moviefreakedmind

I love spicy things. I love pain!

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it’s interesting how largely immune to the soccer craze the United States is. It’s kind of like how ABBA was a huge hit everywhere on Earth except for the U.S.

The US has had some peaks and valleys with interest. MLS has actually been around for 25 years now and I’m reasonably sure it’s fairly successful (granted I don’t follow it but it’s still around and it gets decent tv coverage). And interest does spike during most World Cup years, especially when the US is good (relatively speaking). Women’s World Cup was very popular last time out IIRC, especially given that we won the thing somehow.

EDIT: Looking at the short-lived history of the Women’s WC, we’ve done quite well. What’s up with that, rest of the world?

And Dancing Queen was number one in the US for a little bit, and you even hear it on American radio stations from time to time, but compared to how the whole thing was received in the rest of the world, it’s nothing.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Disney spent $4 billion on Lucasfilm plus the cost of 4 Star Wars movies since then. With toy sales also being sluggish, I doubt they’ve recouped their investment yet and I guarantee the return on Solo has somebody at Disney upset.

The first three films grossed

$2,068,223,624
$1,056,057,273
$1,332,539,889

Minus cost of making those, plus home sales, plus related everything else, I bet they’ve recouped their investment.

If those films cost on average about 500,000,000 dollars each, then I doubt that they recouped their investment, especially if you add the money they lost on Solo. I don’t know what their toy sales are like or how much of that money goes straight to Lucasfilm, so I can’t speak to that, but there’s no way that they recouped their investment based on those films, not unless home video sales have made them over a billion dollars.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.

That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.

I’m saying that neither is okay and if the federal government needs to step in in order to protect your rights, then I’m fine with that.

What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s a pretty selfish view of justice if you want to be state by state.

Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.

That’s not the case in any of the examples that I listed.

I think it’s interesting how largely immune to the soccer craze the United States is. It’s kind of like how ABBA was a huge hit everywhere on Earth except for the U.S.

I don’t think that “socialist” is an insult that works anymore. Republicans have been calling Obama and even Hillary “socialists” for a decade now and they obviously weren’t too threatening, and their economic policies are far more reasonable than people like Bush or Trump’s. Anyone that would be won over by that kind of Republican argument wouldn’t be voting for a Democrat anyway. I agree though that they should call themselves Social Democrats since that would be a more accurate label.

I dressed as a mass-murderer the first time I played Grand Theft Auto V.

I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.

The premise of killing someone because they might enjoy prison is bizarre to me. I wasn’t aware that a convict’s enjoyment of his punishment was taken into account. What if a death-row inmate is suicidal? Do you give him life in prison because he wants to die?

I’m sure that if a state banned churches from preaching against gay people, then conservatives would just say that Christians in that state should move somewhere else.

I was telling Jar Jar how to sleep.

Libertarians and conservatives are only opposed to the federal government infringing on their rights. If a state government does it, then it’s just fine.

Take Benadryl about twenty minutes before going to bed.

Possessed said:

Yeah I was a little puzzled by you recommending the third but not the first exorcist. But not worth mentioning. But now it’s been mentioning it so I’m voicing my confusion. I don’t watch it anymore because I just don’t think I can handle the harrowing and crushing atmosphere that film alone gives off any more, i don’t want that kind of energy in my home any more. But it’s an excellent film.

I love that kind of atmosphere. I want more of it in my home.

The murderer at the newspaper office used a legally-purchased shotgun even though he’d been investigated previously for threats against people at the Capital Gazette.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624700775/new-details-emerge-about-deadly-shootings-in-capital-gazette-newsroom

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m almost a 100% misanthrope at this point, which next to no expectations of good behavior from my fellow man, and even I am amazed at how little the American people care about the massacre that just happened.

While I may be a snowflake because I don’t want you guys rapestaring at your female coworkers, I did post about that earlier.

I know. There’s no such thing as rapestaring by the way. Staring isn’t rape. I’m sick of people watering down rape and trying to lump in other bullshit that has nothing to do with it. I don’t stare at people at work either so I don’t appreciate being grouped with those who do.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’m pretty sure TLJ has had about as much hate as the Prequels.

I’d love to know how you can be pretty sure about that.

With my age group at least, I’m fairly certain it does. Most people I talk to don’t mind the prequels and dislike TLJ.

Ever heard of the concept of small sample size or anecdotal evidence?

Your scientifically credible evidence for backing your position consists of…?

Come on man. My position is that you can’t make a statistically relevant data set from talking to your friends. What position do you think I was presenting?

I have no real data, but I would not be surprised at all if the 15-20 year-olds are largely not offended by the prequels.

I know a lot of people in my circle that don’t like TLJ and I don’t actually know anyone that likes it. My sample-size is only about 10, so I’m not saying that means much of anything, but I think it would be a fair assumption that TLJ at least has had a mixed reception.

Handman said:

What about where he said I was objectively wrong and proceeded to tell me why I like the things I do? I don’t need anyone telling me why I think the way I do while they prop themselves up on faulty logic and off-base reasoning.

I didn’t perceive any of that. I really didn’t, I’m just being honest with y’all.

I didn’t say it was good for me. I love to sleep and I love to sleep hard.

Nien Nunb said:

I still don’t buy Lucasfilm’s excuse that it’s a time and money thing. Haven’t there already been a few notable people in the industry who have offered to pay for a restoration?

There were some offhand comments about people doing it “for free” or something like that, but unless someone offered (in a legally-binding, official document) to fund a restoration of the originals then I wouldn’t consider it a genuine or realistic offer.

I’m almost a 100% misanthrope at this point, which next to no expectations of good behavior from my fellow man, and even I am amazed at how little the American people care about the massacre that just happened.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Unless this event involves someone shoving a soccer ball up Putin’s ass, then I’m not interested.

I think he keeps that kind of stuff private.

I know Mueller has video of it . . . Oh wait, wrong dictator. 😉

I actually only really started taking it nightly a couple weeks ago. I really enjoy it. It’s something I look forward to.

Scream. It’s one of the few movies worth watching in my opinion.

My problem is because it’s just some corporate bureaucracy bullshit designed to make the robotic corporate employees into even bigger robots and to control people even more. I hope I never have to work an office job ever again.