this does perpetuate the idea that it’s the path to success

Yeah... and lots of people make fun of Jobs and Musk for their weirdness.

I really did not expect “I think segregation is bad” to hit such a nerve with anyone.

Mike Faist! Mike Faist! Mike Faist!

I don’t think “authenticity” (whatever that means) was really what that movie called for.

When someone’s actions are directly counter-productive to the positions they claim to support, yes, I take their words with a grain of salt.

and then one day say “Hey! There’s an entire world of real people out there! Wouldn’t that be exciting and new!”

Yes, there’s always an absolute fever-pitched mass hysteria whenever a new Derek Jacobi joint hits the cinemas!

Genuinely appreciate your claim to be in possession of the “objective” truth as to who counts as a movie star. It’s ridiculous, but it keeps the comments section going!

I’m not as interested in people’s intentions as I am in the results of their decisions and actions.

The only one of those four who ever was a “Movie Star” is Pfeiffer, and that was 20 years ago. They are all amazing actors, and very familiar to anyone who cares at all about film. But they are not powering box-office hits. People are not lining up by the millions to see the next Willem Dafoe project on opening…

Yes, and if the argument AV Club kept bringing up was that this movie has a much less critically acclaimed cast, I’d be fully on board. But the specific phrase they keep using is “lower-wattage.” 

Yeah... a lot of you are confusing “acclaim” with “stardom.”

There are a lot of wonderful, well known, actors who I love in that film, but by my reckoning the only true “Movie Star” was Johnny Depp. Likewise, this film is full of familiar faces, anchored by one “Movie Star” (Gadot). Personally, I’d bet that at the moment Gadot is a bigger audience draw than Depp.

This is the second time the AVClub has described this cast as “lower-wattage” than Murder on the Orient Express, and it doesn’t really make sense. I mean... maybe a little bit, but not to any meaningful extent that warrants mentioning every time the film is mentioned.

“Well intentioned” only goes so far when it leads to outcomes like advocating for segregated neighborhoods.

I also consider myself pretty leftist, and I have literally had people who are a bit younger and (consider themselves) more progressive than me, tell me that they refuse to live in a majority-minority neighborhood, because that would make them gentrifiers.

Zendaya’s great, but Rue’s addiction narrative is by far the least interesting part of this show.

Ultimately, just as we distinguish abuse from consensual sexual treatment of human beings, we can and should distinguish abuse from sexting with bots.

Situations vary wildly and it’s a very difficult thing to get numbers on (for obvious reasons) but a lot research strongly suggests that the ability to act out dark fantasies in a non-harmful way reduces the risk of acting out those fantasies in a real, harmful, way.