Word is that they have given Rian Johnson a trilogy of Star Wars films based on his ideas. That's how badly The Last Jedi failed.
Do you know what the most "successful" Pixar franchise has been? Not Toy Story, not the Incredibles, not even Nemo, which held the record for Pixar of most tickets sold and most DVDs bought. No, it was Cars. It didn't matter that Cars 2 was hated, and Cars 3 was 'meh.' It was merchandising. It sold an incredible amount of merchandise. Almost as much as Star Wars. Cars 2's merchandise sales were so astronomical that it paid for Cars 3.
A movie can fail, but a 'franchise' success depends on so much more than the movie, and can frequently lumber on without it.
The whole noise brigade over Ghostbusters in 2016 just proved the point. All you care about is making yourself the victim, your own failings remain unacknowledged, you are blind to the hysteria of the self-proclaimed persecuted white male.
Ghostbusters 2016 was an unfortunate example. It was definitely hit hard by the troll brigade who were super offended that women were taking over a franchise that was first built by men. AND it was a pretty bad movie. Both were true, but they get conflated because subtlety and detail when talking to complete strangers on the Internet is non-existent.
What is the lie? The difference between a review or a "want to see"? It's a distinction without a difference.
Whoa, those are two very different things. "want to see" is not a review, it's nothing close to a review, it doesn't even imply a review of the content. Poor reviews of Ghostbusters(2016) before it came out? That's BS, those were certainly fraudulent reviews. But a question that specifically asks "do you want to see this movie?" That's not a review, because one can have many reasons to want to see a movie or not want to see a movie. Tom Cruise has had that problem for the last decade; plenty of people don't want to patronize any of his movies because they have strong objections to the Church of Scientology. That doesn't mean they're objectively bad movies (Some of the Mission Impossible movies are excellent, and I personally really liked Oblivion). You can have non-quality reasons to not want to see a movie.
If an actor or actress has given you a reason to have a visceral dislike of him/her, sometimes you can't separate that dislike to sit back, tune out, and just go where the movie wants to take you.
Brie Larsen, unfortunately, has said some offensive things that have plenty of people saying "holy shit, what a judgmental bitch." People who have heard about those comments suddenly, in large numbers, have a reason to dislike her and not be too thrilled to see anything that she's in. "Want to see" is not some objective "this movie is going to be good" metric. Again, there can be plenty of non-movie reasons why people would no longer be thrilled to check it out. Captain Marvel might be a fantastic movie, and people who haven't heard her off-screen comments will likely be charmed and enjoy themselves thoroughly, assuming the actual movie is, well, good. Which we don't really know yet.
I'm going to watch it and try for an open mind; I think I do a decent job compartmentalizing my personal dislike for an actor, which is why I really enjoy Cruise's performances while detesting his private/public life. This is just one reason why I try to ignore as much as possible, public statements/interviews/etc of celebrities. Just like Brie Larsen doesn't give a shit about what I think because of my age, gender, and skin color, I don't really care about any of her opinions either. I only want to know what happens on screen.
You pretend that the honest expression of mass opinion is fake
But it's not an honest expression of mass opinion. I mean, often it can be, but it's more an expression of people who wanted to leave an opinion. That's different from an accurate reflection of mass opinion, again because its opt-in system can be gained by people with a vested interest. Those can be people working for movie companies who want to alter perceptions, or it can people who haven't seen the movie but have been offended by an actor or some aspect of production and want to torpedo the movie out of spite.
The only accurate survey of what mass opinion actually is would be random polling, not a system where people volunteer an opinion on a movie. Volunteerism on websites has historically been easily gamed, and it's only very recently that such sites have been given any credence at all.
Most adults don't wear brightly colored sports shoes as normal daily footwear.
If you want any sort of sports wear, you get Nike. As one Colorado store owner found out when he decided not to stock Nike products, if you don't have Nike, you don't really have a sports store. They have exclusive contracts with the NFL, for instance, you can't stock NFL wear without buying Nike products.
