The Ringer: All Posts by Craig Gaines2020-07-01T15:30:54-04:00https://www.theringer.com/authors/craig-gaines/rss2020-07-01T15:30:54-04:002020-07-01T15:30:54-04:00The Best of 2020 (So Far)
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JZ8x1oNi29AHAcq36ao_PDi6nzw=/400x0:2800x1800/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/67006801/BestMovies.7.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>In an extraordinarily challenging year, pop culture has still given us works to celebrate. Here’s the best from the first six months.</p> <p id="grQcHc">We don’t need to tell you that 2020 has been an unprecedented challenge. That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been work worth celebrating from the worlds of TV, movies, and music. Scroll down for the best that pop culture has had to offer during the first six months.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/pop-culture/2020/7/1/21310413/the-best-of-2020-so-farSean FennesseyAmanda DobbinsAdam NaymanAndrew GruttadaroShea SerranoMicah PetersRob HarvillaJustin SaylesAlison HermanMiles Surrey2020-04-06T08:10:00-04:002020-04-06T08:10:00-04:00Quick-Bite Reviews on the Most Interesting Quibi Shows
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/T_FHgAyZwPjdxs_FrK2ZLLhJmjM=/67x0:1134x800/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66608337/QUIBI_FIERCEQUEENS.0.jpg" />
<figcaption><a class="ql-link" href="https://www.jarviskim.com/" target="_blank">Jarvis Kim</a>/Quibi</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A few words on a few shows that last just a few minutes</p> <p id="ZUiSPH">Quibi, the latest entrant in the Streaming Wars, launched on Monday. And because Quibi stands for “quick bites,” here’s a bunch of quick-bite reviews of Quibi’s quick bites.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2020/4/6/21207655/quick-bite-reviews-on-the-most-interesting-quibi-showsAlison HermanAmelia WedemeyerKate HalliwellMiles Surrey2019-08-25T15:38:41-04:002019-08-25T15:38:41-04:00Everything You Need to Know About Andrew Luck’s Retirement
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n0YnPlQ-BLpviZ-WPIzTTijVQ34=/304x0:5168x3648/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65106975/andrew_luck_getty_ringer_3__1_.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Getty Images/Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the NFL’s best quarterbacks has stepped away from the game in the middle of his prime</p> <p id="RyyFZV">The most shocking story of this NFL season may have come before Week 1: Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck has announced his retirement. Read all of <em>The Ringer</em>’s coverage below.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/8/25/20832279/everything-you-need-to-know-about-andrew-lucks-retirementRodger ShermanBill SimmonsBrian PhillipsDanny HeifetzKatie BakerDanny KellyKevin ClarkRobert Mays2019-08-23T14:55:26-04:002019-08-23T14:55:26-04:00Everything Noteworthy About the New Taylor Swift Album, ‘Lover’
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfNisT76gObR25iVN8zyJ13tCPo=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65099122/TaylorSwiftLoverReax_Getty_Ringer__1_.0.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>The world’s biggest pop star is back with a new album. Read all our coverage here.</p> <p id="kJKz01">Every Taylor Swift album release is a pop cultural thunderclap, and the debut of her seventh, <em>Lover</em>, is no different. It is emerging just as Swift is engaged in a new feud with Scooter Braun and looking to get past old dramas. <em>The Ringer</em> is putting the new tracks on heavy rotation, reviewing every song and analyzing every lyric. See all our coverage below.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/music/2019/8/23/20830167/taylor-swift-album-lover-ringer-coverageThe Ringer StaffLindsay ZoladzKate HalliwellAmelia WedemeyerJordan LigonsRob HarvillaJustin SaylesKate Knibbs2019-07-26T08:09:49-04:002019-07-26T08:09:49-04:00‘Why I Hate My Team’: The Yasiel Puig Stages of Grief and Five Decades of Cleveland Sorrow
<figure>
<img alt="Cincinnati Reds v Milwaukee Brewers" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/YlmJAAsfWoGZFu0mpXx3Qr5hCUw=/0x0:4353x3265/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64831015/1164049495.jpg.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Photo by Dylan Buell/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig trade this offseason shook some fans to their core. Craig Gaines joins to share why that angst has passed.</p> <div id="KNJOz3"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/3vCZdsVIkUtlO05csx2d1E" style="border: 0; width: 100%; height: 232px;" allowfullscreen="" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe></div>
