Florida has an average elevation of 6' above sea level. Google it. A lot of the rest of the Coastal U.S. is also quite close to sea level. You can't live in a place that high tide washes across twice a day and that is going to be 20' under water during major storms.
Mumbai doesn't make sense tho. It's much higher above sea level.
But Shanghai would be toast.
It's quite close to sea level now and has 10' tidal variance as it is.
New York City - 33â above sea level. Sandy Storm Surge was just under 14'. If it had been 14', it would have destroyed the subway system- basically killing mass transit in New York.
All of our major ports are built at sea level. Many of our refineries are built at sea level (not cheap to rebuild).
And keep in mind that about 90% of climate models assume we'll find some way to reduce the carbon level by 2100. We don't currently have any way to reduce the carbon level.
I'm not saying it's real. I'm just saying you are being a bit flippant with something that is actually pretty serious.
Sort of like the engineer who warned that the O rings were too cold on the shuttle. He was ignored and overridden too.
It's clear they are deeply disappointed with the profitability of JLA. They have already cancelled several moves and have attacked Whedon for following their instructions.
I thought about Taika while I was writing and I agree with you but to a limited extent.
Yes- Taika had some freedom but not as much as DC directors have had. It was a humorous variant but it was still mainstream. I knew the characters.
The only character I thought was fairly different was the GrandMaster. He normally seems to have a stick up his butt in the comic books. However because of the humorous execution scene- Grandmaster was still a pretty chilling character. He acted goofy but he was evil on a stick. But- he wasn't really the Grandmaster we knew.
But everything else was well within normal parameter ranges for the characters. There have been humorous thor stories in the past in the comics for example. There have been thor and space alien stories before.
I thought the "I know him from work" line was a bit off but then I found out it was a request from a "make a wish" child and that made my heart glow enough to contradict it seeming a bit juvenile for thor.
may even be russian troll saying democrats are pedophiles while Moore is in the headlines for sexually assaulting 14 year old girls and even pastors in alabama are saying he's a 'godly man' and backing voting for him.
older democratic male figures have decades of casual sexual harassment. "grab ass" wasn't even a thing back in 1990 but it will execute your career today.
MCU Version 2 is likely to have an international roster so it can appeal to viewers all over the world.
And it will still be good or bad based on how they focus on character defining moments over spectacle. It will depend on having directors who like and respect heroism and don't want to write no-win dystopic stories where the heroes are destroyed (and by proxy so are the audience members).
But returning to some "fantasy" time when the rest of the world was recovering from world war 2 isn't going to make movies better or worse. Lots of white men (especially NAZI scum) had everything to do with world war 2. Lots of christians too (easy to find bishops tossing the nazi salute and identified with anti-semitism- tho if you dig in deeper you see individual catholic priests in germany did take some huge risks to save people including jews from the holocaust).
If you are a white supremacist racist, then watching something that doesn't unrealistically celebrate how awesome white males are is probably going to be unpleasant.
But that has nothing to do with why DC Movies are failing and Marvel Movies are kicking ass. DC television, animation, and comic books are diverse AND successful.
Marvel comic books are a completely different story. I'm not even sure they treat them as comic books any more- they are more of a developmental laboratory to figure out what's liked and popular which can then be monetized as a movie.
BvS *grossed* 900 million. But that was over a cost to produce and market of $575 million.
Warner's share of the remaining net profits was $105 million. That's about a 16% net profit. looking at profits for some other films...
Iron Man 3 - $391.8m Avengers Age of Ultron - $382.3m Guardians of the Galaxy - $204.2m
That's what Warner's shareholders and executives were expecting to make.
But actually- they were expecting to make more because much less capital was put at risk (invested) in those three films.
For example, Ironman 3 cost about $200 million to make and $200 million to market. Another 200 million was profits for all the middlemen. Guardians of the galaxy was much less expensive so the profit ratio was even better. Age of Ultron was about 80% profit rate (showing signs of slippage and weakening or a not-so good movie- my personal opinion was it was weak).
So movie studios like to make about 100% profits- not about 16% profits.
