On one hand yes, of course. But on the other, to drive people to use yet another (oftentimes) subscription service, it's seems like a Pro Capitalist move for another grift avenue.
Good read. I like the data. I've sussed out critics I tend to align with and read what they have to say after watching a movie, but never before. If I want to be disappointed I look to see what RT scores it for comparison. Granted, RT is a relatively spoiler free way to at-a-glance see if something might be worth spending money on but clearly it's less and less reliable over the years. Reminds me of Yelp and their bullshit.
In a perfect world we'd all make much more money to see many more movies and not feel the need to min-max all the fuckin time. Maybe that's just me.
Hoping this ages like milk, but I'm personally not putting much stock into these theatrics. I feel like the past decade has time and time again shown that schadenfreude only happens in movies, and that every interaction these people have with each other are Neanderthal-level grifts that successfully siphon them more even money from the lower classes.
For the ARC, these federal contracts have been lucrative. According to government spending records, the company has received at least $600,000 from federal contracts so far in 2025, and about $700,000 last year.
I don't know why I was expecting more. US citizens should probably start unmasking who the people making decisions behind these companies are, who would sell out this kind of data on others--all for such an inconsequential amount of money.
I don't know how many times I've made this comment but it feels like a lot. The more you use a word the less it means something. How unoriginal do you have to be at writing headlines in 2025 to use a word as meek as "slams."
It's laughable in this context especially. Trying to phrase it like this guy has gotten any kind of consequence for his toddler-from-hell persona.
I think there's truth in it either way. Although I can't think of many things only men like, expanding it to "anything dominated by an overwhelming proportion of men to woman" still works. I think they're more cringe than uncool though.
Generally they tend toward collecting as much money as possible from people so in that regard, people dying isn't good for business. But from an ethical standpoint, no, I wouldn't think so. Do you?
Speculating here but I imagine that would indirectly cause much more death than we already see in wildfire situations, due to people potentially staying home trying to abate damage however they can think of.
This is actually quite eye opening to me, as someone who doesn't really ever have to look at ratings as a consumer and has always just taken them for granted. Now I'm keenly aware it's yet another example of runaway capitalism. Just never thought too hard about it.
Hmm, stepping on rakes is about the only leverage I've seen US Democrats use. The world would be happily surprised if they did otherwise.