mormont

Whether you're a bad PR risk isn't the same as whether you're criminally liable for an offence.

(Also, the evidence suggests that dropping Depp was the right move. Go read the UK judgement: it's a pretty convincing finding of fact.)

50 minutes ago, sifth said:

Well a lot of their audience isn’t showing up for the stuff they are creating, so it make’s logical sense to try something new. Both Ant Man 3 and The Marvels bombed this year. They better hope audiences turn up for Deadpool 3, but even that film is riding the nostalgia band wagon, similar to No Way Home.

Don’t get me wrong; GoTG 3 did really well this year and was a great film as well, but James Gunn is no longer part of the MCU and the new blood aren’t bring their A game. 

As I noted above, what you're advising is exactly what's killing DC and Marvel in the comics business - a panicky overreaction leading to a pivot towards an inherently unsustainable customer base. It's not a strategy, it's short-termism. At least in the comics, this can be explained by the comfortable familiarity of the target audience. Here, it's basically you saying 'they should make only the stuff I like, that's a great strategy for success'. 

I do think there's a sensible place for R-rated stuff in a wider MCU offering. I'm fairly sure I'm going to like Echo as much as I liked The Marvels. But pivoting to 'edgy' as the main approach is just not a sensible strategy.

2 hours ago, sifth said:

At least they're starting to see the way the tides are shifting and creating rated R movies and possibly tv shows. They're seeing how popular shows like The Boys, Gen V and Invincible are becoming and are starting to realize they can no longer afford to play it safe. I hope they actually commit to making their shows as violent, over the top and funny, like the ones I listed.

As a strategy for Marvel that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would they pivot to making films a substantial part of their target audience can't get in to see? 

The problem Marvel (and DC) have had in the comics industry is that they are in a death spiral because they make comics that only appeal to people who already read comics, who are getting older and older. So they try to appeal to more diverse, younger audiences, but then chicken out when this doesn't produce instant success and go back to making 'edgy' comics for the existing audience, dooming themselves to irrelevance. 

Why repeat that for the MCU?

Aping The Boys in the MCU would be as stupid as trying to imitate Image was in the '90s, except that the Image comics outsold Marvel whereas The Boys is much less successful than the MCU, so it makes even less sense. 

[mod] Since it has come up, I want to offer a reminder/clarification on the topic of rape, specifically.

Rape occurs in the books and so there will, inevitably, be some discussion of rape on the board. However, it is a sensitive subject and we expect users to approach it as such. The board is public, every thread is read by more than those posting in it, and so your words may be read by those who have been victims of rape and sexual assault. They should be written with that in mind.

We don't expect to see people bickering and arguing over definitions of rape as if it was an intellectual exercise, not a real life trauma, for example. That is crass and insensitive.

We also ask you to bear in mind that whatever you believe about 'medieval' attitudes to rape - a much more varied and complicated topic than most of those who bring it up usually seem to understand - these books aren't about medieval Europe. Westeros is a fantasy setting, written by a modern writer for a modern audience. Whatever you think medieval people 'would have' thought, you are talking to and in front of modern people, not medieval people. The idea that you should or that the author intends you to 'disconnect' yourself from modern morality in reading these books is pernicious and silly. Don't do that. It will lead you into discussing the topic in a way that is inconsiderate of other users. And that will lead to you getting into trouble with the moderators.

Hopefully, that is clear, but if anyone has any questions they can PM me. If they want to argue about it, please don't bother. This is the position we take after years of experience - you have nothing to say we haven't heard before.

Thank you. [/mod]

Rishi Sunak to pass a law saying he's the handsomest man in the world.

Rishi Sunak to pass a law saying his farts smell like butterscotch.

Rishi Sunak to pass a law saying Santa Claus is real.

Yeah, you can't just pass a law to change the facts. That's not a law, that's a publicity stunt.

1 minute ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

How much money did we pay Rwanda with nothing to show for it?

£140m.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866

And now the proposal is to send good money after bad, rip up both international and domestic law with potentially enormous consequences (including the Good Friday Agreement), and waste more Parliamentary and Supreme Court time, all in pursuit of a policy that has no shred of evidence that it would have any effect at all on the problem it is supposed to fix.

That analogy isn't at all reasonable. For a start, Hamas actually were the folks who committed the October attacks.

Like a dog returning to its vomit.

'Sunak says he's working on new treaty with Rwanda'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67418363

This is what we're down to. No good ideas. No new bad ideas, even. Nothing. Just rehashing the mess.

The particularly entertaining thing about the Braverman resignation letter is her whining about how these things are 'what we promised in the 2019 manifesto' when in fact, with one exception, they were not in that manifesto. Couldn't she even be bothered to do her homework on her own resignation letter?

The problem with that is that the scheme was predicated, though in an unspoken way, on the idea that asylum seekers wouldn't be sent to a safe third country. They'd be sent to a shitty third country, one they didn't want to go to, one that was unsafe, and so would be deterred from coming to the UK for fear of winding up there.

Because sending them to a safe third country is an ineffective policy. It's just wasting money. It only works if it somehow succeeds where every other measure that involves telling refugees 'don't come here because we will treat you like shit' has failed, as if refugees really are just like rich first world people selecting a holiday from a brochure, as they are in the fevered imaginations of the Tory right.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

I think bringing in a TV show teenage character into the mix made the whole thing seem like a cheap crossover that didn't have a lot appeal.

But that character (and actor) is not only acknowledged as the best thing in the film, and the heart of it, but is also being set up to be a core part of the Avengers franchise going forward. And she's the audience identification character.