<p id="UzvI0S"><a href="https://art19.com/shows/the-ringer-mlb-show/episodes/633757d0-6585-40be-90e2-99db64bb5a90">The Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig trade this offseason shook some fans to their core</a>. Craig Gaines joins to share why that angst has passed. Plus, will this be the year the Dodgers get over the hump, or is there reason for continued anxiety for the best team in baseball heading into the postseason (2:00)? Then, Rob Harvilla calls in to delineate the Indians’ two-year fallout since the 2016 World Series (16:27).</p>
<p id="r74kvS"><strong>Subscribe: </strong><a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fitunes.apple.com%2Fus%2Fpodcast%2Fthe-ringer-mlb-show%2Fid1116491351%3Fmt%3D2">Apple Podcasts</a> / <a href="https://art19.com/shows/the-ringer-mlb-show">Art19</a> / <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ringer-mlb-show">Stitcher</a> / <a href="https://www.theringer.com/rss/the-mlb-show/index.xml">RSS</a></p>
https://www.theringer.com/2019/7/26/8931491/why-i-hate-my-team-yasiel-puig-cleveland-indians-mlb-showCraig GainesRob Harvilla2018-08-28T06:10:02-04:002018-08-28T06:10:02-04:00Welcome to Pizza Day
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jkQ9ujlC727HHzP34-pNbgHjaJY=/400x0:2800x1800/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61046949/pizzaday_group_ringer.0.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>The Ringer declares that August 28 is Pizza Day. Happy Pizza Day!</p> <p id="X36GOH">We hereby declare Tuesday, August 28, to be Pizza Day, a day to celebrate all the magic (and marinara) of one of earth’s greatest foods. To be completely honest, Pizza Day was originally meant to be timed to the release of the pizza-themed romantic comedy <em>Little Italy</em>, starring Emma Roberts and Hayden Christensen; when we realized that <em>Little Italy</em> hits theaters this week only in Canada, we said, “Eh, let’s celebrate pizza in August anyway.” Who needs an excuse to honor pizza, right?</p>
https://www.theringer.com/2018/8/28/17789092/welcome-to-pizza-dayJoe HouseDanny ChauMichael BaumannAndrew GruttadaroAlyssa BereznakThe Ringer StaffAdam NaymanKate Knibbs2018-06-22T00:48:32-04:002018-06-22T00:48:32-04:00Ranking All of Adrian Wojnarowski’s Draft-Night Euphemisms
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MV_0MR5PrGTNair-XXYFQ-OqOMQ=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/60146235/woj_copy_corner.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>ESPN/Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It turns out there are many other ways to indicate the players that teams will select, but some are more poetic than others </p> <div class="c-float-left"><div id="r46WUv"><div data-anthem-component="aside:959482"></div></div></div>
<p id="VhrnWh">On Thursday night, Adrian Wojnarowski, ESPN’s NBA scoop machine, had himself a time on Twitter by employing all manner of phrasing to get around the Worldwide Leader’s reported <a href="http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/source-espn-reporters-wont-tip-nba-draft-picks-on-social-media-this-year.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">proscription</a> against announcing draft picks ahead of league commissioner Adam Silver. As the copy chief of this website, I think and talk about words just about every waking moment. So it seemed reasonable that I might power-rank Wojnarowski’s tweets. I tried to use the same criteria I use when copyediting a piece: Is it clear? Is it elegant? Is it concise? Away we go:</p>
<h4 id="WAhv01">18. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009983719044734976">Source: The Sixers are enamored with Landry Shamut at the 26th pick.</a>
</h4>
<p id="F1yg1y">I want to be fair, and I want to resist being an annoying copy editor. Wojnarowski was on live TV, he was sourcing info from across the Association, and he was engaging in wordplay all night. But if you’re going to commit to the bit of saying something without really saying it, at least say it right! The correct phrase is “enamored of,” not “enamored with.” (The misspelling on the name is also a bummer, but we’re not here to evaluate spelling.)</p>
<h4 id="qtbYjs">17. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009984487801925632">Source: Boston is tantalized by Robert Williams with the 27th pick.</a>
</h4>
<p id="DWh1om"><em>Tantalized</em> is a ten-dollar word, and his more successful spoilers below rely on simpler usages. But I should note that this was one of his final wink-wink tweets of the night, and he must have been running out of word gas.</p>
<div><aside id="fz034p"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Woj Was the Real Star of the 2018 NBA Draft ","url":"https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/21/17491744/adrian-wojnarowski-woj-tipping-picks-espn-2018-nba-draft"}]}'></div></aside></div>
<h4 id="7aOAAw">16. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009977871513931777">Source: Portland has a laser on Anfernee Simons.</a>
</h4>
