That's cool. Liking problematic media and all the jazz that entails. As I said I'm hoping they had their say of their half baked Randian philosophy in the first one, and mostly focus on the bits I greatly enjoyed.

But I wanted to primarily point out that you are not alone in seeing the elitism themes, and while I can personally let it wash over me, it's entire reasonable for that to be a deal breaker.

Ah yes. Yakko yaks, and Wakko packs away the snacks. I should know that by now. ;)

As someone who's memorized both of them, I've got to say the elements is way easier. The elements are grouped alliteratively for the most part, and the ones that aren't mostly have some other pattern. (5/6 of the noble gases are together, the ones named after famous people are together, etc.) And it was written before you got to the stupid ones like Ununpentium. Also it's shorter.

Wakko's world is a lot more random. There's a certain level of geographic proximity, but not enough for me to remember in a mnemonic fashion, and I just had to brute force it.

You know even when I first watched this movie the "if everybody's special nobody is" statement seemed like something that would be reframed by the end of the movie in a more positive way during the final confrontation, and then that never happened. Syndrome is definitely a classic Ayn Rand villain: A conniving, manipulative man who seeks personal gain without honest work or achievement, and actively begrudges those with abilities he doesn't have. We can argue about how if he channeled his intellect into something greater that would be different, but within the context of the movie he's too lazy to do anything but stand on the shoulders of his betters.

I've had arguments with people over just how Randian the Incredibles is. There's definitely a sense of elitism throughout, and a recurrent despair at the celebration of mediocrity, but a true Objectivist superhero wouldn't waste time altruistically helping people. There's none of the whole "virtue of selfishness" with is certainly the most odious part of Rand's philosophy. Hell, Bob's arc ends with him rejecting his selfish desire to recapture the old days, and learn to rely on others, which is definitely an objectivist no-no.

(Also I've had similar conversations about Ratatouille and it's a fountainhead parallels. Brad Bird had a Randian phase in college)

I'm looking forward to an Incredibles sequel, but that's for the fun superhero adventure with characters I like, and interesting commentary on the changing of superhero eras. Hopefully given the Fantastic Four parallels, the next movie can be about a Galactus analogue with a moral about how there's always something bigger or something.

RIGHT?? I usually go with whatever my first instinct is, especially because there is almost always a choice that matches what I am actually feeling, and that is pretty fucking cool, you know? And even though I knew the best option would be to take the fall, like I said, those fuckers keep yelling at me like I'm the worst ever and stop it do you even know how awesome I am??
I also go with whatever my first instinct is. The way I see it, if I the impartial observer can be too angry to think rationally, then I don't see how Clementine could be expected to.

It's interesting to balance the times when I want to use "I'm just a little girl!" to my advantage with the times I want to assert myself as strong and independent. The latter is beginning to win out already, although with strangers (like Matthew), I play the Little Girl Card.
Playing as an 11 year old girl has been wildly different to any

Usually in a game like this, the player avatar has an in universe title as the most important person in the room. (Lee, Bigby, Shepard, Hawke, The Warden, and Adam Jensen leap to mind in terms of recent examples). People don't take her seriously, and they talk down to her at times, and she's certainly a lot more limited in terms of physical capabilities. It's a refreshing change of pace.

Absolutely. I felt bad that I hadn't stolen the watch before so I could give it to him. But I didn't want to make more trouble for myself then!
Ugh I know. I didn't see any possible way that stealing a watch from this group of strangers who were arguing about my trustworthiness could possibly end well.

Ahahahaha. She's growing on me. I feel bad for her and it would be nice to have a friend closer to my own age.
I feel bad for her, but she still terrifies me. It is more than two years into the zombie apocalypse. She is fifteen years old, and she's completely helpless. Which is not her fault, but if Carlos had died in that room she would not be able to survive, and she has not done anything to show that having her around would be useful. That makes me nervous.

I KNOW. Did you explain that Duck was his son? I just said, "Kenny..." because it wasn't my place to say.
Well they already knew that Kenny lost his wife and son. It didn't occur to me that it might not be appropriate to share that, and didn't think Kenny was in the mood to be pestered for that information.

I did not! I thought it was something more sinister, like Matthew was imaginary or a zombie or a Sasquatch or something. Interesting how both second episodes have recurring references leading to a reveal.

The moment I called it was when Walter showed Clem the can of peaches and made the same comparison with girl on the can, immediately after mentioning his missing partner. Earlier I thought it was weird that the man on the bridge said he had plenty of food but only had two cans of peaches, and suddenly I put two and two together.

