Circuses have some redeeming features. This is really much closer to one of those dirt carnivals that setup in parking lots and are gone in a few days.
Understood. I was only suggesting that Marvel can make a movie that doesn't entirely work. It doesn't happen often and they're very good at what they do but it's not out of the question. You're right that Incredible Hulk didn't have the kind of inertia that everything they make these days has. It did come during the great 2008 summer of comic book movies breaking out like crazy though and it was a month off of Iron Man which had a created a tiny bit of its own hype. I remember that year there were 5-6 comic book movies that hit the screen as big tent poles. Incredible Hulk was a surprising disappointment.
I donâ(TM)t agree that itâ(TM)s obvious at all. Marvel movies are the biggest events in cinema today and they draw a big crowd. How many people commented on Black Panther? Infinity War?
No, it doesn't really appear that way at all. It appears that a movie in the MCU has the lion's share of the attention. Perfectly expected. Have you noticed the rather large pile of dollars the Mouse sits on thanks to the MCU? Something like $17 billion of them (give or take)? The movie is anticipated (for better or worse) by a larger group of people than any of those other movies and so more people are going to want to state their opinion on it.
How do you know they went there just to vote that they're not interested? Maybe they vote on a lot of movies and just aren't interested in this one for some reason. It's at least possible isn't it? Eventually Marvel was going to release something that the world didn't go crazy over. There is a precedent here. The Incredible Hulk was a dud and so was Thor: The Dark World. The good news for Marvel is that their failures generally don't come in large numbers and they tend to make more money with their duds than most studios get out of their smaller hits.
Exactly. CM is going to make some money regardless of what RT has to say about who wants to see this because of sheer inertia. Hell I even want to see it eventually. My biggest issue with it about bringing it out so close to Endgame and introducing a character halfway through the epic end of the first 10 years of the MCU story all "deus ex machina" style when you're making what many expect to be the Iron Man/Captain America send-off story. CM should have been introduced almost two years ago (but if I'm not mistaken Marvel's deal with Sony to get Spider-Man into the MCU films bumped it or something like that) and if that wasn't possible then it should have come after Endgame as the next big thing. It's got a clunky release date in relation to the bigger, more interesting Avengers based stuff going on right now. They got away with Ant-Man & The Wasp back in the fall but then it steered mostly away from the Infinity War/Endgame stuff except for the post-credits scene.
I find it curious that there could be that many people with an interest in crapping on this movie. I'd like to suggest an alternative theory.
We're approaching 11 years into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We've seen something like 20 films so far and a fair number of them have been origin stories. The trailers for CM have been pretty paint by numbers superhero stuff and it's just not all that interesting. The big selling point has been (over and over again) that she is a) "a woman" and b) incredibly, unbelievably powerful. Both are true but she's not come across as all that interesting or different. I think fatigue is setting in a bit on this one and that is being fanned by the fact that its release date was put in a thankless spot. I'm an MCU fan. I'm an "ass will be in the seat" kind of raised on comic books "manchild" if you will. I saw part one of the Avengers vs. Thanos two-part epic last year like everyone else and now I've got interest in one thing and one thing only where the MCU is concerned. Avengers: Endgame. Putting CM in the middle of that was a bad idea. Even adding CM to Endgame was a bit on the questionable side. This is the conclusion of a big story that started in 2008 and adding someone halfway through the last story and then having that character be integral to the way that ending happens is not a good choice from a storytelling point of view. At least not in my opinion. I think that has a lot to do with it.
Exactly! These are things that any kiosk can get perfectly right but that low-skill humans don't give a crap about doing right. This week on two different dates and at two different locations I was pressed for time in the morning and opted for my guilty pleasure of (don't judge me) Two McDonald's Sausage Egg McMuffins for breakfast. I don't know what it is about those damn things but I'm their bitch and crave them. First day I pull through the drive through and end up with two sandwiches that have no sausage on them. It's in the damn name people! Second time I ended up with two sandwiches that had no egg on them.
I cant wait for machines to start handling this.
People who live in countries that are prosperous are lucky to have been born there it's true but the society that produced those conditions is a result of the behavior of its people. In the US that translates into smaller families. Eugenics has nothing at all to do with this and simply serves to highlight your leftist idealogy and real point. If it did then there would be far fewer of those poor, starving, resource limited people. Instead they breed at rates that are insanely unsustainable and then the world gets to hear people like you whine about how those who don't do that are taking more than their share of everything. Complete drivel.