<p id="1OPbQQ">Here Wojnarowski knows that his joke has achieved escape velocity, so he begins to show off. I prefer the more natural-sounding or less showy entries you’ll see below. Lasers are cool, and <em>laser</em> is a fun word to say out loud, but I find this usage a bit too self-aware.</p>
<h4 id="zGhdT7">15. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009976626938032130">Source: Bulls are on Boise State’s Chandler Hutchison. He was shut down in workouts with Chicago promise.</a>
</h4>
<p id="ylGB9L">Eh. I dislike using a preposition (“on”) like this. The phrase lands with a thud, and if you illustrate the image in your head, it seems quite painful for Hutchison. Bulls being on a person strikes me as unpleasant. But I do give Wojnarowski credit for not using “are <em>in</em> on,” the daily overuse of which is getting tiresome.</p>
<h4 id="080Y75">14. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009955612711686144">Sources: Sixers are targeting Villanova’s Mikal Bridges with No. 10.</a>
</h4>
<p id="XecDl8">In retrospect, “targeting” seems cruel. Bridges’s television appearance alongside his mother, who works for the 76ers, was heartwarming. After his trade to Phoenix, which Bridges reportedly didn’t know about as he continued to do media interviews, one might wonder: What was he being targeted for? </p>
<h4 id="z0DCTE">13. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009970753859661824">The Spurs are fixated on Lonnie Walker with the 18th pick, source tells ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<p id="7slYaG">This is a little creepy, no? A fixation is <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixation">an unhealthy obsession</a>, and while the phrase conforms to the boundaries of Wojnarowski’s exercise, it takes the reader to a weird place. Although maybe we should give the writer some credit and ask ourselves whether he’s hinting at something deeper: The Spurs have been in <a href="https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/21/17487582/kawhi-leonard-spurs-lakers-nba-reality">atypical upheaval lately</a>, so maybe the front office betrayed some obsessive vibes in its leak to Wojnarowski.</p>
<h4 id="CRCevi">12. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009963756162568198">Washington is locked on Troy Brown with the 15th pick, league source tells ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<h4 id="GlyXDL">11. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009947556414197761">Memphis is locked in on selecting Jaren Jackson Jr., league sources tell ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<p id="k2QemG">These are less weird versions of the Spurs one. See the difference? If you’re “locked in on” someone, you just strongly want them on your team. You’re not lying awake at night replaying scouting video of them on a loop in your head.</p>
<h4 id="wK0uOv">10. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009967087308169216">Phoenix is determined to select Zhaire Smith with 16.</a>
</h4>
<p id="WreAy6">I wouldn’t like this one if I were the Suns. “Is determined to” makes me think that they <em>want</em> to pick Smith, but the team is somehow unable to do so. That said, <em>determined</em> is a strong verb despite its showiness; I instantly envision a plucky Sun, its mind set on the task at hand.</p>
<h4 id="OxTHZL">9. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009954380181893120">Sources: New York has been focused on Kentucky’s Kevin Knox with ninth pick.</a>
</h4>
<h4 id="NLwBcc">8. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009949004086546434">Orlando is focused on selecting Texas center Mo Bamba with the sixth pick, league source tells ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<div class="c-float-right"><aside id="EUlkq5"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Grading the 2018 NBA Draft","url":"https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/21/17490094/grading-the-2018-nba-draft"},{"title":"The Winners and Losers of the 2018 NBA Draft ","url":"https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/21/17491206/2018-nba-draft-winners-losers"}]}'></div></aside></div>
<p id="kvFHqQ">Wojnarowski loses a few points for repetition, and the usage is a little mundane (it sounds like coach-speak), but I do enjoy its workmanlike tone when compared to some of the zanier tweets above. This bit works best when he almost fools you into thinking he’s just written a definitive scoop, rather than achieved a bit of syntactical sleight-of-hand.</p>
<h4 id="vfqRbu">7. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009959751663472640">Clippers selecting for the Hornets -- Michigan State’s Miles Bridges.</a>
</h4>
<p id="SBn6Kb">I generally prefer the tweets that can pull off the stunt with a complete sentence, but this one has an avant-garde flair. There’s a disjointedness that communicates just enough clarity to have meaning, but is sufficiently weird to make a reader do a double take, which is an effective strategy for Twitter in particular.</p>
