The Anti-Targ

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Anti-Targ

  1. @Which Tyler Deliberate? I felt I couldn't let this languish at the end of the last thread, because I thought this was such a great Freudian slip. Anyhow new thread for a new-ish year. February already sheesh!
  2. Not sure the world is quite ready for a European Muslim Magneto. A lot of the world doesn't really know or want to know that there are "native" European Muslims. The other thing about the Bosnia genocide is that genocidal denialism (or justification) is pretty widespread among Serbians, and those strongly allied with them. I have several Serbian friends who immigrated around that time or soon after, they are great people except when it comes to the Bosnia situation, where they become very nationalistic, and aggressively defensive about it. There is probably too much backlash and conflict for a company like Disney to be willing to take on in it's cash cow franchise if Magneto became a Bosnian Muslim. Possibly in the 2050 reboot of the X-Men it may not longer be too soon for Magneto to switch to the Bosnian genocide. And of course replacing a Jewish character with a Muslim character also brings in the political sensitivities re the Israel / Palestine situation. As for the other genocides, making a shift from a European genocide to Asian or African would also wake up the anti-race bending crowd, as well as still piss off those who see the Jewish and Nazi Holocaust connection as significant. And there's still the Hydra connection to Nazis and WWII, so symmetry with Captain America. In terms of age of the character, being alive in WWII, I don't think it's too much of a suspension of disbelief to think that a lot of mutants have longer than average lifespans, so Magneto can be 80 and still look late 50-60-ish.
  3. I don't think you hand over the keys to the Ferarri until the money is in the bank. Earliest Fox would consider letting Disney start using the characters would be after regulatory approval of the transaction is received. Before that, not a chance. I'm not keen on the mind-wipe idea for explaining why no one knows about mutants yet in the MCU. Either they've always been there, but managed to stay off the grid, or the infinity war activates the long dormant X gene. I could see them weaving mutants in ancient times as part of the MCU, and that a sorcerer supreme of old figured out a way to put the X-gene into a dormant state, and imprisoning mutants such as Apocalypse. As part of the X-men reveal Dr. Strange could discover ancient records talking about mutants.
  4. The junk science to totally getting to me, and I'm finding it difficult to give a pass. In one scene they are trillions of light years from the Milky Way. As far as we know the known universe is at most 13-14 billion light years distant from Earth in any given direction, so to be trillions of light years from the Milky Way they'd have to be in a different universe entirely (ignoring whether it's even possible to measure distance between universes). And then in a following scene "hey we will soon be able to rejoin the other crews and start making our way back." Uh, what? Being knocked a few trillion light years off course isn't like accidentally taking the wrong exit off the freeway. To get totally screwed up on your mission you only need to be knocked into the next galaxy, which is only millions of light years away. Hell, [Star Trek] Voyager only got knocked into the Delta Quadrant of the Milky way and was faced with at least 70 years of flying at Warp 10 to get back to the Alpha Quadrant, and that's just 10s of thousands of light years. And there are other junk science things that are annoying and logically inconsistent within the framework of the story. I've done 3 episodes and I don't really like any of the characters, it's not flash when Dr Smith is a considerably better character than any of the other main cast. I'll give it one more episode, but I'll probably be out after that.
  5. Comey only looks good when you put him beside Trump and his defenders.
  6. Watched the first episode last night. Not convinced yet, but I'll give it a few more episodes before I make final judgement. I'm in two minds about flashbacks. I usually find them annoying, because I want to see the story move forward. And Some flashbacks in Episode 1 seemed entirely unnecessary. In some shows, not this one so far, I find them to compliment the story quite well. Done right, and inserted at the right time is a key difference I suppose. The one flashback that was good, and important is the robot one. I was totally expecting it and didn't think I'd react at all, but I did squee a little bit when the robot said "Danger Will Robinson".
  7. I'm sure they believed they could, but if they were solely, or even principally motivated to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq I'd be very surprised. IMO bringing democracy to Iraq was a nice bonus in their mind, but not the real reason they wanted to go in there.
  8. Yeah, but in all (or almost all) cases the US was not at all motivated by a desire to make the other country a democratic utopia. It was always about political and economic power / control. "spreading democracy" was just a fig-leaf to make the US people feel better about US foreign intervention. I'd be interested to know if the US ever engaged in a foreign intervention with a pure motive of helping the local population to establish democracy and freedom. I'm guessing the answer is never. And often the motive in terms of changing the system of government was exactly the opposite.
