I was actually terrified they would follow some/any of the beats from the movie/comic. And I LOOOOOOVE the movie. But by the time the show gets going, I was ridiculously invested in how different it approached every situation and gave everyone so much depth.

There’s a pretty big difference between a plot twist and an anthology series telling people what its basic hook is.

I can promise you that, if they’d advertised the twist, there’d be a ton of people complaining that “Boy, I wish THAT hadn’t been spoiled in the trailer!”

do you know in the Akira movie, Akira isn’t in it at all and is in fact, DEAD! Yet some how, he’s still relevant to the story! Crazy!

I remember when a friend in highschool first recommended Scott Pilgrim with me with the caveat that the characters and story was ‘kind of shallow.’ And while enjoyable, her assessment ultimately proved true, it was pretty shallow. That’s why I was so delighted that the anime zagged instead of zigged. I went from “Meh,…

Nega Scott, a physical manifestation of all of Scott’s flaws, down to short gags

I couldn't get into Futurama because John Futurama never showed up *once*.

This is a hilarious instance to get upset about what you’re claiming though. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is already a deliberate attack on the straight white male protagonist. Scott Pilgrim is not a likable character (that was a big part of why I had mixed feelings about the movie). The point is that he’s a selfish…

Nah, this was made for the fans and the fans wanted to see more content from all their favourite characters.

Nah, it was actually great, and a majority of the criticism comes from people who can’t process stories they don’t immediately relate to.

People incapable of character growth hate character growth. 

It seems very like “Poor people neeeed those clothes!” but also “Poor people are supposed to stay poor, I don’t want them reselling those clothes for a meager profit!”

Exactly. Too many people miss this fact. Going into a low income area to thrift is going to net you goods that were affordable to low income people.

It’s also wild to see people talk about greedy, colonizing resellers because the vast, vast majority of resellers are not well off. It's like single moms finding something they can do from home, or new immigrants fixing up clothes to sell in their community.

Thrift stores don’t sell *to* poor people. They sell to raise money for other programs (which sometimes involve just giving clothes to the poor). Anyone buying the clothes is good because it funds the other stuff.

The high end products probably aren't coming from thrift stores in a low income area.

Right? I am confused at the outrage.

Making money without working? What is she, a CEO? Seriously, though, if these people were buying up all the clothes people literally need to protect their bodies from the elements, the concern would make sense, but impractical fashiony items going for elevated prices aren’t going to hurt anyone materially. Question:…

Isn’t this how every store in the history of stores has worked?

Some have even gone as far as to call her a “mini landlord” (more on that later)