"As much as I hate to admit this, perhaps there are more Brandon Marshall and Colin Kaepernick supporters out there than I realized,” said Martin [after announcing the closure of his store].
The excuse for why you can't have decent healthcare is "socialism" and "this one person in Canada had to wait 6 months to get a knee replacement once" type stories.
In the United States, we love to shout that we're #1 in everything, even when it's not true. The attitude of being "the best" is absolutely, strongly enforced, especially on the conservative side (both sides will do this to a certain extent, but if you're not in favor of change, then you have to think that things are great enough to not change them).
We'll see it both blatantly and subtly. "We have the best health care, everyone wants to travel here for surgery." "Why should we listen to Country X's ideas on how better to handle things? They're not as big and powerful as we are, so clearly we're doing things the right way."
We love to tell bizarre horror stories about rationing, lines, and whatnot in Canada's medical system and the UK's, despite those countries have far better health care systems in almost every available measurement. We'll take a rare edge case and pretend that it's the norm, then attack that as a reason not to change our broken system.
IMDB removed their comments sections entirely rather than police them.
Youtube's comments are more integral to the service, but if Youtube is going to be have to do more about them then respond to user complaints, they might find it easier to just shut that crap down preemptively.
it's not ok to call.. a person of jewish descent a Jew.
WTF? I know it was ok to do that in 2018. Who changed the rules and why wasn't anyone notifed?
I've got the feeling there's more to the grandparent poster's story. Because saying "Steve is Jewish" is fine and always has been fine. But shouting "Give me my money back, you fucking JEW!" is not fine. If you call them out they act like they're the victim, making like you're not allowed to refer to a Jewish person as a Jew anymore.
She let a dog walk around the office pissing and shitting. And everyone was too scared to say anything about it, because if they did, they would be fired for being sexist. That's the problem. She made her assistants walk and take care of the dog. And if that wasn't bad enough, the bitch was spending several million a month on private jets. And if that wasn't enough, the bitch was decking out her board room to look like a movie set, well because why not it's not her money she's blowing.
And if a lowly worker spoke up about said issues, sexist, you are fired.
I'm sorry you love playing the sexist card, but I've worked at companies where this nonsense happens (not necessarily with a dog, though) where the rank and file DOES NOT SPEAK UP, regardless of the gender of the CEO, because they are afraid of being fired, because you don't call out the CEO, because you have people way above your pay grade to do that.
Oh, another difference -- the person creating and editing the video is far more likely to see user comments than the writer of an article posted to slashdot. So there's more chance of user/creator engagement. YMMV as to whether you would ever want that, but that's why there are such things as channels.
Am I the only one who thinks that commenting on YouTube videos is a bigger waste of time than fucking a sofa?
What's the difference between commenting on a Youtube video and commenting on a Slashdot article? Not much, other than the quality of the commenters and video makers, and that varies wildly from channel to channel. Arguing with some moron about 9/11 or "government directed energy weapons?" Total waste of time. But sharing details with fellow fans of some sort of video being featured? It can be quite enjoyable, as long as toxic people don't invade the channel and turn the discussion inappropriately political.
That land has been disputed literally longer than recorded history
Sure. But nothing at all matters other than "who is still alive that had land stolen from them." I don't give a shit if someone's great-great-great-great grandfather once owned the land. That's always going to be a losing proposition, and descendants are entitled to nothing from their ancestors.
Was land stolen to create the nation of Israel? Yes, yes it was. But also, enough time has passed that no one other than them really has any claim to the land anymore, and returning Israel to "Palestinians" or whatever other group we want to come up with would be a larger travesty of justice... at this point. Now the current expansions in the West Bank, that might be a different story. But the Arab fantasy of driving them all into the sea is just that now -- a stupid fantasy. They had their shot to fight this when it started; they lost.
I swear, if the first moon base is not called "Moonbase Alpha" I'm going to be really pissed off.
