- The coif de mode is for the camera; she's gussied up for the event! -- IronyChef (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the title text "distraction" is not about a literal buzz, but about the movie in question: the mindless Hollywood "entertainment" is supposed to distract us from our problems of total, eventual annihilation at the hands of a mindless, uncaring universe. --BigMal27 / 18.104.22.168 12:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the comic is existential, and perhaps even mocking fatalism. Everything Megan says is technically true, but also immediately irrelevant and the terms used, and even bringing it up is over-the-top bleak.
Then again. It might make fun of news, since being over the top about things that often doesn't matter is a big part of what they do. So perhaps what news would be like if the reporters where more knowledgeable but still acted as stupid?
Take your pick. I am not adding it to the explanation yet, since it is only two of several interpretation, but existentialism has been a feature of many other xkcd strips. Carewolf (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I would consider the limited livespan of Sun to be more important that the movie. Less pressing, of course. The movie stars will be dead sooner ... unless you consider them live as long as their films are showing, in which case they may last as long as our civilisation. --Hkmaly (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt any media produced today will survive as long as our star. Shakes spears works or cave paintings have only been around for a micro sliver of our suns life cycle. Their mediums would not last that long since even our mountains won't last that long. DruidDriver (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)