http://i.imgur.com/LhLNmWO.gif

Is that a yay or a nay?

Ready Player One. Never had time, but finally found some!

Is that a yay or a nay?

Oh, definitively a yay !

Constantine is an awesome Character,
and getting more of him, especially in animated Form,
sounds aweseome ! :)

Oh, definitively a yay !

Constantine is an awesome Character,
and getting more of him, especially in animated Form,
sounds aweseome ! :)

Especially with Ryan doing the voice work. Constantine needs to be part of the Legends team. (If John isn't legendary, who is?)
But I digress.

Reading the directors of Moana confirming something I'd suspected upon seeing it in the film: Mad Max: Fury Road inspired the pirate sequence.

Reading the new Logan trailer streets Monday.

TCA press tour: 'Doc Martin' gets two more seasons, then will end
http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/gail-pennington/tca-press-tour-doc-martin-gets-two-more-seasons-then/article_9e0319da-e2e1-5b6e-b0fe-c55026799c1a.html

About time... this is my favorite TV show and even I think it's starting to falter.

(http://imgur.com/nwzbWF9)

Especially with Ryan doing the voice work. Constantine needs to be part of the Legends team. (If John isn't legendary, who is?)
But I digress.

I believe he's joining the animated films, too.

Justice League Dark.
I remember a featurette on one of the last DCAU films that covered Dark and showed him recording for Constantine.

Is that even out yet?
I don't remember seeing anything.

Last 2 animated DC films I remember seeing out are:
The Killing Joke
Caped Crusaders Return (or something, original TV series cast; Adam West et al)

I think it's hitting shelves soon.
As usual, Batman is in the forefront.
Sigh.

I believe he's joining the animated films, too.

Justice League Dark.
I remember a featurette on one of the last DCAU films that covered Dark and showed him recording for Constantine.

Is that even out yet?

February. Middle of.

Woo!

I think it's hitting shelves soon.
As usual, Batman is in the forefront.
Sigh.

Well, you know the old saying: "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken. Unless you can be Batman."

(http://imgur.com/nwzbWF9)

I really enjoyed his Culture Sci-Fi novels. I've never had a chance to read his non-Culture novels, though.

Yes, his Culture series is wonderfully imaginative; just brimming with ideas. The Quarry is the first down-to-earth drama of his I've picked up. The subject matter has sudden personal relevance.

Reading how the original vision for Batman Forever was miles from the rainbow colored, candy coated clusterfuck foisted onto the audience.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/batman/261543/batman-forever-the-version-we-never-got-to-see

"And where does this Zelda fit on the series' timeline, in its chronology, split as that is into three separate yet connected branches?


Aonuma: I wouldn't say that it obviously fits into any one part of the timeline, but if you play the game, you'll be able to work out where it fits. As you probably saw in the trailer, the most recent trailer, there's a woman's voice, and she says: "The history of the royal family of Hyrule is also the history of the Calamity Ganon." And as you know, the Zelda series, up until now, is a history of repeated attacks by Ganon. So, there's food for thought there. I don't want to say anything more as I'd like players to work it out for themselves, to play the game and see what they think."


TIMELINE THEORIZING
IT LIVES AGAIN
https://media.giphy.com/media/DpB9NBjny7jF1pd0yt2/giphy.gif

stories about bears

Reading what is either a sign of the Apocalypse, the continued turning of a dead horse into glue or a glimmer of hope: the rights to Terminator revert to Cameron in 2019. According to Deadline he wants to conclude the battle of humans vs Skynet and is talking to Deadpool director Tim Miller to handle the final film.

I'll believe it when I see it but I'd be lying if I wasn't, after so many lackluster sequels, hopeful that a third film overseen by Cameron would bring the series to a satisfying conclusion.

I read this earlier this morning. After he praised Genisys, I have no hope.

I read this earlier this morning. After he praised Genisys, I have no hope.

You know damn well that was nothing but publicity talk.

I read this earlier this morning. After he praised Genisys, I have no hope.

He received a really nice paycheck for that, I'm sure.

I read this earlier this morning. After he praised Genisys, I have no hope.

True he praised it, but what were his choices: be a troll and trash another director's film? Be honest and hurt the film? Say nothing and create the kind of non-stop mindless speculation the Internet thrives on?

Regardless of the outcome a lot of people work hard to make a movie. I doubt anyone sets out with the goal of "I'm going to make a crappy film." Perhaps Cameron was just be a gent and hoping for the best.

My two cents: no more time travel. And my suggestion, for what it's worth, start the movie with the penultimate battle against Skynet. Connor, the T-800 who's been with him throughout, and Connor's forces defeat Skynet's. Now there's one last battle to destroy Skynet's main frame guarded by a skeleton force.

However, Skynet snatches defeat from the mouth of victory. It uses a drone and kills Connor. It falls to the T-800 to keep Connor's military machine together and lead them against Skynet. Machine vs. machine.

He should've just stayed out of it until 2019 when he regains all rights. He made the only two films that matter, and if he makes another, he should make it as if the last 3 don't exist. The ultimate "fuck you". That's what I'd do.

He should've just stayed out of it until 2019 when he regains all rights. He made the only two films that matter, and if he makes another, he should make it as if the last 3 don't exist. The ultimate "fuck you". That's what I'd do.

Ignoring the other non-Cameron films is the only sensible choice, not for the "fuck you" factor but because the narrative timeline is now so convoluted. Cut the Gordian knot and start fresh.

Reading how the original vision for Batman Forever was miles from the rainbow colored, candy coated clusterfuck foisted onto the audience.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/batman/261543/batman-forever-the-version-we-never-got-to-see

I wonder if the 40 minutes cut from Terminator: Salvation would've made that film as different than the crap it turned out to be....

I wonder if the 40 minutes cut from Terminator: Salvation would've made that film as different than the crap it turned out to be....

McG was the wrong director. (McG: that kind of nickname dies when you're in your twenties, at the very latest.) However, it had a good cast wasted on a poor script. Hollywood confuses complex with complicated. The first is good but the second is death for an action movie.

Cameron's Terminator films are simple in their narrative structure: T1: Terminator comes to kill Sarah, Reese tries to stop him. T2: Terminator comes to kill John, another Terminator tries to stop him. And the problems and challenges the characters face are generated by those situations. In the non-Cameron films it felt like something needed to happen every ten minutes for fear of losing the audience.

Reading that Star Wars Episode VIII is officially titled The Last Jedi. This, after Transformers 5 was given the subtitle The Last Knight sometime back in 2016. I wonder what other "lasts" we'll get in 2017?

Movies aren't being creative just in the script department.

Currently reading Stephen King's Joyland, a Hard Case Crime book. It's pretty good so far, better than a lot of latter-day King.

Reading that Star Wars Episode VIII is officially titled The Last Jedi. This, after Transformers 5 was given the subtitle The Last Knight sometime back in 2016. I wonder what other "lasts" we'll get in 2017?

Too much to hope that the upcoming film is the "last" Transformers. They've become the cinematic equivalent of an NFL game: 16 hours long with 11 minutes of action.

Nooooooooooo!!!!!

Ariana Grande & John Legend to perform "Beauty and the Beast" title song (http://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=2309)

Nooooooooooo!!!!!

Ariana Grande & John Legend to perform "Beauty and the Beast" title song (http://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=2309)

Um, they're probably among the least offensive artists on the radio from what I recall, so yes? IDK. Don't know why it would be an issue.

I won't lie I was really hoping C�line Dion would do it again. I mean if Alan Menken is returning as composer (and they're using the late Howard Ashman's lyrics), why can't she perform it? It's just typical Disney going for the tween pop star. John Legend I have no problem with (politics aside :p), he's a talented musician.

I won't lie I was really hoping C�line Dion would do it again. I mean if Alan Menken is returning as composer (and they're using the late Howard Ashman's lyrics), why can't she perform it? It's just typical Disney going for the tween pop star. John Legend I have no problem with (politics aside :p), he's a talented musician.

It would be ideal, but it's pretty clear that the modern day doesn't work that way. We always have to have fresh blood on our hands, since it'll sell much better. It's disappointing, especially considering it'd put Dion back in the spotlight for a bit, but what are you gonna do? Probably will wait to see the what the final product sounds like in the end.

Also, Grande has no actual association with Disney prior. While definitely still a tween star, she was a Nickelodeon kid first. So it's interesting to see a shift from networks like that.


politics aside :p

It's Trump, isn't it? You gotta let go of political associations with celebrities, especially when many of them are denouncing the President himself. It got silly with Damon, so I'd be a bit careful.

I Like It. Just Like Dr John Sining Bare Necessities. Different Feel and Sound. Makes This Film Feel Different.

Disney/Nickelodeon, potato/pototo :p

While C�line Dion is doing an all new song for the film, I just wish she'd do the original again. Oh well. At least there's Menken's score to look forward to again :)

First Off. NEVER NEVER! Compare Disney to Nickeldeon!

:notgood:


Second. More Menken is Always A Real Treat!



Battle on the Tower, Transformation.
New Orchestrations of My Fav tracks..... ooh Baby

Ariana Grande has a voice, regardless of how she may look and be, so I really don't have an issue with she performing a end credits song with the other dude who I don't know. Besides, it's not like it's gonna be a dance 2017 like song, no, it's just gonna be an end credits rendition of a musical Beauty and the Beast song. Don't shun it until you hear it.

Um, they're probably among the least offensive artists on the radio from what I recall, so yes? IDK. Don't know why it would be an issue.

For real ?

Ariane Grande is one the biggest Diva's out there, we're talking Levels of Bitchiness above Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston here.

Apparently she hates America and Americans, wishes her Fans would die, licks Merchandise on Display in Donut Shops,
shows a complete Lack of Appreciation of her Fans at Meet&Greets, etc, etc.

Also this Video shows that she can't sing worth a Damn Live, where it counts : https://youtu.be/A42N4IygFcg

Why Nintendo chose such a promiscuous, rude, Bad Influence, talentless Hack for a PG Movie is beyond me.

There are so many more talented female Vocalists out there, who deserve it much, much more.

/Rant

Why Nintendo chose such a promiscuous, rude, Bad Influence, talentless Hack for a PG Movie is beyond me.

Nintendo? We're talking about her singing an end credits duet for Beauty and the Beast live action.

You might be mistaking it with Square Enix, who picked her for some kind of event in a smartphone FF game. Last time I checked, Nintendo didn't pick her in anything yet.

Nintendo? We're talking about her singing an end credits duet for Beauty and the Beast live action.

You might be mistaking it with Square Enix, who picked her for some kind of event in a smartphone FF game. Last time I checked, Nintendo didn't pick her in anything yet.

Whoops, normally Nintendo is at the receiving End of my Rants, of course i meant Disney.

My Points still stand, 'tho.

You're missing the point; it's really not that big of a deal.

Nintendo? We're talking about her singing an end credits duet for Beauty and the Beast live action.


You're missing the point; it's really not that big of a deal.

Dak's Link says it's the Title Song, which makes it kind of a big Deal,
as there will a Video, Singles, Remixes and more.

I just don't think she's a good Role Model for Girls that Age.

As i said, there are a lot of better Singers who deserve it more.

It's just a fucking song in the end credits of the movie. Lmao. It is indeed no big deal. You can skip it, you can ignore it. It's just. a. song. It's not like she acts in the movie.

It's not like she acts in the movie.