<h4 id="Ixim3V">6. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009981783474147329">Source: The Lakers are unlikely to resist Mo Wagner with the 25th pick.</a>
</h4>
<p id="CRyR47">This one is fun, playfully backing into the tweet with negative phrasing. And there’s a sweetness to the idea that Jeanie, Rob, and Magic (a Spartan of East Lansing!) just <em>couldn’t resist</em> the German kid out of Ann Arbor.</p>
<h4 id="GWDQME">5. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009963243329196034">Source: Denver has cleared the way to choose Michael Porter Jr. with the 14h pick.</a>
</h4>
<p id="mKAyC2">“Has cleared the way” has a nice rhythm to it that starts the line at a jaunty, natural pace. Wojnarowski stumbles immediately after this, though, with the extraneous “to choose.” Everyone understands what the Nuggets are clearing the way for; using “to choose” just sounds like he’s tiptoeing up to a definitive phrase like “will select.”</p>
<h4 id="DOZhnA">4. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009952872333742080">Source: Cleveland prefers Collin Sexton with the No. 8 pick.</a>
</h4>
<p id="TRQRJX">Aw, this sounds nice. The verb itself has a pleasing politeness to it, and the construction (subject-verb-object) gets you in and out just like that.</p>
<h4 id="eSwash">3. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009971998284447745">Atlanta has zeroed in on Maryland’s Kevin Huerter with the 19 pick, source tells ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<h4 id="cMjLyM">2. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009950481966358528">Chicago is zeroing in on Wendell Carter with the seventh overall pick, league sources tell ESPN.</a>
</h4>
<p id="qjyc8T">I should ding him for repeating the verb, but words that begin with <em>z</em> are cool, and <em>zero</em> and its derivatives are fun to say aloud. I’d have preferred that he maintain some consistency with the tense, though. “Has zeroed in on” communicates finality; “is zeroing in on” comes off as breathless narration.</p>
<h4 id="yGfU5F">1. <a href="https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1009974980556328960">Source: Utah Jazz have no plans to pass on Grayson Allen with the 21st pick.</a>
</h4>
<p class="c-end-para" id="QeDd9V">This is an elegant use of negative phrasing that, on first glance, doesn’t look like a stunt at all. Wojnarowski works in a sly pun (“pass on”) and avoids the fussy construction found in some of his other tweets to nail the landing.</p>
<p id="ra7bsR"></p>
<p id="ZdCzDm"></p>
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/22/17491854/adrian-wojnarowski-woj-tipping-picks-espn-thesaurusCraig Gaines2017-09-24T16:41:35-04:002017-09-24T16:41:35-04:00Everything You Need to Know About NFL Week 3
<figure>
<img alt="Atlanta Falcons v Detroit Lions" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iy3x6-SKROZzsTEEu7QETTLgxa8=/0x0:2960x2220/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56831809/853126282.1506297039.jpg" />
<figcaption>Photo by Leon Halip/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Bears had an epic fumble, the Pats came back against Houston, and Stafford and Ryan went wild — all while the president’s comments hung over the day</p> <p id="ey2DC9">President Donald Trump’s harsh criticism of NFL players who protest during the national anthem dominated conversation as Week 3 got underway. His inflammatory remarks remained in the consciousness, but the action heated up quick: The Falcons won a wild one in Detroit, the Bears and Steelers were party to a Keystone Kops sequence, and Houston <em>almost</em> beat New England — until Tom Brady Tom Brady’ed.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/9/24/16358450/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nfl-week-3Danny HeifetzDanny KellyJustin SaylesZach KramThe Ringer StaffRobert MaysKevin ClarkRodger ShermanRiley McAteeBryan CurtisBill Simmons2017-09-16T08:00:04-04:002017-09-16T08:00:04-04:00Copy Corner: Analyzing ‘Mother!’ and Other Weird Movie-Title Punctuations
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kRqT2MesRk8O6yLcbMG2xlYNL14=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56704489/MoviePunctuation_Getty_Ringer.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Getty Images/Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>‘</strong>Airplane!,’ ‘Everybody Wants Some!!,’ ‘(500) Days of Summer’—we got them all</p> <p id="rTkndR">Mother!<em>, the newest film from Darren Aronofsky, </em><a href="https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/9/14/16307810/mother-film-review-darren-aronofsky-jennifer-lawrence"><em>makes a number of unexpected decisions</em></a><em>—but none has vexed </em>The Ringer<em>’s copy desk more than the choice to use a lowercase </em>m<em> and an exclamation point in the title. Under the direction of our copy chief, Craig Gaines, </em>The Ringer<em> has opted to style the film </em>Mother! <em>(We will be lowercasing the title in this article so that people can understand what on earth we are talking about.)</em> <em>In a wide-ranging conversation below, Gaines explains that decision and his philosophy on film titles, em dashes, and </em>Star Wars<em>.</em></p>
