Slashdot Mirror

/Oblg. "STD is so bad it isn't even worth pirating!"

Well, I wasn't going to watch either (Yet-Another-Stupid-Paywall) but a friend had CBS access and they _still_ chose to download the torrents so they could watch it across ALL their devices. (Go Figure!) I borrowed their USB stick so I could watch it on my 60" Plasma.

I 99% agree with Midnight's Edge's analysis, and RedLetterMedia's review about STD:ADHD.

If CBS hadn't been trying to leech onto the Star Trek name I think more fans would be wiling to cut it some slack as just another "Sci-Fi" show. But going back and rewriting history is a slap in the face to many fans. This is one of the same reasons Enterprise failed -- show us something NEW _past_ Picard.

It is interesting to note that according to Rotten Tomatoes fans only give it 60% while the spiritual successor to Trek, The Orville has 90%.

--
Censorship is NOT the Solution, it is precisely the Problem.

/Oblg. "STD is so bad it isn't even worth pirating!"

Well, I wasn't going to watch either (Yet-Another-Stupid-Paywall) but a friend had CBS access and they _still_ chose to download the torrents so they could watch it across ALL their devices. (Go Figure!) I borrowed their USB stick so I could watch it on my 60" Plasma.

I 99% agree with Midnight's Edge's analysis, and RedLetterMedia's review about STD:ADHD.

If CBS hadn't been trying to leech onto the Star Trek name I think more fans would be wiling to cut it some slack as just another "Sci-Fi" show. But going back and rewriting history is a slap in the face to many fans. This is one of the same reasons Enterprise failed -- show us something NEW _past_ Picard.

It is interesting to note that according to Rotten Tomatoes fans only give it 60% while the spiritual successor to Trek, The Orville has 90%.

--
Censorship is NOT the Solution, it is precisely the Problem.

(Perhaps you meant "love to hate"?)

Here is a perfect example of how out of touch their """critics""" are. The critics score is at 17% now, but I saw it as low as 11% yesterday. (The episode aired a day and a half ago.)

Now try looking for Trans, PoC, etc Queer people - yeah. They barely exist.

Are you seriously bundling "Person of Color" with Transgenderism? The others do barely exist in real life. Transgenderism is closer to 0.5% of the overall population than it is to 1% ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States ).

People of color represent around 13% of the US population, if you are suggesting that they are black. If you include other races, then it's a much higher percentage, but that's not what people mean when they bring up people of color (because they, for some reason, refuse to acknowledge that we're all different colors).

But, more importantly, just taking a glance at Rotten Tomatoes' 5 movies being released this weekend (without having to click View All):

• The Hitman's Bodybuard
  • Starring Samuel L. Jackson (you may not know this, but he's black)
• Logan Lucky
  • Appears to be an all-white cast based on pictures.
• Shot Caller
  • I can't name anyone in the movie (has the guy that plays Jamie Lannister as the lead).
  • Movie poster shows at least one Latino person (Manny's father from Modern Family), a black male, and a white guy.
• Patti Cake$
  • An unknown, obese white actress appears to be the lead.
  • Appears to represent a wide range of races based on the photos section.
• Lemon
  • Stars Nia Long from the pictures (a black actress who is recognizable as the love interest from Friday, among many other things) has a leading role

So, out of five movies, only one of them do not feature a PoC in some polarizing way. Though, I suppose you do appear right that none of them are obviously showing off T/Q people -- or put in another way: 0.5% of the population that is extremely unrelateable to the rest of the population, which means they are less likely to pay to see said movie.

Unless of course you mean PoC that are T / Q: then look no further than the pop culture hit of Glee, whose ratings faltered as they added a transgendered black fe/male. It's hard enough to relate to 0.5% of overall population. I doubt that the two were particularly related, except that that was the same time that the show became extremely political (as opposed to relateably political, like with the bullying of the gay teenagers).