Can't make more resources. Can make fewer babies. It's really their call. 30 times the resources yes, sure but look at the relative size of the populations. 330 million people in the US guzzling resources like a motherfucker but resources they can afford. Meanwhile 1.2 billion people on the entire continent of Africa grubbing on UN wheat. Another 1.3 billion in India. Stop dropping babies left and right and there would be more to go around over there.
Well thank god for that happening right? I mean the world would probably end if the EU didn't save us from having to have two cables in our car instead of one so both a husband and a wife could charge their phones. That's some epic planet-saving stuff right there.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but if it makes you feel better about yourself to assume that I stay in the small, backward American town I was born in then go right ahead and think that.
You're talking about what people do with chargers they no longer need or want. This is a question of asking people to properly dispose of things they discard. If you recycle your broken or no longer needed waste then outstanding. That's what you should do and it's what I do. Yes making them all use the same cable will give people an incentive to keep their old cable to use with their new phone and that's fine but each phone will continue to come with a cable and people will continue to discard their old cables improperly.
Having people all throw away matching cables isn't much of an improvement.
I don't understand why this benefit is so compelling that it would require a need for action (legislation). Why should there be a law of any kind mandating that different manufacturers all use the same charger? Of course it would be best. Not getting an argument out of me on that one but why should they be compelled to do that? It just seems like the EU regulators don't have enough real problems on their plate and now they're just down to the real minutia. What's next? Finding the optimal size of crepes and mandating that all businesses that serve them comply with the standard or face an escalating series of fines?
Slashdot Mirror
Either way after you said that it's impossible to read it without hearing it in Stewie's voice. Well done sir!
...Yodabyte
Circuses have some redeeming features. This is really much closer to one of those dirt carnivals that setup in parking lots and are gone in a few days.
Did Darl McBride put together a group of investors and buy Blackberry recently? No? Ok, just wondering.
Understood. I was only suggesting that Marvel can make a movie that doesn't entirely work. It doesn't happen often and they're very good at what they do but it's not out of the question. You're right that Incredible Hulk didn't have the kind of inertia that everything they make these days has. It did come during the great 2008 summer of comic book movies breaking out like crazy though and it was a month off of Iron Man which had a created a tiny bit of its own hype. I remember that year there were 5-6 comic book movies that hit the screen as big tent poles. Incredible Hulk was a surprising disappointment.
The day before Black Panther was released it had 40,095 intentions to see and was sitting at 94% according to this. https://web.archive.org/web/20...
I donâ(TM)t agree that itâ(TM)s obvious at all. Marvel movies are the biggest events in cinema today and they draw a big crowd. How many people commented on Black Panther? Infinity War?
No, it doesn't really appear that way at all. It appears that a movie in the MCU has the lion's share of the attention. Perfectly expected. Have you noticed the rather large pile of dollars the Mouse sits on thanks to the MCU? Something like $17 billion of them (give or take)? The movie is anticipated (for better or worse) by a larger group of people than any of those other movies and so more people are going to want to state their opinion on it. How do you know they went there just to vote that they're not interested? Maybe they vote on a lot of movies and just aren't interested in this one for some reason. It's at least possible isn't it? Eventually Marvel was going to release something that the world didn't go crazy over. There is a precedent here. The Incredible Hulk was a dud and so was Thor: The Dark World. The good news for Marvel is that their failures generally don't come in large numbers and they tend to make more money with their duds than most studios get out of their smaller hits.
Exactly. CM is going to make some money regardless of what RT has to say about who wants to see this because of sheer inertia. Hell I even want to see it eventually. My biggest issue with it about bringing it out so close to Endgame and introducing a character halfway through the epic end of the first 10 years of the MCU story all "deus ex machina" style when you're making what many expect to be the Iron Man/Captain America send-off story. CM should have been introduced almost two years ago (but if I'm not mistaken Marvel's deal with Sony to get Spider-Man into the MCU films bumped it or something like that) and if that wasn't possible then it should have come after Endgame as the next big thing. It's got a clunky release date in relation to the bigger, more interesting Avengers based stuff going on right now. They got away with Ant-Man & The Wasp back in the fall but then it steered mostly away from the Infinity War/Endgame stuff except for the post-credits scene.
