Too serious. Lacks the playfulness and humor of the original.

I love David Fincher but I would rate TSN further down on his resume than his others. Still a very good movie, well executed, but accurate? Naw, there's a lot of the Sorkin exaggeration in it. The biggest sticking point is the lack of any Priscilla that I can recall, who has been basically with Mark through most of his adult life and initial rise.

They're usually conventional as hell and boring and it's what I usually expect out of them. Usually they're a vehicle to get someone an acting award. They're almost never nearly as creative or interesting as the subject they are portraying.

I think American Splendor is the best biopic because it was actually creatively done and thematically fitting to the comic book the name came from.

2 is the best, I haven't seen 4 yet.

John Wick always was a comic book concept. The first one tried to play it straight, and was more art-house-y, but I felt like the suit hadn't quite fit yet. 2 turned the franchise more to its pulpy influences--fun but it wasn't completely ridiculous yet. 3 is when it really started to go ham on the lore and backstory, which is great for fanboys who love that stuff, but imo it made a simple, streamlined action franchise more closer to the average mainstream blockbuster.

Also, Halle Berry was just awful in 3

Well, it depends which book...

I sympathized with his plight but I agree with the growing sentiment that he was generally not as good a guy as he presented himself to be.

I can honestly believe it. Reading about him, he seems like he would be mischievous enough to do this.

It's also about having a shitty family that unfortunately many can probably relate to.

Like it or not, Barney was a big part of the show's success. The fact that he was an ass, or in today's popular term, 'problematic', WAS a big part of his original appeal.

Unless of course you are in fact talking about Ted lol.

Now see, for me I think of "bad" characters as being more in the line of this:

Seven in Married With Children

Scott in 90210

Susan in Seinfeld

Basically characters that never took off or fit in with the show's tone.

Funny is in the eye of the beholder, but writing and production wise Bocchi is just a better show, period.

One of the most influential and trailblazing writers in American TV animation history.

They should choose game properties that lend itself better to a story driven form.

A great video game doesn't necessarily mean it translates to a great TV/movie, and vice versa. Even though Halo was a "bad" adaptation it was never a property that should have been adapted in the first place. It's nominally a first person shooter where the protagonist is meant to be faceless so the player can imagine themselves in his shoes. Cut scenes aren't as frequent as in TLOU and many of the game's excitement is made up of your progress in the game's areas. It's a great game. But that's not a good property to adapt.

Sometimes. Usually moreso for centuries-old authors than current ones though. I went down quite a rabbit hole for Jane Austen, and she's STILL an enigma to me.

I think it's like the internet. Just because you have all this access and connection at your fingertips doesn't mean everyone is getting closer together. Quite the contrary in fact.

Not even entirely joking here: people have less friends today. Most of their relationships outside of family now are workplace related.

Large crows!

People like puzzles, violence and intrigue. While it's unfortunate for the victims of the actual crime to have their life-altering event to be seen in this way, those elements are the hooks of true crime for most people, probably even moreso than the justice factor.

Jeffrey Tambor was an amazing character actor for so many decades and Hey Now Hank is his best role. A shame how his career ended but his body of work still stands up.

While the sort of thing that happens in Oliver Twist is based to some degree on fact, Dickens has always tended towards writing caricatures, which was in fact common with a lot of Victorian literature at the time. In a Dickens book, if a guy was bad, he was cartoonishly, vindictively, bad. If someone was good, they were saintly good.

Not every adult in those days was as evil as they seem in Oliver Twist (I mean the fact that Dickens, an adult, was writing about how horrible these conditions were suggests he was not alone in his opinion). But for the story he is telling, he had to make them extra horrible to get his message across.

NBA on NBC theme music intensifies

Though Molly Ringwald did indeed have a few choice things to say about THAT movie director's writing.

Don't you mean Jinkies?

It doesn't mean to literally write about your own experiences. It means to impart your personality, desires, knowledge, etc into your work. For example, if you haven't had a romance before, you can write about how you FEEL about romance, or portray a romance that is your personal ideal. Or you can write about what you've witnessed from people around you.

Or in fantasy, you can write about goblins and elves etc but the story is about relationships and situations and emotions that you are familiar with, that mean something to you.

I think the phrase is often used as advice to people who don't know what to write, or if you find yourself foolishly trying to write what you think people want to see, instead of what YOU want to see.

She's a popular writer of basically lowbrow fiction. These kinds of authors are always lightning rods for criticism in some way or another. Some people dislike the fact that she seemed to come out of nowhere instead of "earning" her success, but there have been authors like her in every decade for over a hundred years. As far as her "romanticizing" toxic relationships, well, one of the selling points of lowbrow popular fiction is that they do things that seem "taboo" to readers looking for non-moralist escapism. Obviously there is a fine line to walk without tipping over, and Hoover seems to balance the line quite well, as evidenced by her popularity. So every criticism of her books' "problematic" nature are in some way also a selling point for a lot of people. I think her critics would do well to try a different critical tack if they want to curtail her popularity, because the current one obviously hasn't been working.

I've heard of rare cases where anime episodes are delivered to networks only hours before airing