Of course the poor box-office of Tomorrowland is one data point, which the superstitious oracles at Disney have taken as an omen that any film which has certain factors in common with it will also fail.... rather than an indication that maybe this movie was specifically not very good, or not properly marketed.
Studio movies pay for each other. If one movie bombs, you may have to pull back from some others and be a little more choosy.
But this is hardly the first Disney live-action bomb in recent memory. The incredibly expensive Lone Ranger last year, and John Carter before that.
News flash: people don't want to be preached at by liberals who have a 3rd grade level understanding of the world
I'll note that Tomorrowland was directed and partially written by Brad Brad, whose previous movies (the Incredibles and Ratatouille) were known for philosophy that sometimes branched into Ayn Randian Objectivism.
Then again, I blame Damon Lindelof (screenwriter). It has his usual hallmark of interesting beginning, poor payoff.
Well, you can open your own company and be your own CEO. Or you can just be another employee whining about another paycheck instead of seeing how tough it can be to run a business.
I like how the frequent answer to getting completely shit on is to start a fucking company. Yeah, if everyone is a CEO, who do you get to hire? So starting a company is great for the very small amount of people with the resources to do it, but what about everyone else? Is 'Fuck 'em?' really your answer?
> If you hire someone, why wouldn't you owe them for the time they > work plus a year? Only Republicans believe that you only owe > someone for the time they worked.
Yes. What a strange idea: actually pay for what you get and get what you paid for. Truly a radical idea.
The first was the case of a lady who had been stopped by the police for using her mobile phone while driving. Her defence was that she'd been at home and a relative had called to tell her that her dad had been rushed to hospital. She jumped in the car, set off, and phoned her sister. That was when the police saw her. The prosecution didn't challenge her version of events. To me it seemed like an obvious time for a judge to use his discretion, but no, because her defence involved an admission that she did use the phone while driving, so she was found guilty and fined about £750 if I remember correctly.
Mmmm. I'm not so sure that the judge made the wrong decision. Her dad being in the hospital is no excuse for endangering the lives of others. Was she a surgeon going to operate on him? No? If he was in surgery, would she even have been let in anyway? No, she would not have been, she would have had to await word from the doctors in a waiting room. In that case, or in the case of him not being in as serious a condition, she could have taken two minutes to pull over and talk to her sister. She's not in an ambulance. She doesn't have people pulling over to make way.
I started reading The Fountainhead once upon a time. I don't think I got through the first chapter, her writing was just so terrible. I can't imagine what Atlas Shrugged would be like.
You missed all the weird S&M hate-fucking then. She alternated chapters, going from Roark's architecture in one chapter to raping Dominique in the next. When I read it as a young teenager it was all very strange... and boring.
People have long been interested in time travel, and wormholes are certainly not a Hollywood construct. The plausibility of their existence has been a subject of back-and-forth debate in theoretical physics since the 1920s.
You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB
So basically everyone on the planet should trust their private information to an untrustworthy data-mining company. And we're just supposed to... all be fine with this and hope that it works out?
Others, especially in the Salon's comment section have already pointed out some of the fallacies with a few of those flip-flops, but I'll focus on the contraception position because no one else has, and it is hardly a flip flop. He's one of the folks who believes that life begins at conception, no later. So for him, the morning after pill is not a contraceptive because it terminates a fertilized embryo, which would make it an abortion method.
His stance is fairly consistent if you believe that before fertilization = contraceptive, after fertilization = abortion. It's a bit sneaky to say that the morning after pill is the same sort of "contraceptive" that a condom is.
Paul's support of the Blunt Amendment is also perfectly in line with his support and with his libertarian principles that people are perfectly fine to do what they wish with themselves or consenting adults, but others shouldn't have to pay for their actions.
Not a fan of Rand Paul, but the original article was pretty flamebaity, in that some of the "flip-flops" are only flip-flops if you over-simplify a topic to make somewhat different issues seem the same.
Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?
Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.
its latant advertising. theyre betting that per dollar spent advertising, if they get 100 times as many people to see their message and half remember the message, and half of them remember the ad was so annoying that they wont buy or pateonize out of spite, then a quarter will be annoyed, forget the annoyance and remember the product or service
APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!
Advertisers, take note. If people are blocking your ads, it's because you're being way too obnoxious about shoving them in people's faces
That's because they're coming from the ideal world of broadcast television, where 1/4 to 1/3 of the time is spent forcing you to watch commercials. And yeah, they would ban commercial skippers if it was technologically feasible.
before the whole internet started shitting all over video games.
This never happened. It was made up by idiots like you who crave the righteous feeling of being a persecuted martyr, but don't have the fortitude to endure any kind of actual persecution.
It happened, but it happened over a fairly limited time. "Shitting over video games and gamers" would be pretty accurate, though saying there was real persecution would be an exaggeration.
Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.
Recently all the media, even 'respectable' ones like the New York Times, have become desperate for anything to bring in page views. If there is a story that brings eyes to someone else's page, they all want a piece of it.