How about we don't. I'm not too excited about the prospect of the earth losing the moon. We kinda need it.
In the series, the last transmissions Moonbase Alpha got from Earth described the horrible ongoing catastrophes that happened on Earth due to the shock of having the moon blasted out of orbit. Things would be... yeah, they would be pretty bad.
Spate? I don't see a lot more than normal. And they've been getting a lot of attention for the last few years due to their scummy business practices and Zuckerburg's congressional testimony. If they don't change their ways, then there will be a lot of stories to run.
When the private platform is the only platform for speech then it is just as bad as any goverment censorship.
Citation please. Prove that private platforms are the only platforms for speech on the internet. Why can't you start your own website to propagate your truth? Or an online forum? Or just a public blog? Or your own email list? Or usenet group? Or IRC group? Or discord group? Or whatsapp group? Or signal group?
Because today, "censorship" means "I can't post on the MOST POPULAR platform, my freedom of speech is being violated."
Carbohydrates is exactly what you need if you work for a living.
If you sit on your ass like an accountant then sure you have eat roast chicken every day, and possibly afford it.
A balance is what you need, regardless of how you work. The Mexicans who pick our produce work harder than almost any of us, and they also have horrible problems with weight and diabetes (higher than the national average) because their diets are chock full of beans, rice, soda, and other things carb-heavy. Carbs are cheap, though, cheaper than quality vegetables.
Republicans like to talk about ayn rand until they're blue in the face.
Ok then. Let's talk about "Atlas Shrugged" for a moment.
Who was it in those hotel lobbies conspiring to take over industry and with whom did they conspire? What tool did they use to take over industries? To what end did they take over industries? What were the protaganists view of government regulation? The antagonist? Which characters would Dubya and his crony banker buddies line up with?
They like to talk about Ayn Rand, but will probably be vague on the details of her work. Because honestly, the plot details in her novels don't matter (they're not well written), it's her philosophy of Objectivism and how they want to apply her rational self interest to their current policies.
I think he was comparing Christians to Scientologists in terms of forgiving. Rewrite it as "pretty much the only religions unarguably less forgiving than Christianity are Islam and Scientology."
South Park managed to pull it off without falling into any of those three through the Super Best Friends. Nope, not blasphemous either; since you have to be religious to be able to commit blasphemy, due to it being a religious law and not secular.
The environment changed in between Super Best Friends (aired July 2001) and 201 (aired 2010). In Super Best Friends, Muhammad was drawn, and it caused no controversy. In 201, Comedy Central forced all depictions of Muhammad to be heavily censored over Matt's and Trey's objections, even though it treated Muhammad with respect, the only "offense" being he was depicted.
Super Best Friends was pulled in 2010 and is no longer available for purchase. 200 and 201 are similarly unavailable and has not re-aired since its premiere.
It's pretty clear that there was nothing wrong with the episodes (especially compared to how other figures, religious or not, get lampooned), but Islamic radicals have shown a willingness to murder anyone in any country for any offense.
When IAP first came out, tower defense games went from being balanced and playable to ones that were impossible unless you bought special types of towers or bought powerups.
Fortunately the TD game I mentioned is totally playable without IAP at all. You don't ever 'lose,' it just resets to the beginning of the round, and you're slowly, slowly powering up your buildings enough to overcome the round, just slower than if you were IAPing. I'm fine with the "everything in the game unlocks, it will just take you longer if you don't IAP" model. Puzzle and Dragons is like that, Final Fantasy Record Keeper is like that (two of the best games I've ever seen for mobile). The games that throw a wall at you, where you can't climb over that without purchasing "boosts," those are the ones that I uninstall and usually enter a negative review. That's a bait and switch. If I see reviews mentioning that, then it's a game I won't install, no matter how fun it looks.
Slashdot Mirror
Word is that they have given Rian Johnson a trilogy of Star Wars films based on his ideas. That's how badly The Last Jedi failed.