I completely agree with you about BvS-- haven't seen JL yet tho I will see it in the theaters (just on a matinee).
JL is probably worth the $4.25 that I'll pay. From what I hear, it's not actively bad- it's just "meh" and not worth $11.
Doesn't matter. Warner ownership is an inherent conflict of interest and now everyone knows about it. It was a problem before-- we just didn't know about it.
Warner is doing enough to destroy the DC movie universe on their own.
It's really a case that their egos are hurting their pocketbooks.
Stop making dystopic movies and writing DC characters into no-win situations.
You can see it on youtube in the analysis of the movie. MovieBob (I think? I watched a lot of his stuff and a lot of JL stuff) calls it a "Snyder" shot emphasizing her ass.
There are literally thousands of pictures of female asses on the internet that won't require sitting thru 2 hours of a movie.
Probably tons of pictures of gal godot's ass as she was a model pre-wonder woman.
There are OFTEN movies and television shows which have a low critical rating combined with a 90%+ audience review.
And to be honest, the audience rating should be more prominent than the critical rating. On the main page, both should be displayed and the audience rating should be first.
If a critic likes a movie, I may like it. If a critic dislikes a movie, I may like it. There is literally *no* connection between critics taste and most of the audience's taste.
However, if 90% of the audience likes it, I am very likely to like it. And if 66% of the audience dislikes it, I'm about 2/3 likely to dislike it too. We all have our own peculiar favorites (I adore the final destination films but dislike most other horror films for example).
So when rotten tomatoes critics give a 29% rotten rating and 92% (or even 65%) of the audience loves the move- the problem is with Rotten Tomatoes- not the movie- not the audience.
It's not comedy so much as "not humorless dystopian nightmares".
Normal human beings joke during stressful times. Even soldiers in combat laugh occasionally. DC movies were made by a director who appears to actively want to destroy the DC characters.
They can't give spiderman or the fantastic four 'a rest'. If they do, the characters revert to Marvel.
---
The nice thing about MCU is that every movie is self contained- even the Avengers. They are part of a larger universe but it's hyperlinked. You learn all you need to know about Captain America in the Avengers. If you want to know more, then he's got three movies you can watch. If you don't- then it's not necessary.
I think it's the fact that Warner repeatedly gave DC to directors who
a) wanted to put their own stamp on the characters- ignoring canon. b) made DC movies distopic and unpleasant. c) made DC characters known for avoiding killing into murderers (which for many people who were DC fans for decades meant we wouldn't see these abominations nor recommend them to our friends). d) spent more time on special effects than on character development.
It took over a decade of hard work to destroy the DC movie franchise. And the DC television, comic book, and animated franchises show it is NOT the characters- well at least not the characters in the comic books. It IS the characters in the movie (except for wonder woman). And even as a guy, I could do without Snyders gratuitous butt shots of Wonderwoman unless he's planning on doing the same angles for superman and batman. It's howlingly sexist and pulls me right out of the movie and starts me thinking about the Hawkeye initiative everytime she spreads her legs and jumps away from us on screen.
The current DC movie universe is UNSAVABLE.
Junk it. Have an official press release from Warner saying "okay that went the wrong direction- we are starting over."
Start with LOW budget (about deadpool 1 size), "year one" movies- perhaps even using some of your existing popular TV versions of the characters.
Get good writers who are fans of DC. Put an executive producer over the series that likes the characters. Put directors over the films who like the characters but understand they have to maintain a consistent look and feel. Get editors who understand comic books and comic book color schemes. Write films that are character based and based on good comic book arcs. Not major Crisis of infinite earth arcs- just normal "day of the life" year long arcs where the world wasn't at stake. Save that for later.
Get GOOD actors who are not major stars for most of the parts. The current superman actor, Henry Cavill, is fine- but Ben Affleck (who has done a great job) is STILL BEN AFFLECK every time I look at him. You can't have too big of an actor in a superman film- it distracts. Well- I suppose there are a very few actors who can pull it off. LIke Gary Oldman who can be anybody without distracting you. I admit that particular issue is subtle.
