My guess is he was reacting to the immediate DON'T CALL US KIDS YOU JERK comment that attracted 16 (!) likes.

Honestly, you guys DO come off as kind of crazy by taking any sort of offense to the "kids" thing. The only non-crazy explanation I can think of is that a lot of people here actually are kids and are sensitive about being addressed as such.

Uh, completely untrue? How old are you?

Single-sex schooling is actually a big topic in educational circles right now. There is a fair amount of evidence that many students benefit from it. But you know best, right?

Well, I think that's a little dramatic, but my distaste for Michael Bay does go beyond "I don't like his movies." I don't like Wes Anderson's flicks all that much either but I don't mind contributing to his livelihood by paying to see them from time to time. But Bay? He just strikes me as a bad, gross person. Making…

I meant he's regarded as a hack by fans, but fair point, he is a very powerful and influential figure in Hollywood, which makes his alteration of TMNT all the more painful for fans. This isn't some dickhead like American McGee making an established IP Dark 'n Edgy just cuz. This is a man who, like you said, is likely…

These characters have always had a very specific facial design that was charming and instantly recognizable if not "attractive," (see the comparison shot elsewhere in the comments) and Michael Bay has seemingly chosen to rework this iconic look into something both less interesting and less pleasant, for seemingly no…

They're UGLY. An audience paying $15 a pop to watch for whatever bloated-ass 2+ hour running time Bay will no doubt insist on is a pretty big ask if your main characters are repulsive to look at. The original design of the turtles' faces was cute and likable. Now they're a bunch of horrible potato-faced fetuses.

I hide my phone in my butt for exactly this reason.

Not sure what your point is, but okay!

I'd take the message the opposite way: "Hiding who you are just leads to self-loathing and isolation." And besides, it's not like being the villain automatically makes a character completely unsympathetic. Lots of kids identify with the villains in these flicks. Wicked is a billion-dollar juggernaut for just that…

I just disagree that the prince was set up as an awesome guy. At best he's as dumb as Anna, wanting to marry her after knowing her for a couple hours at most; at worst he has ulterior motives, which were hinted at (you're right that his birth order doesn't necessarily suggest anything about his motivations, but it…

Well, I actually do think the twist was forseeable, even obvious to an adult. The prince was clearly too good to be true, and both Elsa and Love Interest Reindeer Dude remark that Anna doesn't actually know the guy. His totes adorbz story about having a bunch of older brothers gave the viewer a pretty good idea, early…

Nah, I don't care for the snowman song. (Just make up a story for why you can't come out, Elsa! Jesus!) Let It Go is overexposed to levels not seen since My Heart Will Go On, and Idina Menzel isn't my favorite vocalist, but it's a good song.

Possibly I'm just getting sick of Frozen. I mean, it's not bad. Your basic Disney plot, a little more female empowerment than normal, exactly one good song. But the amount of adoration it's getting from adults, even those who don't have children, is mind-boggling to me. The hype storm surrounding Frozen 2 is going to…

The point is that it's overthinking what's supposed to be a cute little easter egg (and fwiw Hercules does not take place during "the Roman empire").

the site is about making "health a priority," meaning working out comes before anything else, including kids, a bath and snuggling with the husband.

Is anyone actually doing some sort of Poor Oprah shtick? Because that would be dumb as hell. I just find it gross that Oprah decided to become this shitshow's latest patron/enabler in order to drum up interest in her dumb network. I get that it's business and Oprah's nothing if not a stone-cold businesswoman, but damn.

Well, it kind of IS the point. Developers are going to release a game as soon as humanly possible because every second it isn't on the market will cost them money. In the days before Internet-enabled consoles (which make patching even the most ruinous bugs a breeze) this threshold was further in the future, not to…

The number of people who will refuse to buy a game on the principle you're describing is negligible to nonexistent. Time is money. If a developer can release a game earlier and start recouping their investment (remember, at this level a game might cost $100 million to develop), patching any issues in post-release,…