Comments

I feel like a better question is what e-mail address their publicists are using...
Yes and I am inclined to agree, except on one point: the movie is ABOUT the concept that their stories are unheard and that the truth is being exposed, and it is effectively accomplishing the opposite here.
Oh, shit. I say this all the time. I verb it, though: "Netflixing"
I think you're right, but I would go so far as to say that people who enjoyed it did so based around the fact that it is a supposedly historically accurate representation of that period, which would in turn lead people to seek out reviews/accounts/etc that are consistent with what they already saw. They wouldn't look for or even pay attention to information that is framed in a way that doesn't line up with this, especially because in itself the plot revolves around "shining a light on information that was not easily accessible" and "giving a voice to those who were not heard." The film/novel are probably enough to give most people the sense that they have been educated on the topic in some way.
Is that the same thing? Seems like that was kind of a catharsis for an otherwise-cowardly way out for him, whereas this is more of an unhealthy perpetuation of a myth. PS that was the soonest I've ever been Godwin'd.
Is there any polite way to link to this on my [seemingly progressive] friends' Facebook updates talking about how awesome the movie is/how excited they are to see it?
Glad to see at least one person is laughing at Ken Jeong!
Has anyone seen Beth Holloway's show on Lifetime? Oh jeez. Now that's a sad case. Rich white girl's mom milking sensationalist fears and perpetuating other rich white girls' parents' endless anxiety about sex trades and missing persons reports. the show is literally her just talking to other parents about their missing children, and they're advertising it as her being an expert on the subject and helping them through it. FUCKIN LIFETIME.
what about kid cudi - day n night?
Will this be obscure enough for a Halloween costume?
vaguely, some people got upset over the state of commenting and amount of .gifs (heavily paraphrasing), and it led to people wanting "the old vgum" back which ostracized a lot of folks and I think on both ends it ended up getting personal in one way or another (eg bad taste in mouth). am I wrong here? btw FWIW Jana I am 100% with you in everything that you said! I am more inflammatory than anything (troll at heart) and so I will still refrain from commenting in the future.
OH SHIT. & I, with the equally-defensive, antagonistic dumb-playing that I so easily fall into.
cosigned on all 5 points.
what needs clarifying? it is pretty straightforward, no?
EVERYONE TAKES IT WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. People get defensive over way too little. Any dissent or waver from the groupthink is confronted with hostility. Plus, I just don't think it's funny anymore. It's borderline cultish. Kelly shows promise and balances it out a bit, but Gabe's solo run was draining my patience. but hey, I love me some Monsters. I just can't take the writing "YOU GUYS." I once received a ton of downvotes for saying I thought it was a waste of time to catalogue "inside jokes", and I stand by that. It's a blog. #blogblog
BEAT ME BY 4 MINUTES
what's mine is yours, Ian.
a charity function? these people realize he's an unbearably evil dictator, yes? they seem relatively unaffected. cool it, kurt russell.