It has been 10 days since the release of Justice League. I write that because, in my mind, it feels like twenty. And, sure, part of that is due to the way in which time seems to drudge forward endlessly into a river of constant, bleak despair in the year 2017, but the other part is due to the overall effect Justice League had on moviegoers…or, more accurately, lack of effect.
Because, though Justice League marks a big step in the DC Cinematic Universe, it has failed to capture the zeitgeist in the same way the films that came before it have. Say what you will about the quality of Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, or Batman v. Superman, but they are bonefide blockbuster hits (barely so with BvS, but still.) Justice League’s blockbuster status, though, is a lot more questionable. Opening at $96 million might SEEM okay on the surface, but diving deeper, It’s actually a shockingly low number for the superhero team-up. It’s the lowest opening yet for any of the DC universe films, which in and of itself is a big problem. But combined with the massive production budget (some reports claim the cost could come to over $300 million, and that’s before marketing), and that number looks far less enticing.
And though Thanksgiving weekend MIGHT have been the opportunity for the film to break out in a bigger way, the past five days very much showed that not to be the case. Grossing just $59.6 over the time frame, Justice League failed to even place second in its opening weekend, losing to Disney/Pixar’s Coco in its debut weekend. Combined with a second weekend drop of 57% and things are not looking great for Justice League. At this time, the losses could add up to over $100 million.
So, as I have done in the past when a box office bomb is unleashed upon us, the question must be asked: how did this happen? Well, Mr. Warner Bros: we gave you all the clues. You should have seen this failure coming. Here are 5 of the main five reasons Justice League bombed at the box office.
5. It ran right up against Thor: Ragnarok
Why Hollywood studios continue to do this is baffling to me, but it’s hard to deny that Justice League’s to close-for-comfort release date to Thor: Ragnarok did not help the film at all. On the one hand, I can see Warner’s confidence in placing Justice League so close to Ragnarok — looking at the other two Thor movies, Warner probably didn’t sense much of a threat. What they didn’t know at the time was that the film would prove to be A) a critical and commercial success that dwarfed its two predecessors entirely and B) something of a team-up film involving two Avengers and a fan favorite villain. It was also an effects-heavy fantasy action pic, which…yeah, is also Justice League. The film’s just both seemed too similar to orbit the same release window and, though comic fans conceivably chose to see both, general audiences? For a good portion of them, they chose the old reliable Marvel movie.
4. It didn’t feel like an “event” at the same level of The Avengers
This is where the strange building blocks of the DC Cinematic Universe really comes into play. Unlike Marvel (yes, you are going to hear this comparison a lot through this article, deal with it), DC built up its universe and the characters within it in a rather, shall we say bold way. Well Man of Steel and Wonder Woman were traditional, rather standalone origin stories, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was something…different. Initially it was aimed as a Man of Steel sequel, but ultimately morphed into a Justice League prequel of sorts, featuring the Big Three (Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman) in substantial roles, and awkward appearances from the other League members as well.
So, going into Justice League, we’d already seen half of its members team up to fight evil together. This wasn’t an unprecedented event, even within the universe of DC. And though the Big Three combined alongside the likes of The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg…we had yet to be introduced to The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. There was no anticipation to see them fight alongside the heroes we already knew, at least not for the non-comic book fans in the audience.
And the fact that Superman is bizarrely absence from the majority of the actual film didn’t help either. A residual effect from the decision to leave him dead at the end of Batman v. Superman, killing off Superman before certainly didn’t help Justice League feel like a grander team-up film. It left him out of a huge majority of the marketing, with all the big team posters and group photos not featuring the Man of Steel at all. This was a rather boneheaded decision from the marketing department, because it wasn’t exactly like Superman’s involvement in the team and (eventual) return to it would be some big shock. But by trying to ignore the Big Blue Boy Scout in the room, Justice League felt like even less of a monumental “coming together” than it even did initially.
3. The Justice League marketing was flat all around
Leaving out Superman wasn’t the only problem with Justice League’s marketing, however. Really, the film’s ad campaign was all over the place. It was of course focused heavily on the idea of the superheroes all teaming up to fight bad guys…except we never really found out who that bad guy was, or what he was even after. Like the vague trailers for Blade Runner 2049 and Ghost in the Shell before it, the trailers for Justice League showed us pretty much nothing of the story. And well that might be fine for the spoiler-phobes that are averse to plot-heavy trailers (such as me), to general audiences, it doesn’t give them much to lean on as far as what drives the film.