Please, before you start crying about the lack of something, try to understand it without being emotional about it. This is purely a numbers game. Hollywood is incredibly liberal and they would love to represent whatever the latest liberal outcry happens to be, but they can't pull it off when the numbers will produce a loss.

The 82% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes says that most people disagree with you.

blame Rotten Tomatoes, with Pirates 5 and Baywatch respectively earning 32% and 19% Rotten.

If Tit, Bum and Wet Swimsuit Watch (Transferred From Telly) is scoring considerably "fresher" than Pirates 5 (The Oceans 11 Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Prequel), then Pirates 5 must be an absolute stinker. No wonder they didn't pay the ransomware last week. Probably hoped it would snk without trace.

Then again, having seen interminable trailers and adverts for other Pirates films, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Because Tit, Bum and Wet Swimsuit Watch does (probably) have tits and bums and really wet swimsuits. Even if the tits are floppy and over-injected with silicone.

Actually, I take it back slightly. The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! was actually worth the entry fee. Maybe they should have carried on in that vein.

Yes, sometimes the critics also like mindless movies or movies that are simply a lot of fun...

But if the enjoyable fun of a movie is more specialized, often the critics will not "get it" as it were, at least not in relation to what I think of a movie.

The Rotten Tomatoes score for Interstellar is a great example, the critics score is way lower than what I would give it, and even the audience score is a bit low though reflective. That was a movie that I think required an actual level of scientific understanding to really enjoy, much more than most movie critics (and even most fans) have.

What I find puzzling is when looking for a good horror movie (because there are so many bad ones) I see a lot of movies with critic ratings in the 90s and audience scores in the 40s or 30s. That isn't the genre I would expect that in.

Audience score of horror movies seem to be strongly correlated with gore and "direct" scare amounts. That is, popcorn flicks. Critics score them quite differently, at least so it seems to me.

For example take https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_blackcoats_daughter/. It isn't a movie with lots of teenagers getting ripped to pieces or similar visual gore. It doesn't have monsters jumping out at you etc.

It is slow and creepy, and you have to work a bit to piece together the story. So as a popcorn flick, it's a complete miss. But I wasn't after that, so I enjoyed it very much when I watched it.

So many pretentious art movies! Like Mad Max:Fury Road, Star Wars: Episode VII, and The Lego Movie.

What are you complaining about exactly? The movie that actually "the Hulk bash the crop out of aliens" got a 92% of Rotten Tomatoes. Critics loved it! https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Relevant movie to your post :
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

98% Tomatometer, so you cannot go wrong. ;)

if it has vampires, warewolves, or magic, it probably isn't Sci Fi.

I got your vampire Sci Fi right here buddy!

Naked vampires from space. Excuse me for a moment...

Plenty of good movies are still released these days. Just based on rottentomatoes alone, 22 of the top 100 movies of all time have been released since 2010: https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

IMO, this in particular has had a high percentage of quality movies: Get Out, Hidden Figures, Colossal, Lost City of Z, Logan. Even Wonder Woman has received good reviews.

For example, the 2014 film Lucy received overwhelmingly positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes

I wouldn't consider its 67% critic score and 47% audience score "overwhelmingly positive". Quite the opposite, in fact, since those scores tell me is that the film was divisive among critics and was not altogether that well received among general audiences. And both of those make sense, given that Luc Besson's films tend to have decent technical chops (e.g. tight action, decent cinematography) but have for some time been sorely lacking in areas that are really important, especially to general audiences (e.g. pacing, story, characters you actually enjoy).

To me, it's felt like he's been going downhill ever since Leon (1994), though others may suggest The Fifth Element (1997) was his peak. Either way, he's been in decline for quite some time, and I agree with you that Lucy (2014) didn't do him any favors.

So far as I'm concerned, Rotten Tomatoes has for years done a far better job ...

