I'm apparently a fan of Wednesday. The day of the week. Singular.

I did that for while, then I realized that all the iTunes 99c rentals showed up about a week later on Netflix. Since I usually took a couple weeks before actually watching the rental, figured renting it wasn't doing anything.

I think wanting to impress girls with a well curated bookshelf explains learning to read.

Generation Y was Millennials. At least originally, until Generation Z couldn't develop its own label.

SPOILERZZ!

Question for you Mike: does this awareness kick in the first time you watch a scene, or more often during a subsequent viewing, when you're more likely to be looking at framing, color, etc., and less likely to be trying to understand what is happening in the scene?

Damn, I made the same point as in your last paragraph about three comments above. That will teach me not to scroll to the end before writing.

Exactly this. Too often directors cut to a different angle simply to move the perspective, which forces the viewer to reset his knowledge of the scene. To me, part of what I find compelling in a well-executed long take is the increasing tension from not having my perspective changed in the middle of the scene.

I mean, I think you're calling me racist, so not really sure why I should take your opinion seriously. But just for your knowledge, I don't support Trump, it's "e.g." not "i.e." and if you think that words function the same way as numbers, you probably shouldn't be tossing #themoreyouknow around so flippantly.

Of course Trump shares blame. But he's also the product of increasing polarization (which has many root causes).

No, extrapolating from some Trump supporters yelling racial epithets and cosplaying Nazi stormtroooper into claiming that a) every Trump supporter is racist and b) the Trump campaign is equivalent to a terrorist organization is hyperbole.

It's smug, hyperbolic statements like yours that contribute to the political environment in which toxic partisanship has become mainstream.

No, that's reductive. And you missed the main point of the review—it's not the performative individuals that are the issue.

Lord of War was already the poor man's Lord of War.

I really liked the trailer, but was worried that I was projecting my hope it would be a darker movie, something like Three Kings. Sounds like I was. Although like you say, it could have been Michael Bay, so guess this splits the difference?

Okay, got it.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm unclear as to what the theory of infringement it. Spoilers clearly can affect the monetary value of a work, or be used to profit off an someone else's work, but that doesn't matter at the outset, only once we get into a fair use analysis. And I don't think this even makes it that…

But what precisely is the copyrighted material being infringed and what statutory right am I infringing? And most critically, what is the infringing work?

I'm not sure if Harper & Row is as on point as you claim it is. For starters, there was indisputable copying of copyrighted expression. Here, I'm not sure exactly what copyright is being infringed. Also, even if we assume that copyright extends to the specific question of whether a character lives or dies, I'd ask…

Re: 2. If it isn't "a thing," then it isn't covered by copyright. If it's not covered by by copyright then there can't be any infringement. If it is a thing and it is covered by copyright, then fair use can apply.