I still don’t understand what Mark did wrong here. Unless he campaigned for Michelle to NOT get the raise. Should he have made sure to negotiate for both of them?

I still don’t get this. He had nothing to do with her pay. He negotiations weren’t informed by her pay. He was a douche about money, and it had literally nothing to do with women. Sooooo, the outrage machine something something Mark Wahlberg is now attached to Michelle Williams’ comparatively shit money something…

Because when you ask for a pay increase, you ask your employer, not your co-worker.

Shouldn’t that memo go to her agent?

Doesn’t it make more sense to give to charity than to another wealthy celebrity? I know we were all upset by the disparity but dude, she doesn’t actually need the money.

Hard to argue with the end result of money going to this cause, but a lot of the criticism seemed in pretty bad faith to begin with, given that if an actress’s reps had been ready to take advantage of this situation (as Wahlberg’s apparently were and Williams’s weren’t), the coverage in places like this wouldn’t have…

First, I’m glad this move was done. Like the Neeson article, though, probably the last person on the blame list here is Wahlberg. Those agents should be the focus here. I mean, it’s not even a competing agency that did this. Him and Williams are represented by the same company on the same movie and they did this.…

Yeah because Star Wars music is all about subtlety and nuance...

Have you missed the music at the start opening crawl for every single movie so far?

He’s doing the same thing that Bumbercrunch did. Somehow they go from ugly to hot without actually changing. I dunno what it is.

Hamlet seemed kinda mopey tbh.

Doing backflips to excuse Putin’s regime and accusing someone else of being a “shill”. Priceless.

Yep. I don’t necessarily blame Lorde so much as this BDS nonsense.

Well, Lorde has no problem playing in Moscow after they blew up a bunch of Syrians, terrorized Ukraine, and shit all over LGBTQ folk so I can’t really see the principle here. This is why country boycotts are ridiculous.

Because people didn’t agree, therefore it’s divisive.

How was it divisive? It was an solid genre film, with some great moments. It falls in the top five films of this series. People need to stop saying “Luke would never do this” because Luke does what the wants Luke to do.

I don’t think you know what the word “literal” means.

As someone who was actually a fan of the old EU, I can honestly say that Disney canning it was a great decision. It had gotten far to overgrown and incestuous. Plus a fair bit of it was just schlocky and bad. It needed to be clear cut.

I’m pretty sure the writer meant that Hamill was able to get over it (“it” being the movie not doing everything exactly the way he wanted it to) because he was an adult, and by getting over it he was able to form an unbiased opinion of the movie, which in his case was positive. I may not always agree with the AV Club…

Jake Skywalker of the Connecticut Skywalkers?

Hammil and fans may be correct about LUKE’S character not giving up, but saying the Jedi don’t... um... the entire film series started with Obi-Wan Kenobi in exile not using the force, didn’t it? How is Luke any different?