These vague trailers are becoming a weird trend for the big blockbusters, and I honestly don’t think they help most movies. Well stuff like Star Wars: The Last Jedi can bank on mystery and general atmosphere to sell itself…some films need a little more help. It doesn’t help that none of the visuals in the Justice League trailer stood out very much (and looked actively bad in places), nor did the trailer present any big “moment” that would put asses in seats. Bringing up The Avengers yet again, there was no instantly iconic moment in the Justice League trailers that was nearly to the level of the spin around group shot, or even Iron Man being pursued by the giant alien monster (“bringing the party to you, etc.). When the coolest visual is Aquaman (a character audiences once again had no particular affection for) riding on top of the Batmobile, you might just have a problem. Hell, even Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice had a cooler, more iconic ad campaign than Justice League. Love it or hate it, the teaser trailer for the movie INSTANTLY captures your attention, in a way Justice League never really could.
2. Mixed reviews certainly didn’t help
The film world is torn between the idea that critical reception no longer manners, and that Rotten Tomatoes is the most important thing in the world. Obviously both are pretty contradictory opinions (Rotten Tomatoes is build up off of critic reviews after all), and pretty hyperbolic too. But, if you ask me, reception IS important. Even if “reviews” aren’t the most important thing in the world anymore, social media dictates that the reactions to a movie are generally echoed to millions, and impact a film’s opening substantially. And the reactions to Justice League were, decidedly, mixed.
Not as bad as Batman v. Superman, for sure — there were actually a few positive reactions in the mix, in comparison to what seemed like a deluge of hatred for BvS. But it still wasn’t very good at all, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 41% only being a positive when you compare it to the terrible scores for BvS and Suicide Squad. And well something like Thor: Ragnarok and DC’s own Wonder Women was able to ride good buzz to a strong opening, Justice League was not. Making a movie that is received well, in this day and age, IS important. When even Transformers feels the brunt of critical response, you know that social media reaction is a huge deal. Just making a movie that people seem to like can make up dozens of millions of dollars. And if you haven’t seemed to do that, expect a lower opening from the get go.
1. WB scorched the earth when it came to building up the DC Universe
This is the most obvious, most direct, and most important factor that led to Justice League underperforming — the quality of the previous film’s turned people away. Batman v. Superman was so widely disliked that “pessimistic hesitation” became the default mode for people when it came to this follow-up. Zack Snyder and Warner Bros. just poisoned the well big time here and, though that didn’t matter as much in the franchise films of the past, when you are playing the cinematic universe game, quality MATTERS.
In a way, the response to this whole DC Cinematic Universe is the exact opposite that Marvel has built up to — when general audiences see the Marvel logo, they expect a super fun, quality time. And for that reason, the Marvel films have soared at a consistently high pace. Hell, the third Thor movie made more money in its first few weekends in release than Justice League has, and that’s not because the character of Thor is more popular than Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. It’s because Marvel as a brand has installed trust in its audience. The DC movies have, for the most part, inspired bitterness.
And, yes, I get it — there are fans of the DC Movies out there, and by no means is the franchise universally hated. If that was the case, then Justice League would have opened to FAR LESS than $96 million. But with the kind of money Warner Bros is spending, and the impact they clearly wanted this film to have, they have to make movies that are universally beloved. And it’s not like they can’t do that — Wonder Woman is very well liked by audiences, and that appreciation for the movie led to a long, healthy box office run. Because it was good, and people liked it. And though Wonder Woman plays a role in Justice League, her involvement alone wasn’t enough to convince people this enterprise is worth funding. So they didn’t — simple as that.
Now will they in the future? That’s a damn good question — Justice League’s entire M.O. seems to be convincing people to like the DC Universe again, adding in better character work and splashes of fun to the previously dour experience. But, at this point, it feels like Warner is building a castle on top of a crumbling foundation. Though the film is still very much flawed, it does represent a mostly positive turning point for the DC Universe, and its characters. But, at this point, the damage has already been done, and a ton of money has been lost. It might be too little too late to save this particular branch of the DC Universe.
