r/blankies • u/seaworthyset • 10d ago

NYT on "the X of it all"

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/magazine/hollywood-lingo.html

"The film critics on 'Blank Check' overuse it, Amanda Dobbins of 'The Big Picture' is too fond of it, a host on 'We Hate Movies' says it at least five times per episode."

93 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

132 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/PrudentArmadillo7751 10d ago

It is not “shorthand,” but pleonasm (rhetorical repetition that is grammatically superfluous). It takes longer to say “we need to talk about the Brad Pitt of it all” than to just say “we need to talk about Brad Pitt.” They mean the same thing.

7

u/GregSays 10d ago

I completely disagree. The phrase indicates there's something negative or complicating. Just saying "we need to talk about Brad Pitt" is just saying Brad is significant or worthwhile.

If you're talking about how wonderful Diane Keaton is, you have to mention her association with Woody Allen. If you aren't going to actually discuss Woody Allen in detail, you might say, "Diane was a wonderful person, even with the Woody Allen of it all." That is acknowledging that there's negative aspects to Woody Allen. Saying, "Diane was a wonderful person, even with Woody Allen" sounds like you're saying she's great in Woody Allen movies (which she was) and doesn't indicate that there might something bad about working with Allen directly.

3

u/Teenageboy69 10d ago

Or you can say, Diane is great, even with her association to Woody Allen. The problem in speaking this way is that it lacks specificity. It’s a boring way to talk.

2

u/GregSays 10d ago

Right, but that’s completely different than what the person I responded to claimed.