You might want to hold your breath on that for a while. For some ridiculous reason Luc Besson cast Rihanna in his Valerian sci-fi flick. Something tells me someone with an ego as massive as Grande's will sooner or later also want to make the leap to the big screen. Let's hope she smacks her head even harder than Rihanna did. Also, don't rip me a new one on Grande because I had no idea she's sing the title song and I had no idea she was such a bitch.

If it's just in the end credits: I don't give a rat's ass. The film version cue will 100% definitely be instrumental. But if outside of the film this is going to take on Let it Go-sized proportions, then we're fucked.

Disney/Nickelodeon, potato/pototo

Nickelodeon is still a thing?

Dak's Link says it's the Title Song, which makes it kind of a big Deal,
as there will a Video, Singles, Remixes and more.

I just don't think she's a good Role Model for Girls that Age.

As i said, there are a lot of better Singers who deserve it more.

Not a surprising choice. She is a product of the Disney Princess factory.

Dak's Link says it's the Title Song, which makes it kind of a big Deal,
as there will a Video, Singles, Remixes and more.

I just don't think she's a good Role Model for Girls that Age.

As i said, there are a lot of better Singers who deserve it more.


You might want to hold your breath on that for a while. For some ridiculous reason Luc Besson cast Rihanna in his Valerian sci-fi flick. Something tells me someone with an ego as massive as Grande's will sooner or later also want to make the leap to the big screen. Let's hope she smacks her head even harder than Rihanna did. Also, don't rip me a new one on Grande because I had no idea she's sing the title song and I had no idea she was such a bitch.

If it's just in the end credits: I don't give a rat's ass. The film version cue will 100% definitely be instrumental. But if outside of the film this is going to take on Let it Go-sized proportions, then we're fucked.

The hell do you guys have against her? I've seen no evidence to suggest she's really any worse than Miley Cyrus (who would've been an actual bad pick). Besides, if the cover is decent enough, would it really matter?

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------


Nickelodeon is still a thing?

Yep. At least they're doing more than Spongebob and FOP now, thank goodness. It doesn't help the CN took over in the ridiculous re-run factor with TTG.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------


Apparently

Hah.

I Loved Her In Scream Queens.

Whatever. If the rendition ends up good, then that's what'll really be important in the end. All this celebrity talk has gone just as no where as the political talk anyway.

It seems reading the newspaper (albeit newsprint or digitized) is a waste of time these days. Hell, anything I need to be kept abreast of, typically flows through the Facebook feed by at least 3000 of my friends.

How 'bout a waste of space, too. Some people hoard those things.

Facebook invites imbecility. It encourages only a superficial knowledge of subjects.

I use Facebook for those stupid funny internet images that my brother will find, that he'll send to me through messenger, but otherwise I never bothered with it. Nice thing that it's not at much of a loss, but neither is it interest to me.

And now that Vine's officially 'dead', save for the archive they've put up much to my gratefulness, there goes my last 'social media platform' except for FFShrine! ;-)

Facebook invites imbecility. It encourages only a superficial knowledge of subjects.

Facebook, the home of fake news and the people too stupid or lazy or both to distinguish fact from fan-fiction.

Reading something longer than 140 characters or one page actually encourages critical thought.

As does writing, you know, by hand.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885902/

Facebook invites imbecility. It encourages only a superficial knowledge of subjects.


Facebook, the home of fake news and the people too stupid or lazy or both to distinguish fact from fan-fiction.

Facebook now offers a fact-checking service that employs the completely-biased and liberal website/group by the name of 'Snopes'. First off, the name, it's awful. Secondly, why do I want to rely on two idiots sitting on a couch with their fat cat for accurate discerning of what and what isn't fake news? I mean... :laugh: Facebook's aim to 'keep you informed' is awfully misguided, whether they know it or not.


Reading something longer than 140 characters or one page actually encourages critical thought.

As does writing, you know, by hand.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885902/

Thanks for linking to this, Killgrave. I'm all for and would encourage longer bouts of reading and critical thinking as it's important and very useful in anybody's line of what they do and every day life. Because of the sort of activity and demeanor Twitter and Facebook and the like seems to encourage, (inadvertently; I don't personally think the companies set out for this effect) you'll find more and more individuals who don't properly utilize and use to their benefit the amazing tool which is our mind, unfortunately. But it's entirety up to the individual as to concerning what they can and will do about it.

Facebook now offers a fact-checking service that employs the completely-biased and liberal website/group by the name of 'Snopes'. First off, the name, it's awful. Secondly, why do I want to rely on two idiots sitting on a couch with their fat cat for accurate discerning of what and what isn't fake news? I mean... :laugh:

Er. Snopes wasn't made by Facebook, for one. Secondly, their posts (from what I read) are no where near as biased and liberal as you think (read: they're not at all). Lastly, they can actually make for some interesting reads every once and a while. The Disney (http://www.snopes.com/category/fact-disney/) and http://www.snopes.com/category/fact-entertainment/ stuff was always fun to read when I was younger (the older stuff for the latter).

I didn't say they made them, I said they employed them, or in other words, chose them.

And what I meant by bias is on behalf of their politically-concerned endeavors, which is FB's means of using them.

I didn't say they made them, I said they employed them, or in other words, chose them.

And what I meant by bias is on behalf of their politically-concerned endeavors, which is FB's means of using them.

Hmm. Looking through the website just now, it seems they've hired more people now. This probably explains why you might think it's biased, since I've seen more Trump related material now looking at it. While that's unfortunate, I still do like a lot of their older material, and I'm certain the original two creators aren't biased.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

Huh. I think I now why the website went the way it did: the creators had a divorce. I imagine that would shift a few things.


"The Mikkelsons have stressed the reference portion of the name Urban Legends Reference Pages, indicating that their intention is not merely to dismiss or confirm misconceptions and rumors but to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmation as well. Where appropriate, pages are generally marked "undetermined" or "unverifiable" if the Mikkelsons feel there is not enough evidence to either support or disprove a given claim."

That's exactly why I'm thinking they're not biased.

Is there a Snopes page for their divorce? Does Snopes have a page for whether they're biased or not?

Is there a Snopes page for their divorce? Does Snopes have a page for whether they're biased or not?

1. It'd be too bitter of a subject to even make a post about it (though I'm not sure if they did).
2. It's a place about debunking myths. That would be an opinion piece, which doesn't follow their purpose. Refer to the quote I put up.

Having read through a few of their pages, there is nothing here to suggest that they're biased in any way, even with the Trump stuff.

Of course they won't say if they're biased; anyone who is biased is not going to say whether they are or not.

The reason I say they're biased is because of from where they gather their information; cited sources such as The Washington Post, The Guardian and The New York Times are already alarmingly untruthful often enough themselves to be considered false or slanted, and for Snopes to utilize these faulty sources and websites for their fact-checks furthers the bad deed, and for Facebook to utilize this website for fact-checking which is already utilizing the said biased sources are even further in the detrimental doing of that deed. It's crazy.

Fuck it.

I want all of you to explain this. (http://shitrichcollegekidssay.tumblr.com/post/156332829644/heres-your-dose-of-what-the-fuck-is-going-on)

And don't tell me about websites that bring purposefully false information. They have to have some truth in some of the articles they write. They don't have multiple writers for nothing.

Unfortunately as the access to more information grows, the knowledge base of people shrinks. Today, the average person's vocabulary is half of what it was in the 1950s. After graduating high school or college only one to two percent read books. The critical thinking skills of college students is abysmal.

If you don't have a well of innate knowledge to draw from, if you don't have the words or understand the words to communicate or understand complex ideas, if you don't have the life experience or have read about the experiences of others and if you don't know how to weigh the value and veracity of the ideas and concepts you encounter it's little wonder so many people buy into fake news.

Besides, it's human nature to believe the negative over the positive.

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ----------


Fuck it.

I want all of you to explain this. (http://shitrichcollegekidssay.tumblr.com/post/156332829644/heres-your-dose-of-what-the-fuck-is-going-on)

And don't tell me about websites that bring purposefully false information. They have to have some truth in some of the articles they write. They don't have multiple writers for nothing.


There are websites that deliberately create false news stories like Breitbart or InfoWars. They cater to low information voters. And fear is a narcotic. People get addicted to it. Fear makes everything little thing seem important and news sites like the aforementioned feed that habit. Plus it's easier then thinking for yourself.

As one of sergeants liked to say "no one makes a good decision out of fear."

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ----------


Fuck it.

I want all of you to explain this. (http://shitrichcollegekidssay.tumblr.com/post/156332829644/heres-your-dose-of-what-the-fuck-is-going-on)

And don't tell me about websites that bring purposefully false information. They have to have some truth in some of the articles they write. They don't have multiple writers for nothing.


There are websites that deliberately create false news stories like Breitbart or InfoWars. They cater to low information voters. And fear is a narcotic. People get addicted to it. Fear makes everything little thing seem important and news sites like the aforementioned feed that habit. Plus it's easier then thinking for yourself.

As one of sergeants liked to say "no one makes a good decision out of fear."

sighs

Considering how strong some of the opinions here are, at this point, I'll just have a "wait and see what happens" attitude, which probably more ideal. If it feels like nothing further drastic happens to me and the family in the next four years, then no complaints from me. If everything falls apart, I'll have second thoughts about a lot of you.

How is that I just can't understand people?

Fuck it.

I want all of you to explain this. (http://shitrichcollegekidssay.tumblr.com/post/156332829644/heres-your-dose-of-what-the-fuck-is-going-on)

And don't tell me about websites that bring purposefully false information. They have to have some truth in some of the articles they write. They don't have multiple writers for nothing.

There's truth in everything, there's no denying that. But they're still citing verily questionable sources, (for example, CNN is a big one, a big no-no), and it matters where those sources get their information - which they never have provided sources for themselves, by the way. But often the collective of questionable news outlets or websites spin the material to their intention; fact isn't really their game when reporting on stuff like this, they have their own agendas.

Also, most of the stuff said in the post you linked to seems to be mostly true, there's not really any apparent bias, but also; the majority of what CNN articles linked to are the smaller reports that don't have as much matter as the one's not touched upon that are making headlines; the lesser facts, so it makes sense how this is.

And on that last point; if they provided evidence for Trump's claims of people that voted illegally, whoever's actively reporting on it (take CBS, for example...) would find the smallest point to make out of it and blow it way out of proportion, while falsifying it and / or putting in their own perceived claims in the following article and broadcast. It's quite typical and the reason I'm saying this, is because I've seen it happen before, and as a result I can confidently predict how they'll handle the next round. They've been know to use certain tactics related to ones used for advertising to get their message out there how they want to.

Alexey Kovalev (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ive-reported-putin-here-are-my-tips-journalists-dealing-trump):

I've Reported on Putin: Here Are My Tips for Journalists Dealing With Trump:

When you combine Donald Trump’s frivolous treatment of objective reality with Russia’s recent propaganda onslaught, it is unsurprising that many were tempted to compare Trump’s campaign to the one Vladimir Putin has been waging both domestically and internationally for several years.

The comparisons have become even more striking after Trump’s pre-inauguration press conference and the bizarrely hostile briefing for the White House’s press corps by his press officer, Sean Spicer, on the new president’s first day in the office. Here we have a clearly autocratic leader who, along with his aides, counsel and subordinates, is openly hostile not only to the media but to facts.

Spicer went on an angry rant against “deliberately false reporting” – while himself making statements that were patently untrue. Later, confronted about Spicer’s obvious distortion, Trump’s counsellor Kellyanne Conway gave the world a new meme: what Spicer said was not lies but “alternative facts.”