…But thankfully DC always has more Suicide Squad spin-offs, right? Maybe Deadshot buys a cell phone. Has Captain Boomerang ever owned a bear? The possibilities are truly endless!
Also published on Medium.
The Captain Marvel Teaser Trailer Is Here, And…It’s The First Trailer for A New Marvel Movie, All Right
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The release of the Captain Marvel teaser trailer has been pretty hotly anticipated, arguably more so than many of the other Marvel movie trailers that have come before it. The primary reason for the excitement is of course due to the conclusion of Avengers: Infinity War, which I’m going to spoil because come on now, you’re reading this article, I know where your interests lie. Suffice to say, the downer ending of Inifinty War, in which seemingly all of Marvel’s newest characters up and fade away into nothing, has fans buzzing to see what is coming next. And with the trailer for Avengers 4: Titles Are Dumb still many months away, Captain Marvel represents our best shot yet at seeing just what Marvel intends to do with this universe going forward, and how the titular character will ultimately factor into it.
But even removing the snap from the equation, there’s plenty of reason to be eager about Captain Marvel on its own merits. This has been one of those MCU movies that was seemingly announced forever ago, and to paraphrase Marvel’s other big female superhero with her name in the title, it’s about damn time we actually get to see Marvel Studio’s first female-fronted superhero project. It might come as a shock to no one that the trailer shows the answer to that being, well…a Marvel superhero movie. Whether or not that excites you largely depends on your attachment to the brand overall.
Myself? I’m already in the bag for this cinematic universe so, really, this trailer could have been two minutes of Kevin Feige jet-skiing on his bag of money while smoking a very well put together Dollar Bill Blunt™, and I still would have had the movie on my list of most anticipated films of 2019. And with the MCU on a hot streak of, like, ten good-to-great movies in row, I would feel no regrets at all about doing so. As I have written many times in the past, Marvel Studios has earned my trust, in pretty much everything they do.
But to dive into the nitty-gritty of the trailer itself? It’s perfectly fine. It follows the modern blockbuster teaser trailer to a T, with the loud symphonic music playing over a bunch of vague money shots of CGI and action moments, paired with an equally vague but well-delivered monologue about, well, anything really. The fact that said monologue is coming out of the mouth of Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury (as they so often do in the MCU) is extra points, though. Paired on top of that is the fact that said Nick Fury is looking all young and two-eyed, with disturbingly little uncanny effect to speak of in digitally recreating a mid-90’s Samuel L. Jackson. Which I’m aware is ironic, considering that the Uncanny Effect in and of itself speaks to the idea of something being so photo-realistic that the human mind, in turn, perceives it as unnatural. This is so photo-realistic and natural in the moment that, only upon true reflection, do I get really creeped out. Call it the Uncanny Uncanny Valley Effect Effect.
Oh right, the Captain Marvel trailer! So yeah, it’s one of those things where the most noteworthy aspect of the trailer lies in how unnoteworthy it is. Really it’s hard for me to gauge what exactly this movie will be, with the two-minute teaser doing little to fill in the tone or mood of the piece outside of “new superhero movie.” There’s some weird stuff going on timeline wise which, in the movie, might be really cool and unique. In the trailer, however, it’s kind of so jumbled up in editing that I’m not entirely sure what’s going down (so Carol Danvers has amnesia, or…?) Even more disappointing is the lack of a real “trailer moment,” something big and memorable ala Thor’s reaction to Hulk’s arrival in the Thor: Ragnarok tease, or Black Panther’s car flip, or even the lie that was the Avengers running together in the Infinity War trailer. The closest this trailer comes to a noteworthy shot is Carol Danvers sucker punching an old lady which, really, is only memorable for the “WTFness?” alone. I did like the brief image of Captain Marvel running up the side of the train, though, and some of the rotation shots at least point to an interesting style that directors Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden could be employing. That’s really the only hint of a unique approach or style in this trailer, though.
Lack of style isn’t exaclty bad, really, but not exactly fodder for overwhelming excitement either. Compared to something like Guardians of the Galaxy’s first trailer (where the “Hooked on a Feeling” scored edit made clear just exactly what kind of film we were dealing with) or Avengers: Age of Ultron’s first trailer (which wowed through pure mood and imagery alone), Captain Marvel falls short. Not bad, just short.