My God, it's like the news media version of Network Decay! Among other things, it's the trope where various disconnected channels try to aggressively chase the same demographic, and end up showing the same shows. So you'll have Spike TV, A&E, the Sci Fi Channel, and Bravo all showing Law and Order reruns, because that show brings in viewers, even if it has nothing to do with the channel's once-core mission.
Saying that this makes him an MRA is about as stupid as saying that I am a Nazi because I agree with Adolf Hitler that water is blue. (There, Godwined the discussion for you.)
I don't think you can Godwin a discussion by comparing -yourself- to Hitler!
The best 1980s action movie: Aliens, with Sigourney Weaver taking the gun-toting action role.
And thinking of it, if Steven Seagal was to star in a chick flick instead of Jennifer Aniston, that would be a sign of true gender equality
It's true, but Seagal has little charisma outside of his chosen genre. I don't think most women want to think of him as anything other than an action star. Most men for that matter.
Gerard Butler and Hugh Jackman are most famous for their action movies, but they have serious chick-flick cred as well. Hugh was in Kate and Leopold and Australia and in a number of stage musicals. Gerard Butler was in Phantom of the Opera and then in P.S. I Love You the same year he was in 300. He followed that up with rom-com The Ugly Truth.
Saturday Night Live used to have a recurring skit called "Best of Both Worlds," highlighting actors who played both sides. Unsurprisingly, it was hosted by Andy Samburg as Hugh Jackman.
Who else would count? Nicholas Cage? Liam Neeson? I'm not sure Leonardo DiCaprio or Tom Hanks would count, since they're a bit more "four-corners" actors. Do comedies that both women and men like count? By the late 80s, Arnold Schwarzenegger used to alternate action with family comedies (Twins, Kindergarden Cop, Dave, Junior, Jingle All the Way).
I looked briefly at the massive "MRA" "activists" behind this. One mental patient with a wonky web page.
Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.
No surprise, the crazies get the press and the attention. Earth Liberation Front (or whomever) might drive spikes into trees, but they hardly represent the majority of folks who care about the environment or just like forests.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the poor box-office of Tomorrowland is one data point, which the superstitious oracles at Disney have taken as an omen that any film which has certain factors in common with it will also fail.... rather than an indication that maybe this movie was specifically not very good, or not properly marketed.
Studio movies pay for each other. If one movie bombs, you may have to pull back from some others and be a little more choosy.
But this is hardly the first Disney live-action bomb in recent memory. The incredibly expensive Lone Ranger last year, and John Carter before that.
News flash: people don't want to be preached at by liberals who have a 3rd grade level understanding of the world
I'll note that Tomorrowland was directed and partially written by Brad Brad, whose previous movies (the Incredibles and Ratatouille) were known for philosophy that sometimes branched into Ayn Randian Objectivism.
Then again, I blame Damon Lindelof (screenwriter). It has his usual hallmark of interesting beginning, poor payoff.
Well, you can open your own company and be your own CEO. Or you can just be another employee whining about another paycheck instead of seeing how tough it can be to run a business.
I like how the frequent answer to getting completely shit on is to start a fucking company.
Yeah, if everyone is a CEO, who do you get to hire? So starting a company is great for the very small amount of people with the resources to do it, but what about everyone else? Is 'Fuck 'em?' really your answer?
>> extra year of pay,
> If you hire someone, why wouldn't you owe them for the time they > work plus a year? Only Republicans believe that you only owe
> someone for the time they worked.
Yes. What a strange idea: actually pay for what you get and get what you paid for. Truly a radical idea.
I'm pretty sure you're getting trolled.
At least, I hope so. Pretty sure that's trolling.
My replacement made the same mistakes (and more) but because she was slightly cheaper she didn't get a warning.
Maybe you were overpaid for your performance, while your employer is getting a bit more of his money's worth with your replacement.
The first was the case of a lady who had been stopped by the police for using her mobile phone while driving. Her defence was that she'd been at home and a relative had called to tell her that her dad had been rushed to hospital. She jumped in the car, set off, and phoned her sister. That was when the police saw her. The prosecution didn't challenge her version of events. To me it seemed like an obvious time for a judge to use his discretion, but no, because her defence involved an admission that she did use the phone while driving, so she was found guilty and fined about £750 if I remember correctly.
Mmmm. I'm not so sure that the judge made the wrong decision.
Her dad being in the hospital is no excuse for endangering the lives of others.
Was she a surgeon going to operate on him? No? If he was in surgery, would she even have been let in anyway? No, she would not have been, she would have had to await word from the doctors in a waiting room. In that case, or in the case of him not being in as serious a condition, she could have taken two minutes to pull over and talk to her sister. She's not in an ambulance. She doesn't have people pulling over to make way.
More dipshittery.
Truthers are easy to troll.
Keep licking them boots and some day they might let you wear one for a few minutes
I really hope you have a better argument than that to counter '"Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw, the CIA!" isn't an excuse to do whatever the fuck you please.'
I started reading The Fountainhead once upon a time. I don't think I got through the first chapter, her writing was just so terrible. I can't imagine what Atlas Shrugged would be like.
You missed all the weird S&M hate-fucking then. She alternated chapters, going from Roark's architecture in one chapter to raping Dominique in the next. When I read it as a young teenager it was all very strange... and boring.