All this has led to hand-wringing among the American media: how do we treat this administration that is prepared to lie to our faces and expects to get away with it? For someone who has been covering Vladimir Putin and Russian politics from Moscow for long enough, like me, it sounds all too familiar. Watching Trump’s press conference rang a lot of bells: the evasion, the bare-faced lies, the failure of the astonished members of the press to rally around their colleagues singled out for abuse. Before we get to the parallels between Trump’s and Putin’s treatment of the media, let’s get the obvious differences out of the way.

Trump and Putin are in many ways fundamental opposites of each other. Trump is an entitled “golden child,” while Putin was born in extreme poverty in postwar Leningrad. Trump often seems to act impulsively, while Putin idolises discipline and is always collected. Most important, though, is that unless Trump somehow manages to entirely dismantle the foundations of American democracy early in his first term (as Putin did, following up on the anti-democratic reforms of his predecessor Boris Yeltsin), it’s unlikely that the US press will end up in the same dire and worsening circumstances their Russian counterparts have endured. On paper, the Russian constitution protects the freedom of the press, but there are countless ways the state can bully the unruly media without resorting to violence.

Consider, for instance, the fate of Dozhd (Rain) TV, a tiny independent channel based in Moscow. In 2014 it was careless enough to ask an unthinkable question via a Twitter poll: “Could the sacrifices of the Leningrad siege have been averted by surrendering the city to the Nazis?” The authorities have long been looking for a casus belli to punish one of the few independent outlets openly opposing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine. Russia’s official version of the second world war is sacred and not open to debate, so what followed was a hysteria whipped up by state functionaries and a loyalist media. Soon after, all of Russia’s major cable providers dropped Dozhd from their networks. Although an independent investigation later revealed that they were acting under pressure from Putin’s administration, no laws were broken – “we’re a business and we just don’t want to serve you any more” was the reason given to Dozhd, which is no longer a proper TV channel, instead reduced to web-only broadcasts. The same thing happened to its office lease, revoked without an explanation.

Aside from these brutish tactics, though, Trump seems to aping Putin, consciously or otherrwise. Putin’s annual press conferences are carefully choreographed and widely televised happenings that last for at least four hours. They’re uniquely devoid of any content though: almost no major policy announcements get made and all it boils down to is Putin’s vague and non-committal statements, his trademark zingers and lots of stats and factoids that no one will have the time or determination to fact-check. He almost never lashes out at reporters, as Trump did at BuzzFeed and CNN, but he has many other ways to humiliate you and dodge your question. If you ever get to ask one, that is.

Putin’s last one in late December last year was attended by more than 1,500 reporters, most of them from small, local publications only interested in the issues of their region, some from publications fiercely loyal to Putin, praising him, pitching softball questions and attacking his enemies. So even if you do manage to ask a sceptical question but are not satisfied with Putin’s answer, the chances of a colleague following up out of solidarity is diminishingly small.

With that in mind, consider the Trump team’s proposition to move the press room out of the White House to a more spacious facility to accommodate the “off the chart” interest in the new president. And to dilute the “elite” DC press corps with bloggers and talk radio hosts: to anyone who’s ever seen the mad scramble for Putin’s attention inside that cavernous hall where his press conferences are held, the purpose is obvious.

The biggest threat to informing the public in Russia is not censorship, state pressure or fake news: it’s the chaff constantly thrown out to keep the media distracted. There are politicians in Russia that throughout their decades-long careers have done nothing but make statements aimed at raising outrage or suggesting deliberately absurd bills, with the sole reason of staying in the headlines. Putin himself and his spokesman Dmitry Peskov are famous for their tendency to brazenly deny the plainly obvious – only to make a rhetorical U-turn later, completely dumbfounding everyone.

But in order to hold Putin – or Trump – accountable, you don’t need access to the Kremlin or the White House. Quite the opposite – having such access is a liability, because it’s a privilege you can be threatened with losing, or you can succumb to access bias. Investigations into corruption and mismanagement don’t require close relationships with state officials – quite the opposite. And even though Russian independent reporters can’t unseat Putin (nothing can, that’s not how elections work in Russia) defining public policy is one advantage their American colleagues have. So my message for covering President Trump’s administration is this: don’t get distracted by what they say, focus on what they don’t.

There are websites that deliberately create false news stories like Breitbart or InfoWars.

Alex Jones and Info Wars are to the point where whatever they report is obvious enough for it to seem ridiculous the claims that most of the media makes that places like Info Wars is fake news, but the opposite is true. They don't even have to look for the stuff they talk about; it's already been put out in the open by the numerous articles and such so they can just make the point of how ridiculous the things they report are.



And fear is a narcotic. People get addicted to it. Fear makes everything little thing seem important and news sites like the aforementioned feed that habit. Plus it's easier then thinking for yourself.

As one of sergeants liked to say "no one makes a good decision out of fear."

This is true. Fear is a big standing point for news outlets to incite the things they want average people to be feeling; so that they'll depend on them if and when tragedy arises, and they'll keep their credibility.

God, it's really hard not to take on a certain 'tone' when talking about political endeavors. I probably sound like every conservative you've ever seen right now.

And now there's this, which I doubt is false in any way. (http://www.audacityofaction.com/post/156318626567/help-stop-dapl-and-keystone-xl)

Alexey Kovalev (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ive-reported-putin-here-are-my-tips-journalists-dealing-trump)

Sigh... but this analysis adopts that falsified narrative the majority of the US media is pushing... (the insistence that Spicer was lying himself whilst pointing out news outlet's behavior, for example; the idea that the Trump administration does the collective amount of bald-faced lying, as another)

If there's one thing journalists from places like, 'The Guardian' know how to do well, it's their adept ability to shield in specific and evocative wording their erroneous point for it to come across how they want it to, and for it to be done so believably.

Yeah, I'll admit even that seemed more biased that the stuff I linked.

At this point, I'll be dropping from the political talk. I never feel like I'm contributing to the conversation, besides being nervous as hell. You guys seem to know what you're saying, so I'll leave it there.

And now there's this, which I doubt is false in any way. (http://www.audacityofaction.com/post/156318626567/help-stop-dapl-and-keystone-xl)

That's what you call strong opposition. And it's everywhere. That group of people are worried about a bunch of things that are simply just not going to happen. They seem to be overly-paranoid.

---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------


Yeah, I'll admit even that seemed more biased that the stuff I linked.

At this point, I'll be dropping from the political talk. I never feel like I'm contributing to the conversation, besides being nervous as hell. You guys seem to know what you're saying, so I'll leave it there.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3drLVLuQyXHiM/200.gif#59

Sigh... but this analysis adopts that falsified narrative the majority of the US media is pushing... (the insistence that Spicer was lying himself whilst pointing out news outlet's behavior, for example; the idea that the Trump administration does the collective amount of bald-faced lying, as another)

If there's one thing journalists from places like, 'The Guardian' know how to do well, it's their adept ability to shield in specific and evocative wording their erroneous point for it to come across how they want it to, and for it to be done so believably.

So you know better than a real journalist with real experience now, George? And, apart from your weakness for logical fallacies, you are also too keen too engage in the practice of false equivalency to attempt to prove a point.

If you've read up on how demagogic governments come to power and how they go on to suppress dissent, or have known someone who's actually lived under such a government, than you've seen this sort of assault on reason before, which, it would seem, you are very eager to embrace for what seems the usual ideological reasons of those who find succour in authoritarianism.

Now that's the sort of counter argument I want to hear. Teach me your ways of speech!

If you haven't read George Orwell's "1984", read it.

If you haven't read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here", read it.

If you haven't read Margret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale", read it.

Or sit down and talk to anyone with personal experience of the Holocaust (mostly surviving children and grandchildren now), or someone who lived in East Germany before the wall came down, or a woman who had her clitoris cut off because she lived in a society which doesn't recognize the personal autonomy of women.

If you haven't read George Orwell's "1984", read it.


I read a headline on one of the social pages on Facebook that said that 1984 book sales have skyrocketed.

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------


Facebook invites imbecility. It encourages only a superficial knowledge of subjects.


Facebook, the home of fake news and the people too stupid or lazy or both to distinguish fact from fan-fiction.

Reading something longer than 140 characters or one page actually encourages critical thought.

As does writing, you know, by hand.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885902/

Pretty much.

I only click on articles after reading some comments.

Although, I only care about sciences, astronomy (not horrorscope shit... >_>), technology and games.
I ignore shit about politics or real news. Not that I can do anything about it if I knew, anyway.

For game articles, all I need is the headlines. Which pretty much is just repeated material by now.

Social media is too rapid and needs to be constantly posting something.
PCMag and so many other social pages end up repeating the same articles every 6-9 months.

Because social media is mostly live, in terms of updates, people feel their "liked" pages need to keep up with events and have original content.
Which, on the whole of things, there is no real news out there for games so it's all reposted and already old news by the time the first post reaches the public.
So many useless articles on pc cleaning and tips and tricks.
One of out 25 articles are actually worth clicking and reading for anything one might have missed.

For sciences, they often post a lot. But not enough to interest me.
Very few things capture my eye.

To get better headlines, I would need to go through my current pages and unlike them or hide them and subscribe to new pages.
Alternative pages, which I'm sure there are much better pages with much more information compared to the commercial advertising of repeated articles and copy/paste news.

I mean, ffs, the whole ordeal of someone making a movie has to get posted every week.
Social pages will even circulate old quotes from the actors to make it news today.
And a lot of them share the exact same information.
Read the comments, and everyone points that it's old news and disinformation for the sake of an article.

The problem is, I don't want to recalibrate my social pages. I liked a lot before. Facebook changed and now everything liked is also now "followed" for updates and posts. So I already spent a great deal revoking likes (back when it used to be just there for me to access if I wish; now it's forced visibility of the pages).

The case of Ben Affleck's standalone Batman movie is the best case scenario for how stupid social media has to be.
Every nth week, they repost the same quotes: "Ben Affleck won't do a movie unless he likes the script" ~Ben Affleck, circa 1778A.D.
Do they have new information? No. Never. They have to dig up older conent and pick one little thing that wasn't in the headline for quotes.

It's like youtube. With channels that do original content, the demand for new content weekly, or even instantly if you read the top rated comments, is excruciating!
There's some talented people on youtube who do animations, but only do a small handful of content (largely due to real life matters; of any sort: Work, health, family, etc).
But read the comments and kids start swearing and demanding new content after watching one video.
Pick any video from the same channel, and you'll see nothing but "when's the next video" ? Old video, new comment, high demands.

I blame the FPS gaming industry for this.
Children (of any age, doesn't matter who they are, they have the mentality of a child) often self-diagnose themselves with ADD/ADHD and can't even stand waiting in a lobby for a "quick match" for more than 5 seconds.
It's like the games have emitted crack-cocaine through the controllers and soaked into the skin of the children and now they must have the next COD, the next BVS movie, the next Beyonce album just after 5 minutes of the current product.

I don't know.... does anyone listen to Beyonce still? What do kids today listen to now?
Is Justin Beiber still a thing?

So you know better than a real journalist with real experience now, George?

You don't need to be a real journalist with real experience to see through their impaired suggestions and way of points. The technique is exceptionally handled - which is essential in these sort of endeavors, but the material and subject matter was incorrect and deluded.


