Allyson, I don't know how anyone could expect your reaction to be any different than mama bear.

I wasn't surprised at all to your reaction to Juliebird's post. However, since I know Juliebird, I am pretty sure that her comment wasn't coming from a "oh, that sucks" place as much as a "objectively, that didn't grab me as much as I would have liked and maybe I am not the ads demo" kinda place.

Not that I want to put words in Juliebird's mouth, but I guess I just did. Her words may differ.

I totally understand where you're coming from Allyson, but I think Tim himself has said that he doesn't want people to not criticize a show just because he is here. ETA: Or, what Dana said.

I just want to know if I'll be about to see TV's hit show Drive in Canadia.

I don't think that's stomp-worthy.

stomp-worthy or Stompy-worthy? I think any personal attacks would be Stompy-worthy to the extent that any attack on a poster here would be.

I'll admit, I don't think I said anything bad about Tim, Kristen or TV's hit Drive. But right after I hit post on the promo snark? Realized that I should probably expect to get punched in the metaphorical nose by a few people.

I did say something passive aggressive and shitty on the internet about Fox, but I'll stand by that because I meant it.

I think any personal attacks would be Stompy-worthy to the extent that any attack on a poster here would be.

Of course. The question is whether we're distinguishing between "this sucks!" and "you suck!" when the creators are in the house.

One thing I've been wanting to ask since I've managed to not catch any of the promo(s) - pouts - but have been hesitant to, since the comments about being meh about the promo(s), and the response that the promo(s) represented the show well, was whether the promo(s) represented the style of the show well, the content of the show well, or both.

Because promos can be true to a show in content while being utterly misleading in style and vice versa.

I think any personal attacks would be Stompy-worthy to the extent that any attack on a poster here would be.

Yeah, I'm with Dana on that. Criticism is all well and good, but if anyone went Kitten on them, well, it should be like that scene in Office Space where they beat the piss out of the fax machine.

was whether the promo(s) represented the style of the show well, the content of the show well, or both

If the promos did a bad job of representing the style of the show, then it's a black mark against the people that wrote said promos, who are the same writers who are writing the show.

The question is whether we're distinguishing between "this sucks!" and "you suck!" when the creators are in the house.

There's also differentiating "this isn't working for me" or "this could be better" and "this sucks" (or "you suck") as well. Not for Stompy purposes, but for stomping purposes.

I've seen plenty of trailers/promos, especially over the past year on YouTube, that completely misrepresent what a film is like or about. I don't think that reflects on the writer.