Do you know what the most "successful" Pixar franchise has been? Not Toy Story, not the Incredibles, not even Nemo, which held the record for Pixar of most tickets sold and most DVDs bought. No, it was Cars. It didn't matter that Cars 2 was hated, and Cars 3 was 'meh.' It was merchandising. It sold an incredible amount of merchandise. Almost as much as Star Wars. Cars 2's merchandise sales were so astronomical that it paid for Cars 3.
A movie can fail, but a 'franchise' success depends on so much more than the movie, and can frequently lumber on without it.
The whole noise brigade over Ghostbusters in 2016 just proved the point. All you care about is making yourself the victim, your own failings remain unacknowledged, you are blind to the hysteria of the self-proclaimed persecuted white male.
Ghostbusters 2016 was an unfortunate example. It was definitely hit hard by the troll brigade who were super offended that women were taking over a franchise that was first built by men. AND it was a pretty bad movie. Both were true, but they get conflated because subtlety and detail when talking to complete strangers on the Internet is non-existent.
What is the lie? The difference between a review or a "want to see"? It's a distinction without a difference.
Whoa, those are two very different things. "want to see" is not a review, it's nothing close to a review, it doesn't even imply a review of the content. Poor reviews of Ghostbusters(2016) before it came out? That's BS, those were certainly fraudulent reviews. But a question that specifically asks "do you want to see this movie?" That's not a review, because one can have many reasons to want to see a movie or not want to see a movie. Tom Cruise has had that problem for the last decade; plenty of people don't want to patronize any of his movies because they have strong objections to the Church of Scientology. That doesn't mean they're objectively bad movies (Some of the Mission Impossible movies are excellent, and I personally really liked Oblivion). You can have non-quality reasons to not want to see a movie.
If an actor or actress has given you a reason to have a visceral dislike of him/her, sometimes you can't separate that dislike to sit back, tune out, and just go where the movie wants to take you.
Brie Larsen, unfortunately, has said some offensive things that have plenty of people saying "holy shit, what a judgmental bitch." People who have heard about those comments suddenly, in large numbers, have a reason to dislike her and not be too thrilled to see anything that she's in. "Want to see" is not some objective "this movie is going to be good" metric. Again, there can be plenty of non-movie reasons why people would no longer be thrilled to check it out. Captain Marvel might be a fantastic movie, and people who haven't heard her off-screen comments will likely be charmed and enjoy themselves thoroughly, assuming the actual movie is, well, good. Which we don't really know yet.
I'm going to watch it and try for an open mind; I think I do a decent job compartmentalizing my personal dislike for an actor, which is why I really enjoy Cruise's performances while detesting his private/public life. This is just one reason why I try to ignore as much as possible, public statements/interviews/etc of celebrities. Just like Brie Larsen doesn't give a shit about what I think because of my age, gender, and skin color, I don't really care about any of her opinions either. I only want to know what happens on screen.
You pretend that the honest expression of mass opinion is fake
But it's not an honest expression of mass opinion. I mean, often it can be, but it's more an expression of people who wanted to leave an opinion. That's different from an accurate reflection of mass opinion, again because its opt-in system can be gained by people with a vested interest. Those can be people working for movie companies who want to alter perceptions, or it can people who haven't seen the movie but have been offended by an actor or some aspect of production and want to torpedo the movie out of spite.
The only accurate survey of what mass opinion actually is would be random polling, not a system where people volunteer an opinion on a movie. Volunteerism on websites has historically been easily gamed, and it's only very recently that such sites have been given any credence at all.
Most adults don't wear brightly colored sports shoes as normal daily footwear.
If you want any sort of sports wear, you get Nike. As one Colorado store owner found out when he decided not to stock Nike products, if you don't have Nike, you don't really have a sports store. They have exclusive contracts with the NFL, for instance, you can't stock NFL wear without buying Nike products.
Not quite.
The excuse for why you can't have decent healthcare is "socialism" and "this one person in Canada had to wait 6 months to get a knee replacement once" type stories.