And, apart from your weakness for logical fallacies, you are also too keen too engage in the practice of false equivalency to attempt to prove a point.

That what you see as false equivalency on my part, is bona fide verity to another. The false equivalency is really just the simple dispute that what you're saying is wrong, and what I'm saying is right, and the other way around. It could go all day; throw all the facts one could ever know right at each other; doesn't do shit because of insistence on both of our parts.

That narrative that I suspect you're coming from is not based on logic, but upon fallacies likewise, and the outright manipulation and misrepresentation of facts and non-fictional happenings, delivered in such a way as to fit the intentional effect it's supposed to have on the reader, or viewer, by means of deceitful depiction, that is meant to shape their critical view of...I don't know, Mr. Donald Trump - which I am putting to question. It starts to become quite trivial, even, with how disproportionate and overly-dramatic the media and general opposition(s) of Donald Trump are with their handling and presentation of material against him.


If you've read up on how demagogic governments come to power and how they go on to suppress dissent, or have known someone who's actually lived under such a government, than you've seen this sort of assault on reason before, which, it would seem, you are very eager to embrace for what seems the usual ideological reasons of those who find succour in authoritarianism.

Yep, you've hit that down on the point. Only you're implying that my embracing of what the respective parts of the government or media are guilty for enforcing such ideas and control of what goes around, is a flawed way of thinking and of political and world view. Yes, I'm using an idea that other most other conservatives (I'm sure that's who you mean by "those who find succour in authoritarianism") such as...Limbaugh, for example, use to argue my point. There's nothing wrong with that, either; it's the stance from which the point itself is argued, or else, how else is one supposed to argue the point?...without providing enough substance and detail for the opposition to, without regard, push it aside as bias, so from that point, substantial evidence starts to become useless. And therefore, providing any on my part would be treated as such and would then be a futile endeavor.

It's really a very simple argument; I'm mistaken, you're substantiated, or the other way around. We can sit here all day and tell each other that we're wrong and misguided, refer to each of our political stances as a 'weakness for logical fallacies', and that where we get our information from is a slanted, biased, political source, but that doesn't change a thing about facts. All I can say is that what I know is the truth, and you can say that it's not. You can also say that I'm misinformed, or that I'm too young or inexperienced to know. It's undeniably a fact that, with experience, does come knowledge, and you certainly have got your shit together concerning that, and presenting why you think I'm wrong to me. I'm not here to challenge your intelligence, and neither are you me. But it's up to either of us to take whatever we say with proper and confident judgement and discern it as truth, falsified truth, or lies, and be responsible about it.

The basis of idea of all of this; what argument I put forth, the whole drive of what the conservatives and Trump administration try to fight back with, is truth. And there's the sides who exploit the truth to their own aim, and there's simply the truth. And there's only one truth. And we should love the truth so much, that we'd not be willing to sacrifice validity over the selfish desire of whatever news organization, or source we gather and build our respective beliefs upon, may allegedly have.

In the long run, there's a certain point of where the general argument must be dropped, because of how naturally insistent both parties are with their beliefs. This is just the way discussion on politics work, so is why I'm foreseeing that outcome. Doesn't mean it can't be continued to discuss, though.

You wouldn't happen to be attending The Sarah Palin School of Advanced Garble-Garble for Aspiring Partisan Hacks and Used Car Salesmen, would you, George?

Because, holy moly!, would you get a load of the size of that word salad*. Do free croutons come with it?

*(see pictorial definition in the spoiler below)


But, cutting away the chaff, what that barrage of verbiage comes down to is this:

"You (i.e. me, gururu or other outside observer) can't be believed because my (i.e. you, George) ideology necessarily requires you (i.e. me, gururu or other outside observer), the opposer, to be wrong. And I know this to be true because I know my ideology isn't wrong because I know it is right".

Conclusion: you are engaging in a form of argumentation defined in logical fallacy parlance as circular reasoning (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning). A clumsy tool commonly wielded by propagandists, liars, bullshitters and those with underdeveloped critical reasoning skills.

Which is why it is so common to see this form of reasoning argued by those residing at the extremes of the political spectrum, and why they are particularly prone to being seduced by (or are indeed the propagators of) "fake news", conspiracy theories, and demagogic proponents of undemocratic social and economic policy that is based on demonstrably false, counter-factual premises (don't look at me, look over there at all the (unsubstantiated) voter fraud!).

Emotion, and not reason, is the gateway to the world around them…as sheltered as that bubble may be.

Also: authoritarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) is antithetical to democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy). They are the antithesis of one another. Ergo: adherents to authoritarianism are opposed to democracy. And vice-versa. It also logically follows that adherents to authoritarianism will employ undemocratic means to advance their authority.

Corollary: I could elaborate on the condition of narcissistic personality disorder and its correlation to authoritarianism, but I don't want to belabour an obvious point. Besides, there is copious peer reviewed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) literature and Trump memes on the subject already.

(http://imgur.com/NyInhNj)

I read a headline on one of the social pages on Facebook that said that 1984 book sales have skyrocketed.

Screen Archives Entertainment apparently read that same news story.


January 25th -For a limited time get NINTEEN EIGHTY-FOUR from TWILGHT TIME FOR $24.95!

Coincidence? :rolleyes:

"Coincidence?".

"We can't keep it a secret any longer." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvOi2d7fI4w)

Well that just fucking sucks. (http://clementiens.tumblr.com/post/156357862418/figsandnewtons-this-isnt-alarmist-an-entire)

Also, that was a pretty good intro right there, gururu. Made me very interested.

Ed Brayton @ Patheos: 40% of Trump Supporters Will Accept a Lie Even When Shown the Proof (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/01/26/40-trump-supporters-will-accept-lie-even-shown-proof/)

Nice headline but I think the real percentage would be much lower.
Lots of people who voted for Trump will decline to publicly admit it for fear of vilification, so those people who participated in this experiment were probably confessed Trumpalos to start with. If Trump shot a dude in cold blood and there were fifteen camera angles showing that he did it, these people would interpret the event through some arbitrary lens and think Trump a hero. :rolleyes:

Ed does provide a link to the Washington Post article which explains the research methodology, which,ya know, is what you should base an informed opinion upon, not its headline.

The source WashPo article isn't too detailed on the numbers.
The sample size was ~1400 people, and there were three groups: Trump fans, Clinton fans, and non-voters. I don't think the article breaks it down more than that.
Let's assume that each group had exactly 463 people in them, give or take a couple. 190 of the Trump supporters would refute the photographic evidence.
I don't it's too outlandish to assume that lots of those 190 are enamored by the man, beyond all hope. :erm:

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

As for the Clinton supporters and non-voters who said that Trump's inauguration had more people... they probably thought it was a trick question and wanted to be 'clever'. :laugh:

Here's the thing, though… the headline is in itself neither misleading nor untrue; 40% of Trump supporters in the sample group did indeed provide the wrong answer. Also, the article does in fact address your doubts with: "Why would anyone give the wrong answer to a pretty simple question?". Conclusion: expressive responding.

And because neither the researchers, the WP article, Ed or myself make the fatal error of ascribing the result to ALL Trump supporters it would be, in turn, a fatal error on anyone else's part to interpret the reporting of the result as anything otherwise. In other words, the only persons who would make a mountain out of a molehill would be partisans, whether of the so-called left or right.

Though, ultimately, given the unlikelihood of getting an honest answer from a partisan voter to begin with (from either side), whether the percentage is actually lower is irrelevant, don't you think? Statistics have ever played a part in policy making, and if upwards of 40% of respondents are lying, well…

Do statisticians have a margin of error for lying?

Well, like PM Disraeli said: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Unless the sample size is larger than what this experiment's was, I don't think much of these sorts of studies.

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------


And because neither the researchers, the WP article, Ed or myself make the fatal error of ascribing the result to ALL Trump supporters it would be, in turn, a fatal error on anyone else's part to interpret the reporting of the result as anything otherwise. In other words, the only persons who would make a mountain out of a molehill would be partisans, whether of the so-called left or right.

Yeah, but I think the point of the report is obviously to GET readers (particularly, left-wingers) to think that a large chunk of all Trump supporters are ignorant of plain evidence - because most people don't think too critically about how these studies are constructed. That poor judgement (a 'fatal error' as you call it) is super common.

I'm not distracted in the least by what the publisher's intent may or may not have been. As far as I'm concerned the topic of interest is why, unless they were all taking the piss, would any Trump supporter want to provide the wrong answer when that answer feeds into the general consensus that Trump supporters are really, really stupid?

'Cuz they're stupid. :smrt:
I think it's called cult of personality.

:erm: Now you're going down a Jim Jones alley?

:erm: Now you're going down a Jim Jones alley?

wat

To clarify, by "they" I meant the jingoistic Trumpalos who didn't trust their own eyeballs.
Not Trump supporters at large.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

Oh oh oh you must mean Kool-Aid suicide guy

The one and only.

You wouldn't happen to be attending The Sarah Palin School of Advanced Garble-Garble for Aspiring Partisan Hacks and Used Car Salesmen, would you, George?

Because, holy moly!, would you get a load of the size of that word salad*. Do free croutons come with it?

*(see pictorial definition in the spoiler below)


But, cutting away the chaff, what that barrage of verbiage comes down to is this:

"You (i.e. me, gururu or other outside observer) can't be believed because my (i.e. you, George) ideology necessarily requires you (i.e. me, gururu or other outside observer), the opposer, to be wrong. And I know this to be true because I know my ideology isn't wrong because I know it is right".

Conclusion: you are engaging in a form of argumentation defined in logical fallacy parlance as circular reasoning (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning). A clumsy tool commonly wielded by propagandists, liars, bullshitters and those with underdeveloped critical reasoning skills.

Which is why it is so common to see this form of reasoning argued by those residing at the extremes of the political spectrum, and why they are particularly prone to being seduced by (or are indeed the propagators of) "fake news", conspiracy theories, and demagogic proponents of undemocratic social and economic policy that is based on demonstrably false, counter-factual premises (don't look at me, look over there at all the (unsubstantiated) voter fraud!).

Emotion, and not reason, is the gateway to the world around them…as sheltered as that bubble may be.

Also: authoritarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) is antithetical to democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy). They are the antithesis of one another. Ergo: adherents to authoritarianism are opposed to democracy. And vice-versa. It also logically follows that adherents to authoritarianism will employ undemocratic means to advance their authority.

Corollary: I could elaborate on the condition of narcissistic personality disorder and its correlation to authoritarianism, but I don't want to belabour an obvious point. Besides, there is copious peer reviewed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) literature and Trump memes on the subject already.

(http://imgur.com/NyInhNj)

Sorry, gururu, although your very first paragraph, admittedly, made me laugh, I'm afraid that I do know what I'm talking about, or, and I'll quote myself, here; "I'm not going to persist to argue a fact that a clear basis of understanding and comprehension, as well as common-sense, is required to be able to contend and demonstrate those fundamentals and concepts in the first place, because that would be foolish on my part, as well as a waste of time on both of ours."

All you've done is labeled my way of arguing a point as 'circular reasoning'. You ignored the point itself and whether or not why it may be right or wrong.