<p id="wCQXKO"><strong>Amanda Dobbins:</strong> Craig, we’re here to discuss the Darren Aronofsky film <em>mother! </em>and specifically the grammatical choices in its title. As the copy chief of <em>The Ringer</em>, you have exercised your authority to override the given style of the title on our website. So, let’s start with a simple question: What are the problems with the title of the Darren Aronofsky film <em>mother!</em>?</p>
<p id="mRGHpp"><strong>Craig Gaines:</strong> It’s really the capitalization more than the exclamation point. Capitalization is one of the few things as an editor that I’m very conservative, very doctrinaire on. And here’s why: Our job, and especially my job as a copy editor, is to ensure clarity and an easy reading experience for the reader. When you see something that’s a composition title, you expect it to be capitalized; capitalization matters because it’s communicating something to the reader. But the thing that you don’t want to do, really anytime—you don’t ever want the reader to pause. You don’t ever want the reader to be thinking, “Why is this lowercase? Why is this capitalized?” You don’t want the reader to be thinking about the actual words on the screen. </p>
<p id="FdaS2T"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> You’re working for Darren Aronofsky. Darren Aronofsky comes to you, and he says, “I would like you to copy edit my script and also my poster and all these things.” What is the note that you give to Darren Aronofsky about the title?</p>
<p id="Zu6FRa"><strong>Gaines:</strong> In that context, because I’m not working for <em>The Ringer</em>, I would say, “Just making sure: Are we lowercasing the title and adding an exclamation point?” And he would say, “Yes.” And I would say, “OK.” Because that’s basically a work of art, and I think there’s a difference. I give him lots of leeway. I give <em>The Ringer</em> much less leeway.</p>
<p id="WuUfTg"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> So if you’re copy editing for him, you don’t have any concerns about the ability to communicate it, brand it?</p>
<p id="XwnhH3"><strong>Gaines:</strong> I guess I would interrogate it a little bit. I would point out that this is the title of the film, and this is a place where you’re honestly turning down the volume on it. If he comes back to me and he says, “Well, I’m actually intentionally subverting the idea of the mother,” or “Yes, in this film she’s being subjugated in some way, and I’m communicating that through the lowercase,” I would buy it. If he said, “I just don’t like capitalizing things,” I would call bullshit. He’s the director, he can do whatever he wants, but I would say, “We can’t do things just because we want to.” There has to be some framework here, or else at some point we’re just not saying anything to each other at all. </p>
<p id="ttPom6"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Is there any situation in which a lowercase title is acceptable?</p>
<p id="9Teo1A"><strong>Gaines:</strong> For a film itself, no. For a person’s name, that’s a little bit different, because it’s about how they’re presenting themselves in the world. I’ll be really honest, there is a gradient. The exclamation point—we allow it. But let’s say it was lowercase <em>mother</em> with 17 exclamation points. We wouldn’t do that. No way. </p>
<p id="cZgZYd"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> What’s your limit on exclamation points?</p>
<p id="v1yLvy"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Three? Maybe? Part of it is an eye test, and part of it is, is this visually distracting? If it’s visually distracting, we’re not going to do it. Because we’re not there to visually distract the reader. We’re there to inform and tell a story and entertain and things like that. </p>
<p id="u4RF32"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> How about two? As in, <em>Everybody Wants Some!!</em> Two exclamation points.</p>
<p id="ygsyR6"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Oh, right. I didn’t like that. I thought it was showy. I actually want to see this film—people seemed to really enjoy this film.</p>
<p id="pS0gQf"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Very charming.</p>
<p id="cSZZLk"><strong>Gaines:</strong> And, you know, I get that it was about the same sort of universe that [director Richard Linklater] did in his first film, so I get that maybe that communicates the loopiness of the world or the characters or something. But it was just distracting enough that I was sitting there—and I realize I think about this more than most other people—but I was sitting there thinking about the double exclamation point more than the title of the film. And you know, we went with the double exclamation point. I wasn’t happy about it, but we did it. It was on the line.</p>