People have long been interested in time travel, and wormholes are certainly not a Hollywood construct. The plausibility of their existence has been a subject of back-and-forth debate in theoretical physics since the 1920s.
The difference is that there is no free way to get access to that content though there is for Facebook.
Everything has a cost. Do you think Facebook is putting up their servers and paying their programmers out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?
You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB
So basically everyone on the planet should trust their private information to an untrustworthy data-mining company. And we're just supposed to... all be fine with this and hope that it works out?
Others, especially in the Salon's comment section have already pointed out some of the fallacies with a few of those flip-flops, but I'll focus on the contraception position because no one else has, and it is hardly a flip flop. He's one of the folks who believes that life begins at conception, no later. So for him, the morning after pill is not a contraceptive because it terminates a fertilized embryo, which would make it an abortion method.
His stance is fairly consistent if you believe that before fertilization = contraceptive, after fertilization = abortion. It's a bit sneaky to say that the morning after pill is the same sort of "contraceptive" that a condom is.
Paul's support of the Blunt Amendment is also perfectly in line with his support and with his libertarian principles that people are perfectly fine to do what they wish with themselves or consenting adults, but others shouldn't have to pay for their actions.
Reporting the man's hypocrisy is not flamebait.
Not a fan of Rand Paul, but the original article was pretty flamebaity, in that some of the "flip-flops" are only flip-flops if you over-simplify a topic to make somewhat different issues seem the same.
12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.
Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?
Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.
its latant advertising. theyre betting that per dollar spent advertising, if they get 100 times as many people to see their message and half remember the message, and half of them remember the ad was so annoying that they wont buy or pateonize out of spite, then a quarter will be annoyed, forget the annoyance and remember the product or service
APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!
Advertisers, take note. If people are blocking your ads, it's because you're being way too obnoxious about shoving them in people's faces
That's because they're coming from the ideal world of broadcast television, where 1/4 to 1/3 of the time is spent forcing you to watch commercials. And yeah, they would ban commercial skippers if it was technologically feasible.
This never happened. It was made up by idiots like you who crave the righteous feeling of being a persecuted martyr, but don't have the fortitude to endure any kind of actual persecution.
It happened, but it happened over a fairly limited time. "Shitting over video games and gamers" would be pretty accurate, though saying there was real persecution would be an exaggeration.
Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.
Recently all the media, even 'respectable' ones like the New York Times, have become desperate for anything to bring in page views. If there is a story that brings eyes to someone else's page, they all want a piece of it.
My God, it's like the news media version of Network Decay! Among other things, it's the trope where various disconnected channels try to aggressively chase the same demographic, and end up showing the same shows. So you'll have Spike TV, A&E, the Sci Fi Channel, and Bravo all showing Law and Order reruns, because that show brings in viewers, even if it has nothing to do with the channel's once-core mission.
Saying that this makes him an MRA is about as stupid as saying that I am a Nazi because I agree with Adolf Hitler that water is blue. (There, Godwined the discussion for you.)
I don't think you can Godwin a discussion by comparing -yourself- to Hitler!
No, I've been around, but to keep calling some site an MRA site when it explicitly says that it is not is ridiculous.
Sure, that makes sense, but of course a bunch idiots will start chanting "No True Scotsman!" as if that was some sort of argument.
I guess you could call them remakes. Some were of decent quality, others (the oil one in particular) just fucking awful.
The best 1980s action movie: Aliens, with Sigourney Weaver taking the gun-toting action role.
And thinking of it, if Steven Seagal was to star in a chick flick instead of Jennifer Aniston, that would be a sign of true gender equality
It's true, but Seagal has little charisma outside of his chosen genre. I don't think most women want to think of him as anything other than an action star. Most men for that matter.
Gerard Butler and Hugh Jackman are most famous for their action movies, but they have serious chick-flick cred as well. Hugh was in Kate and Leopold and Australia and in a number of stage musicals. Gerard Butler was in Phantom of the Opera and then in P.S. I Love You the same year he was in 300. He followed that up with rom-com The Ugly Truth.
Saturday Night Live used to have a recurring skit called "Best of Both Worlds," highlighting actors who played both sides. Unsurprisingly, it was hosted by Andy Samburg as Hugh Jackman.
Who else would count? Nicholas Cage? Liam Neeson? I'm not sure Leonardo DiCaprio or Tom Hanks would count, since they're a bit more "four-corners" actors. Do comedies that both women and men like count? By the late 80s, Arnold Schwarzenegger used to alternate action with family comedies (Twins, Kindergarden Cop, Dave, Junior, Jingle All the Way).
I looked briefly at the massive "MRA" "activists" behind this. One mental patient with a wonky web page.
Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.
No surprise, the crazies get the press and the attention.
Earth Liberation Front (or whomever) might drive spikes into trees, but they hardly represent the majority of folks who care about the environment or just like forests.
Put another way, 20% of the film is special effects.Dang, that is a lot of special effects.
No, that's not putting it another way, it's an intentionally inaccurate restarting of "80% of the effects are practical."