I employed circular reasoning to that effect because, there is simply no other way to argue with an individual who is living in an alternate reality* and has adopted this narrative from the cumulative effect of what they read, watch, and listen to. The issue is that they blindly follow that premeditated message offered by the media and accept it as the truth without using their head; they don't use free-thinking, logic, or even common-sense when taking in this information and discerning from right and wrong, the while entirely basing their arguments upon this false informative and using that itself to argue it. Just look at arguments between pedestrians or opposing sides on the news (plenty of videos of both of these sorts) and see how much progress it really makes. It's coming from a corrupt, shallow, falsified belief system based upon corrupt, shallow, falsified truth and facts that utilize no real evidence. And a half of the population will listen to these media organization's reports because of their stance as long established, 'credible', well-respected news and media outlets.

"They can't be discredited; they're CNN! (or ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) Donald Trump and Sean Spicer are liars! They have no credibility or evidence! Alex Jones is a liar and propagator of fake news and alternative facts! And so is InfoWars! It's true because they said it! Why would they lie to me?" Well, here's the why, as well as the how (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/reporters-tell-me-the-truth-off-the-record-the-fake-news-business/).

So, at that, how else are you supposed to, with a sensible approach of rationality and logic, offer a perspective of a political argument with someone who's taken up this behavior and adopted this false narrative, without being forced to come to that conclusion I previously explained? Sure, as your linked source for definition states, avoiding circular reasoning is a means of helping one develop better reasoning, but that's wholly irrelevant when there's no reasoning involved in the subject I'm placing a viewpoint on in the first place.


*(i.e. in this case; alternate reality; a false perception of reality or factual events crafted over a cumulative amount of time by the majority of media and news outlets who don't operate from their pretend use of investigative journalism, nor do they report based upon fact, research, evidence, and honesty regarding handling of those aspects, and instead, and I'll quote myself once again, "employ misrepresentation, exaggeration, and distortion of facts in their method of reporting, using what they call journalism, and a tactic of repeating a lie often enough for it be deemed believable.".......as well as often using soundbites taken completely out of context, or employing other tactics commonly used in advertising)

Yes, George, we're all in on the conspiracy, and you're the only one who can see it. Now take your meds like a good boy, just as the doctor prescribed.

The only real reality I'm living in is that of my daily life, dealing with my own personal problems. That's what I will accept. Everything else can be a projection screen set up by a Gremlin for all I care. As long as everything continues to remain as is for me, then I'll be off dancing into the next obstacle needed to advance.

Besides, I should be judging after 4 years. It's too early to tell what could be reality. I'll see what might be the final result here.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

I appreciate that despite all of our stark differences in opinion on certain subjects, we still remain civil. I found the post I posted midnight to be too rushed and typed out of frustration, but George still had the decency to be proper about responding to it, even with the questionable views. I'm thankful for all of ya.

Yes, George, we're all in on the conspiracy, and you're the only one who can see it. Now take your meds like a good boy, just as the doctor prescribed.

That's right. InfoWars, The Drudge Report, Breitbart News, and the like, are all run by me! :smrt:

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------


I appreciate that despite all of our stark differences in opinion on certain subjects, we still remain civil. I found the post I posted midnight to be too rushed and typed out of frustration, but George still had the decency to be proper about responding to it, even with the questionable views. I'm thankful for all of ya.

Thankful for you too, buddy. And all the rest of you. But yes, this is the best part. And with gururu, there's some bit of humor involved. :p

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

The socialist political establishment was created by Reince Priebus and 4/20 was a staged attack by the US government to further falsified beliefs of a clear and present danger posed by Radical Costanza and the Giatistic far center movement.

*drops mic*

Reading the new Darkwing Duck. (One of the few pieces of entertainment about which I'm nostalgic.)

Captures the original series perfectly. Makes me optimistic the new series will be a worthy successor.

P.S. That sound you hear in the background, that's ManRay's sigh of relief.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------


The socialist political establishment was created by Reince Priebus and 4/20 was a staged attack by the US government to further falsified beliefs of a clear and present danger posed by Radical Costanza and the Giatistic far center movement.

*drops mic*

You should come equipped with your own english subtitles.

Yep, no Reason not to trust the Killgrave Seal of Approval ! :)

Screen Archives Entertainment apparently read that same news story.

Coincidence? :rolleyes:

I've heard other books making comeback sales.
Mostly having totalitarianism themes.

Although one "expert" says that Brave New World (Aldous Huxley) is a better depecition for the Trump Era than 1984.
If you believe things from BBC news.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38764041

From what I remember about BBC news is that it's the same as America's CNN.
I don't know. I don't watch enough to pick up things.
All I remember is that every so often, CNN news would make the news more personal with how they say things.
More like reporting the news AND giving an opinion right after.

For articles, I just skim everything. I don't read the whole damned thing.
Most articles can actually be summurized with a nice short paragraph.
Most of the content is fodder to reach a qouta on words.



But, I digress, with all due respect, etc etc moving on.

Seeing as totalitarianism and corruption of emotion and free will are the bigger themes amongst popular titles, I want to make a playlist for Plex.

Pretty much what's on this list:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074053551?ref_=tt_rls_5

Except for:
The Matrix, sure it has hints, but mygod overplayed franchise. Unless they remaster them for UHD-BD, I don't care much these days.
I already have them in open matte/zoomed in on plex. And I still haven't gotten around to watching those verisons.

Mad Max. A separate dystopian future. I guess you can go back to the old memes of America+Oil will eventually lead to Mad Max.
But, imo, just the way the human race is greedy and mass consumers of primitive fuel is enough to get us to Mad Max era.
We don't need politics for that. We just need a brand new car every year for every fucking kid in the family.


Elysium. I don't care much for it. Watched it twice and much prefer District 9.
Jodi Foster plays Bitch Jodi Foster. That role could have easily gone to Meryl Streep or Sigourney Weaver.
SW would have probably made it more fun. I fucking love her.

Robocop. Please don't make me sit through the sequels. :ashine: Again.

Some of them I haven't seen, so I'll add them just because.

It seems more like The Running Man would be a best candidate for Trump era.
People willingly giving in and happy to be apart of this world where people will die.
The whole gameshow aspect, the tv's, the cheering, the loss of people (even though their criminals; but corruption in the government is involved).
I really loved it as a kid. Every time after that movie, whenever I saw how a society becomes sickened by their own values, I always think back to the screens of people cheering for death. Like ancient Rome.
When I walk by Jehovah's Witnesses on the street and they want nothing but to recruit me into their church that seemingly has an abundance of young males that look exactly like gay porn actors I've watched countless times... I think back the screens in The Running Man.
I see a great deal of politics in the same fashion.

What would really set the tone of politics in the future, would be to put contenders in the field to kill each other.
Whoever lives, becomes President.

Yep, no Reason not to trust the Killgrave Seal of Approval ! :)

Series begins with DD's version of the Arkham Asylum graphic novel. Call it Duckham Asylum.

Reading Sony's admission - falling into the better late than never category - it screwed up on Spider-Man.

https://heroichollywood.com/sony-spider-man-mistake/

This is what happens when people who think they can write and can't interfere in the scripting and editing process.

And it's screwing up in everything cinema related. They had a one billion loss last year. And honestly. I'ts like they seriously WANT it, and look forward to it and are using it as an excuse to sell the cinema division because everything that is announced, it looks like it's all intentional.

Man shot cat that 'looked at him like it owned the place' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/man-shot-cat-looked-like-owned-place/)


A 69-year-old man in the US could face animal cruelty charges after allegedly shooting a neighbour's cat with a BB gun.

The man, who has not been identified, told officers he had become angry after the cat "looked at him like he owned the place," before relieving itself on his property, in Florida's Ormond Beach.

The animal, owned by 60-year-old neighbour Hung Nguyen, later had to be put down as a result of its injuries... Mr Hung told reporters he now has eight cats left.

:sigh:
Typical Florida action.

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------


And it's screwing up in everything cinema related. They had a one billion loss last year. And honestly. I'ts like they seriously WANT it, and look forward to it and are using it as an excuse to sell the cinema division because everything that is announced, it looks like it's all intentional.

Normally I'd say that it's ridiculous to claim that a company is trying to lose money, but for Sony.... the evidence is overwhelming. :laugh:
I mean, this is their next big movie:

The movie that will actually tell the future of Sony in movies: the fucking Emoji movie.

Can't wait for it to be good so you guys can get even angrier. :laugh:

In all seriousness, it'll be like Ghostbusters, where it receives so much negative press, but it disappears immediately once it releases and does okay. I know we want it to do worse, but it's been the Sony thing for a while. It might help bring them down, but it's clear that more shit needs to happen for them to shut down.

I hear Marvel wants to still completely own Spider-Man again, so...

Actually, it did not do okay. Ghostbusters cost $144 million and made "only" $230 million. The film's breakeven point was $300 million, so it was $70 million short. So no sequels. Sony's going to focus on animated features.

It's probably going to be a very long time until someone tries another GB reboot.

The 2014 hack. The Interview. The Not-So-Amazing Spider-Man. Ghostbusters. Emoji. Seriously, what has to happen next?

The only good Sony's done in the last decade is co-finance the Craig Bond films with MGM (cause they've been basically bankrupt for several years).

The 2014 hack. The Interview. The Not-So-Amazing Spider-Man. Ghostbusters. Emoji. Seriously, what has to happen next?

The only good Sony's done in the last decade is co-finance the Craig Bond films with MGM (cause they've been basically bankrupt for several years).

Yeah. Thing is though is that all that is so forgettable to me these days that I pretty much didn't think of them. Still, there would still need to be more in my mind to completely wreck Sony Pictures. Every other division of theirs is staying afloat, so It's hard to picture.

And Sony will lose the rights to Bond, making them have another loss if they don't bid.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------


Actually, it did not do okay. Ghostbusters cost $144 million and made "only" $230 million. The film's breakeven point was $300 million, so it was $70 million short. So no sequels. Sony's going to focus on animated features.

It's probably going to be a very long time until someone tries another GB reboot.

Honestly, it was for the best. So much unnecessary bullshit happened thanks to them deciding to fuck over Ivan Reitman, all because they thought he wouldn't make a "profitable" film.

Too bad they couldn't either.

At least their IDW stuff is doing well.

The 2014 hack. The Interview. The Not-So-Amazing Spider-Man. Ghostbusters. Emoji. Seriously, what has to happen next?

The only good Sony's done in the last decade is co-finance the Craig Bond films with MGM (cause they've been basically bankrupt for several years).

And Bond may go over to Warner. Sony might sell its stake to keep the studio afloat. That's one of the rumors floating around. Actor Tom Hardy - Bane, Max, Bronson, etc; - is campaigning for Chris Nolan to get the job directing Bond should Warner acquire it. (BTW, Hardy is on the list for the new Bond if Craig has really quit. I'm guessing he has one more Bond in him, if for nothing else but make up for the lackluster Spectre).

I didn't think Spectre was bad, but when you compare it to a film like Skyfall, of course it's gonna seen lackluster. I think he's got one more in him, as well. Sam Mendes said he was only gonna do Skyfall and he ended up doing Spectre as well. So who knows. Maybe Craig will do it.

What would be the benefits of Warner owning rights to Bond series?

What would be the benefits of Warner owning rights to Bond series?

Warner is a larger company, more assets, better distribution system and hasn't had the bankruptcy that plagued the former owners of Bond. MGM's bankruptcy kept Bond from the big screen for years.

And Warner would love the franchise because it would help counter Disney's growing dominance: it owns Marvel and Star Wars. Warner has Harry Potter and its spin offs. Plus they have marquee directors like Nolan and Miller.

Can you imagine a Bond film directed by George Miller? HO. LEE. CHRIST.