Although Rotten Tomatoes probably has the best movie rating system on the web, it can still be highly inaccurate. For example, the 2014 film Lucy received overwhelmingly positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, despite being one of the most poorly-conceived and totally inane films I have ever seen. See the review by Christopher Orr

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/07/life-is-futile-so-heres-what-to-do-with-it-according-to-lucy-a-spoilereview/375006/

for a detailed accounting of the elements that make this film so horrible. (Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was like Shakespeare in comparison.) It boggles my mind that Lucy could be so highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes.

Kung Fury review and movie. If a single person with a small budget from Kickstarter can do that, then Hollywood should be orders of magnitude better. As it is, I found this more entertaining than the latest Iron Man or other Marvel stuff. I may just have questionable taste, but while this is a cheap and cheesy feature, it also quite clever--the whole thing is a parody of movie tropes, doesn't take itself seriously, and ticks a large number of boxes.

They even used it as a premise for a movie that's actually worth watching
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Given how every other item on that list was a very recent release and it's a recent lawsuit, I would assume it's https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Check out Rotten Tomatoes sometime to see if there's any 95% fresh movies you hate or 37% fresh movies you love. I'm sure you'll find that there are indeed some.

For example, why did this complete mess of a movie with terrible CGI characters and cringe-worthy reused scenes from a 1977 film get rated 85%?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rogue_one_a_star_wars_story

Why would games be different than any form of artistic expression, like books, movies, music, paintings, sculpture, architecture? Different people value different things, and sometimes even when there's some critical consensus, you might radically disagree with the critics. Check out Rotten Tomatoes sometime to see if there's any 95% fresh movies you hate or 37% fresh movies you love. I'm sure you'll find that there are indeed some.

So make them also watch Sandlers "Jack and Jill." This is one "comedy movie" that doesn't even try to be comedy. Even the fart jokes wouldn't get a laugh from the kids, and letting young children watch it will scar them for life. Rotten Tomatoes rates it as 50% better than The Cobbler - but a rating of 3% instead of 2% says it all.

Dementia is not just memory loss. It is also cognitive decline, mis-remembering and at times hallucinations.

IoT only works in the "dementia use case" when the patient can remember what to do when a light flashes, the pill door opens or some other device alert occurs. And as the patient declines and there are fewer and fewer "cognitive enough" periods, these systems will not produce the expected reaction from the patient. And after a while (a pretty short while actually) the patient won't know and won't care. After that another human is necessary to make sure things happen at the correct time. This won't change until the smart AI assistant robots arrive.

The promise of the current generation of IoT gadgets like GPS tracking watches, motion/occupancy detectors, remotely controlled door locks, switches that monitor the refrigerator door to automated pill dispensers are only useful during a pretty short transition period between self-care and a locked memory care assisted living campus.

Companies selling these IoT devices for this use case are really selling false hope.

I've seen other posts here that suggest that the afflicted should be allowed to commit suicide. But very few now actually commit suicide before they are already too far gone to be considered legally competent. Because you can't be competent when you can't remember what happened a minute ago.

Dementia patients don't even notice they aren't remembering or thinking properly unless someone or the physical universe points it out. Then the general reaction is likely frustration or anger, because what they think is going on is not.

Look at the documentary on singer Glen Campbell called "Glen Campbell... I'll Be Me." to get an idea of what dementia is like.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

And while watching think about how applicable IoT is to him.

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

It's explained here, and on Wikipedia:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Long story short, it gets the seal if it goes over 75% and has a minimum number of reviews from top critics, and keeps it unless it then falls below 70%. So there is a dead band to stop it toggling on and off rapidly if it's just on the limit, which is kinda important if companies are going to use it in the marketing.

No conspiracy, that's just how it has always worked. That's why the AC was modded down, he's just repeating a Reddit conspiracy theory that is easily disproven with 10 seconds of research.

"its surprising to see something like this make #1 though? It certainly speaks to a very talented writers group."