In the United States, we love to shout that we're #1 in everything, even when it's not true. The attitude of being "the best" is absolutely, strongly enforced, especially on the conservative side (both sides will do this to a certain extent, but if you're not in favor of change, then you have to think that things are great enough to not change them).
We'll see it both blatantly and subtly. "We have the best health care, everyone wants to travel here for surgery." "Why should we listen to Country X's ideas on how better to handle things? They're not as big and powerful as we are, so clearly we're doing things the right way."
We love to tell bizarre horror stories about rationing, lines, and whatnot in Canada's medical system and the UK's, despite those countries have far better health care systems in almost every available measurement. We'll take a rare edge case and pretend that it's the norm, then attack that as a reason not to change our broken system.
IMDB removed their comments sections entirely rather than police them.
Youtube's comments are more integral to the service, but if Youtube is going to be have to do more about them then respond to user complaints, they might find it easier to just shut that crap down preemptively.
Her father was a VP at Enron(!)
Sounds like the fraud apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. She learned from "The smartest guys in the room."
WTF? I know it was ok to do that in 2018. Who changed the rules and why wasn't anyone notifed?
I've got the feeling there's more to the grandparent poster's story. Because saying "Steve is Jewish" is fine and always has been fine.
But shouting "Give me my money back, you fucking JEW!" is not fine. If you call them out they act like they're the victim, making like you're not allowed to refer to a Jewish person as a Jew anymore.
I'm not sure why it would be brought up, but WASP is hardly a pejorative.
It's too much of a colloquial to be used in serious journalism, however.
She let a dog walk around the office pissing and shitting. And everyone was too scared to say anything about it, because if they did, they would be fired for being sexist. That's the problem. She made her assistants walk and take care of the dog. And if that wasn't bad enough, the bitch was spending several million a month on private jets. And if that wasn't enough, the bitch was decking out her board room to look like a movie set, well because why not it's not her money she's blowing.
And if a lowly worker spoke up about said issues, sexist, you are fired.
I'm sorry you love playing the sexist card, but I've worked at companies where this nonsense happens (not necessarily with a dog, though) where the rank and file DOES NOT SPEAK UP, regardless of the gender of the CEO, because they are afraid of being fired, because you don't call out the CEO, because you have people way above your pay grade to do that.
So your motto is "go with the women, they're just as bad as the men"?
I believe in equality, women are just as capable as scamming investors out of capital as men have been.
Oh, another difference -- the person creating and editing the video is far more likely to see user comments than the writer of an article posted to slashdot. So there's more chance of user/creator engagement. YMMV as to whether you would ever want that, but that's why there are such things as channels.
Am I the only one who thinks that commenting on YouTube videos is a bigger waste of time than fucking a sofa?
What's the difference between commenting on a Youtube video and commenting on a Slashdot article?
Not much, other than the quality of the commenters and video makers, and that varies wildly from channel to channel. Arguing with some moron about 9/11 or "government directed energy weapons?" Total waste of time. But sharing details with fellow fans of some sort of video being featured? It can be quite enjoyable, as long as toxic people don't invade the channel and turn the discussion inappropriately political.
That land has been disputed literally longer than recorded history
Sure. But nothing at all matters other than "who is still alive that had land stolen from them." I don't give a shit if someone's great-great-great-great grandfather once owned the land. That's always going to be a losing proposition, and descendants are entitled to nothing from their ancestors.
Was land stolen to create the nation of Israel? Yes, yes it was. But also, enough time has passed that no one other than them really has any claim to the land anymore, and returning Israel to "Palestinians" or whatever other group we want to come up with would be a larger travesty of justice... at this point. Now the current expansions in the West Bank, that might be a different story. But the Arab fantasy of driving them all into the sea is just that now -- a stupid fantasy. They had their shot to fight this when it started; they lost.
I swear, if the first moon base is not called "Moonbase Alpha" I'm going to be really pissed off.