All that being said, it’s not like being merely “good” puts Captain Marvel significantly behind the first looks of other MCU films. In fact, I would say the majority of first trailers for Marvel Studios films have only been good, with only a few really strong ones being truly excellent in my mind. And with all but a handful of those films being great at the end of the day, I have no doubt Captain Marvel has the goods to keep Marvel’s winning streak going. We’ll find out when the film hits theaters March 8, 2019.
Also published on Medium.
James Gunn Fired From Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 Over Offensive Tweets…And Fuck If I Know How To Feel About It
Is it the right thing? Is it the wrong thing? Does it even matter? Who the fuck knows.
Ever since Weinstein (or longer, really, with the Film Twitter outing of people like Devin Faraci and Harry Knowles feeling like the true kick-off in my mind,) I’ve become accustomed to seeing people I admire be suddenly and without much warning outed as bad people, and dropped like a hot potato from Hollywood at large. For a while there, it almost became something of a daily ritual: wake up, take a shit, find out someone I love is shit, put out a shitty response on a shitty certain network (you know the one), and continue with my day. It might hurt for a while, but ultimately I’ve viewed this entire #MeToo thing as a necessary pain for both the industry and our culture: bad people being outed and shamed for doing bad things, from Louis C.K. to Roseanne, was a necessary step in the betterment of our society. Even if things debatably went “too far,” (which I would argue was rarer than the alternative), I was pretty resolute in my opinion that everything going on was “right.”
I still feel this way, in regards to #MeToo. But today’s piece of Hollywood shaming is not about #MeToo, at least not directly. This isn’t an example of a person mentally or physically abusing someone, and getting away with it for years. Nor is it an example of a person saying something offensive or reprehensible, and facing swift punishment for it. No, James Gunn getting fired from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 comes in the form of tweets….really bad tweets…from over a decade ago.
The background, just in case you need it: James Gunn has been the writer/director of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise thus far, a task he has handled with aplomb. They are critical hits, audience hits, and box office hits. And perhaps more than any other current MCU series (give or take a Thor: Ragnarok), Gunn’s unique voice is clear throughout both films, in the musical choices (all his) to the jokes and gags (mostly his.) He puts one hell of a unique stamp on the MCU, and even if the Guardians movies aren’t my absolute favorite of the franchise overall (hint: you can see where they both rank here), they are dependably great in large part because of him. So regardless of the reasons for his firing, this would be a damn shame, and a massive blow to the future of the MCU post Avengers 4.
But the circumstances of his firing turn things into, frankly, a clusterfuck of political and ethical and moral quandaries that I’m far figuring out my exact position on. I will make one thing completely clear though: the tweets in question that lead to Gunn’s firing are UNACCEPTABLE. They are in incredibly poor taste, stink of someone trying way too hard to be “edgy” (one of my least favorite character traits in a person, really), and are not even the slightest bit funny. Even just putting the morality of the tweets aside, everything about the ethos behind the tweets represents someone I would never want to encounter, nor want to support. Not just because the subject matter is bad, but because the sentiment behind it (SHOCKING and IN YOUR FACE and NOT AFRAID TO GO THERE humor) is so unbearable.
All that being said…this is a lot more complicated than simply being about bad tweets. The timetable for one is important, as pretty much all the tweets are from nearly a decade ago, and Gunn hasn’t exhibited the same penchant for that type of “humor” in the years since joining Disney and Marvel. Gunn also seems to be expressing remorse about the jokes, lauching a Twitter thread owning the horrid nature of the jokes, while still trying to explain how he has moved forward as a person and changed in the years since making them:
2. It’s not to say I’m better, but I am very, very different than I was a few years ago; today I try to root my work in love and connection and less in anger. My days saying something just because it’s shocking and trying to get a reaction are over.
— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) July 20, 2018
4. For the record, when I made these shocking jokes, I wasn’t living them out. I know this is a weird statement to make, and seems obvious, but, still, here I am, saying it.
— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) July 20, 2018
5. Anyway, that’s the completely honest truth: I used to make a lot of offensive jokes. I don’t anymore. I don’t blame my past self for this, but I like myself more and feel like a more full human being and creator today. Love you to you all.
— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) July 20, 2018
He was equally as remorseful in a written statement he released following Disney’s official decision to cut ties with him:
My words of nearly a decade ago were, at the time, totally failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative. I have regretted them for many years since — not just because they were stupid, not at all funny, wildly insensitive, and certainly not provocative like I had hoped, but also because they don’t reflect the person I am today or have been for some time.”
“Regardless of how much time has passed, I understand and accept the business decisions taken today. Even these many years later, I take full responsibility for the way I conducted myself then. All I can do now, beyond offering my sincere and heartfelt regret, is to be the best human being I can be: accepting, understanding, committed to equality, and far more thoughtful about my public statements and my obligations to our public discourse. To everyone inside my industry and beyond, I again offer my deepest apologies. Love to all.”
So yeah: the tweets were bad then, are bad now, and everybody involved is aware of this. But is Gunn’s stupid jokes from a decade ago enough to take everything away from him? Furthermore, the tweets were a matter of pubic record for years: did Disney really not search Gunn’s history to see examples of his past public behavior? Did Gunn really not consider, in his years of reflection, that these tweets were terrible and should be purged before they got him in trouble? Apparently not, although I’m sure both parties will consider that a high priority moving forward. We’ve seen people get in trouble for bad tweets, even ones that were many years old (I remember Trevor Noah’s sexist “controversy,” do you?), but this is the first time I can remember that a studio actually had to respond to it in such a strong manner. Like with Roseanne before him, Disney has shown they are willing to cut ties with people they deem to be even a little bit controversial…for better or worse, really.
Of course, I can’t ignore the political angle of this, which adds just another shit nugget to the entirety of the proceedings. The main reason these tweets came to light in the first place was due to a concentrated effort of right-wing trolls (led by human diarrhea bag Mike Cernovich) to basically knock Gunn down a peg, and show that the outspoken director was guilty of his own bad behavior in the past. I want to make it clear: nothing that Cernovich or his ilk do, in my mind, is “right.” But the unfortunate, ugly truth of the matter is that this outcry had the desired effect — Gunn lost his job, and has been Publically Shamed on the Internet™. This counts as a gross win for them, but should we just pretend this is better than it is, because it benefits a bunch of people who are awful?
While there’s certainly a part of me that wants to rally against the forces that conspired to take down Gunn, it’s a lot harder to do that when actually looking at some of the tweets that he made. Would it not be hypocritical of me to cheer on the collapse of Roseanne Barr, while at the same time trying to defend Gunn and his actions? One of my least favorite things in the whole goddamn world is hypocrisy, and there’s plenty of that all-over today. Case in point: the alt-right cheering on the public shaming of an “enemy” over the “jokes” he made, when the same fuckers probably would be bemoaning about policial correctness and “social justice warriors” if it was someone they viewed to be on their side. Equally as hypocritical is some of the response I’ve seen from more left-leaning people: now they are the ones using the tactics of “it was a long time ago!” and “they were just jokes!” and a myriad of other ways of rationalizing Gunn’s behavior. That shit hasn’t excused past people celebrities who were Publically Shamed on the Internet™, and I don’t think it’s right to give Gunn the benefit of the doubt just because we like him.
On the same token…they were tweets. From a decade ago. And I’m not comfortably completely crucifying the man over them. But if it was someone I disliked…would I be? Would we all be? This matter is complicated as hell, and I’m not sure who is right or wrong here, or even if there is a true right or wrong. This kind of situation requires more nuance than I, or probably anyone sounding off on Twitter and the rest of the internet, can probably muster. All I know is that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is going to suffer big time for this, and that Marvel is going to have to work hard on restoring the damage to the brand. I return to the business and fanboy matters because, honestly, that’s all I can rationalize without feeling like I am wrong in some way. Because when it comes to the mortality and ethics of what happened here today, I’ll reiterate:
Fuck if I know.
Also published on Medium.
10 Other Members of The Americans Cast Who Should Be Put In A Star War (And The Roles That They Could Play)
Keri Russell should just be the start of alum from FX’s hit spy drama joining the Star Wars universe.