Well, not TOO talented...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

The real test of a movie is how well it performs in the first and second weeks after launch. Word of mouth and all that. Some films like How To Train Your Dragon can recover from a weak opening and show extraordinary strength down the road, but that doesn't happen very often.

The Tomatometer rates Angry Birds at a Rotten 43%. Zootopia, Fresh, at 98%, The Jungle Book, Fresh, at 95% ---- and. if you have taken your kids out to see Zooptopia and The Jungle Book, there isn't much of anything else out there for them right now.

Disney doesn't need Angry Birds.

Not when it is adding originals like Zootopia, Frozen, and Wreak-It Ralph to its animated cannon and vivid live-action remakes of films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book. Not after it after added Pixar, The Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars and Indiana Jones to its roster.

With rating movies statistically there are a number of methods:

- Box office takings, such as Box Office Mojo

- DVD and Video sales

- Movie audience figures (when broadcast on television or similar)

- Industry awards, such as the Academy Awards or the Baftas

- Ratings from critics, such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - Ratings from general users, such as IMDB

- and finally, "Best of" listings voted on by critics or interest groups.

I include the last not because it is really a very good statistical comparison as compared to any of the other methods, but because it is the only one analogous to the sorts of lists being considered in the Worlds Without End rankings.

To get a good statistical ranking for books or movies we need to get a comprehensive set of data that covers all (or most) of the entries, and which applies the same rankings to each. None of the rankings for Movies which I have listed really does that, but some do better than others in some ways at least. For example, ticket and unit sales cover all movies, though they have the problem that the number of people going to movies, and the price they pay per ticket, have increased over time so that the ranking metric isn't the same for all movies. It also has the disadvantage that ticket sales are not necessarily related to how good a movie is. Industry awards can probably be assumed to cover all movies released in a given year and therefore cover the whole population, but have the problem that the award givers may not cover all entries equally, and may be subject to bias. Critical judgement, whether from professional critics or members of the public, also have the problem of coverage - I personally cannot expect to be able to see every movie made, and the ones I do see will be affected by by things like advertising budgets which are not necessarily related to how good the movie actually is.

With books we do have some similar data sets. Figures for number of books printed, or sales on the likes of Amazon can be compiled, though these have the same problem of not being related to quality. I don't know of any compilation sites for professional book critics (anybody?), but there are sites such as Goodreads where members of the public can give their subjective rankings. Industry awards also exist, such as the Hugo or Nebula awards, but these have the disadvantage of being subject to politics (*cough* Puppies vs SJW anyone?). Finally, there are "Best of" lists, such as the ones cited by Worlds Without End.

Books have a problem compared to movies in that far more books get published than movies get made. While a good critic can expect to see all the movies that come out in a year (at least all those released theatrically), reading every book that is published is impossible. This eats into the quality of critical rankings out there, or even into Industry awards. Any "Best of the Year" list can't really hope to be definitive, because a book - especially a ground breaking, iconoclastic new classic - will take time to find a wide audience and be widely recognised.

For my money, I think the likes of Goodreads are probably the best bet as an objective, comprehensive and timely statistical source for

From the screenshot of this I saw earlier today they want to charge you $4 to rent Kill Bill 2 for 48 hours and you'll have to watch it on a computer...

Kill Bill 2 is a bad example. Lionsgate didn't make that movie, nor does it have the right to distribute it. Miramax does.

A better example would be Compadres - Sort of Armed. Kind of Dangerous

Apparently it's good, according to critics and users?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

Are we living in this world again?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...
Were we ever not living in that world?

"Great USA" returns from... what exactly? Red scare 50's? Vietnam nuke-testing 60's (although the moon landing was cool...)? Gas-crisis disco 70's? Roth-era Van Halen Reagan Hardcore Punk 80's? Grunge? Be more specific. I don't remember any golden-age USA so much I want Trump to bring it "back" (although I miss the hardcore).

Good point.