Reading that our long national nightmare is over. The Stranger Things Season 2 teaser trailer airs during the Super Bowl.

Wow!
Who ever thought that Netflix would one day be a big enough money to air a commercial during the Super Bowl?

Reading why Deep Space Nine & Voyager will never be re-mastered in HD.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/why-treks-ds9-voyager-will-never-be-hd/

The downside to streaming services: they've killed the market for DVD/Blu-Ray collections.

Man shot cat that 'looked at him like it owned the place' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/man-shot-cat-looked-like-owned-place/)







he ONLY has 8 cats left.

OH THE FUCKING TRAGEDY.


when will people realize cats are just living dog food? hunt cats, feed dogs. its the right thing to do.
this message was sponsored by the international "cats are just fucking living dog food" association for the extermination of the cat plague and the eleanor sherman foundation for sending poor people into space.

Reading iZombie returns April 4th. (Not on April Fools?) Mr. Gold will be pleased.

Also reading Castlevania is coming to Netflix in animated form. The bit that has me hopeful is Warren Ellis is writing and producing it.

P.S. Read a few early reviews of John Wick 2 and they've all been glowing.

I Know, Gonna Be Good!

Reading how Warner Bros studios are being utter vampires about their property.

http://geeknation.com/lucifer-composer-accused-of-stealing-theme/

WB rejected every work by Beltrami for the opening titles to tv series Lucifer.
So Beltrami got desperate.

And WB are being dicks through and through.
WB should pay out of their own deep pockets for everything. Even give Beltrami a raise.

Beltrami shouldn't be dragged into all that.
Just another case of the composer being accused of something his superiors are at fault for. :notgood:

For all we know, WB approached that band to start the lawsuit just as a publicity stunt to draw more attention to teh show.
Now that it's made the news, everyone's going to watch just to hear the opening titles and talk about the news article.


https://i.imgur.com/JE6AqeC.gif (https://imgur.com/JE6AqeC)

"There's now news, like bad news."~

Great Use Of That Gif and Quote. :laugh:

Any time WB is losing money, I'm happy.
They hire shit directors, ruin potentially good projects by constricting the creative aspects of any film, and as a result put out shit movies. Constantly.

The only person whom they probably give any real freedom to is probably today's God Emperor of Trendy Filmmaking, Chris Nolan. His name sells tickets.

Kevin Smith wants to reboot his Jay & Silent Bob property.
http://geeknation.com/smith-announces-jay-and-silent-bob-reboot/

TBH, I don't think it will translate well today.
It will only reach really old people.
And I think he's doing it just for his friend. When's the last time we saw him in anything besides Feast (2005) ? :laugh:

Logan

"…the fine score by Marco Beltrami, which incorporates brief churns of horror amid the melodic elegance." — Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/logan-review-970227)

I wonder if any of his material from "The Wolverine" will be quoted.
I wouldn't care either way though.
I've got tickets for opening night. Hoping it delivers on what Jackman promises.

Hoping it delivers on what Jackman promises.

Thought you meant Henry Jackman and I was like "wait when did they go from Mansell to Beltrami to Jackman?!?! :shock:" I suddenly got more excited to see it. Then I realized you're talking about Huge and not Henry. I'm expecting to not like it. Like at all. Film or score.

After mostly cruddy scores to 5th Wave and Civil War, I don't expect anything from that Jackman anymore.

talking about Huge

I bet Hugh is "huge".

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

Reading reviews on reddit about external SSD's hooking up to the Xbox One.

I really ought to get one for the Xbox.
Some games that are in early access on Steam take forever to load and it doesn't look like the developers are going anywhere in terms of stability and performance.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

Reading reviews on reddit about external SSD's hooking up to the Xbox One.

I really ought to get one for the Xbox.
Some games that are in early access on Steam take forever to load and it doesn't look like the developers are going anywhere in terms of stability and performance.

Why not, DAK? It looks nice, and its got great reviews.

Why not, DAK? It looks nice, and its got great reviews.

He's not a fan of the Wolverine solo films. Period

If he doesn't like Logan, he might as well erase the character from his brain afterwards.

Why not, DAK? It looks nice, and its got great reviews.

Most people are more easily amused/entertained than I am. When Maximus shouts "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!", my answer is always "yup"


He's not a fan of the Wolverine solo films. Period

If he doesn't like Logan, he might as well erase the character from his brain afterwards.

I love the character, hate the films (well, the first one anyway). He IS X-Men, there's no X-Men without him. Take a look back at the first Wolverine film, "Origins". Everybody knows that was worse than The Last Stand. So bad that Simon Kinberg (bless his soul) completely wiped that film from the timeline with DoFP. And "The Wolverine" was mediocre. I only saw it so I could set myself up for DoFP. It's the same director, same composer so you might understand why I'm not feelin' this one.

However, if it is as good as it's supposed to be, I will eat my words like I did with Civil War. During times like this, I love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

Most people are more easily amused/entertained than I am. When Maximus shouts "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!", my answer is always "yup"

Don't kid yourself, I'm still the pickiest little shit on the Shrine

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------


And "The Wolverine" was mediocre.

I really liked the first 2/3... then the samurai robot showed up. :-\

Most people are more easily amused/entertained than I am. When Maximus shouts "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!", my answer is always "yup"

I can say the same for a lot of things :laugh:


I love the character, hate the films (well, the first one anyway). He IS X-Men, there's no X-Men without him. Take a look back at the first Wolverine film, "Origins". Everybody knows that was worse than The Last Stand. So bad that Simon Kinberg (bless his soul) completely wiped that film from the timeline with DoFP. And "The Wolverine" was mediocre. I only saw it so I could set myself up for DoFP. It's the same director, same composer so you might understand why I'm not feelin' this one.

However, if it is as good as it's supposed to be, I will eat my words like I did with Civil War. During times like this, I love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

I can agree with what you say. I guess I more meant that the films would've made you tired of the character, but that probably won't be true. Even so, even without watching the last Wolvie film, I'm still very optimistic for the new film. I just want something different after the last few flicks I've seen.

Don't kid yourself, I'm still the pickiest little shit on the Shrine




I can agree with what you say. I guess I more meant that the films would've made you tired of the character, but that probably won't be true.

Are you kidding me? HELL NO.

Tom Cruise IS Ethan Hunt
Robert Downer, Jr. IS Tony Stark
Harrison Ford IS Han Solo

Huge Jackman IS Wolverine

This list could go on and on. I'm so sad to see him go, he's been quoted as saying that Logan is his best friend. I can't imagine how bittersweet it must've been for him.

Jackman never phoned it in with playing Logan. As he said, he owes his career to the Wolverine. (There's a rumor Reynolds wants a Wolverine/Deadpool film. Hopefully it ends with Logan decapitating Wilson. Of course, his head would grow a new body and his body a new head. And there's the next Deadpool film. Call it Headpool.)

Or Headpools.

P.S. Fox added three minutes to Logan's runtime. The rumor: Fox added a post credits scene.

There's a rumor Reynolds wants a Wolverine/Deadpool film.

If Jackman has any class, he won't do it.

Reynolds has built himself an ego.
He is literally the only person attached to the sequel. Everyone else hightailed it.

P.S. Fox added three minutes to Logan's runtime. The rumor: Fox added a post credits scene.

If this is something true, I hope it's something appropriate and not something stupid (i.e. a crappy teaser for the next movie, a la Apocalypse).

If Logan survives - my guess is Xavier does not - it might be him and Laura (X-23) in their new lives, whatever that might look like. If Logan does not, it could be an X-23 centric scene.

Mangold has said he would be interested in doing an X-23 movie. And Laura is the logical replacement for Logan. First it avoids re-casting Logan with another actor and second it brings more women into the sausage parties that are superhero films.

You're assuming that people will be interested in X-Men films after this.

You're assuming that people will be interested in X-Men films after this.

No sign the audience for comic book movies is waning. (If Last Stand & Origins didn't drive away the audience, nothing will.) And if the early reports about the audience's positive reaction to X-23 bear out, we'll see a solo movie.

Projections estimate Logan will make $60 million its opening weekend which for an R rated movie is quite good.

That's because people love Jackman as Wolverine, and it's his "last time".
No one cared about Apocalypse. Meanwhile Deadpool is shaping up to be a one-trick pony as only Ryan Reynolds seems interested in a sequel.

An X-23 solo movie? It could happen. Depending on the girl's performance in Logan, I'd see it.
I wonder if her contract says anything to that effect.

You'd need one hell of plot to unite Deadpool and Wolverine otherwise it looks like nothing but a money grab. (And Jackman took a pay cut to make Logan R rated, so money is not his motivator.)

Wolverine/Deadpool team up is a Cable/Deadpool union by another name.

As for X-23, Dafne Keen is getting extremely positive reviews so I'm sure Fox is already counting the money a spin off could make.

I hope a Deadpool/Wolvie teamup never happens.
Fox got that chance in X-Men Origins and they blew it. No one can call Hugh a poor sport for lack of interest because he doesn't want to do it today.

That's good to hear about Keen. There are so many shit child actors in film today. Like that annoying fucking kid from Iron Man 3. He did a little better in Jurassic World though.

No one cared about Apocalypse

Yet it still made more money than First Class, which people also didn't "care" about (based on your logic).

It's still overrated...

Everything is relative. The film underperformed at the box office; Fox executives were expecting much higher numbers the first couple of weekends. As far as I know, First Class made an acceptable amount of money, enough for them to feel confident in investing in the mammoth DoFP. The reaction to Apocalypse was not rousing but tepid.
Additionally, critically Apocalypse did a good bit worse than both First Class and DoFP.


It's still overrated...

N-no! It's not true!

Everything is relative. The film underperformed at the box office; Fox executives were expecting much higher numbers the first couple of weekends. As far as I know, First Class made an acceptable amount of money, enough for them to feel confident in investing in the mammoth DoFP. The reaction to Apocalypse was not rousing but tepid.
Additionally, critically Apocalypse did a good bit worse than both First Class and DoFP.

So like what happened with the recent DC films? That's unfortunate, but at least it went better than Origins and The Last Stand, but that's not saying much.


N-no! It's not true!

Face it. I've seen more continually brought up reactions to even the more lesser received X-Men films than First Class. I just don't see anyone bring it up much. It doesn't help that I've had more enjoyment out of every other film in the series (even the bad ones), so it's one I never really remember. Still needs a re-visit though.

So like what happened with the recent DC films? That's unfortunate, but at least it went better than Origins and The Last Stand, but that's not saying much.

Pretty much. On paper BvS's box office intake looks really good, but in reality it's abysmal. DC seriously thought that it would hit the billion dollar mark easily just like Avengers. Suicide Squad did well though, but unfortunately that isn't teaching them any good lessons (http://comicbook.com/dc/2016/12/13/suicide-squad-deadshot-spinoff-in-the-works-at-warner-brothers/).

Is this what the Shocker looks like in Spider-Man: Homecoming?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQrKvrZFv8-/

Hope it's true, he looks great!

The music of Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is being done right now! Maybe the game is coming this Christmas for real..

http://gonintendo.com/stories/274342-xenoblade-chronicles-2-music-recording-sessions-taking-place-righ

A Japanese release in 2017 seems pretty reasonable.
Localization for the west might take until next year though.

I'm thinking it will release this Christmas, too. This game is hyped, and one of the Switch's major projects.