But for god's sake, Supergirl's "Superman" portrayed by Tyler Hoechlin nailed the character of both Clark Kent and Superman with about 40 minutes of screen time. Make him your superman.
Then build up to larger movies from those movies.
As a DC fan for decades I want characters who are true to the comic books. But not slavishly. I understand small modifications have to be made to update them for 2017, or to fill in gaps left because not all characters are picked up.
The biggest problem for DC is that it is owned and controlled by movie people who are not comic book fans and they do not get comic books and they think 'superhero' instead of 'character'.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, google says the city is 46' above sea level.
I pulled up an elevation map of the city based on your comment tho.
http://www.floodmap.net/Elevat...
It looks like Mumbai would be three islands during any major storm.
And 11' + tides will eat a lot of the city.
To be frank, I think it's a question of when- not if.
Well, even considering the number of scientists warning about this particular O'ring would fill a stadium-- no.
But disputing facts about how many would be displaced if the water rises is daft.
There is a difference between taking reasonable steps to prepare in case it is real and saying it's not real at all.
Florida has an average elevation of 6' above sea level. Google it.
A lot of the rest of the Coastal U.S. is also quite close to sea level.
You can't live in a place that high tide washes across twice a day and that is going to be 20' under water during major storms.
Mumbai doesn't make sense tho. It's much higher above sea level.
But Shanghai would be toast.
It's quite close to sea level now and has 10' tidal variance as it is.
New York City - 33â above sea level.
Sandy Storm Surge was just under 14'. If it had been 14', it would have destroyed the subway system- basically killing mass transit in New York.
Miami... no- let's talk Florida- averages 6' above sea level.
All of our major ports are built at sea level. Many of our refineries are built at sea level (not cheap to rebuild).
And keep in mind that about 90% of climate models assume we'll find some way to reduce the carbon level by 2100. We don't currently have any way to reduce the carbon level.
I'm not saying it's real. I'm just saying you are being a bit flippant with something that is actually pretty serious.
Sort of like the engineer who warned that the O rings were too cold on the shuttle. He was ignored and overridden too.
All whedon could do was put lipstick on a pig.
Snyder appears to hate the characters and wants to actively destroy them.. put them into no win ethical problems.. and is generally dystopic.
What he is appears to be good at setting up shots that look good or match something from the comic books.
What we need is a storyteller.
Even then Snyder seems too dark in terms of light for D.C. too.
AC Said >Then don't watch it
Good advice that tens of millions of movie goers have followed.
But just dumb as an attempt to shut down conversation about problems with a movie.
It's clear they are deeply disappointed with the profitability of JLA. They have already cancelled several moves and have attacked Whedon for following their instructions.
The F4 movies have the same problems the DC movies have.
Instead of being true to the characters, they do all kinds of terrible things to Reed and Doom.
The Corman version was more faithful to the characters.
They have hundreds of stories for the characters but keep telling the origin story over and over and over and over and over...
Marvel is likely to go multi-ethnic as the actors age out.
Can't ignore 2 billion movie goers.
These flying wings can get to 15,000+ feet and are under $10,000 including training. (highest paraglider of any kind was 24,848 feet)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bonus points- you can't see curvature of the earth from that low.
Oops- I have to make a transaction but I'm hoarse from a cold, or a concert, or a car accident... guess I just go bankrupt.
I thought about Taika while I was writing and I agree with you but to a limited extent.
Yes- Taika had some freedom but not as much as DC directors have had. It was a humorous variant but it was still mainstream. I knew the characters.
The only character I thought was fairly different was the GrandMaster. He normally seems to have a stick up his butt in the comic books. However because of the humorous execution scene- Grandmaster was still a pretty chilling character. He acted goofy but he was evil on a stick. But- he wasn't really the Grandmaster we knew.
But everything else was well within normal parameter ranges for the characters. There have been humorous thor stories in the past in the comics for example. There have been thor and space alien stories before.
I thought the "I know him from work" line was a bit off but then I found out it was a request from a "make a wish" child and that made my heart glow enough to contradict it seeming a bit juvenile for thor.
I think it is more that critics watch a LOT of films. They are jaded compared to the audience.
