Yeah, click bait is one thing...but this is levels of just plain trying to start something. 

but she didnt really say what the headline said.

but she didnt really say what the headline said. She basically just said yeah i loved it and i do other things too and dont sweat if a creative idea doesnt come yet...im litterally not the main arc right now and my character spoiler died...so why do i need to think i should come back. They are movies that film like in…

There’s actually a solid (and very dumb) basis for why this ridiculous idea was considered.

They’ll probably kill this show too. It'll be back a couple days later.

Sadly that is not how Anti-Trust works. Anti-Trust looks at specific markets and whether an entity is unfairly manipulating that market. your cartels (OPEC and the US oil barons of yore) and your monopolies (the Movie Studio theaters of the 40's) Anti-Trust doesn’t care if Google runs a hot dog stand it only cares if…

Time to break up the band, so to speak. (And if my comment is too cryptic, I mean it’s time to enforce anti-trust laws and break up the company into a number of smaller companies, for each of their services; streaming, store, web services, etc.)

““We do not intend to limit streamers’ ability to enter into direct relationships with sponsors, and we understand that this is an important part of how streamers earn revenue,” Twitch’s tweet thread continued.”

Good. Then don’t.

Apparently he insists everyone read from cue cards, ostensibly so no one ad libs or goes off script, but my god it kills the comedy, because the sight lines are off and the reads are horrible because everyone is focusing on the cards and not the sketch.  

Now, he has said that before about other films, but Miyazaki is in his 80s and this seems to be a movie about death, so it’s probably fair to actually trust him this time.

I remember that Giuliani debacle!

Yeah, it’s strange that no one complained about their exhibit on high-heeled shoes, but make it about sneakers and suddenly it’s something no “people who love art museums” could possibly be interested in.

From what I can tell, the main issue critics are having with this show is actually that it doesn’t critique Picasso enough; it sounds like it’s mainly a random assortment of paintings with some glib low-fruit-picking tweets attached to them.

You wrote what I was thinking.

It’s the New Markets problem. OK, I don’t if that’s the actual term for it, but it’s something I’ve been noticing in things like documentaries: if you make a documentary about X, then people about X will watch it anyway...so why bother to appeal to them in any way, when you could get New Markets - people who aren’t…

Yeah, sometimes people come along who don’t appeal to me at all but I find it hard to speak out about not liking them because the worst parts of society have made it their goal in life to hate that person and I don’t want to be associated in any way with that group.

I agree with the curators’ assessment that this painting emblematizes Picasso’s brutal tendencies. I only wish it wasn’t paired with this quote from Gadsby: “If PETA can’t cancel Picasso . . . no one can.”

Left out of this article but very much discussed in the NYT piece is the fact that the Picassos obtained for the exhibition are pretty much whatever random stuff they could get. There’s no effort to find pieces that demonstrate Picasso’s misogyny or his cultural impact. It’s just “here’s some Picassos!”

Yeah this is extremely cringe. I mean if you’re going to critique an artist (with whom there is much to critique) start by, idk, pointing out how he and the other Cubists basically just ripped off the aesthetics of African tribal art and made lots of money in the process. That to me is the most egregious thing about…

I really like Gadsby and Nanette, but if the criticism cited here is accurate, then yea the exhibit sounds lazy and flat out bad. Which is a shame for obvious reasons, but also because I don’t want to be put on the same side of an issue as Gadsby’s critics, who up until now have mostly just been terrible people.