Gold-pressed latinum. The cryptocurrency even MRA trolls realize might be a little too on point.

The poster quotes the article thesis, which the author then explains and defends in several paragraphs (including caveats about issues the post later notes—there’s even an acknowledgment of the shadow of Abrams in the first paragraph), and then lays out a counter-opinion which engages with none of the points raised in…

...Zack’s written years worth of classic Trek views on the AVClub. They’re linked at the bottom of the article (and they’re pretty great if you need an excuse to revisit the series).

Really need to add a “Date/Marry/and Rescue from the Frozen Ice Planet Pop Culture Has Shamefully Banished Him To” category.

VON STROHEIM AND VENTRILOQUISM 4EVER!!!

Being singularly focused and being solipsistic are not the same thing. The film doesn’t treat Frances’s problems as if they’re a bigger deal than anyone else’s (and arguably, Sophie ends up in the worse state, stuck in a decaying marriage in a foreign country with no real sense of self).

There are a couple pages from a book on her campaign talking about how running against Bernie frustrated her. I’m not sure how that has gotten translated into “Relentless harpy won’t admit mistakes and is still blaming Bernie for everything.” Was it the weird There’s Something About Mary analogy?

“how Holden is just too beautiful and sensitive for this world even though we see no evidence that he’s anything special” 

In defense of Catcher in the Rye, it is completely aware how hollow Holden’s campaign against phoniness is.

The irony here is that no one is doing more than Trump to scale back the executive branch. He’s essentially (and most likely unintentionally) starving the executive bureaucracy and cutting back its regulations until we fall back into the 19th century.

Technically, those guys write editorials. Op-eds (opposite page to editorials) are submitted by outside writers and in the Times have basically become marketing platforms for authors/academics/politicians. This Blackwater thing is nothing new, it just might be the most reprehensible.

I like Stranger Things, but that The Thing poster makes no sense. Who in that family would own it? Mike, who should be scarred by its nightmare fuel? Is Nancy secretly a horrornut? The bland surburban mom? I can only assume the dad has some extreme tastes.

Roose is still alive in the books though, right? Ramsay (or even Stannis, in a pyrrhic victory) killing him would give several houses cause to abandon the Boltons and rally round some semblance of a Stark.

To be fair, not throwing the information that Jon isn’t a true Stark into the Sansa-Arya-Littlefinger stew is a good reason.

Really, Sturges’s films are all varying degrees of good to great (with the caveat that I haven’t seen the Beautiful Blonde from Bashful Bend or the French one). Even The Sin of Harold Diddlebock, the flop that more-or-less destroyed his career and derailed Harold Lloyd’s comeback plans, is pretty great if uneven, and…

It’s more that any list derived from a large number of submissions will inevitably start to trend toward established classics over personal (or timely) favorites. Particularly with something as subjective as comedy.

His Girl Friday is 14 and Baby is 17. But I also don’t think they’re anything alike, except for Cary Grant and fast plotting. His Girl Friday forever.

I’d take Lady Eve over it too (though Hail the Conquering Hero and Miracle of Morgan’s Creek are my favorites), but I’d hardly call Unfaithfully Yours a disaster.

Counterpoint: To Be or Not to Be is more relevant to modern times than anything else on the list.

One reason I prefer Life of Brian is the lack of overexposure. It’s not hipster contrarianism as much as the fact that legions of nerdy teenagers trying to shove African swallows and elderberries into everything have dragged Holy Grail through the mud and into a sinkhole.