How about we don't. I'm not too excited about the prospect of the earth losing the moon. We kinda need it.
In the series, the last transmissions Moonbase Alpha got from Earth described the horrible ongoing catastrophes that happened on Earth due to the shock of having the moon blasted out of orbit. Things would be... yeah, they would be pretty bad.
Spate? I don't see a lot more than normal. And they've been getting a lot of attention for the last few years due to their scummy business practices and Zuckerburg's congressional testimony. If they don't change their ways, then there will be a lot of stories to run.
When the private platform is the only platform for speech then it is just as bad as any goverment censorship.
Citation please. Prove that private platforms are the only platforms for speech on the internet. Why can't you start your own website to propagate your truth? Or an online forum? Or just a public blog? Or your own email list? Or usenet group? Or IRC group? Or discord group? Or whatsapp group? Or signal group?
Because today, "censorship" means "I can't post on the MOST POPULAR platform, my freedom of speech is being violated."
It sounds like a reasonably Modest Proposal to solve the overpopulation problem as well.
Carbohydrates is exactly what you need if you work for a living.
If you sit on your ass like an accountant then sure you have eat roast chicken every day, and possibly afford it.
A balance is what you need, regardless of how you work.
The Mexicans who pick our produce work harder than almost any of us, and they also have horrible problems with weight and diabetes (higher than the national average) because their diets are chock full of beans, rice, soda, and other things carb-heavy. Carbs are cheap, though, cheaper than quality vegetables.
Republicans like to talk about ayn rand until they're blue in the face.
Ok then. Let's talk about "Atlas Shrugged" for a moment.
Who was it in those hotel lobbies conspiring to take over industry and with whom did they conspire? What tool did they use to take over industries? To what end did they take over industries? What were the protaganists view of government regulation? The antagonist? Which characters would Dubya and his crony banker buddies line up with?
They like to talk about Ayn Rand, but will probably be vague on the details of her work. Because honestly, the plot details in her novels don't matter (they're not well written), it's her philosophy of Objectivism and how they want to apply her rational self interest to their current policies.
I think he was comparing Christians to Scientologists in terms of forgiving. Rewrite it as "pretty much the only religions unarguably less forgiving than Christianity are Islam and Scientology."
If you take away all the things that clump is into neat little buckets, the implications are profound.
You might as well say "if only we didn't act like human beings, or living creatures."
South Park managed to pull it off without falling into any of those three through the Super Best Friends. Nope, not blasphemous either; since you have to be religious to be able to commit blasphemy, due to it being a religious law and not secular.
The environment changed in between Super Best Friends (aired July 2001) and 201 (aired 2010). In Super Best Friends, Muhammad was drawn, and it caused no controversy. In 201, Comedy Central forced all depictions of Muhammad to be heavily censored over Matt's and Trey's objections, even though it treated Muhammad with respect, the only "offense" being he was depicted.
Super Best Friends was pulled in 2010 and is no longer available for purchase.
200 and 201 are similarly unavailable and has not re-aired since its premiere.
It's pretty clear that there was nothing wrong with the episodes (especially compared to how other figures, religious or not, get lampooned), but Islamic radicals have shown a willingness to murder anyone in any country for any offense.
When IAP first came out, tower defense games went from being balanced and playable to ones that were impossible unless you bought special types of towers or bought powerups.
Fortunately the TD game I mentioned is totally playable without IAP at all. You don't ever 'lose,' it just resets to the beginning of the round, and you're slowly, slowly powering up your buildings enough to overcome the round, just slower than if you were IAPing. I'm fine with the "everything in the game unlocks, it will just take you longer if you don't IAP" model. Puzzle and Dragons is like that, Final Fantasy Record Keeper is like that (two of the best games I've ever seen for mobile). The games that throw a wall at you, where you can't climb over that without purchasing "boosts," those are the ones that I uninstall and usually enter a negative review. That's a bait and switch. If I see reviews mentioning that, then it's a game I won't install, no matter how fun it looks.