Nah, Weinstein's a sleazy, mercantile businessman, whose business happens to be making acclaimed movies.

Miramax butchered Thief and the Cobbler to rush an incomplete version to market ahead of Aladdin, and then added in wall-to-wall voiceover, pop culture gags, and musical numbers to a nearly silent movie so they could sell it to kids.

I grew up with a version my parents brought back from when they lived in England, so Monopoly is always bizarre to me— I can't wrap my head around Trafalgar Square and King's Cross not being on the board. That said, your policy is correct.

I've been on the guy's side since Southland Tales. Not only did he give a really good performance in it, but it was a bizarre casting choice he had no business saying yes to and he really made the movie his own.

I hate to follow up one Simpsons quote you didn't get with another one you probably won't get, but that's the joke.

Hmm— I had interpreted the note about the Moon Presence as implying it was summoned by the Hunters. My interpretation was that Gehrman, witnessing the events portrayed in the Old Hunters DLC (I think that you're reliving Gehrman's memories there), made a deal with the Moon Presence that he and other hunters would be…

What the hell is wrong with that category that neither he nor Deakins have ever managed to take one home?

I'm not sure, since the Moon Presence is helping to bring about the destruction of other evils (maybe? It's ambiguous. I've spent many beers discussing the subject, but I feel that the Moon Presence is unknowable and working toward its own ends, but doesn't seem outright evil— it chews through the Hunters as a…

Steve Bannon looks like every scene in Robocop at once.

Damn, son, deep cut. I like it.

The Orphan of Kos? You mean the slimy, rage-filled, shrieking child who doesn't understand the world and only wants to smash?

Nah, that's autocorrect for Christmas.

Artists showing in galleries do have say over how their work is displayed if they display distorts the meaning or intention of the art, as covered under VARA, and have legal rights if the manner in which the art is displayed fundamentally changes that meaning.

It wasn't erected blocking the sidewalk, he originally put it under the Wall Street Christians tree.

If you don't want people visiting your city, don't fund museums, parks, or public attractions. You don't get to live in the arts capital of the world and then complain when people would like to give your city 45 billion dollars a year to see it.

By definition, setting up a piece of art in a public place, in secret, without a permit is guerilla art. That's the term for it, from, like, the dictionary.

Yeah, given that he still has the copyright, that's pretty blatant.

Ah, dang. I only saw it mentioned in passing— the article must have been older than I realized.

Yes, he has a right to be upset, because they're using his statue to do in a manner which changes its meaning. A work of art has meaning and intention, and an artist is allowed to be defensive of that, regardless of the quality of the art.

I'm fine with death of the author, I just don't like the extent to which a lot of people are acting like the man is an irredeemable asshole because he doesn't like his intention being changed— I don't expect all authors to support the idea of their own death. Personally, I agree with the flawed, corporate…