I have a different view from you on the commentary surrounding the 2016 Ghostbusters movie. and in two paragraphs you call my view “particularly terrible,” accuse me of “awfully misrepresenting” the situation, and suggest that something “doesn’t excuse” my thinking.

The AV Club loves to take one thing they don’t like about a movie, then make that the only thing ever mentioned about the movie again.

I’m pretty sure Madame Web is supposed to be seen high, on a couch, while mainly reading stuff on your phone.

Man, that first paragraph is a journey.

I don’t get these jokes. Who are these people you’re talking about? Are they actors who appear in pornography? Because I wouldn’t know the names of any people who appear in pornography.

Barsanti’s right that HBO does get a benefit from being the exclusive place to see HBO content, but seems to miss that that advantage diminishes for older content. There probably aren’t people who really, really want to watch Six Feet Under, and were about to finally give in after 18 years and subscribe to HBO to…

Shhhh. You’re interfering with the narrative.

He sounds like someone who really didn’t like the 2016 Ghostbusters, but wants to say it in a kind way. You don’t say that that the cast members are “brilliantly funny on their own” in a movie you like. I think a lot of viewers of the movie were genuine fans of Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, and Jones, but felt the movie…

Followed your advice and took the kids to see Love Lies Bleeding. What the fuck, man?!?

Is there a way to monetize bashing of Barsanti?

Yeah, for as often as this site writes about the business of television, I don’t see a lot of coherent thinking about what TV should look like. Instead, the writing often seems like a kind of childish wish list, like saying food would be better if we could eat candy all the time and it also automatically brushed your…

Apatow asks us to think back to those halcyon days when television executives cared only about the best creative product, didn’t think of TV shows as content, and would never stoop to bulking up the amount of content they could air with cheap, bottom-feeding crap.

“I Tawt I Taw a Puddy.”

This is a dumb concern. We have always had companies re-airing popular TV shows that first aired somewhere else, and this has been a big part of Netflix’s business model for ages. That has not prevented companies (Netflix included) from making new shows.

Yeah, the G/O Media model at this point seems to depend on the kind of muscle memory readers have of continuing to visit websites they used to like. If you cut costs absolutely to the bone, there will be a short period of time where the site appears to be more successful, before readers catch on to the fact that it’s…

At least they haven’t turned off the comments, as they seemed to preemptively do at Kotaku this week. You’d think the easier solution would just be not constantly pissing off your readers, rather than worrying about concealing that unhappiness, but I’m not a business genius like Spanfeller.

“Hey, all you people who thought Kate Middleton was sicker than Buckingham Palace was saying, I bet you feel stupid now that . . . Kate Middleton is sicker than Buckingham Palace was saying.”

I think journalism in the UK has dual problems when it comes to covering the royal family. There’s a tabloid press that is aggressive and willing to treat insane speculation as fact. But that is paired with a mainstream press that is at times passive, credulous, and deferential to the royal family. So readers are…

Yes, it’s pretty strange to insist that the takeaway from this story is, “See, conspiracy theorists, you were wrong all along!”

The “awful people” were involved in uncovering a weekslong lie about a public figure whose family has a formal role in the running of a country’s government.