How well do you figure that's working out for you? Forcing your will on the masses?

It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort. But as I said, it's starkly clear you're not interested in a civic discussion about film. Your ambition is solely to bludgeon the topic with your ego and your loud self-aggrandizing. The original subject itself has been left far, far behind. Now it's just a spectacle of your…

The other reason is because I know I'm a god, and I like to show it. If I was "insecure," I wouldn't be destroying my opponents so thoroughly.

Again with the insults and strawman tackles.

Then you are an incredibly shallow individual who does not appreciate his field of artistic study.

All right.. no one's saying that narrative is ALL that matters. That's your construct of straw. But for you to ignore it as a crucial piece of a film's structure is not only myopic, it's ignorantly dismissive of what makes for a powerful movie. Film is not limited to JUST a visual art. Especially in the case of a…

Robert Sheehan really was the best part of that show. With Iwan Rheon a close second.

It's going to be damn weird with only Nathan Stewart-Jarrett/Curtis left from the original cast.

Dude, he's The Devil in a pork pie hat. *shudder*

Yes.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal... I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

Agreed. It's been a static snore-fest for too many decades now. :(

Furthermore... GET OFF MY LAWN!

Both of which are recent add-ons codified in the Fifties. Yes our legal system is a secular one. Secularism was a key part of the Age of Enlightenment and stands inherent in our constitution's Establishment Clause and in the lack of invocation of Mosaic or Biblical law in our legal infrastructure.

I'll play your silly little game. Negative affects such as?

We're not a theocracy, you loon. The law of the land is a predominantly secular one and one that isn't beholden or answerable to the tantruming dictates of the religiously fanatical.

I know I personally cannot wait to see the humble Jehovah's Witness business owner who refuses to pay for blood transfusions or the Christian Scientist who refuses to pay for antibiotics or any medical treatment besides prayer.

Source (very funny movie btw):

Then someone else's job should be your proof reader. Your discursive lecture about your great literary prowess amounts to absolutely no refutation of merit to azriel11's point.

Who said they were okay, collex? I'm certainly not. That is completely your construct. But for some bizarre reason you seem stubbornly determined to compare apples to oranges. The difference is vast between an unintelligent off-the-cuff remark... and a writer who is attempting to strap shoddy science to her flimsy…