I read this entire article wondering "what the hell is an MMC?" only to finally see the words "male main character" used in the last paragraph. For those of us who are not conversant with this type of shorthand, please use the full term in its first use and follow with MMC in parentheses. Then simply use the abbreviation through the rest of the essay.

Recycling old term papers is fine when the idea is interesting, but please think of the general reader when publishing them as entertainment content!

ScreenRant won't name the movies it references in its headlines (see "Daniel Craig has a chance to redeem himself after this 2007 flop with 42% on Rotten Tomatoes") but it will spoil the biggest event of a series in a headline. It's like you're TRYING to be awful.

I didn't get the impression that Valentin and Mook were involved, although I can see that being possible. I assumed it was Sritala's bodyguards and possibly Sritala herself. The way she needed to get to Bangkok implied she needed to fence the stolen jewelry for some reason.

Once again ScreenRant writes a headline that hides the subject of the article, and then spends two paragraphs not mentioning the subject of the article, hiding it below the fold. Why do you deliberately hide the fact that the article is actually about Legendborn?

Is it some sick attempt to keep us reading longer than you think we would otherwise? Please take a Journalism 101 class!

McGonagall was born in 1935. She was 46 when they left him on the Dursley's porch. She was only 56 when he entered Hogwarts. Horgan is 54. They probably won't start shooting for a year. So there is a difference of only a year or two between the book and the actor-- how is that de-aging her, exactly?

Maggie Smith was already too old when she first played the role. And while her performance was iconic and memorable, it is not book-accurate. We shouldn't expect a reboot to show her as a senior citizen just because we Maggie Smith's performance fondly.

Journalism 101: When the headline hints at a new show with 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating, don't spend the first two paragraphs referring to other shows and then wait to name the show you're *actually* writing about until the third paragraph. No one reads these articles for suspense. Name the show in the first sentence of the article. Anything else is burying the lede.

Because he, like Bilbo, was coded as gay. Whether or not he was in love with Sam (I don't think he was) he was seen as different from the rest of the Shire. There probably weren't a lot of options for a hobbit of a certain persuasion, and openness doesn't seem to have been an option (just as it wasn't an option in Tolkien's day). Instead they just get described as quirky, 'confirmed bachelors'.

Who knows? Maybe Frodo had some boyfriends or one-night stands that the books are too discreet to mention.

This article assumes that Nolan will depict the interlude with the Cyclops as being true-- there is a long literary tradition of acknowledging that Odysseus might be lying about what happened on his way home. , he's telling this story to the Phaeacians, who want to be entertained. Odysseus is a boastful and morally flexible character-- Nolan might highlight the differences between how Odysseus tells the story and what actually happened.

In the book, there is no indication at all that Fiyero survives, let alone becomes the Scarecrow. The implication is that he was tortured and died at the hands of the Wizard's forces.

There is mythology and there is history. Clash of the Titans is mythology. 300 is history-- the battle actually happened. 'Alexander' is actual history. The gods are not characters in the movie. This article makes no distinction between movies about mythology and movies about ancient history, as if they are the same thing. They are not. That's like saying The Lord of the Rings and Braveheart are both fantasy movies because they involve medieval costumes.

Oh, and please get a copy editor. This article has posters for the wrong movies and references to Greece when the plot is about Rome.