  9. Just try to be a good parent for 5 minutes, and you will soon realise how easy it is to become a tyrannical oppressor for someone's "own good".
  10. At some point you will become the oppressor.
  11. If POTUS saying you are going to get out of Syria real soon is followed in short order by a chemical attack, that is known will get POTUS and hand wringing people on the right and left in the USA who think the manner in which you maim and kill people has some moral relevance, is it not possible that the two are connected, and the intention is to keep the US's eye on Syria? It also happened not all that long after a chemical weapon attack (or 2) in the UK. Seems to me like chemical weapon attacks in Syria are being put to internationally strategic use by someone. I'm just not sure what international relations strategy it is attempting to advance.
  12. Rampage reviews rolling in finally (never a very good sign having them come out just a day or 2 before release). Again the video game review curse not broken. But there's a chance 2018 will have the best and 2nd best reviewed video game adaptation movies ever. And then there's Ready Player One being a movie about a video game. So things aren't all bad. But I also remember Prince of Persia sitting at about 60% on Rotten Tomatoes with early reviews for a while and people actually believing it would break the curse, but it ended up on 36%. So I have a feeling Rampage will only go down from its current 53%
  13. Lol, Rose McIver getting the chance to ham up her real accent. iZombie is literally serious fun. It has some serious shit going on, but it laughs things up all the time.
  14. When a rich person causes another rich person to suffer, the rules of the game change. The only sin a rich person can really commit is to cause another rich person to suffer a loss. So, yes rich people will be tried and convicted of crimes, when the victim is another rich person.
  15. The thing about profit lead pharmaceutical R&D is that it is not directed at dealing with the most important health problems, it's directed at making products which give the greatest profits. And only occasionally those two things coincide. R&D to deal with the most important health problems often rests on philanthropic organisations directing their not-for-profit funds towards specific research, like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which spends a lot of money on third world medical problems which would otherwise be ignored by bog Pharma. So to assume corporate market capitalism is the best solution to drug development is just wrong. There is basically no research being done into new classes of antibiotic, because there's no money in it. Despite the fact that antimicrobial resistance is an increasing concern, and while reduction in unnecessary prescription is par of the solution,m for the forseeable future we will still need effective antibiotics as part of our pharmaceutical toolbox. Or at least not as much money as there is in dealing with chronic first-world lifestyle problems, which pharmacologically is the gift that keeps on giving. A person with a lifetime chronic lifestyle problem is a revenue stream until death, and easy to get people dependent on the drugs which address those issues. A person with an infection is a revenue stream for 7-10 days, most of the time. Chronic first-world lifestyle problems are legit and there should be therapies for them, but there is an imbalance, caused by profit-seeking being the primary motivation for the drug companies. And the question isn't entitlement. The question is, can a society use it's collective buying power to negotiate the lowest possible price for drugs, or should drug companies be allowed to divide, conquer and make massive profits? If people in the USA don't like that Canadians, NZers, Aussies and more or less every other developed country pay far less for medicine than they do, they should not be insisting that the other countries change and pay more, they should be insisting that as a society, they get together and do what other countries do to reduce drug prices. Just because I pay $5 for a prescription drug, doesn't mean $5 is all the drug company is getting. Taxes pay for substantially more. In a recent year our drug buying agency had a subsidy budget of approximately $795 million, which was used to subsidise 43.1 million prescriptions. So that's an average of about $18 per prescription. For some prescriptions for new drugs under patent the subsidy could be hundreds or thousands of dollars. For other drugs that are generic, off patent drugs the subsidy might be $2 or $3. Each pharmaceutical company negotiates with the drug-buyinng agency an agreed price for each drug.
  16. But LOTR and GoT has made the path to mainstream appeal much easier for WoT. WoT doesn't need to be R-rated to appeal to the mainstream. an M-rated WoT will have good appeal so long as they do it well. In many ways LOTR made GoT possible. If LOTR had failed it would have been extremely difficult to convince anyone to stump up the money to make a decent pilot, let alone hire the quality of actors they managed to get for key roles. LOTR didn't need boobs or potty mouths. But it did have great action and brilliant SFX, elves and scary monsters.
  17. With the right cast and decent make up, someone starting out at 20-sh irl can still easily look 21-sh when they are 26-ish. I don't see this being a problem like it is when you start out with pre-pubescent children.