This was a much better twist (and episode) than it's fist season counterpart. I knew something was up with the St. Johns, but cannibalism didn't occur to me because it was just so weird. They had the renewable ingredients to make biscuits.I don't know how long I would have to eat biscuits before I became so bored of them that cannibalism seems like a viable alternative, but I suspect it would be longer than three months.

Also, considering they were killing people for food, their slaughterhouse looked like it was in terrible condition. I get that's it's supposed to be horrifying, but there's a reason butcher shops don't look like the setting of a slasher film. The whole thing just came off as cartoonish.

I feel like if they brought Kenny back from the apparent dead, they've got to bring back Lilly at some point. Clem even brings her up in this episode.

I don't know how I'd feel about that. I still like to think of Lilly as the same girl from the comics even if that's no longer true, but even so, I don't want this to become a season one reunion if we're presumably going to see Christa again.

Your interactions with Sarah are identical to mine. When Carlos blamed me for using the camera all I could think before the prompts showed up was "You were the one who told me to distract her asshole". and then I realized that was not the smartest thing to say, but honestly I was sick of his bullshit. It's completely irresponsible for Sarah not to know how to shoot things at this point.

And I too didn't understand the significance of the ornaments, but I wasn't going to replay the entire section just for that.

I don't get anyone who chose to sit with Luke. Clem knew Kenny for almost a year, and he was presumed dead for the last two. She known the new group for less than a week, and it's still questionable how trustworthy they are. By this point in the first game, I already had my favorites, (Lee, Clementine, Carley and Kenny), but I still don't feel connected to the Cabin survivors in the same way. I'm really fond of Nick, fuckup as he is, he's a lot better than Ben in terms of his justifications and his contrition, and I feel a certain level of camaraderie with Luke, but I just don't have strong opinions about anyone else besides Sarah, and that opinion is stark raving terror.

Also I kind of died inside when Kenny asked Duck to pass the beans. I'm worried that Ken might see Clem as a replacement Duck, which would be all kinds of unhealthy.

And I totally called Matthew being the guy who Nick shot the moment they mentioned a missing companion. It's apparently possible to get NIck killed if you tell Walter he's not a good guy, but I'm still shocked at the level of moral fiber Walter displayed. Really bummed about his death, and if I could choose to save him over 90% of the cabin survivors, I'd pick him. (Also, while I generally think the Walking Dead game is pretty great in terms of representation, I'm not sure how I feel about the first explicitly gay characters dying in the same episode they were introduced.)

The moment Bonnie started spinning her story about a family I was practically screaming "NO DON'T TRUST HER SHE IS LYING WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE OMNISCIENT KNOWLEDGE I DO?" That was fun.

I just want it 100% on record that just because I see Gravity as a purely cinematic film, does not make it an insipid empty spectacle. When Cinema can take you on such rhythmic emotional journey (I don't get people who say that the movie is "a ride" like it's a bad thing) that needs to be fucking celebrated.

There is not a single wasted moment in Gravity, and it always knows exactly which feeling it wants to hammer into you in this particular way that works for this particular way, and I honestly don't know what the people complaining about a lack of depth actually want out of this movie. It can't flashback to earth because that would remove the audience from the visceral terror, but it also knows to avoid getting complacent by hitting you with lulls of solemnity along the way, and then the terror comes back.

Gravity is perfect machine, and I literally cannot conceive of how to give this movie the convoluted plot that would check off people's boxes of what constitutes "depth" without subtracting from what the movie actually is.

(I don't think that was aimed at me, but seeing the same phrasing in my writeup made me a little defensive)

If 55 songs is not enough, then you are way too much of a perfectionist. It's still damn amazing no matter how you cut this.

I said retroactively. I like Shakespeare in love. I've never seen Dances with Wolves. It's just the discussion around awards completely changes the context with which we view certain movies and you can't really have a conversation about either of them without starting from a defensive position about them stealing an award from a more deserving movie.

The problem I have with Silver Linings is that it feels massively dishonest. The movie spends the first two thirds making absolutely clear that Bradley Cooper has very important problems that can only be solved by accepting them. It's hammered over and over again. Every bit of character progression, every comedic beat, and every piece of conflict comes from someone doing something doing something in place of "normal" behavior that they have to stop making excuses for. The character lie to each other, and only make strides when they are honest. So when the time comes for he movie to end and make this point absolutely clear...and the characters all get into a room, invent a bunch of stakes for the third act, and the rest of the movie devolves into a happy times dance sequence leading to a happy ending for the two damaged leads with no hint of sobriety, or acknowledgment of the previous themes. It abandons it's identity and message for a happy ending that doesn't feel real.

As for Hustle. it won big at the globes, and it's very likely to take best picture. Which would allow it to join the ranks of movies retroactively taken down by winning an award it didn't deserve (Shakespere in Love, Dances with wolves, etc)