"Great USA" returns from... what exactly? Red scare 50's? Vietnam nuke-testing 60's (although the moon landing was cool...)? Gas-crisis disco 70's? Roth-era Van Halen Reagan Hardcore Punk 80's? Grunge? Be more specific. I don't remember any golden-age USA so much I want Trump to bring it "back" (although I miss the hardcore).

I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective). However, looking at sales, and most critics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.

Disney spent $4Bil on this, it's not too hard to believe that some of those reviews have come under the influence of the Disney marketing budget.
I'm willing to believe that this movie had some smarts that I completely missed, but so far everything I've seen and read says that this is a turkey. And after the hype curve fades, time will reveal more honest opinions.

I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective).
However, looking at sales, and most critics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.

Are you implying Lucas would have done better? The prequels and updated original trilogy is, for the most part, disliked in favor of the originals (where Lucas did not have as much involvement).
Also the notion that "X doing thing is bad, therefore Y would have been better" is the same fallacy thought that happens in the US every time $president does something ("oh if only $otherCandidate won! everything would be better!")

There are issues with it though. See my https://groups.google.com/foru...|sort:date/mozilla.support.firefox/N3wPDW8YEJk/GcCVilBOBQAJ (or http://preview.tinyurl.com/4kc... ) newsgroup thread that I recently discovered with http://ocregister.com/ and http://rottentomatoes.com/ 's e-mail address login. :(

Maybe it's because NYT is a newspaper, which sells ads...
And there's a movie about a stressed out drone pilot that released last month. There's always a tie-in to some sell....

====

Really, drone pilots are just that, extensions of a drone, hence are forced to act like drones during missions and need to basically fly the 'entire plane'. And that's stress by boredom--just look at airline pilots... same routine, same times, same crew, same daily grind, and usually ends with something that has to do with drugs & alcohol.

Sure today's autopilots can really carry out an entire mission and allow a pilot to really be a supervisor (and not a pilot), but that creates a whole new set of problems. Problems that the military can't, nor doesn't want to handle. Most aircraft are piloted & manned, hence our entire infrastructure, regulations, training, O&M and essentially development approach is currently pilot centric, hence R/C of UAS is the closest DoD will every get to 'real' drones.

Autonomous UAS or even full-supervisory UAS (no pilot training, no real 'pilot') is just scratching the surface. No organization knows how to handle that aspect at scale-- I can surely tell you (since I'm one of the guys building such as system).

This movie, Mad Max: Fury Roads, looks extremely well crafted from the previews. It looks like a cross from Cirque du Soleil and the old Mad Max. I've only watched the previews, and I can't tell for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called activist wasn't getting paid for his manufactured "outrage" as a form of guerrilla tactic by the movie creators themselves.

If you guys really want to watch a movie that's upsetting for men's rights to watch. Watch Hitch. The main character, Hitch, is supposedly the one exploiting women, and there is a political message obviously embedded in there, but somehow, the smart hot woman he is after is the one who is constantly treating him like crap. And the more she treats him like crap, the more he falls in love with her. In the end, they end up together, but I'm not even sure why that is. He's obviously in love with her, but there is no indication she even likes the guy (except for the jet ski sessions and all the other free stuff he gives her may be?).

And before someone starts criticizing my observation because the pathetic character in Hitch was the male this time, I can think of quite a few movies where it's the woman who is stuck in a one-sided love and the situation is the complete opposite. It's just that in those other movies, that kind of pathetic behavior doesn't get celebrated by the audience and those other movies do not come out specifically on Valentine's day as a model for couples to watch together and emulate.

98% fresh on rottentomatoes of ~220 critics reviews, which aren't just a bunch of fanboys. I'm 36 and me and my father saw it together; it's awesome!

Build the city on earth instead. Breathable atmosphere...

Not for long

...plenty of water...

For me to poop in

And, you know, there's this. Mars is a warehouse, who wants to live in a warehouse? Let Amazon handle it, with Huey, Dewey, and Louie...