  18. If I'm in the country I'll be keen to meet up with board dwellers. By 2020 I may be off on a mid-life crisis OE. Man, Hobbiton tours are going to be impossible to book. Whoever hasn't done one really should look at booking it well in advance. As it is, the big evening buffet dinner tour is booked out at least 6 months in advance.
  19. Is it worth the effort of compiling a comprehensive response to someone who goes into all sorts of contortions to justify a position merely to maintain the pretense that their preferred winner was still the best outcome despite evidence mostly or entirely being to the contrary? Probably best to mostly ignore and limit responses to substantive points that have some basis in interpretation of reality. Not that I entirely disagree that the socioeconomic course on which the world is currently set is not good and getting worse. Things will get worse before they get better. The question is, while things are getting worse can voters do anything to mitigate how bad things will get. Can we do anything to make rock bottom less harsh? Arguably electing people who actually, genuinely care about the ordinary people (and who care about them equally, and not based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other "otherising category") is more likely to knock off some of the sharp edges of the fall. Electing someone who doesn;t care about the ordinary people, and who, at best, turns a blind eye to attacks on "otherised" demographics is likely to add sharp edges to the fall, and spikes to the bottom. So while we're "getting the bad times over with" we can still try to not exacerbate the bad times. Rip the band-aid off, but don't give the job to someone who will try to take some skin with it at the same time.
  20. Ooooh! I didn't know about that.
  21. Ideally, yes. But every time a shorter version of the game has gotten an international programme the independent financial viability of 5 day tests has taken a hit. And I don't see where a reversal of (mis)fortune is going to come from. If administrators are not putting the test game first (or at least equal) in importance, then they all need to be tarred, feathered and excommunicated.
  22. A Wrinkle in Time 40% Red Sparrow 47% Pacific Rim 44% Tomb Raider 50% I didn't think Tomb Raider deserved a thread of its own. But I thought looking at movies released around the same time, that many people would have hoped would do well with critics, and for which there is some audience cross over, or a connection with having female leads gives an interesting picture. A month ago, before any of these movies released, who would have predicted that Tomb Raider would be the best reviewed movie in this list? Certainly not me. Not that one should be terribly excited about Tomb Raider earning a 50%. Sure, it's the best reviewed video game movie of all time (Potentially to be unseated by Rampage, but we'll see...yes Rampage is a video game, but it's still failed to break the curse of video game movies, and it's going to struggle to be profitable at the box office. But still, I find this to be an interesting situation. And for box office purposes, adding in Atomic Blonde for female lead action movies, money-wise these movies still seem to be more miss than hit even when getting very good reviews. And perhaps for this type of movie they need to be adaptations of highly popular books (like Hunger Games) to be a better financial risk.
  23. The thing is, revenue from T20 and ODIs should be cross-subsidising test cricket. I think it's crazy to think that test cricket needs to be sustainable on its own. But it is and will always be the greatest form of cricket. Therefore, it must be sustained through the revenue generated from the other forms of the game.
  24. Yes, but I think it's probably the case that NZ has the highest player base as a proportion of population in rugby compared to any country, other than some of the Pacific islands; which unfortunately for those Pacific Island countries but fortunately for us act as feeder countries to the All Blacks, which artificially bump up our player pool. And we have a very high proportion of Pacific Island residents and citizens. And the archetypal Pacific Island physique virtually purpose evolved for rugby (which applies to a certain extent to Maori as well). If one was looking for proof of God, Pacific Islanders being basically purpose built for rugby would be damned close to the proof you're looking for. At least New Zealand rugby fans thank God that we pretty much have first dibs on rugby talent coming out of the Pacific Islands. Which of course is why rugby is more or less our state religion. That perfect storm does not exist for cricket.
  25. So the shooter is a youtuber who was pissed off at Youtube (or Google, or Alphabet) over some of the content control and monetisation policies. Hearing what some youtubers have to say on these subjects it certainly seems like getting royally pissed off at Youtube and it's overlord company is an understandable reaction. But shooting up a bunch of employees and then killing yourself is a really tragic way to deal with that anger. But getting mad at a faceless monolithic corporation and going on a shooting rampage is not unprecedented and predates the internet age. So as sad and tragic as it is, this was probably a predictable event as soon as large numbers of youtubers had their livelihoods put under threat (or even completely wiped out) with the implementation of new, restrictive and de-monetising policies.