Fall Bass

Members
  • Content count

    5,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fall Bass

  • Rank
    Summer Time Bassness
  • Birthday 10/01/1986

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Above it all

Recent Profile Visitors

11,173 profile views
  1. Assuming it's not a decoy, it looks like Bernard might have sabotaged the boat they're eventually going to use to try and get off the island, or something like that. It would explain why tons of hosts are drowned in the secret bay, and why he washed up on shore. I get the impression that's not the only way they're messing around with the timeline, but I can't pin it down. Definitely got that vibe from the soldiers that the Delos security forces were arguing with on the beach. It's somewhere in southeast asia, maybe even an entirely artificial island (like that IRL island the Chinese government made on steroids, given how good their land-moving equipment is). It's big, too, since the tiger managed to wander over from "Park Six" - maybe big enough that it has at least six parks on it.
  2. I am so glad to hear they're adapting the short story compilations. That's how my ideal Witcher TV series start out - episodic adventures that introduce key characters, before maybe shifting into a more serialized form in later seasons.
  3. There's part of it that are good, although I don't like the ending. I wish the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman was a little longer, since it makes Saruman seem more pathetic in defeat (and the way that Gandalf robs him of his staff and his authority). I don't like the fireball that Saruman shoots off.
  4. Definitely soap bubbles of death*, because it contributes to the impression the movies give of Gondor being a Big Tower City and a Giant Field (as opposed to a large kingdom of which Minas Tirith is only part) as well. At least with Denethor, the damage is mostly limited to his character. Jackson liked to insert interpersonal drama for characters for some reason, even when it dragged on the film. * Although I'm more annoyed that we didn't get the scene with trapped Saruman at Orthanc from the books in order to have a too long battle at Helm's Deep.
  5. Doesn't that $1 billion cost for Lord of the Rings include the $250 million up-front payment for the rights? It's more like $750 million for five seasons, or $150 million per season ($15 million/episode). It could creep upwards over time, but a well-done Lord of the Rings TV series will be such a money machine that paying $25 million/episode in the 4th or 5th season isn't going to be much of a show-stopper for Amazon. And a Lord of the Rings show will have some advantages in keeping costs down, such as a potentially more limited cast and limited set of filming locations per season. No large-scale battles, at least. Maybe that saved money.
  6. Seems possible.
  7. It could work. The series would mostly follow the original trilogy of books, but with flashbacks interwoven into it of Hari Seldon working on psychohistory before the Galactic Empire fell.
  8. I could totally see Kellhus somehow figuring out how to trap his soul in a magic box despite the complications mentioned with trapping souls that Akka brought up, then communicating solely through sorcery.
  9. What's the consensus on what happened to Kellhus' soul? Did he somehow find oblivion, or sneakily figure out another way to trap his soul in the World like Shae?
  10. I think pharma companies serve a legitimate purpose, at least when they're not being allowed to do stuff like buying up the rights to drugs with few or no generic competitors and jacking up the prices on them until they can't. The amount of spending that private pharmas do on R&D is larger than public drug R&D spending in the US. Moreover, the public spending tends to be either general research or finding potential "targets" that could turn into drugs - which is not the same thing as developing drugs. Actually testing all those targets (most of which will turn out bad, because finding targets is the easier part), turning them into drugs, putting them through multiple rounds of testing to satisfy safety rules - that's largely done at the private sector level. You occasionally see proposals for alternatives to the existing system. I'd love to see public efforts do more to test drugs, but I don't like the idea of moving towards a fully publicly directed system for drug research. One of the advantages of the existing system is that it encourages companies to try all kinds of drugs as long as they can potentially make a profit off of them, which is good because we don't tend to know in advance where the "low-hanging fruit" is when it comes to drug discoveries. A publicly directed system could pour a ton of money into a particular kind of research with little to show for it for years because it's popular and has political support, while a bunch of potential other easy discoveries go little touched for lack of funding. As for antibiotics, the lack of discovery of those has more to do with it being really hard to find new ones that work and aren't toxic. A number of the existing "last line" antibiotics are already pretty toxic (Colistin is nasty on your kidneys, for example). EDIT: For the OP, it's not so much about a specific profit number as it is about preventing particular kinds of predatory practices. Having the US government negotiate drug prices for a single-payer system would be good. Blocking companies from drastically raising the prices of drugs long out of patent would be good (or at least cap the increase to a certain percentage per year). Allowing for matching approval of drugs with other countries whom we believe have adequate FDA-style approval of drugs would be good.
  11. Damn. Even the now-ancient Alpha Centauri game let me use nerve gas weapons while racking up literally centuries of economic sanctions.
  12. Those are really good, especially the second one. The dwarves kind of had the issue in the book as well where most of them didn't get much in the way of character development, but the movies after #1 didn't really help on that. Especially by Five Armies, where they felt like extras in their own film because the story was all about that interminably long battle, Thorin, Kili, and the love triangle. That bit about why they did the three movies was really interesting as well, with the multiple company getting cuts of revenue just from the first film. I'll give the studio this - whatever we think about the quality of the third Hobbit film, it probably paid off for them ($956 million at the box office alone). Maybe he'll agree to direct more if they keep most of it in New Zealand.
  13. I'm not really treading water, but I'm in a position where I have a degree of low-quality stability and comfort and it's hard to shift away from that. Job situation could be a lot better.
  14. The US has done supply-side climate policy, with emissions restrictions on coal plants and other such regulation. The problem is that it's much more politically difficult to do that at a large scale than demand-side reductions - I don't buy the argument that it's easier because it "only" hits the suppliers up-stream. Those suppliers are often politically connected, they employ a ton of people (and are one of the few remaining sources of good-paying jobs available to people without college degrees in the US), and they're regionally quite important to a number of states.
  15. That's good. Maybe if Gandalf is only doing cameos they could have McKellen show up once in a while in the part, but otherwise they should recast the whole thing. Bring some fresh blood on the production side as well - don't make it too similar to the Peter Jackson movies.