<p id="dgkgLM"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Is there a form of punctuation that is less offensive to you than the exclamation point in the title of a movie? As a copy editor of the world, not for <em>The Ringer</em>.</p>
<p id="X7Zs4P"><strong>Gaines: </strong>Sure, of course. A question mark. Sometimes a question is a question. </p>
<p id="GGaveE"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Please rank the following punctuation forms from most annoying to least annoying in a movie title: exclamation point, period, colon, ellipsis, and semicolon. </p>
<p id="zA2EAx"><strong>Gaines: </strong>I think an ellipsis is the most annoying. If it’s at the beginning or end of a sentence, you’re mentally thinking, <em>OK, the sentence is done, or this is a pause in a thought and now we’re skipping over some material that isn’t there.</em> And that’s not what’s happening. It’s just the sentence, but there’s an ellipsis there. Another problem: We use italics for our composition titles. You can see that an exclamation point is leaning to the side, so you can see that it’s part of the title. No one can see that an ellipsis is italicized. It is. We still italicize it, because we’re obsessed editors. But no one knows that. And so it’s another thing where it’s taking me out of the read. </p>
<p id="ZZTsKX"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> So we’ve done ellipses. We’ve got exclamation point, period, colon, and semicolon. </p>
<p id="UyuFvG"><strong>Gaines: </strong>I think that period is next, just based on recent experience editing pieces about the Kendrick Lamar album <em>Damn</em>. But here’s what I’ll say about that title: Even though it sort of subverts my very doctrinaire rules in the world, it succeeded in making you pause for a second on the title. Because that’s what you do when you come to a period: You stop for a second, and you go on. So I actually admired that. But I still find it incredibly distracting to just put them places willy nilly, because a period has such a defined purpose. </p>
<p id="7BAYit"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> What’s next?</p>
<p id="zmRkuD"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Then exclamation point. As long as it’s one. If it’s multiple, then, all of the sudden, I’m gonna re-order the list.</p>
<p id="Et4aZF"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Noted.</p>
<p id="KR1IyR"><strong>Gaines:</strong> A colon depends on how it’s being used. In a title, it’s usually to separate your primary title from your secondary portion. It shows up a lot in books; for <em>The Ringer</em>’s purposes, it’s basically the difference between a headline and a subhead. But in movie titles, especially with the serialization of films—you know, we’re all creating universes these days—the naming conventions do get loopy. Like <em>Star Wars</em>. <em>Star Wars</em>!</p>
<p id="CdWMns"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> I’m so glad we got here. [Here being <em>Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace</em>, <em>Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones</em>, <em>and</em> <em>Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith</em>.]</p>
<p id="TUw3sl"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Those motherfuckers! They’ll have a colon and an em dash! This is too much. </p>
<p id="lF2FJc"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> I forgot about the em dash! I didn’t even throw the em dash in.</p>
<p id="7w1xFh"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Way too much. Double punctuation—get out of here, no way. It’s so <em>Star Wars</em>. It’s so “This is a sprawling, beautiful, but foreboding universe and to capture each portion of the universe, we have to give you this title that just goes on and on and on.” I can’t. Edit your shit. </p>
<p id="NN5VOJ"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> So one punctuation mark, max?</p>
<p id="i4GZy3"><strong>Gaines:</strong> One. And I would probably put the em dash after the ellipsis, but before the others.</p>
<p id="EJMnOq"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Ellipsis, em dash, period, exclamation point, colon, and we didn’t rank semicolon because no one uses semicolons. </p>
<p id="ymTEZM"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Yeah, that’d be kind of weird. </p>
<p id="dx43tc"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Would you respect it if someone figured out how to use a semicolon appropriately? </p>
<p id="Kyap1D"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Yeah.</p>
<p id="HMex0H"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Oh, I didn’t even use a comma, either. This is why I’m not a copy editor.</p>
