zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. causi+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-09-07 15:44:31
Is that a real thing? I don't get the appeal of these "what if this historical story was created now instead of hundreds of years ago" genre.
replies(1): >>jncfhn+Me
2. jncfhn+Me[view] [source] 2023-09-07 16:37:01
>>causi+(OP)
Guess you don’t like Hamlet either then, which is a reinvented Amleth.

I struggle to see how the gp here can still be so bothered by the “feminist” film that did just a couple hundred thousand in the box office five years ago personally. That is a tiny drop in the bucket.

replies(1): >>peyton+O81
◧◩
3. peyton+O81[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 20:27:08
>>jncfhn+Me
I’m not bothered. I don’t think the FCC will prioritize it.
replies(1): >>jncfhn+gW1
◧◩◪
4. jncfhn+gW1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-08 01:28:28
>>peyton+O81
Because it was a tiny film from five years ago that was neither critically nor financially successful despite 8 reviewers being offered $50.

I just can’t fathom why you felt compelled to reference it and the fact that it was “feminist”

replies(1): >>peyton+IW7
◧◩◪◨
5. peyton+IW7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-09 23:13:42
>>jncfhn+gW1
I think it’s fine to describe a film on a discussion forum. I just Googled what it is and copied the first thing I saw. I referenced it so others have that information too.
[go to top]