“universally” is doing some HEAVY lifting there my guy. And while it’s undeniable that the last season was vastly disliked, the penultimate season does not and did not get the same response.

What-the-fuck-ever with you people.

That’s fine in theory as long as the people writing the show don’t use the binge model as an excuse to be shitty at writing TV. I have a love/hate with binge TV. I like the continuity of the experience but too many streaming originals lean on the format as a crutch for lack of proper structure.

I would credit Westfeldt and Showalter for knowing how best to adapt the material. They both have experience with satirizing standard romcom tropes (him to a more obviously ridiculous degree). I’ve always liked her writing and thought he had solid directing chops. (Though FWIW I deeply dislike the comedy nerd cult…

You’re reversing the gender roles AND the character roles. I mean, I get that you’re making a point but you’re also not sticking to the dynamic.

Right. But he did MAKE a choice. He CHOSE to set it in a country with highly partisan rhetoric, lots of armed jagoffs, a free press routinely under attack moreso now than ever before, etc. Holding him responsible for that artistic choice is not asking much.

I wanted to love Men but it was too much theme and not enough story.

Both are big states with a lot more sociopolitical diversity than our impressions of them. Especially CA. The Religious Right was literally created in CA.

And I would say that the difference between me and these others is that I don’t feel the need to argue with you about your position. I personally lean towards separating the art from the artist. I think that’s a valid position to take. Sometimes I take it. Sometimes I don’t. It often depends on what the artist has…

This is like the dogs and kids conversation all over again.

This just demonstrates that you don’t actually know what parasocial relationships are and/or are in deep denial about your own parasocial relationships. Because you’re acting like the only people who have them are in poor mental health and that’s just not true.

I’m very interested in the movie personally, I just really dislike the concept of “getting it” as an element of critical analysis. I much prefer “divisive”. At least that doesn’t gatekeep by pretending that anyone who comes away with a negative opinion must not understand what they’ve watched.

It’s not a matter of either subjectivity or hyperbole. The concept of “getting it” is a lazy, gatekeeping trope of pseudo-intellectual analysis. Anyone who enjoys a piece of art can deny criticism by falling back on “Well you just didn’t get it.” You’ll notice I didn’t object to “most exciting, singular voices”, which…

So what if I “get it” but don’t agree with your analysis?

Do you understand how YouTube, Twitch, OnlyFans, TikTok, etc. engagement actually works? These people get subscribers based in large part on continuing engagement, which includes the creation of a parasocial relationship. How much control they take over that relationship and/or use it to manipulate their viewers is…

I very much agree. I think there’s a chance that Oppenheimer might not have cleaned up as much if it had been streamer produced.

This is a very common and unfortunately silly response to complaints about running times that ignores the difference between how two different mediums operate and the disparate expectations viewers have for them.

hahaha... a wee bit aggressive, yeah.

“Git gud” should not be the response to anyone about anything because it’s fucking nonsense babytalk and absurd flexing. The only appropriate response to “Git gud” is “Git fukd”.

This feels like one of those “everyone sucks here” scenarios.