�

OMG

"Labryinth" OST getting vinyl pressing (http://modern-vinyl.com/2017/02/19/new-pressing-david-bowietrevor-jones-labyrinth-ost/)

Finally!!! :D

�

http://i.imgur.com/ODdSaj5.gif

Once again, I got the proof.

You know you can count on me.

Elderly woman rescued from home after becoming �molded� to chair for nearly a year (http://wkrn.com/2017/02/18/elderly-woman-rescued-from-home-after-becoming-molded-to-chair-for-nearly-a-year/)


An elderly woman was taken to a hospital Thursday night after paramedics removed her from a chair in her home that authorities say she may have been in for close to a year.

A church volunteer who reportedly delivers meals to 75-year-old Barbara Foster called 911 when he said she wasn�t acting like herself. The volunteer says he has delivered food to Foster for the past decade, but he hasn�t seen her move from her living room chair since July 2016.

Leirin Snyder, Foster�s neighbor and goddaughter, says that Foster was a hoarder, but she wasn�t aware of how bad the situation was since she hadn�t been able to visit Foster for a while.

When the fire department arrived, they found Foster�s skin had molded to the chair and she was surrounded by feces and urine. A report from the Lucas County Sheriff�s Office says that the smell from the waste was so strong, responders could smell it from the sidewalk and that they had to wear haz-mat suits just to enter the residence. The church volunteer said that was how the home normally smelled.

First responders said that Foster was screaming in pain as she was removed because her bones were so frail they were breaking as EMS tried to carry her out of the house. Foster is now recovering that the University of Toledo Medical Center.

:COCAINUM:

No idea who Robert Meyer Burnett is but it got Geek.com talking:

https://twitter.com/BurnettRM/status/830816741726969856

LAST JEDI scoring update. Last Thursday was John Williams' 85th Birthday. He's conducting. Rian Johnson wants to use the score for editing.

You can read the followup comments... tweets... that he's replying to some people.

Remember when CBS threw a hissy fit over the Trekkies making a fan film... without their permission??
Burnett is the guy who directed it (if it ever got made... idk)
Isn't JJ Abrams a producer for Star Wars 8? Maybe they bonded over their Trek love and he invited Burnett to scoring sessions.

:shock: Wow. Wouldn't that be something if JJ was producer and they were silent the whole time when they were near each other.

Can you imagine how many times they went to scratch their nose or adjust glasses with their middle finger?

What's the general consensus amongst Trekkies on the Abrams Trek films?
Do they appreciate the dumbing down and the focus on SW-like space battles?
Do they enjoy the interpretation of Spock as an emotional wreck?

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

Did 'Star Trek Beyond' do well at the box office? If not, coupled with the almost imminent train wreck that is 'Discovery', Paramount and CBS might shelve their Trek projects for a while... :erm:
Which I couldn't care less about. For me, it's TOS or bust.

---------- Post added at 10:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

Did 'Star Trek Beyond' do well at the box office? If not, coupled with the almost imminent train wreck that is 'Discovery', Paramount and CBS might shelve their Trek projects for a while... :erm:
Which I couldn't care less about. For me, it's TOS or bust.

STB did it's usual run I believe.

I'm not a high level Trekkie. I still have to sit through all of TNG, DSP, and the other one... Quantum Leap guy... Enterprise.

I only watched TOS, TAS, the TOS movies and the TNG movies and now the reboot movies.

As far as the reboot movies go, I liked STB.
This generation of Spock is his own identity, as much as the next Joker is in all the WB franchises.

The films will go on. There's always results from those.

I think the main reason they keep doing movies is because they can count on an audience going to a theater for a one-time watch of approx. 2 hours instead of sitting through a whole series.

There's a very strong level of expectations in terms of patience when it comes to what the studio thinks of their fans.

Sure, a lot of people love TOS and TNG and would by ever re-release.

But that number, no matter what, still does not outnumber the people who would watch it only on Netflix because it's fast and dirty.
No cases, no swapping, no physical means of dealing with it when they want to turn it off, and when it's off, it's nowhere in the house to deal with.
Out of sight, out of mind. :smrt:

The movies? Why not buy a single movie on bluray/dvd today?
It's small, it's only one thing you have to deal with.

I'm pretty much the only Trekkie I know in person. If I invited my friends or family I can actually invite, none of them would want to sit through 4 episodes of Star Trek for a marathon.
Maybe one. Just to be nice.
Forget a whole season.

The mentality of the general audiences that fills the seats at the box office are "if there's a book about it, I'll watch the movie instead".
No need to bring a holographic map of who's who and what's where.
With so many ongoing shows, people can only retain so much information to care about anything else.

And Star Trek was never that big to start off with.

The conventions, all those fans... Those are ALL the fans. Not "most" or "some". It's every single one in the same room.
That's an exaggeration, but just as well. Put them in a room and make a convention for people who are not Trekkies and you can take up a continent.
No reason to push for a tv series when no one buys it and would rather stream it (thus no revenue) and just make movies that DO make sales at home.

I'm buying the Star Trek movies.
They're a lot cheaper than the TV series.
TOS is probably about the only series I'll consider buying when it's on sale.
TNG will never go on sale.

Rogue One BD going on sale March 24.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/star_wars/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-blu-ray-trailer-cover-art-release-a149153

What kind of shitty box art is this?

It's the movie poster art. Hollywood does love it's photoshopped-floating-head-collages.

Rogue One BD going on sale March 24.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/star_wars/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-blu-ray-trailer-cover-art-release-a149153

What kind of shitty box art is this?



I like it. Shocker you don't.

Why is the robot so tiny? Why does the promo image for Dude With Long Hair have less grain than the other characters? Why are the TIE Fighters shooting red?

There are people on this website who could do better.

Why is the robot so tiny? Why does the promo image for Dude With Long Hair have less grain than the other characters? Why are the TIE Fighters shooting red?

Wow. That's nitpicky as fuck. But an even better nitpick to make is why is Jyn a giant all of a sudden? I should've said all this when the poster with the same problems came out!

Hell, I should say that about every Star Wars poster and their inconsistent character sizes and colors!

Grain? Seriously? Fuck me.

In all seriousness though, the only only thing I ask is why no Vader? Conidering he was on enough of the marketing, it's strange he's missing here. I guess they're saving him.

Besides, why do you expect for modern day movies to put enough effort in their posters? It's all gone to shit anyway. And this still looks better than any of that, so just stop.

I'm pretty sure that 3D double dip version will give something though.

Incredibly enough, Disney is actually issuing the 3D this time in the first release.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rogue-One-A-Star-Wars-Story-3D-Blu-ray/139136/

Incredibly enough, Disney is actually issuing the 3D this time in the first release.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rogue-One-A-Star-Wars-Story-3D-Blu-ray/139136/

Still can't wait for them to release another version later! :laugh:

It's the movie poster art. Hollywood does love it's photoshopped-floating-head-collages.

This popped into my head…

(http://imgur.com/9rYIsER)

In all seriousness though, the only only thing I ask is why no Vader? Conidering he was on enough of the marketing, it's strange he's missing here. I guess they're saving him.

That is pretty weird. You'd think they'd cram his mask wherever they could.


Besides, why do you expect for modern day movies to put enough effort in their posters? It's all gone to shit anyway. And this still looks better than any of that, so just stop.

That's true. :laugh:

Remember the crappo art for X-Men First Class?

https://i1.wp.com/www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/191430_195749240455540_170700836293714_553712_3837 225_o.jpg?resize=366%2C541https://i0.wp.com/www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/191430_195749243788873_170700836293714_553713_2329 810_o.jpg?resize=366%2C541

Or this recent promo image for It?

Incredibly enough, Disney is actually issuing the 3D this time in the first release.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rogue-One-A-Star-Wars-Story-3D-Blu-ray/139136/

It probably backfired when they tried it with TFA

It probably backfired when they tried it with TFA

Most likely. I at least knew to wait, which I'm sure others did as well.

Incredibly enough, Disney is actually issuing the 3D this time in the first release.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rogue-One-A-Star-Wars-Story-3D-Blu-ray/139136/

At the same time flatscreen manufacturers declared 3-D dead and will no longer make 3-D sets.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------


Why is the robot so tiny? He's waiting for you to rub him. Vigorously.

Why does the promo image for Dude With Long Hair have less grain than the other characters? He moisturizes daily.

Why are the TIE Fighters shooting red? They have ties to the Kremlin.

Rogue One BD going on sale March 24.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/star_wars/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-blu-ray-trailer-cover-art-release-a149153

What kind of shitty box art is this?

I think one of the biggest issues is how out-of-place Jyn Erso looks with everything else and the other various aspects. Especially when you've seen the original (), it's very noticeable and I think it looks terrible. It looks very blatantly altered.

Yes, Disney is releasing the 3D edition in USA, but so far it seems like it's a Walmart and Target exclusive.

http://i.imgur.com/e4wUYDy.gif

People here are so dumb. Literally why. The rules are here for everyone. Just because an user uploads free stuff for you shit hoarder doesn't mean they should have more privileges than you. He again bypassed the ban (for the fifth time and without even trying to look different, same layout, same spam uploads) and literally posted a banned label album. Hell, that's why he banned. It was a legit ban lol.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're a party pooper, ManRay! Now I won't get free stuff anymore that continue to bloat my computer with viruses!

(http://imgur.com/lR1Mkbt)

Reading several preview articles on The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. As I knew, I'm gonna have a hard time with it. I'm a clumsy gamer and I'm gonna get lots of game overs... and only will get good after dying 900 times. It's not exagerating. Breath of the Wild indeed is massive, and challenging, to an extent. You can do as you please, it's your adventure, you decide what you want to do. It's impressive, so far what I can see. I think this game will mark a big milestone in the Zelda story, probably as big as Ocarina of Time did back in 1998.

I can't believe after years of delays, the game comes out in only a few days.
I won't be able to play it for another couple months after it comes out. I'll have to avoid all sorts of gameplay videos and timeline spoilers.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

Can't WAIT for the soundtrack CD. I hope they include the orchestral arrangement from that one trailer.
I wonder if the music will be largely piano-based, as the trailers imply.

I have it pre-ordered and will be getting it the day of release. After that, broke. Worth it though. I can't wait for the soundtrack CD either, and indeed, that one Switch Presentation trailer music is the piece I've been wanting the most, it's so strong and powerful yet Nintendo hasn't released it anywhere. There's lots of piano in the soundtrack, yeah.

Also reading

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-original-cuts/

EDGE has given Breath of the Wild a 10/10 and is completely satisfied.

http://nintendoeverything.com/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-gets-first-review-in-edge/

Not an 8.8? :laugh:

Not an 8.8? :laugh:

This is not IGN. :laugh: IGN would've said "too much grass" or "too open"

Reading Thd Shit That Has Become This Site.

Full Of BS.


Members Dissapearing.
No Real Shares.
Stupid Pointless Topics.
No Real Discussions.....

Seriously What Has Happned Here?

Why?

Because people don't follow rules and we need to keep the place safe. Simple as that.

I'll admit corysun being banned was quite random, but I'm sure Leon had his reason.

Safe?
There is No Such Thing In This Industry...

Lol

Bart Oss is the king of "Fuck rules I do what I want" how many accounts does this guy seriously HAVE?

Make That Yourself?....















https://media.giphy.com/media/kbzCjhNJERwqY/200.gif

Hey man we're not all master Photoshoppers
I've barely mastered MS Paint

OOH! LOOK WHAT I FOUND:



And you always keep coming back.

