I agree. I feel like at this point writing for Community is a lose-lose proposition. They can't get quirky without incurring (inevitably unfavorable) comparisons to the show's highest of heights, and it can't lose the quirk without not being Community.

Actually - yes, that's exactly what you bought with your "hard won" cash. Not a guarantee that you'd like the movie. Hard concept to grasp without resorting to strawmans, I know.

Honestly, I know of no website ever that doesn't get on their high horse about TMZ (not that I disapprove).

Some people? Yes, some people do hold jealousies about money that athletes, performers, etc. make and think that should mean they should be held to a higher performance standard, instead of a standard offered by the market. You're naive if you think otherwise, and misguided if you think I ever said it was always about…

Wow - you got that from me asserting that we should accept that there are risks to certain things we pay for, and not expect refunds for them. I didn't realize we should be paying people money back because they were grumpy that they didn't get what precisely what they hoped for, even though they knew this guy is…

I never said I'd accept it from a professional, I said I'd not expect the venue to give the money back,

The lady at 52 seconds in with a nice, smooth, exit leading into "Fuck it! We gettin out of this joint" reminds me of how I drop a more enunciated, "professional" style of speech to, well, whatever when out of work, and end up cussing up a blue storm about a coworker the one time my boss goes to happy hour

Notice I never said "refunds in general are bad," and that I also said a movie projector failing would be what I consider grounds for a refund. But the actor himself being bad? No.

Right - but my initial comment was simply about paying for admittance, not the performance. The venue did state that they weren't responsible for the quality of the show. Just like a movie theater isn't responsible for a bad movie being shown. That's what I'm defending. Not whether he should be held accountable by…

Either you want to relate it to a real job or you don't. If you do, I would respond by saying, has anyone asked him directly with that as his response?

And he's self employed by nature. So he gets more leeway from his boss when he screws up. Were he employed by someone else as a comedian, yes, they'd have every right to can him.

You'll notice that we were discussing the 100% effort from movie makers, not the theater. The theater's obligation is to show the movie properly, yes. No issues with refunds there.

Which word did you not understand?

So it's more jealousy of how much they're making, and not moral outrage?

And the only way to do so is to demand this theater give people their money back? On the days you don't give 100%, does your employer dock you? Do you go into your manager's office and fess up?

If you think you're paying for 100% and feel like you only got 80%, do you go ask for a 20% discount?

Maybe the crowd should accept the fact that he is not always on and thus paying for the ticket is, as with any performance, a gamble.

Wouldn't that have been when one of Iron Man's solo films was released?

not even a little.

Its possible rogue squadron existed as an elite force that didn't want the hick off the backwater planet?