We have zero tolerance for antisemitism or the incitement of hate in any form, including false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion
It sounds like they threw in “Holocaust distortion” as an extra thing to make their stance sound more legitimate, since otherwise it sounds awful. Why would anyone ever get in trouble for “false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing” even if we assume it was “false”
Leaving aside the overall quality of the show, you can’t just recast the beloved main character and expect people to still be excited about it. Especially when the original actor is also a gamer who raved about how much he loved the source material, left the show for the right reasons, and connected with the fans so well.
I’m pretty sure he left, or at the very least they “agreed” to stop cooperation. But I might be wrong, I didn’t pay that close attention to the drama back then.
Damn his team need props for the building a PC video. Locked in an entire demographic worth billions for just a cheap video that probably cost 5 grand to make.
I’m honestly surprised we got two decent seasons. I knew Netflix was going to screw it up, they have a horrible track record. Why do people still pay for it? How many times do they have to burn its users?
Ok, first seasom had its issues but I’d agree it was decent, showed potential. But which other one was decent? Second one was abomination, third I didn’t make it past Thanedd
I can’t even put my finger on what was the issue with it specifically. But the fact that I endured S2 and couldn’t make it through S3 should tell you all you need.
They got back to actually adapting source material, but made it more stupid. The characters were just destilled versions of themselves, there was no depth.
I gave up after the Thanedd episode where they were acting like there is this grand plan that they slowly uncover for you, Ocean’s 11-style - they tried to actboh so clever but it was just so not clever they made themselves look stupid.
Like with so many shows and movies i think a lot of it is down to a grave misunderstanding of what a producer should do. A producer shouldn’t be producing the show/movie. A producer should produce the money to pay for the show/movie because it’s a project they believe in.
But it’s also clearly partisan with just enough play to avoid a boycott. Everything the authoritarian president does to initiate the war has a very direct analogue in actions taken by Trump and his administration.
Most of the OPs posts are in Conservative, a movement that thinks original series Star Trek was originally not political at all and media becomes political when they show the real experiences of a minority or disenfranchised member of society. I would take them saying something isn’t political with a grain of salt.
Can you find a review that says otherwise? Needessly bringing my politics into the discussion is a weird discussion tactic since the writer/director has said this was intentional. So now you think you know more than the writer? How Goofy is that? I have never heard a conservative say anything about Star Trek. Also weird to bring up.
So why do you you think you know more than the person who wrote the film?
You are the type of person the writer points to in the film. You are being overly partisan without actually knowing the facts.
I don’t want to spoil it but politics are never discussed. It isn’t about left or right politics. They never even talk about why the war started. There is one hint but that’s a bout it.
The preview I saw of it makes it look like shit. What is the justification at all? Why did the fighting start? Sounds like bullshit, feel free to spoil it for me, not going to watch it regardless. Just looks like some type of brainworm took over everyone and they started wanting violence indiscriminately.
The why is not really important to the movie. The only mention of why is the president taking a third term and possibly also doing airstrikes on citizens before the start of the civil war. The film more focuses on the how of a possible civil war: the societal breakdown, the atrocities, how people are making it through, etc. There is not really a clearly good militant group in the movie and it is not clear that things are going to somehow be all good if/once the president is removed from office.
I think there were definitely some things that could have been added in like many more corrupt as fuck checkpoints blocking roads. They did show a checkpoint but the characters had no issues with it. Checkpoints are a very easy way for soldiers or locals to shake people down.
If you want something that goes more into why a civil war might happen, I recommend the beginning of the podcast series It Could Happen Here. It was made back in 2019 and foretold some of how things unfolded in 2020 and 2021.
Monopoly was designed by a socialist to demonstrate that capitalism is flawed, since the game eventually ends with all of the wealth in one player’s possession. Interestingly, the creator also included an alternative “Prosperity” rule, where all players received payment from a property purchase. All of this was omitted and replaced with the notion that “anyone can be rich” in capitalism when pitched to Parker Brothers.
And Monopoly is based on The Landlord’s Game, which was created to be a “practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences”.
