The real question is why should you reboot ‘Star Wars’? What’s the angle?

There’s a contradiction here: if the original movies aren’t some untouchable sacred cow, why are the original characters so special? If remaking the ‘77 movie is fine to do, why be so invested in Han Solo and what-not? He’s just a gunslinger type without Harrison Ford; on the page, Obi Wan is just a stock wizard…

You know this is an entertainment blog, not ‘Reuters for video games’, right? Not every article needs to be in-depth investigative journalism or dispassionate newswire-style writing. It’s perfectly fine to just report an interesting gaming thing people are talking about.

Yeah I find “unforgiving warrior people” a weird way to gloss over the fact they’re “fantasy nazi’s”.

I did manage to get past my initial dislike largely due to helping her work through the idea of her “god” being a shitty lich queen who wants to suck her soul. And if I didn’t have Karlach along for my “muscle” I would probably use Lae’zel more. My current usual gang is PC stabby rogue, Karlach for muscle, Shadowheart…

Yep

If people think the Githyanki in BGIII are ugly, they haven’t seen their original design in the Fiend Folio. They were basically skeletons with yellow skin over them.

I goddamn hated Romeo+Juliet.

Guess I have to rewatch Catch Me If You Can because that film seemed incredibly slight to me at the time and I’ve not thought about it since.

The irony of The Beach is now that beach is closed because all the tourists destroyed it. It may have reopened, but it was closed in the late aughts when I visited Thailand.

This is how Ree Drummond’s family, the one she married into and has made bank on as “The Pioneer Woman”, made their money and got their land. 

It’s not just Molly that had money, it was every Osage. Osage County was per capita the wealthiest in America at the time. Like, abandoning cars on the side of the road when they ran out of gas rich. This created insane jealousy among white people. The Osage each had a share of the oil royalties from their land, but…

I think directors who release 3.5 hour movies to theaters should list out the exact scenes that are best to take a break during. “This is where I phoned it in,” said Scorsese, who probably hasn’t gone more than an hour between pee breaks for the past three decades.

I don’t object to long films. If it takes 3.5 hours to tell the story, so be it. But please, for the love of God and the sake of my bladder, re-introduce the intermission. 15 minutes in the middle of the film is not going to cut down on how many screenings the theater can schedule, and they’ll probably boost concession…

“It’s such a boring and uncreative way to generate a few clicks.”
And yet, here we are...

“This is genuinely one of the most rancid, thoughtless articles in the history of the AV Club.”
Wow, baby, that’s some hill to climb, or expire upon, or whatever pimply hyperbole you little brats are using today to “expertly put down” those who dare disagree with your almighty “thoughts”.

It seems like one can report on comments an artist makes while also simultaneously talk about works they have produced throughout the years independently of those comments.

It’s almost like they have more than one writer working for them! Maybe this one missed the weekly consensus meeting.

What exactly is it being roasted for? Overall, it’s a very good take that gets into some of the key details that are often not addressed. I love Scorsese. He’s my all-time favorite director, and there are several of his movies I’ve seen at least a dozen times. I can’t wait to see Killers of the Flower Moon.

Can I ask what seems to be the main rejoinder for this? Because boring as this topic is, I have similar thoughts about Scorcese’s critiques since that NYTimes op-ed that started it all. His take to me has always been overly focused on the audience when it should be on the business models and costs of filmmaking and…