The talk of the fanboy town this weekend was Keri Russell, a frequent J.J. Abrams cohort, joining the cast of Star Wars: Episode IX (or whatever it might end up being titled.) The think pieces came fast and furious from nearly the moment the casting was first announced, which shouldn’t be too much of a surprise: when any new detail drops about one of these Star Wars films, people will inevitably spend way too much time theorizing about what is to come, for better or (mostly) worse. But when it comes to my initial reaction to the casting, I only had two thoughts: 1) oh my god what is J.J. Abrams going to do to Keri Russell’s hair this time and 2) it’s so damn great to see The Americans cast get work.
Coming off of five years of being perhaps the best dramatic ensemble on television, I truly would be happy to see all of the cast members of The Americans land roles in huge films following the conclusion of the show. And not just huge films, mind you — I’m talking Star Wars huge films. Truly The Americans cast is versatile enough to land any role they could want in the galaxy far, far away, and with Russell’s casting, all I could think about (aside from how amazing she’s going to end up being in the movie, of course) was what her fellow cast members could also bring to the extended franchise.
And I’m a silly person who happens to have a blog so, sorry, you have to be present for my ramblings on such niche, unasked subjects! So here are 10 other members of The Americans cast who deserve a shot at a Star Wars gig and, for the hell of it, the character archetypes they would be great for in the universe. Thank me later, Kathleen Kennedy!
Matthew Rhys (Philip Jennings):
I’ll let my first post-Keri Russell casting tweet speak for itself here:
Since we've gotten this far, can we go the whole nine yards and have Matthew Rhys cast as a roguish "Han Solo" type in one of these? Welsh accent included, of course.
— Matthew Legarreta (@mattlegarreta) July 6, 2018
Holly Taylor (Paige Jennings):
Rey’s previously unmentioned bestie/roommate back home on Jakku. They stay up all night chowing down on dehydrated bread and talking about desert problems, as you do.
Noah Emmerich (Stan Beeman):
Maybe it’s recency bias, but I can’t help but imagine Emmerich playing a tough bounty hunter character. That being said, it will be pretty tragic when he realizes his co-pilot and best friend was his target the whole time. What a dramatic scene they will end up having in the Star Wars equivalent of a parking garage, though.
Brandon J. Dirden (Dennis Aderholt):
Brandon J. Dirden holds himself up with such calm and levelheaded prestige as an actor…making him a perfect choice to play a hapless senator trying to do the right thing, but missing the fact that OOPS an electric wizard is in control now. Bummer!
Costa Ronin (Oleg Burov):
I can definitely see Costa Ronin playing the cool, confident gangster type. He’ll also have a robot arm, for some reason. And he should keep his Season 6 beard, because DAMN does he rock the hell out of it.
Alison Wright (Martha):
Padme in a set of prequel remakes. Because if anyone could sell the anguish of being betrayed by someone they deeply loved for years, only for them to end up being a completely different person than who they thought they were, it would be her. Poor Martha…
Margo Martindale (Claudia):
It’s Character Actress Margot Martindale! Let her be whatever she wants! A Jedi master, a Sith Lord, a crime boss, a droid, a wookie, a gungan — she can do it all, dang it!
Frank Langella (Gabriel):
Let him be the kindest Jedi master ever. OR the most evil Sith Lord to ever exist. Frank Langella is somehow capable of channeling both.
Mail Robot (Mail Robot):
The new official droid mascot of Star Wars, duh! NEXT.
Keidrich Sellati (Henry Jennings):
…He can also be present.
Also published on Medium.
Games1 year ago
The Official Backyard Baseball Tier List
Movies9 months ago
My Problem With Star Wars: The Last Jedi Isn’t That It Changes Too Much—It’s That It Doesn’t Change Enough
TV4 months ago
They Didn’t Make A Huge Mistake: In Defense of Arrested Development Season 4
Movies7 months ago
Let’s Speculate Wildly: Is Marvel Laying The Groundwork For A Thor Crossover In Black Panther 2?
Games9 months ago
Jared’s Top Ten Games of This Horrible, Godforsaken Year
TV1 year ago
‘Sick, Sad World’ Punchlines, Ranked
Movies9 months ago
The Force Frustrations: Working Through The Disappointments of Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Games2 years ago
Overwatch Legendary Skins, Ranked (Updated with Orisa!)