Designed by Elizabeth Magie between 1902 and 1903. She based the game on the economic principles of Georgism, a system proposed by Henry George, with the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants.
Oh my yes. When I answer who my childhood/adolescent celebrity crush was I have to explain that it was Dana Scully, not Gillian Anderson, the character who’s a physicist, MD cop.
You’re looking too hard for a controversy that isn’t there. This is a Sony live-action Spiderman adjacent film. All of them have been terrible. Madam Web is terrible too.
People criticized Venom, Venom 2, Morbius, and now Madame Web. People will probably criticize the solo Kraven movie whenever that comes out too. It’s not a conspiracy against women, it’s that Sony seems to fundamentally not understand how to make a good superhero flick.
Into the Spiderverse was pretty stellar though, and Across the Spiderverse was a good sequel. I’d say both are on par with the original Sam Reimi trilogy, with the caveat that they are fully animated productions instead of live-action.
I just watched The Marvels, and I liked it quite a bit, if I stopped short of loving it (but honestly, who LOVES marvel movies? The entire point is high floor/low ceiling entertainment). The plot meanders and it has a typical Marvel "understandable but underdeveloped" villain, but the leads had good chemistry, the switching dynamic was fun, the entire cast from Ms. Marvel is delightful, and Brie Larson is (finally) getting comfortable in the role. I was kinda surprised at how poorly it did, but also kinda not, because fanboys are proving that they really need to see themselves represented or they suddenly develop extremely high standards and demand only groundbreaking entertainment with perfect execution.
The Marvels is a good example of why people are starting to hate Marvel. Unless you’d already watched WandaVision, Cpt. Marvel, and Ms. Marvel you had no idea what was going on. It was like starting in the middle of Avengers Endgame.
I dislike marvel because there is no consequence to their plots and it has gone on so long.
Having to have watched previous movies isn’t a negative, just that the content in question was boring and not consequential in it’s own right.
The stories are not self contained but other than a couple of very major cross overs there is nothing happening in the movies that impacts the rest of the universe unless it is something important for the plot of the next piece.
Idk what rock you’ve been living under, but the new Flash movie got absolutely trashed by critics and audiences, and everyone knows what a huge piece of shit Ezra Miller is.
A lot of the hype for Flash had to do with Keaton’s reprisal of Batman. Comparing Miller’s lead billing versus Heard’s role in AM2 being reduced is a bit farcical, no? The only way to reduce Miller’s role in Flash would have been to cancel the film.
I really wanted She Hulk to work. It was terrible. Moon Knight wasn’t perfect, but it had some good action and actual dread.
It’s true that female lead movies are judged more harshly, but just because a female lead movie flops isn’t always about the female and is about the movie.
I hear you but this one is another in a line of very misguided Sony movies, and the errors made in its production completely undermined both the plot and how it was going to tie into the failing multiverse.
In regards to DC movies, nobody is expecting them to be good for a while yet while they reboot everything. Then Marvel is flagging with several issues but Sony surprises everyone by releasing yet another non-Spiderman Spiderman movie.
Now on top of all that you’re right, sexism is playing into this too, especially from the toxic male fanboy culture, but to me this one was already on extremely shaky ground before it was released.
If you’re the kind of person that thinks no comedy can be mean, you’re helping to destroy comedy
Just my opinion. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Don’t hate those that understand centuries upon centuries of schadenfreude is what made us a funny species
Convenient of you to completely omit and ignore his first sentence, which happened to contain the core message. That’s why you’re both being dinged for (lack of) reading comprehension.
Just trying to make this as stupid-simple as possible.
No? You are completely welcome to hate that kind of comedy. In fact that kind of comedy by it's nature will have people who can't handle it. But it's acting like it's some new terrible idea someone thought of recently instead of a long-standing form of comedy that just happened to hit a bad spot for some.
It's basically re-contextualizing it as something that has no basis when it in fact should be a type of comedy that goes without saying at this point....
Like it wasn't removed out of convenience it's the core of nothing.