I guess it's possible that audiences reacted to that, but I'm doubtful. After all, Monica was also effectively a TV show character and a side character at that. It's clear that the film relied on Carol as the main attraction.

Also, anecdotally, the theatre I watched the film in had a large proportion (I'd say maybe 40%) of young teenage girls, folks a year or two younger than Kamala herself. I strongly doubt they were primarily there to see Carol and Monica. Kamala is in the movies what she is in the comics: a rarity for Marvel, an original character that appeals to a demographic outside their core fanbase, a demographic that does write Avengers fanfic and all the rest. They want that demographic. But they too often chicken out of it and revert to type.

This is one of the problems I think Marvel do have. They can't decide if they want a variety of projects with a different tone appealing to different audiences, or if they want every film to make a billion dollars. They can't do both. The former needs a strategy of releasing many films that will inevitably make less money, the latter slowing the release schedule down and cutting down to a core five or six characters with supporting cast. They need to pick one, and while the latter is probably going to make more money short term, it's creatively less interesting and less future-proof.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Ah, but do you really think that other modern Western States which have committed war crimes in the past are held to the same moral standard? I can think of at least one that definitely is not...

I'm honestly scratching my head at this one. Are you trying to suggest that the US isn't held to the same standard as Israel when it comes to alleged war crimes? Because that's just daft talk. Journalists have spent entire careers exposing US war crimes. News organisations willingly publish exposes and opinion pieces on them. Parliamentarians across the world have spoken on them time after time. The one and only difference I can see is that nobody usually bothers to try to pass meaningless UN resolutions about them.

No, while a lot of WWE wrestlers these days are influenced by lucha libre and copy those moves, it's not the same thing. More like one style among many that WWE wrestlers use.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really; most pro wrestling fans lean to the left.

This is likely influenced by the fact that lots of LGBT folks love pro wrestling, because it's camp as hell.

Out of her tiny mind.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think the point is that if the vast majority of Palestinian activists in Palestine were to reject Hamas and the more aggressive methods they advocat and adopt purely non-violent methods a la Dr. King, it would be difficult for the world to look away similar to what happened in Selma.

Then again, (thinking as I type) Selma could be seen as a unique moment and that without the cameras and the violence offered to protesters in Selma  no change may have occured.  People have, sadly, become inured to violence against peaceful protests.  So… maybe… I’m flat wrong.

I don’t know…

You're not wrong in that second paragraph, in that it is tempting to see Dr. King's success as an inevitable consequence of his tactics, simply because it was a success. We tend to ignore those others who have tried the same tactics and been ruthlessly crushed. They're numerous, though. And so it would be wrong to talk as if Palestinians have never tried this approach, simply because you haven't heard of them doing so. 

19 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Because a Palestinian MLK demanding equal rights for West Bank residents would be very hard to counter. 

Experience suggests not. Or do you believe that such Palestinians have simply never existed?

I find this sort of sentiment, regularly expressed in these discussions, puzzling. Do people think that somehow, no Palestinian has ever pursued a non-violent, equal rights campaign?

They have. But Israel is not interested in engaging with them, and nor is Hamas or the PA (nor their supporters, from the US to Arab countries). In fact both sides tend to ignore them at best, actively harass them at worst. 

It makes no sense to believe that no Palestinian has ever tried the MLK road. The question you should be asking yourself is not why that hasn't happened, but why you've never heard of it happening. 

7 hours ago, dbunting said:

I watched Marvels over the weekend and didn't dis like it? It was perfectly fine outside of a few issues, one of which made me wanna leave, but that's just me and my issues.

  Reveal hidden contents

IMO The bollywood sing along was fucking horrible. Who in the hell thought that was ever going to work? For me it was worse than the horrible CGI/ repeating GIF waterfall dance in Black Panther.

The cats magically showing up just in time to be heroes was a bit much.

Finally, the end made no sense, why didn't she close the jump point from the other side? Did I miss something where this wasn't possible?

Of course loved seeing Beast at the end

I liked the actress that plays Ms Marvel, think she does a good job at the wide eyed hero worshiping and being optimistic. I may have watch Ms Marvel now.

One thing that was kind of weird, when Captain Marvel was in street clothes on the other planet she looked very petite, but in the Marvel outfit she looks much bigger, was a little distracting but not a big deal.

Which goes to the main point, which is that if you didn't like the Ms. Marvel show, you're not likely to enjoy this movie. But if you did like it, you'll probably love the movie. Which is good, because it's clear that Marvel both should and will make Iman Vellani a major part of their plans moving forward.

Ministers without portfolio are nothing new. The ‘minister for common sense’, ‘anti woke’ stuff is mostly just spin, and not very good spin at that. McVey will have very little actual influence and very little to do in policy terms. 

Not a shock that nobody wants to be housing minister. We’ve had sixteen housing ministers in thirteen years. Anyone who wanted a go has already had a go. 

People tend to overestimate the degree to which everyone else agrees with them. Braverman and her supporters think she speaks for a majority, or at least a significant enough minority given FPTP, and that she can win an election. 

Coffey's gone too. 

10 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

High art this ain't. 

I think they can be high art. The Marvels certainly isn't, though.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm sure that's what marvel is saying, I doubt it's true though. The trailer was terrible and the reviews are utter dogshit. 

I keep hearing this, but any reviews I've seen were pretty positive. 

I think there's a bit of the 'computer game review' problem creeping into movie reviews, in that any major release that doesn't get universal praise and rankings over over 96% is regarded as having had 'dogshit' reviews. 

In any case, I would say that any bad reviews of this one should be ignored.