They may also be formally trained in film making so they see things explicitly that we don't.
Personally, I find critical reaction to not be very helpful lately. I find the audience ratings to be much more helpful.
Critical reaction wasn't even that useful in the 80s but today, it's like there is a complete disconnect between critics and audiences.
Troller is Troll.
may even be russian troll saying democrats are pedophiles while Moore is in the headlines for sexually assaulting 14 year old girls and even pastors in alabama are saying he's a 'godly man' and backing voting for him.
older democratic male figures have decades of casual sexual harassment. "grab ass" wasn't even a thing back in 1990 but it will execute your career today.
MCU Version 2 is likely to have an international roster so it can appeal to viewers all over the world.
And it will still be good or bad based on how they focus on character defining moments over spectacle. It will depend on having directors who like and respect heroism and don't want to write no-win dystopic stories where the heroes are destroyed (and by proxy so are the audience members).
But returning to some "fantasy" time when the rest of the world was recovering from world war 2 isn't going to make movies better or worse. Lots of white men (especially NAZI scum) had everything to do with world war 2. Lots of christians too (easy to find bishops tossing the nazi salute and identified with anti-semitism- tho if you dig in deeper you see individual catholic priests in germany did take some huge risks to save people including jews from the holocaust).
If you are a white supremacist racist, then watching something that doesn't unrealistically celebrate how awesome white males are is probably going to be unpleasant.
But that has nothing to do with why DC Movies are failing and Marvel Movies are kicking ass. DC television, animation, and comic books are diverse AND successful.
Marvel comic books are a completely different story. I'm not even sure they treat them as comic books any more- they are more of a developmental laboratory to figure out what's liked and popular which can then be monetized as a movie.
BvS *grossed* 900 million. But that was over a cost to produce and market of $575 million.
Warner's share of the remaining net profits was $105 million. That's about a 16% net profit.
looking at profits for some other films...
Iron Man 3 - $391.8m
Avengers Age of Ultron - $382.3m
Guardians of the Galaxy - $204.2m
That's what Warner's shareholders and executives were expecting to make.
But actually- they were expecting to make more because much less capital was put at risk (invested) in those three films.
For example, Ironman 3 cost about $200 million to make and $200 million to market. Another 200 million was profits for all the middlemen. Guardians of the galaxy was much less expensive so the profit ratio was even better. Age of Ultron was about 80% profit rate (showing signs of slippage and weakening or a not-so good movie- my personal opinion was it was weak).
So movie studios like to make about 100% profits- not about 16% profits.
I completely agree with you about BvS-- haven't seen JL yet tho I will see it in the theaters (just on a matinee).
JL is probably worth the $4.25 that I'll pay. From what I hear, it's not actively bad- it's just "meh" and not worth $11.
God that movie stunk so badly.
I couldn't finish it for free.
Doesn't matter. Warner ownership is an inherent conflict of interest and now everyone knows about it.
It was a problem before-- we just didn't know about it.
Warner is doing enough to destroy the DC movie universe on their own.
It's really a case that their egos are hurting their pocketbooks.
Stop making dystopic movies and writing DC characters into no-win situations.
Because RT behaved oddly this time for JL's ratings, it attracted attention to Warner's partial ownership.
Before if Warner was manipulating things they were doing so much more subtly.
You can see it on youtube in the analysis of the movie. MovieBob (I think? I watched a lot of his stuff and a lot of JL stuff) calls it a "Snyder" shot emphasizing her ass.
There are literally thousands of pictures of female asses on the internet that won't require sitting thru 2 hours of a movie.
Probably tons of pictures of gal godot's ass as she was a model pre-wonder woman.
Couldn't agree more. Hearing Warner had an partial ownership makes me want a new review site that doesn't have that kind of taint. And it is a taint.
It's a little more than that.
Rotten Tomatoes has a problem with it's critics.
There are OFTEN movies and television shows which have a low critical rating combined with a 90%+ audience review.
And to be honest, the audience rating should be more prominent than the critical rating. On the main page, both should be displayed and the audience rating should be first.