At worst you could argue he is trying to say that people actually think all comedy has to be mean...which would be stupid in it's own right because he just argues the opposite extreme in his second sentence then....Black/White instead of any form of gray argument. Like I really hope we're not saying that the extreme point is the core of his argument....
Actually if your reading comprehension was better you would understand that the other poster also has poor reading comprehension and would discount their support. Reading comprehension is when people agree with me.
If the only way you can make pizza is by sticking a frozen one in your oven you can’t make pizza; if you choose to use a frozen pizza that doesn’t mean you can’t make pizza.
You’re conflating two subtly distinct concepts. Only being able to do something one way isn’t the same as choosing to do something one way. If your only option is to rile people up, you’re not funny. That’s what these comedians are complaining about; their one joke is to punch down, which is frowned upon.
That's just a bad analogy. That's more like if a comedian can only copy someone else's jokes, they're not funny. If you wanted a pizza analogy, it'd be more like if you can only make thick crust pizza, but can't make any other types of pizza's, you can't make pizza.
Which is just not true. You just find an audience who enjoys being constantly given thick crust pizza.
Mean/dark humor isn't an incorrect type of humor. It is a different type of humor. If someone is good at it then they just need to stick with that audience. Is it what you'd consider high class or in good taste? Maybe not, but it's still their humor.
I mean it's not like punching up is any harder than punching down. Just the audience of that comedian is more likely to not be in the group affected by it.
If you have to rile the audience to be funny, you’re not funny.
But there is a “gray option” here. I read this as “you can rile up the audience and be funny, just not if that’s the only thing you do”, in context with the previous point that this sort of humour is overused and loosing its impact.
Nah. I just don’t get why so many of you don’t like me saying that being awful to people in your material is bad. It’s like you’re all genuinely shitty people. I mean yeah that’s what it is.
The humor that is funny mainly because you suspend disbelief and watch something else get hurt?
That type of comedy that practically dominated for several decades?
The key to a lot of humor regarding misfortune is that it either isn't regarding you, hits a point that is true but not the core of who you are, or is far away enough that you can suspend disbelief.
In other words, yes, because they're jokes
I mean you can literally just watch three stooges and people will laugh at someone getting punched in the face.
That isn’t even the close to the point or even relevant to what I said. Slapstick isn’t random; it’s a setup situation. It isn’t attacking a stranger oh the street then expecting them to laugh about it… Goddamn you people cannot be this thick.
Misfortune humor is commiserating. It’s punching up to the unfairness of a situation. Targeting trans people is punching down and if you can’t wrap your head around that, then I don’t know what to tell you. Just admit you lack empathy and move on.
These people aren’t riling up the audience. They’re riling up people the audience doesn’t like.
Also, I’m ok with comedy being “mean”, so long as the target deserves it and it’s delivered in a witty way. Too many “edgy” comedians are just recycling the same joke, which runs counter to the idea that comedy is the Subversion of Expectations.
ensuring that consumers will be able to access their previously purchased content for at least the next 30 months.
Title should read “PlayStation will not steal the Discovery TV shows that you purchased from them for at least another 2.5 years.”
It’s insane to me that it’s legal to take away your access to something that you have previously purchased without refunding you the full original price.
Yeah this really makes no difference in the final outcome. You’re still being robbed. They’ve just given you more advance notice of the day they’ll break your windows… and somehow this is still considered “okay” and reasonable.
It’s been said a million ways by this point, but it needs to be said every time this comes up. If buying isn’t owning, then pirating isn’t stealing.
Yet another armchair warrior who has no idea what they’re talking about. Those people bought a limited license to access the media that Sony owned. “Buying” digital media is a litmus test for peoples’ gullibility and I have very little sympathy for anyone who ever thought they owned it to begin with. Hopefully the fallout of this will teach people that the only way to own media is by owning the file, but I’m sure plenty of lazy, unmotivated losers will take the L and keep funding these shitty corps.
Ah yes. Blame the victim. They're all fools and idiots. Definitely not the comically evil corpo scheme that's the issue here. No, users need a good robbing and thrashing online for being dullards and believing that when they get a purchase confirmation, that they purchased the thing.
