Absolutely. And it’s not blaming the striking writers to note that, and to try to ameliorate the situation somewhat.

We’ll see if it works, but it seems like Maher’s compromise is trying to address that. The idea is that the show will be advertised as a lesser product because of the missing writers (and he’s not using non-union writers), while the unfortunate (to use your word) byproduct of other workers suffering can be addressed.

“the government probably should have been called in to arbitrate and force the studios to act in good faith”

Is it really that interesting to see someone take the position on every issue you know he’ll take?

Ridiculous question, but: Does anyone complaining about this actually have a solution for the many below-the-line people (with much lower salaries than TV writer) who are being affected by a long strike? Because I don’t think “TV host pays an entire staff’s salary out of his own pocket indefinitely” is the answer.

Good example. He probably isn’t in group b, but definitely worth considering when people say that only rich white people care about cancel culture, or that it doesn’t exist, or we’re cancelling the right people, etc.

Because he had unconventional fantasies that women consented to. Not sure this is the best example for how cancel culture doesn’t exist.

Still waiting on one of the people writing articles like this to realize that cancel culture is, in fact, not a threat to them because a) they’ve never done anything exceptional in their lives to become known to the world, and b) if you slavishly live your life to march in lockstep with the narrative approved by the…

As proven by Barbie (2023).

Is this stuff even going to rhyme?

The 2023 version of the AV Club should not insult TMZ. A lot more accurate, a lot more original reporting, and a lot more slideshows of hot girls.

I might watch the whole interview now. To see if he actually says something unreasonable.

Again, a lot of the criticism hinges on “you’re not allowed.” It really doesn’t seem like that’s what he’s saying, just that he doesn’t like it and that he respects her wishes, but that may mean it’s not a fit. Annoying behavior? Sure, probably, but abusive?

I know everyone hates this, but...if a woman texted her boyfriend whose job involves hanging out with beautiful women regularly (model, photographer, or whatever) or posting pictures that don’t leave a lot to the imagination, saying that she doesn’t like it, it makes her insecure, and that this may mean they’re not…

He’s being pretty open, based on these at least, that he has specific hang-ups, and is saying that they may not be right for each other, but he respects her. Based on these texts, which is all we have, he seems a little whiny and insecure, which I’d imagine can be grating—my point is not that she is obligated to stay…

Interesting article. When will film critics review it?

The phrase “emotional abuse” always raises an alarm for me. Not that it doesn’t exist, but the range of different things that could be described by different people as “emotionally abusive” more or less guarantees that it will serve as a catch-all term for a lot of things that most people would not consider to be that.

The critic’s line about targeting white people is silly. Having seen it, pretty much every other part of what he said is fair. 

Agree with most of this. If it gets a second season, I’ll probably watch it.

I guess everyone’s mileage will vary, but I think for many the silly part would be the whole rant about how different the film would be if black people made it, when of course black people did make it.