I find it curious that there could be that many people with an interest in crapping on this movie. I'd like to suggest an alternative theory. We're approaching 11 years into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We've seen something like 20 films so far and a fair number of them have been origin stories. The trailers for CM have been pretty paint by numbers superhero stuff and it's just not all that interesting. The big selling point has been (over and over again) that she is a) "a woman" and b) incredibly, unbelievably powerful. Both are true but she's not come across as all that interesting or different. I think fatigue is setting in a bit on this one and that is being fanned by the fact that its release date was put in a thankless spot. I'm an MCU fan. I'm an "ass will be in the seat" kind of raised on comic books "manchild" if you will. I saw part one of the Avengers vs. Thanos two-part epic last year like everyone else and now I've got interest in one thing and one thing only where the MCU is concerned. Avengers: Endgame. Putting CM in the middle of that was a bad idea. Even adding CM to Endgame was a bit on the questionable side. This is the conclusion of a big story that started in 2008 and adding someone halfway through the last story and then having that character be integral to the way that ending happens is not a good choice from a storytelling point of view. At least not in my opinion. I think that has a lot to do with it.
"Isla Sorna" is what they should call it.
Anything that makes the stupid people easier to identify from a distance is OK by me.
Free money makes people happy? This is what they learned? Who would have ever guessed?
Exactly! These are things that any kiosk can get perfectly right but that low-skill humans don't give a crap about doing right. This week on two different dates and at two different locations I was pressed for time in the morning and opted for my guilty pleasure of (don't judge me) Two McDonald's Sausage Egg McMuffins for breakfast. I don't know what it is about those damn things but I'm their bitch and crave them. First day I pull through the drive through and end up with two sandwiches that have no sausage on them. It's in the damn name people! Second time I ended up with two sandwiches that had no egg on them. I cant wait for machines to start handling this.
We just need some really big plastic bags to put all this in.
There message....... There castle.
People who live in countries that are prosperous are lucky to have been born there it's true but the society that produced those conditions is a result of the behavior of its people. In the US that translates into smaller families. Eugenics has nothing at all to do with this and simply serves to highlight your leftist idealogy and real point. If it did then there would be far fewer of those poor, starving, resource limited people. Instead they breed at rates that are insanely unsustainable and then the world gets to hear people like you whine about how those who don't do that are taking more than their share of everything. Complete drivel.
Can't make more resources. Can make fewer babies. It's really their call. 30 times the resources yes, sure but look at the relative size of the populations. 330 million people in the US guzzling resources like a motherfucker but resources they can afford. Meanwhile 1.2 billion people on the entire continent of Africa grubbing on UN wheat. Another 1.3 billion in India. Stop dropping babies left and right and there would be more to go around over there.
Yeah but the next one is going to be thinner....... and transparent!
Jokes on you man! My Chevy truck cost a lot less than that! What were we talking about again?
Chargers are cheap.
Well thank god for that happening right? I mean the world would probably end if the EU didn't save us from having to have two cables in our car instead of one so both a husband and a wife could charge their phones. That's some epic planet-saving stuff right there.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but if it makes you feel better about yourself to assume that I stay in the small, backward American town I was born in then go right ahead and think that.
You're talking about what people do with chargers they no longer need or want. This is a question of asking people to properly dispose of things they discard. If you recycle your broken or no longer needed waste then outstanding. That's what you should do and it's what I do. Yes making them all use the same cable will give people an incentive to keep their old cable to use with their new phone and that's fine but each phone will continue to come with a cable and people will continue to discard their old cables improperly. Having people all throw away matching cables isn't much of an improvement.
I don't understand why this benefit is so compelling that it would require a need for action (legislation). Why should there be a law of any kind mandating that different manufacturers all use the same charger? Of course it would be best. Not getting an argument out of me on that one but why should they be compelled to do that? It just seems like the EU regulators don't have enough real problems on their plate and now they're just down to the real minutia. What's next? Finding the optimal size of crepes and mandating that all businesses that serve them comply with the standard or face an escalating series of fines?