Yeah, I watched it because it was on TV and I was in the mood to just veg out and watch something stupid, and I found it...fine? Like, it's definitely not bad enough you can enjoy ragging on it, so it's not as fun an experience as something worse while also not being very good, it's just there.

The thumbnail appears to be the image in question, but when I click on the link and open the article there's no sign of it?

I don't care for music as an art form, I can't stand musicals, and I loved Once. Didn't even realise it was a musical until reading up on it later.

You're wrong.

There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn't The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.

Everyone keeps saying it's three hours, but Letterboxd lists at less than 2.5?

WWE really isn't good at the whole "you can use this trademark under these specific conditions" thing, huh?

The Sprinkler Sprinkled was released in 1896 and remade in 1897.

It's expensive, often less comfortable than my own home, and I like theatre in which the crowd plays a part in the experience,

This is why I don't understand the "big action movies need a cinema, small comedies you can watch at home" argument. My home theatre can replicate the big-screen action experience just fine, but a comedy with a crowd is immediately 35% funnier.

There's actually an investigation? That had slipped my notice/memory.

Has he been charged with anything?

You think prosecutors need to be paid off to hide evidence and generally ignore the rights of defendants?

You're watching it wrong.

What on earth are you talking about?

...which side of this argument are you on?

"There's no benefit to physical media." "Yes there is." "Why are you defending corporations?"

...what?

This is false. Firstly, because people don't subscribe to everything forever. But even in some Netflix utopia where everyone has a Netflix subscription, and they keep it forever, then what? Now you can't make any more money, you're making the maximum amount of money your business model can make. But you can keep people subscribed to your service by continuing to add new things, while also making extra money from those who would like to own physical copies.

Subscriptions detach income from titles, meaning all the service needs to do is exist and have things on it. There's no budget to actually create anything special. Physical offers a way to reconnect those, making something that is more expensive and in return making more money.

The ad-based plans everyone is introducing run on the same logic. Subscriptions aren't sustainable.

The "clickbait" title seems the more accurate of the two, having read the article.

Harmy's versions aren't anywhere near as good as TN1's (which have existed for years, none of this is news).

"These days"? They always have.