"EDITS IGNORE LIST"....

;)

"EDITS IGNORE LIST"....

;)

Not necessary in slightest. It's just another bad day. It'll all pass by.

And you always keep coming back.

And you always take cheap shots.

You need to get laid. Or get meds. Or both.

:this:

:laugh:

And you always take cheap shots.

You need to get laid. Or get meds. Or both.

I reacted accordingly. Since Gold kept complaining about the state of Shrine, I felt the need to remind him that that he's just beating a dug up dead horse. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And why the fuck do you care if I do any of the shit I do? I'm just another member of this godforsaken forum. You pick and choose what you respond, and I just happened to go with this topic because I think it's stupid.

Just leave me alone, you prick.

*points out thing*

*does the same thing*


heh

:this:

:laugh:

And you? Why the hell do you bother? There's no real benefit to any of the shit you've posted today. You've been complaining about the reparations that the site has been going through, and thus calling all the attention to yourself.

Sure, I'm idiot for falling for the bait that you oh so perfectly set up. But guess what? I fucking care about what goes on here. Clearly you're only in it for all the shares that you know can't be here. Thus, you should've stuck to your word and left. Because in reality, there's nothing here for you.

So please, either grow up or get the hell out.

I Ain't Going Anywhere. I can Post Where I Want When I Want.
Tough Shit Deal With It!

I Am For The Music I said Multiple Times.... Lol.

*points out thing*

*does the same thing*


heh

Why the fuck do you care? Because clearly nothing ever got interesting until now.

Besides, I'm being serious. They're not.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------


I Ain't Going Anywhere. I can Post Where I Want When I Want.
Tough Shit Deal With It!

I'll deal with when you calm down, because clealy we both have been feeling like shit recently for different reasons. I just can't come of this negative feeling at the moment.

I was not referring to you. Perhaps I was too vague. 1951.

I Don't Feel Shit. I Am Fine. No Probs Here.....

Blah blah blah. That's all I am right now

Anyway.....


Gonna Go Read Something......

I Don't Feel Shit. I Am Fine. No Probs Here.....

It's just barely occuring to me that that FFShrine is being crap again spiel was more a mere complaint than anything else really. :facepalm:

I wish I could feel like you are right now. Because I'm thinking so much shit now that it's hurting my damn brain.

I'm just coming across like a raving lunatic, and I don't know how to stop it.

Think About The Things That Make You Smile.

Lsiten to Your Fav Music, Watch Your Fav Film.

Eat Ice Cream ect...


Stuff Like That....

Eat Ice Cream

That's exactly what I did. Thanks for reminding me I had such a thing around. :)

:)

http://i.imgur.com/8j6MzDx.gif

Once again, you show up pretty much when it's all "ended."

:laugh:

This spoke to me a lot, even if I didn't have the same experience. (http://buzzfeedreader.tumblr.com/post/155447228397)

You'd think all that constant teasing would motivate him to lose some weight at some point.
And it's not like fat people are the healthiest and most attractive bunch, not sure what kind of point he was trying to make with that.
He was certainly surrounded by very negative people, but being fat didn't seem to be the biggest problem there.

You'd think all that constant teasing would motivate him to lose some weight at some point.
And it's not like fat people are the healthiest and most attractive bunch, not sure what kind of point he was trying to make with that.
He was certainly surrounded by very negative people, but being fat didn't seem to be the biggest problem there.

He was trying to make a point on how being fat shouldn't be what defines you (as well as a thing to be ashamed of) and that you should just accept yourself for your own qualities. And I thought it was well explained enough, so I'm sure how one wouldn't understand it. I guess having been in some of the experiences he had been helped on my end.

Also, sorry about the earlier mess. I haven't been quite myself this week, but I'm aiming to fix it.

Once again, you show up pretty much when it's all "ended."

My generation was brought up believing it was rude to talk during the movie.

There's a difference between being overweight/chubby, and plain ol' fat.
If you're chubby, eh. Who cares.
If you're FAT... that ain't no good. If you've got a 9-5 job and are working to provide for a family, and don't have time for pushups, then you've got a good excuse. Otherwise, come on man, run around the neighborhood every once in a while.
"accepting yourself for your own qualities" is fine, but it can be perverted as a mask for "I'm a dumpster of a man but I don't want to change anything."

---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------


My generation was brought up believing it was rude to talk during the movie.

My generation laughs at that rule, unfortunately. It's just another reason why I don't like movie theaters.

My generation was brought up believing it was rude to talk during the movie.

So....did your generation also thought to eat popcorn after the movie ended? That's peculiar.

I get what you mean. Never had to deal with annoying people during the movies, thankfully.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------


There's a difference between being overweight/chubby, and plain ol' fat.
If you're chubby, eh. Who cares.
If you're FAT... that ain't no good. If you've got a 9-5 job and are working to provide for a family, and don't have time for pushups, then you've got a good excuse. Otherwise, come on man, run around the neighborhood every once in a while.
"accepting yourself for your own qualities" is fine, but it can be perverted as a mask for "I'm a dumpster of a man but I don't want to change anything."

Yes, I'm very well aware of that, and certainly do agree with it. However, this is more made to talk about the people that are very disrespectful towards anybody that can be considered to have any noticeable weight of any sorts, no matter how big. Thus, under that pretense, the moral makes more sense. It helps that the artist/writer of the comic seems to be more on the "chubbier" side of the spectrum that outright fat.


My generation laughs at that rule, unfortunately. It's just another reason why I don't like movie theaters.

I just don't understand it either. What makes them so special to be interrupting the experience that many others want to have? It's infuriating.

He was trying to make a point on how being fat shouldn't be what defines you

And yet he made the whole thing about obesity even though he clearly had other, more important problems.
People generally don't care if you're fat, unless you're an absolute whale of a person, in which case there's absolutely no excuse.

I just looked at the tags.. oh man..

And yet he made the whole thing about obesity even though he clearly had other, more important problems.
People generally don't care if you're fat, unless you're an absolute whale of a person, in which case there's absolutely no excuse.

It's pretty clear that his life went pretty differently from what should be the norm though. Hell, some of his "more important" problems did stem from the weight issue. I still do think that the point was that obesity shouldn't be what defines you, and I imagine he did it just to finally deal with it once and for all.


I just looked at the tags.. oh man..

Is there a particular thing that jumped out at you? I'm curious.

It's pretty clear that his life went pretty differently from what should be the norm though.

I agree. Had the message been "it's okay to be different, persevere", I would have had far fewer problems with the comic.


Hell, some of his "more important" problems did stem from the weight issue. I still do think that the point was that obesity shouldn't be what defines you, and I imagine he did it just to finally deal with it once and for all.

I'd wager that it's the other way around (fat because abusive parent(s), siblings, bullies).
Bullies, for example, pick up on anything, it doesn't matter if you're fat or not, so the problem wasn't him being fat.
Aside from the title "hey fatty" and the heavy emphasis on it throughout the comic, one glance at the tags shows that he indeed intended for it to be about obesity.


Is there a particular thing that jumped out at you? I'm curious.

#body image #male body image #fat positive

So....did your generation also thought to eat popcorn after the movie ended?

I'm afraid this movie will never end… *insert Legion BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM*

My generation was brought up believing it was rude to talk during the movie.

I'm very careful who I go to the movies with nowadays.
My younger brother? Forget about it. Prick pulls out his phone to light up the whole room just to see nothing happened.

At home, it's perfect environment.
Subtitles help.

So, Oscars happened. Zootopia won? Check. Lots of very well stablished people with lots of money and no worries in the world making cringy comments about politics when they don't know shit about it in the first place and they forget the Oscars are a movie thing? Check.

That Is What I Hate, A Ceromony About Films Turns Into Politics/Global Warming And Crap..... Seriously. :notgood:


Zootopia Dserved It! Best Choice!

If they want to talk down to the little people about the serious issue of the day, they should talk about something useful and beneficial. Like combating the pedophilia in Hollywood.

Best Picture: L̶a̶ ̶L̶a̶ ̶L̶a̶n̶d̶
Moonlight!

:laugh:

Best Picture: L̶a̶ ̶L̶a̶ ̶L̶a̶n̶d̶
Moonlight!

Sure it wasn't Moonstruck?

That Is What I Hate, A Ceromony About Films Turns Into Politics/Global Warming And Crap..... Seriously. :notgood:

They mentioned...or rather, bashed Donald Trump, in some way, shape, form, or relation, a total of 15 times. That was dumb.

Yh, That Crap Has No Place At A Film Ceremony.......

Or Anywhere.

Free speech? Tut tut. Can't have any of that.

I thought the Oscars were already determined before the show started.

Instead, they have a winning envelope for everyone involved.

It makes it all the sadder for DiCaprio. Jumping for that dangling string all those years...

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

:changspew:

http://www.imdb.com/oscars/2017-top-moments-from-the-oscars/ls062819393

I seriously thought that was The Boof at first. :rofldata:

That's what you get for sharing the same haircut.



Watching The Impossible (2012) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1649419) on Netflix.
The boy, Lucas, is played by the new Spider-Man: Tom Holland.

Free speech? Tut tut. Can't have any of that.

I *really* hate how people nowadays use the "free speech" argument for every bullshit they want to say, and as a excuse to face no consequences and say whatever they want. You use the "free speech" argument because it's against Trump. Was it for something you aren't against? You wouldn't say "free speech"..

Sure, free speech. On the right places. FUCK POLITICS, IN A THING THAT IS SUPOSED TO BE ALL ABOUT MOVIES. WHO CARES ABOUT TRUMP IN THE OSCARS. Why do rich people who have their lives fucking solved have to continously do this every single year? It's as simple as; THE OSCARS ARE A GALA ONLY ABOUT MOVIES. MOVIES. ENTERTAINMENT. *why* do we have to hear politics every single time a movie is presented. Like seriously who cares? No matter if it wasn't Trump related. Just zero politics in my cinema entertainment, please. As simple as that. You want to talk politics, do it in political programs. Ffs.

Or the Politics Thread....

http://i.imgur.com/TaQR5lM.gif

Ponyo, look in a mirror. And then go read the Dummies Guide to Logic.

Okay, I'll explain it more properly so people like you can understand:

Politics in political programs. Movies in movie related stuff. Sesame Street logic.

Well, now, that's being a bit strict. The point is that it was excessive.

No, it's not strict. People see movies to disconnect from real life. Why be reminded of politics when just watching the Oscars for entertainment?

I would suggest anyone offended by respectful open dialogue leave the room and go back to playing in their doll house where they get to make up all the rules.

No, it's not strict. People see movies to disconnect from real life. Why be reminded of politics when just watching the Oscars for entertainment?

That's true. But any spillover whatsoever, in any general form, except from political programs, shouldn't necessarily be immediately looked at as wrong. It's okay to give it some mention. My point, is that it was excessive, and mostly negative. 15 times. No matter what or how you're talking about it, that's too much for something related entirely to films.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

Or to put this another way, the majority (or some of) of things that were said were a little more fitting to the context of a Comedy Central Roast than the Oscars.

The biggest surprise to me is that people still watch the Oscars. It's just a bunch of millionaire goobers giving each other awards for playing pretend.

What doesn't surprise me are those people who continue to this day to complain about a bunch of millionaire goobers giving each other awards for playing pretend while at the same time expending incalculable numbers of dollars and hours consuming and discussing the by-products of said goobers "play".

*Yawn*