Some people were pointing out that he did pay for the room, Armond made the mistake, and it’s being conflated with “defending” his actions.

Anyway, Feige’s two-stepping around controversy continued as he said he’s “all for amicable solutions” when it came to the ScarJo suit. Giving a milquetoast soundbite is Feige’s superpower.

I fully agree with this well written piece. I know mileage varies and all that, but I just have a hard time seeing how this episode on this show would be “controversial” for anyone. The subject of Christmas fits the sensibilities of the world Ted Lasso has built like a glove. This series has never made any effort to…

The people who made the show were free to focus more on Indigenous characters. They didn’t. I don’t give them credit for now telling the audience that it can’t be done. (If I’m following your explanation correctly)

Lol, who hurt you? Finding nuance in execrable characters isn’t a defense or endorsement of them, but this concept seems to be slipping through your fingers. Sure, they’re avatars for a class of people that have left you feeling aggrieved, but that’s not justification for you to steamroll someone’s thoughtful analysis…

It’s kind of bizarre how people see Shane in regards to what Armond is doing.

Save for him first asking, they invited him. He went from “we need the dead weight” to encouraging  him to participate because the kid proved himself and they needed him. Kind of a hard diss to call it cultural intrusion when it just boiled down to rowing an outrigger canoe.

Enjoyed these reviews but also found myself increasingly disagreeing with Roxana’s take on a lot of the characters as we progressed. A few points of contention:

Yeah, I have to say I understood Olivia’s confusion that somehow thinking it was bad to set up a situation where her parents were involved in a frightening moment of violence ...made her asshole? She had many asshole qualities but that surely wasn’t one of them. I feel like this story was more about Paula realizing…

The bad guys were Indian because Shyamalan wanted to give his friends work.

Since the dead body is still in question . . .

The more we see of Shane and his mother, the harder it gets for me to imagine that Rachel could’ve spent all of this time with them and not come to this breaking point long before the honeymoon.

That “save the things we love, not destroy the things we hate” speech was just awful.

She literally says nobody could have free will in this scenario and Loki argues maybe that’s not the worst possibility. All of her dialogue is about being robbed of free will, which has been her main motivation this whole time. To stop the pruning of timelines because nobody should have that power. Her whole…

Am I the only one exhausted of "reed is actually bad guys"? Can we just... Not have reed Richards be an impossible prick who might as well be a villain?

Why was Sylvie introduced as a patient, ruthless master planner only to be depicted as a petulant, impatient hothead ever since?

Yeah, you’re right it worked as he got one of his stated outcomes, I just don’t buy for a second he thought Sylvie would ever choose to run the TVA. No one who spent ten minutes watching her would think that. Perhaps he really wanted them to destroy the sacred timeline all along, or perhaps he’s just not good at…

First off, you’re ignoring or missing my actual point; second off... you really should go talk to someone about your irrational whiny hatred of JJ Abrams.

Someone said it on here previously, but: the prequel trilogy were a great story told poorly, the sequel trilogy was a poor story told well. The acting, cinematography, editing, dialogue (at least in the micro terms of how actual people actually talk to each other) and overall lack of pretense are a lot better in these…