In TV and film there's the saying "kill your babies" or "kill your darlings" if you're sensitive.
Just because a shot looks cool on it's own doesn't mean it fits in context, a big part of editing is having the balls to cut really cool/expensive stuff when it's just not working.

I think they're referencing Shark Boy and Lava Girl (perhaps the other way round I can't be bothered to google it) which I remember hearing was based off a child's idea.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Spy Kids films were as well but I'd not heard that before.
Also I loved the second one as a child and weirdly only the…

How inappropriate would it be to suggest receiving fellatio from someone in one those those Chewbacca masks?
Asking for a friend.

Picked up for 13 episodes? But it's called 24, I genuinely never knew that.
The plotting of the first series doesn't seem to fit that either. That's very strange.
I agree with your other points though, although I do have a certain fondness for the show due to the time in my life I binge-watched it.

I never related to Mark Corrigan less than in that moment.

It's cheaper, that's my guess.
Good looking children's cartoons are expensive but that's offset by the fact their audience is larger and they can sell a bunch of cheap toys with a big profit margin. Not that people don't buy Archer merchandise but they're more discerning about quality.
Going for an 'alternative' art…

It's on the BBC over here, which I wasn't expecting because I'd only heard about it through this site as an FX show and then it suddenly showed up on Iplayer.
Does anyone know if it's a BBC show that FX bought the rights too, vice-versa or if it's some kind of co-production?
Just curious.

I saw Secret Life of Pets on a plane and had low expectations, to be honest I was only watching for Louis CK and the rest of the cast and it still bored me.
I really enjoyed Days of Future Past and was looking forward to Apocalypse a lot, I saw it before I read any reviews so didn't have time to adjust my expectations.
I…

"How much of a historical event should be allowed to be changed for popcorn cinema, good sir/madam?"
As much as the film-maker wants.
Like I said if you can write a film that's 0% historically accurate and a film that's 90% historically accurate, why not 50% or 25%?
I wouldn't call it lazy, film-making is still…

I still haven't seen Doctor Strange actually and I though Civil War was okay but I was disappointed because I was expecting it to be much better.
I usually like big blockbusters (I really enjoyed most of Marvel's phase 2 stuff) but I was underwhelmed by most of this years offerings.
Also I miscounted and it was only 5…

I mean they looked way too old in season 1, not to mention the flashbacks. I think we all have to just accept that there's some Quantum Leap thing going on and the actors we see are not how these characters look to one another.

Nope, sadly not.
I only managed to see 13 films from last year, 3 of which were on planes, and 6 of them were disappointing studio blockbusters.

I'm still unconvinced.
The story may be interesting but not exciting enough to work in the medium but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make it.
I don't see why historical films have to be either 0% accurate (like Shakespeare in Love) or 95% accurate (like you're suggesting).
If the writer/director think they can make a…

Alan Tudyk as The Riddler.
That is all.

Why?
They're not telling the true story, they're telling a story based on a true story.
If your want something that attempts to be as truthful as possible then watch a documentary and that's not a dig at documentaries.
It's the same with book adaptions, if you want something that's exactly the same as the source material…

And he'd be referring to a Batman sex scene.

Those are comic reboots though. If we're talking about new adaptions as "reboots" then it'll be 1949.
According to Wikipedia there was a live-action adaption in 1943 and another one in 1949 with a new cast, now I'm assuming that wasn't just re-casting and following on from the previous continuity so it fulfills the…

Which one do you think sounds superior?
Calling any language that's not English "foreign" seems like a very American thing to do, there are plenty of American natives that speak other languages.
"Film Not in the English Language" is more wordy but arguably more tactful.

I'm glad Hell or High Water is getting some noms, that and The Nice Guys were my two favorite films of the year and sadly the latter was completely snubbed.
I think I, Daniel Blake could take Best Picture although I haven't seen it yet, it'll almost certainly get Outstanding British Film.

We call it a 'bum bag', which is equally terrible.