If a critic likes a movie, I may like it. If a critic dislikes a movie, I may like it. There is literally *no* connection between critics taste and most of the audience's taste.
However, if 90% of the audience likes it, I am very likely to like it. And if 66% of the audience dislikes it, I'm about 2/3 likely to dislike it too. We all have our own peculiar favorites (I adore the final destination films but dislike most other horror films for example).
So when rotten tomatoes critics give a 29% rotten rating and 92% (or even 65%) of the audience loves the move- the problem is with Rotten Tomatoes- not the movie- not the audience.
It's not comedy so much as "not humorless dystopian nightmares".
Normal human beings joke during stressful times. Even soldiers in combat laugh occasionally.
DC movies were made by a director who appears to actively want to destroy the DC characters.
They can't give spiderman or the fantastic four 'a rest'. If they do, the characters revert to Marvel.
---
The nice thing about MCU is that every movie is self contained- even the Avengers. They are part of a larger universe but it's hyperlinked. You learn all you need to know about Captain America in the Avengers. If you want to know more, then he's got three movies you can watch. If you don't- then it's not necessary.
I think it's the fact that Warner repeatedly gave DC to directors who
a) wanted to put their own stamp on the characters- ignoring canon.
b) made DC movies distopic and unpleasant.
c) made DC characters known for avoiding killing into murderers (which for many people who were DC fans for decades meant we wouldn't see these abominations nor recommend them to our friends).
d) spent more time on special effects than on character development.
It took over a decade of hard work to destroy the DC movie franchise. And the DC television, comic book, and animated franchises show it is NOT the characters- well at least not the characters in the comic books. It IS the characters in the movie (except for wonder woman). And even as a guy, I could do without Snyders gratuitous butt shots of Wonderwoman unless he's planning on doing the same angles for superman and batman. It's howlingly sexist and pulls me right out of the movie and starts me thinking about the Hawkeye initiative everytime she spreads her legs and jumps away from us on screen.
The current DC movie universe is UNSAVABLE.
Junk it. Have an official press release from Warner saying "okay that went the wrong direction- we are starting over."
Start with LOW budget (about deadpool 1 size), "year one" movies- perhaps even using some of your existing popular TV versions of the characters.
Get good writers who are fans of DC. Put an executive producer over the series that likes the characters. Put directors over the films who like the characters but understand they have to maintain a consistent look and feel. Get editors who understand comic books and comic book color schemes. Write films that are character based and based on good comic book arcs. Not major Crisis of infinite earth arcs- just normal "day of the life" year long arcs where the world wasn't at stake. Save that for later.
Get GOOD actors who are not major stars for most of the parts. The current superman actor, Henry Cavill, is fine- but Ben Affleck (who has done a great job) is STILL BEN AFFLECK every time I look at him. You can't have too big of an actor in a superman film- it distracts. Well- I suppose there are a very few actors who can pull it off. LIke Gary Oldman who can be anybody without distracting you. I admit that particular issue is subtle.
But for god's sake, Supergirl's "Superman" portrayed by Tyler Hoechlin nailed the character of both Clark Kent and Superman with about 40 minutes of screen time. Make him your superman.
Then build up to larger movies from those movies.
As a DC fan for decades I want characters who are true to the comic books. But not slavishly. I understand small modifications have to be made to update them for 2017, or to fill in gaps left because not all characters are picked up.
The biggest problem for DC is that it is owned and controlled by movie people who are not comic book fans and they do not get comic books and they think 'superhero' instead of 'character'.
A lot of people in mobile homes are poor and have low incomes.
In many areas of the country, a median income ($52,000) won't buy a home any more ($400,000 for a 3 bedroom 1 bath in my neighborhood).
My neighborhood is one of the cheaper neighborhoods within 32 miles. If you live that far out, you are going to tear up your car getting to work.
But you can still live in this area in a mobile home on a $36,000 income.
You sound like you are very privileged and don't realize it.
I was helping tear sheetrock after harvey and one of the homeowners gave me a white bottle of tequila with dark blue artwork.
Turned out to be $90 a bottle tequila which was as good as any fine whisky. You could drink it neat. It was delicious.