historical criticism. I don’t welcome “my side has been historically wronged, so I have the prerogative so say all kinds of inaccuracies and hyperbole in the now, and call anyone who asks for basic honesty a bigot.” That’s not criticism; that’s petulance.

Yeah, your lack of useful perspective was clear from your first post.

No, the poster pointed out the blindingly obvious truth that Queen Elizabeth II, main character of the series The Crown, was not a slave trader.

Not only is that not true, in 300's defense (and I’m not a fan of it overall), it’s presented as being a story told by Spartans, with wild embellishments. It’s not at all meant to be taken literally, though I assume The Woman King is.

“whose impact is still felt today” - wow, I hope you didn’t spend too much money renting that forklift to move your goalposts that far in the span of two posts.

Europeans called Africa the “dark continent” because it was uncharted by their geographers’ knowledge, and dangerous to explore due to pathogens for which they had no immunity. It had nothing to do with a perceived lack of color in dress, decor, or aesthetics in its inhabitants’ cultures (so far as I know, at least).

What about Pete's Dragon?