We made the decision to have one host for the syndicated show next season to maintain continuity for our viewers, and Ken Jennings will be the sole host for syndicated Jeopardy!.
Should’ve just been him all along. It’s wild that this took three years to happen. I can’t believe they managed to fumble this transition when they had Ken the entire time.
There’s a YouTuber called Sideways who talks about music in films. As I recall he talked about the force awakens and said that as far as he could tell they didn’t have the story worked out ahead of time.
He could tell from the way Williams was managing his musical themes, which, according to Sideways, was in the vaguest way possible which in turn gave s William’s as many options as possible down the line.
Once the trilogy was done Sideways posted basically “I told you so”. I always thought that that was an awesome demonstration of expertise by predicting how a movie trilogy would go from the music.
Fantastic YouTube channel! I love his explanation of why the Golden Age of Disney produced so many classic hits (spoiler: they hired a musical theater expert).
They did have it. Michael Arndt, who I know from personal experience is a Star Wars savant at like a scientific level, had his script and outlines scrapped. JJ and Kennedy redid the whole thing after Disney got cold feet. So TFA script itself was a rush rewrite after Arndt had been writing for 1-2 years.
The Sequel Trilogy was so poorly executed. I loved the homage to the original Star Wars that the Force Awakens was. I thoroughly enjoyed the rebellion against toxic Star Wars fans that The Last Jedi was. I absolutely hated the utter bullshit the Rise Of Skywalker became. Which in turn soured my feelings about the first two movies. Why they never had an overarching story in the first place is just ridiculous.
How was The Last Jedi a rebellion against toxic fans? I thought the movie was fine and has excellent cinematography, but it wasn’t anything groundbreaking or controversial in my eyes.
In general I think there are 4 approximate groups of people when it comes to The Last Jedi. The group that really likes it (i'm in this bucket). The group that thinks its a fun action movie but doesn't push any of its interesting choices enough(you seem to be in this bucket). A group of irate star wars fans who hate it and review bombed the shit out of it. and people that dislike it because its a somewhat basic blockbuster with bad pacing. I think the existence of that third group, and at least in online spaces it isn't remotely small, shows the movie was pushed about as far as it could be for the 8th entry in a big bucket movie franchise.
the film uses certain tropes really badly. Everyone has said something about the whole "subverting expectations" things, and in some places, it's done well but in others, they pretty much 4th wall break. By the middle of the film, you can basically predict when and how the subversions will take place, ironically defeating the point of this trope, and ruining what could have been epic moments.
certain things flat out make zero sense. The film wants us to believe, literally spelling it out, that Poe is reckless despite his decisions up until this point being pretty good, all things considered, but wants us to consider Holdo a hero despite her causing a panic within her troops by withholding important information, and her plan ending up getting almost all of them killed.
the casino planet side part of the film feels like it should have been cut by 2/3 and it feels like the only reason for its length was so that Disney could make merchandisable figures from the animals.
it's a little too reliant on nostalgia. Or rather, when it does its nostalgia hit, the details in question usually aren't there for any particular reason or used for anything. There are a couple of times when it's done really well, such as when R2 persuades Luke to help Rey by playing Leia's message from A New Hope. But other times it's a random Xwing in the water or a two moons hallucination.
Poe was portrayed as being really reckless in TFA as well, though. Like his second ever appearance is stealing a star fighter in a prison break, fighting an entire star destroyer with some guy he literally just met, and then crash landing all while acting like he's on a theme park rollercoaster. His first was him intentionally getting captured in order to pull a fast one on a Sith and his entire army. He's usually doing what needs to be done in TFA, but that's because those situations actually required someone to do exactly what he always wants to do: fly straight at it in the fastest thing he can get his hands on and blow a bunch of stuff up. His arc in TLJ was totally in keeping with what we had already seen of him
But if his actions are necessary, by definition, that's not recklessness. Recklessness involves a complete disregard for other, better options. If those options don't exist, you can't exactly call him reckless for it. What's the guy to do?
If he was doing that shit needlessly, that'd be one thing, but his actions in the beginning of TLJ actually improve the odds of the Rebellion considerably, even factoring in the loss of their bombers.
