The genre itself isn't trash more than any other genre, except to the degree that it exists only to fulfill a marketing label. The problem with it is that a lot of it is full of recycled ideas and mediocre writers. Then again, a lot of what Ursula Le Guin was writing was essentially YA, and she's a genius.

On one hand, I don't know that books for teens need to be so gender-specific, but for how progressive YA tends to think it is, it definitely is part of that problem.

Idiocracy was a satire on the present when it was NEW.

I don't agree that they all are, but we probably have different negative reactions along the twee spectrum.

It's weird. Immediately before seeing this, I was just thinking about how I still make some time for Burton (who hasn't consistently been himself since Sleepy Hollow), but can't deal with Gaiman's writing. The exceptions are Stardust, which is all right, the movie version of Coraline, and his English language Mononoke…

There might be a more legit source, but I watched this a while ago and it gets into this stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…

The difference is that the casting here is in response to online demands, which was the point I was making. Maybe a lot of other movie casts are researched this way now, but it def feels like it's answering a vocal online calling, the opposite end of the ridiculous backlash. .

I agree with the general point here. Fandoms have too much control over art, and think they're entitled to dictating where it goes. We also shouldn't pretend that the casting of the new Ghostbusters wasn't also an entirely commercial move resulting from other internet voices. Having said that, it's staggering to me…

Awkward. has always been dehumanizing and patronizing nonsense.

But the people who complain about white dudes all the time are other white dudes (and girls) with savior complexes. So Ignatiy maybe agrees with you.

I got in trouble for saying this here once, but I think Refn's previous two movies found a lot of enthusiasm amongst novice film buffs, who aren't familiar with where he's getting his stylistic cues, or if they are familiar, they're unconcerned that he's not saying anything with them.

I don't even think he has a style of his own, so I can't even meet his stuff at that level.

I think the first third of Neighbors was really good, but then it just descends into Apatow-era improv and dildo jokes. It's hard to take Neighbors 2's perceived feminism as more than opportunism when Rogen comedies were dependent on homo-panic as recently as The Interview.

This is mostly a really good pop album. The production is good and the hooks are big, but Grande (like s lot of really big pop stars right now) has a bit too much trepidation about allowing herself to be a human being in her songs.

I only read one review, which liked it, but described it as a "fever dream," which means the reviewer is a dumbass because he used the term fever dream.

Xavier Dolan is like Jonathan in that Buffy episode where he manages to convince the world he's the most important artist of his time.

Correct. One of the things good art does is show us a common humanity with people with whom we'd rather have none.

Actually, Rules of Attraction's looping callback structure is much more like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs than any of Tarantino's straightforward subsequent revenge narratives, of which, yes, IB has the most moments of greatness. I would caution you against discrediting a collaborator's contributions when you don't…

I've done both (worked directly with a co-writer and adapted an existing property) and they're remarkably similar processes, except in the second, one person has already done their part of the work. But technicalities aside, they're both collaborative script efforts, and Tarantino suffers without that.

I love that stupid movie. It's Renny Harlin's best.