I sincerely hope that 7 million people court-flamethrow this outfit to smouldering ashes.

First, I only got my email from them today, December 6.

Why would anyone give a third-party their DNA information in exchange for some dubious analysis when that data now becomes their property to use (or lose) as they see fit?

I prefer “watch it for the plot” which is a subreddit dedicated to posting sex scenes from “art” films.

Not the question I was really asking, but I worded it fairly poorly, so I’ll try again. You work inside the justice system. So you see things, hear things and are simply aware of stuff that the rest of us don’t have access to.

Studio wonks thought the failure of Mars Needs Moms meant they couldn’t put Mars in the title of a movie even when it was 90% set on Mars.

It could use a better name as well. When I first read it I thought the movie was some sort of Christian flick so there could be a lot of people not even wanting to look up what it’s about.

30 Rock did it in 2010 (Season 4 Episode 9)

Or maybe I don’t care who the film is ‘targeted’ towards and think that none of Paul Feig’s work is very funny in general, not just this film. If you gave the same material to 4 men it wouldn’t have been funny either.

“Bringing up the idea of giving the movie ‘back to the fans’ was a pretty clear shout-out to all those losers who went after us for making an all-female film.” Jones writes.”

I’m confused by this comment:

There’s an easy way of knowing that making those figures available would cause huge harm to the executives: they refuse to do it.

Correct, they have to report earnings but they don’t have to report viewership numbers in the same way that a cable network does. Like you said, they make their money through subscriptions and that’s it. So as long as they can say “look we have X subscribers or Y new subscribers” investors are happy. Mainly, this is…

Between Zodiac and Mind Hunters (and Se7en and that pitiful Alien3 movie), I’m not sure I want David Fincher behind me in line...

I think maybe people are reading too much into it. He wants his movie to be so effectively dread-inducing that people in line at a hardware store IRL get nervous. I don’t think he wants society as a whole to be more concerned, just people who watch the movie to be affected by it.

Isn’t there something to be said for making anti-capitalist statements with Amazon’s money?

I have no problem with AVclub choosing a side in this strike and making coverage decisions based on that (and I would put myself on that same side), but I can’t help but feel I’m being misinformed at best and manipulated at worst in reading their coverage.

The timing of the strike has nothing to do with what I’m saying. My point is Reilly considers himself an activist and Virgo tries to leverage an anticapitalist message; he’s getting paid by the worst post-capitalist offender and going after a fellow artist for basically saying “I hope there can be a resolution to this…

“I can understand both sides. All we can do is encourage people to talk.’’

I’m sure Reilly is super chill when people ask why he was ok partnering with Amazon for his latest project.