Shouldn't they always serve the operator?

yes, probably, maybe, sometimes, usually - there can be complex extenuating circumstances.

Robot & Frank is a pretty good SciFi exploration of such issues. I think the writers imagine the likely future trade-offs well.

It could be worse. They could have gotten Shatner to direct it.

Hollywood does take risks, the problem is that the movie-going public doesn't! There were plenty of good movies last year but 11 of the 15 top movies in 2014 were remakes or sequels or superhero movies. Sadly the previous list has no correlation to the movies that audiences and critics actually enjoyed.

The problem is that people choose movies to go and see by optimizing for the size of its marketing campaign, or opening weekend gross. So they go and participate in a feedback loop that encourages Hollywood to make more and more low-risk superhero sequels. A much better way to avoid disappointment is to choose a movie that other people who have seen the movie (i.e. reviewers) actually liked, and avoid the ones that reviewers have told you are going to be shit. It sounds obvious but people don't do this.

Even here on Slashdot where we were warned that The Hobbit would be shit. But I see other posts where Slashdotters still went and watched it and are posting here that it was shit. As if that was a surprise, and it's all Hollywood's fault!

A few people here have already mentioned Rotten Tomatoes. If you're not already using it or something similar, you should. Otherwise you're probably part of the problem.

Hollywood doesn't seem to be able to come up with new stuffs

I keep hearing it over and over again, but it's just not true - It's that people don't want to go watch 'new stuffs.'

Go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ and look at new movies movies & new DVDs that were 'certified fresh' for 2014. Tons and tons of new stuff, all rated as good.

Why do I keep seeing news agencies and the like reporting that The Interview is being "broadly panned" when it's not?

http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

The consensus seems to be that while it's a mediocre film it's good for a few laughs.

I have no idea what to watch.

1) Go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
2) Click "Movies"
3) Click "Certified Fresh Movies"

Enjoy.

Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.

I propose a much simpler reason aside from potential liability that they are pulling it. Looking strictly at the bottom-line (and setting aside the idea that Sony might actually have a corporate conscience, somewhere..). The rule-of-thumb is that the opening weekend box office numbers are the best indicator of which movies are hot and which are stinkers. Ticket sales usually taper off week by week, and never surpass the numbers at the opening. If a movie has a weak opening weekend, everyone assumes that the movie is crap and even fewer people go to see it the next week. By not having an opening weekend in the top 5 chains, Sony would pretty much guarantee they have a flop on their hands, never mind the fact that all signs point to a crappy movie to start with.

The OP has it wrong. The theaters would be liable.

Remember the shooting that occurred at a screening of Batman: the Dark Knight? Well, some families of victims are suing the theater and the case is still ongoing. Because there's a chance that the theater may be found liable of not having "enough security" for a random shooting, and because it can be argued that the theaters in this case were "warned ahead of time of a potential attack," they could potentially be found liable should anything happen.

Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.

Some more URLs I have in my collection (haven't checked some of these in awhile, though):

UPS tracking (after trigger enter your tracking number)
US Postal Service Tracking (after trigger enter your tracking number)
YouTube Video Search
E.gg Timer (type the length of the countdown in plain text after your trigger -- eg: "5 minutes" to make the timer run for five minutes, "2 hours 3 minutes" for two hours and three minutes, ect. You can even go do other browsing and background the tab, it will jump to the front when it goes off.
IMDB Search
Rotten Tomatoes
Google Translate (to English) -- just paste the URL of the foreign site after your trigger.
ZXing QR Code decoder -- paste a image URL after the trigger.
DownForEveryoneOrJustMe website check
NewEgg Product Search
FreshPorts Search

For sites without their own searches, you can always set up a Google search restricted to the site with "site%3Adomainofsite.tld+%s" as the string.

Once you have all the major search engines set up there's really no reason to waste toolbar space on Firefox with the actual Search Bar anymore.