<p id="Hi20XK"><strong>Gaines:</strong> A comma’s great. </p>
<p id="7h59yq"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> So comma’s number one? </p>
<p id="VOg7ke"><strong>Gaines:</strong> Yes, commas have function.</p>
<p id="kkvWxn"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Let’s do a lightning round for you. What is the most annoyingly punctuated movie title in history? </p>
<p id="Ukl0Sa"><strong>Gaines: </strong>It might be one of the <em>Star Wars</em> films. It’s actually not punctuated incorrectly. They’re just so full of themselves.</p>
<p id="OmD0Wk"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Great. Now I’m going to show you some examples, and you’ll tell me how you feel about their styling choices. You can say “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stet">Stet</a>” or “No stet.”</p>
<p id="tILp8D"><strong>Gaines: </strong>OK.</p>
<p id="AjDMor"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> <em>Oklahoma!</em>, a classic film. </p>
<p id="FJdEcr"><strong>Gaines:</strong> I actually don’t mind that. Stet. </p>
<p id="X6skfe"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> <em>Hello, Dolly!</em> That’s two punctuation marks.</p>
<p id="uhwgsD"><strong>Gaines:</strong> But stet, because that is a really classic use of the introductory comma. I actually really like that. </p>
<p id="Ncy8a5"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Great. All right. <em>Airplane!</em></p>
<p id="PQnVVW"><strong>Gaines: </strong>[<em>chuckles</em>] OK, I’m gonna stet as well. Here’s where I claim some bias. It’s a top-15 film for me. If there is any film that is both good and dumb enough to earn its exclamation point, it’s <em>Airplane!</em></p>
<p id="a6HVMK"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>This is why we’re doing this. Next: <em>(500) Days of Summer</em>.</p>
<p id="Ur8E1c"><strong>Gaines: </strong>Absolutely not. No stet.</p>
<p id="N8MpZZ"><strong>Dobbins:</strong> Can you explain why? We didn’t even talk about parentheses.</p>
<p id="Zsj9Fj"><strong>Gaines:</strong> That’s pure graphic design in text. Don’t do that. There are certain places it’s cool to visually communicate with text. In poetry, do that. I’m not gonna tell a poet who actually knows what they’re doing to not do that. But this is something different, and I don’t even know what that would be communicating, that it’s optional to say the “500”? No one has ever said “Days of Summer.” It’s <em>500 Days of Summer</em>. It has no function that I can find.</p>
<p id="VnxiaL"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Next: <em>How Do You Know</em>, without a question mark.</p>
<p id="7hU0PV"><strong>Gaines: </strong>No stet, don’t do that. This is like people on Twitter and Slack who pose questions but without a question mark.</p>
<p id="AQJU1X"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>OK, last one. <em>Face/Off</em>.</p>
<p id="t4yo4l"><strong>Gaines:</strong> I should say “no stet,” but I’m gonna stet it.</p>
<p id="eNNKSe"><strong>Dobbins: </strong>Tell me why!</p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="sdTlgM"><strong>Gaines:</strong> It’s a similar thing to <em>Airplane!</em> where that movie is so gonzo. And actually, it’s a really smart use because maybe it communicates it too much, but it’s communicating the double entendre in the title. I bet when they were kicking around ideas at one point, they thought about doing <em>Face:Off</em>, which I would’ve hated. The slash ... I actually really like that. Stet it. </p>
<p id="iDFA6F"></p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/9/16/16316928/copy-corner-analyzing-mother-and-other-weird-movie-title-punctuationsCraig GainesAmanda Dobbins2017-09-13T15:55:03-04:002017-09-13T15:55:03-04:00Everything You Need to Read About the 2017 Emmys
<figure>
<img alt="2017 Emmy nominees" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UJShS9jAYVLbM4PcqAKrP18z0W4=/0x0:2667x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56662457/emmy_nominations_netflix_HBO_NBC_FX_ringer_illo.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>HBO/FX/Netflix/Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All the analysis in the lead-up; all the coverage of the show; all the post-awards breakdowns</p> <p id="rFu8AP">The television industry will gather on Sunday at the 69th Emmy Awards in Los Angeles to celebrate its best and brightest (or at least what one set of voters deems its best and brightest). <em>The Ringer</em> is preparing for the show with interviews and essays focused on some of the big nominees, and we’ll be covering the even on Sunday and in the days after. Below you’ll find all our coverage.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2017/9/13/16303070/everything-you-need-to-read-about-the-2017-emmysAlison HermanAndy GreenwaldAmanda DobbinsJordan ColeyRob HarvillaAndrew GruttadaroLindsay Zoladz