What he did doesn't show that he wasn't reckless just because it was necessary though. I'm saying he clearly wanted to do those things whether they were the right move or not, it's just fortunate for him that they were generally good moves most of the time
But that's the thing, they were good moves at the time. That speaks far more to his experience as a pilot than his recklessness. At no point is Poe provided a safer, better option for him to disregard in favour of a risky move. So we don't have the information needed to call him reckless, even if he has no qualms about the risky approach.
His enthusiasm for the danger made it pretty clear to me. But even then, what you're describing is just a lack of evidence for recklessness, not evidence against him being reckless. Nothing he did in TFA suggests to me that he wouldn't have done what he did in TLJ, it's just that in TLJ the situation didn't work out so well for him
His enthusiasm for the danger made it pretty clear to me. But even then, what you're describing is just a lack of evidence for recklessness
Exactly. This makes it confusing when the TLJ tries to call him reckless, because there's been no evidence to suggest that, either in this film or the previous. The film tries to point to the bombing run as evidence, but it was clearly necessary and not an example of recklessness. An enthusiasm for danger is not the same thing as needlessly wading into it.
Nothing he did in TFA suggests to me that he wouldn't have done what he did in TLJ, it's just that in TLJ the situation didn't work out so well for him.
In TLJ, he's trying to prevent the entire rebellion from getting smoked by two dreadnoughts. Taking out one of them halves the firepower being aimed at them. The rebellion would have been obliterated had Poe not done what he did, Holdo maneuver or no.
and [Holdo's] plan ending up getting almost all of them killed.
Woah, hang on a second. Holdo's plan would (probably) have worked fine if she hadn't told Poe. It was because he told Finn and Rose over a line he didn't know was secure so he actually also told Benicio Del Toro, who then sold that info to the Discount Empire First Order that everyone died.
And then rather than punish Poe for that, she took responsibility for it, did what she could to save everyone else and sacrificed herself for the cause.
Poe incited a mutiny. Holdo made a command decision about Need To Know. I know who deserves the medal after that all dies down, and it isn't the hotshot that had already been demoted earlier that day for disobeying orders.
You're 100% right about #3. And I can't really disagree with #4 either.
God, I wanted to love this film. I still quite like it, but I can't really bring myself to rewatch it as often as, say Rogue One. I think it's weaker in retrospect after the retcon-fest that was Rise of Skywalker, which is a shame. Rian Johnson had some great ideas that could have reinvigorated the franchise. Instead, it's barely limping on, giving us stuff like Andor as enough of a teaser that we don't just give up on the whole thing.
They flushed the whole EU. They didn’t even pick it’s bones for the best bits (until recently), they just messed with the dynamics that worked.
In my opinion, Rey is supposed to be Jaina and Kylo is supposed to be Jacen. Force Awakens has weird moments between the characters that can only make sense if Rey is Han and Leia’s daughter. JJ tried to add ‘mystery’ by hiding this fact, and then Johnson throws it all away to do his own thing.
To be fair, they did have some overarching direction, and even many of the same screenwriters.
I personally think that a lot of the problems come down to Disney rushing the production. It went from four to five years of production time down to two to three and it shows. When you have to go from inception to filming in a few months and to release in 24 months something has to give. Given that there seem to be shot order errors in at least the Last Jedi I do suspect that an extra round of reshoots and editing would have gobe a long way, but there was t time.
Even the you might be able to do a lot in final editing in some films, but when it’s so effects and locations heavy you end up rather limited in what can be changed after finishing shooting. Force Awakens got away with a lot becuse it used a recap of the original trilogy to save time setting things up, but Abrams style of adding in plot hooks without any idea what later films are going to do with them limited the later films a lot more than it might appear on first glance.
I also suspect that the fan reaction to the Prequels played a big part in the way they took it. For fifteen years a lot of the talk about them was people asking why we were spending so much time on trade disputes and senate votes, and the team overcorected to the point that all the basic world building and history got pushed into a book. While Bloodlines may be a good book, a lot of it should have been in the movies themselves and not a tie in novel.
moviesandtv
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.