"In the News" thread

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
They don't look overly... capable. I think there was little more to this than a bunch of angry yokel wannabe "defenders of freedom" talking big and playing with their guns and explosives. I highly doubt they were remotely capable of getting anywhere near Whitmer, let alone Gov. Blackface down here. Even if they could effectively "plan" something like this, I highly doubt they'd have had the balls to even attempt to execute it, let alone have any chance at success against a highly capable and well trained State Police protective service.

This smells of the feds blowing it up to say, "Look what we did!" And the complicit media is blowing it up to try to blame evil "far right conspiracy theorists," even though it's already come out that these guys were all over the map politically (thus, why this has lost a lot of steam already). And, of course, the highly unpopular govs will look to blow it up for sympathy anywhere they can get it now that they have both grossly overstepped on their respective COVID shutdowns. These guys will get sent up the river for being stupid and the whole thing will likely die a slow, quiet death as everything else 2020 throws at us steals the headlines back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt301

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
That sounds so familiar... as if someone postulated something very similar to that somewhere recently... 🤔
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
I ran across this gem and it made me chuckle...


"Banner also said he painted the word "HUFFY" on the side of his bike, ensuring he has no advantage over the bikes that came out of the factory as bicycles. "
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
I feel like someone should try this for real and make them say emphatically that motorcycles aren't bicycles and do not meet the qualifications for the competition, regardless of the competitor's feelings. It would get actual headlines and highlight the absurdity of she-males competing with girls.

I don't know why the state/local sports people don't just remove all ambiguity and state that if you have a y-chromosome, you must compete over here. No-Y-people compete over there. If they structured the rules that way, the arguments about feelings would be moot. There is no such thing as "feeling like you don't have a y-chromosome"... yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt301

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
You keep expecting people to be rational and intelligent about these kind of things. Those adjectives are not welcome in the "I feel like I'm a..." discussion. (And, yes, I use the word "discussion" liberally. There's usually a lot more whining, screaming and crying than discussing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt301

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
I suppose you are correct. In the back of my mind, at some point, I expect the adults in the room will stand up and put an end to the inmates running the asylum. There must be a tipping point where people say, "this is why we can't have nice things," and rebel against sheer stupidity. And with The Don appointing a slew of new judges, hopefully the rational people won't lose every court battle like they have the last 20 years.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
Salt water is no joke. Even the air blowing off it will rust the crap out of unprotected metal miles inland from the coast. I’m sure transiting it for that long is a constant battle. I could imagine what the fleets looked like coming home after WWII.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
Who doesn't love Candace Owens?! She's smart, hot, and she bravely swims against the norms for an AA female. Every interview I see/hear with her, I always learn something.

She has a nice career as a contrarian pundit/activist, but I'd give anything if she'd run for office. No one could argue with her on a stage. They couldn't slander her in ads. They couldn't paint her with the old-white-racist-man brush. The GOP needs more people of her caliber in the candidate pool.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
28,262
789
113
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
Who doesn't love Candace Owens?! She's smart, hot, and she bravely swims against the norms for an AA female. Every interview I see/hear with her, I always learn something.

She has a nice career as a contrarian pundit/activist, but I'd give anything if she'd run for office. No one could argue with her on a stage. They couldn't slander her in ads. They couldn't paint her with the old-white-racist-man brush. The GOP needs more people of her caliber in the candidate pool.

Owens/Ivanka 2020 vs Harris/AOC

PUSSY FIGHT
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Videoviper

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
And once again, they want to put more stress on an electrical grid that is already grossly insufficient.

I have a question... does California NOT know where electricity comes from? Despite all their grand proclamations, most of the power they use comes from natural gas and coal. Not that much comes from renewables, and they have successfully given nuclear a bad name. So they're going to ban NG so that other places can burn MORE NG to send them power from far away. How very green of them. :rolleyes:

 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
I truly enjoy a good movie theater experience (mostly the ones you can get restaurant food at), even though it was a rare treat even before the 'rona came by and ruined everything good. But... I guess it comes down to which a-holes you like less: the ones that make you subscribe for new movies or the ones who charge you $8 for crappy popcorn. The local theaters certainly didn't help themselves with the constant price gouging. I doubt you'll see too many people standing up to defend them for that reason.

I wonder more what will happen to movies and normal cable and satellite television. Will those movies ever make their way to FX, TNT or AMC? Will you have to jump from stream to stream (or pay $$$ to carry them all) to see the new cool stuff in the future? Or will it all eventually end up on the regular teevee anyway like it always has?

I'm already anticipating Disney upping their monthly in the not too distant future. They've been hemorrhaging money since corona closed them and the theaters down, and there's no way they keep it as low as it has been for long. Not sure what decision I'll make on that when it happens. But I definitely have NO interest in picking up a bunch of other streaming services... ever.

Oh, that reminds me: TNT had a "preview" airing of The Flight Attendant series the other night in prime time (DVR'ed for us). That's an HBO+ exclusive. We watched the episode but didn't take the bait (even with the "free trial" offer :rolleyes: ). It felt... odd. Will we ever see any more of it? Probably not. I dunno. I guess I'm just annoyed yet again at the modern way things are marketed...
 
Last edited:

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
28,262
789
113
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
Yeah it will be interesting.. I don't see people pining for overpriced concessions anytime soon, but the theater experience is still not matched at home (generally, unless you literally have a home theater). I had dwindled down to discount ($6) movie theater visits, and/or if a BIG movie was coming out (Marvel, Star Wars, etc) and then I'd go opening night.

I do think the streaming wars are going to get messy though. Netflix is upping their price to like $19/month! $19!! They do have a lot of interesting content.. moreso original than bought.. but that is getting ridiculous.

This is an interesting strategy. Essentially it's only streaming for 1 month, in line with theater viewing. Then it goes off the streaming service for 6-8 months I'd guess, so they can sell disks and digital copies, and then it'll return (and go to cable/etc). Supposedly this is only for 2021, but I could see them keeping it if it works revenue-wise. I am guessing this is going to drive a lot of subscriber $$$ and there is zero cut needed to be given to theaters or marketing.. pure profit!
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
I guess it depends, at least in part, on how the word of mouth goes. Disney tried it with Mulan. They made it a premium product (rejoice, you must pay extra!) on D+. All indications I heard were that it tanked, due to non-existent to bad word of mouth, and most folks saying, "Pay extra? Buahahahahahahahahahahah... no."

I think it might be different with a Marvel phase whateveritisnow full on movie. Maybe the next Spidey? Dr Strange? They have enough of a record of being good enough to pay extra for. But, on the other hand, they've already established that series content from SW is included (Thank the Maker!) so we already get The Mandalorian (some of the best SW since ROTJ) for the price of normal admission. And I believe we also expect to get the upcoming Marvel series' for no added cost.

Can they generate Avengers-like interest for something you have to pay extra for on the small(er) screen? I don't think SW can do it at this point. Nobody would trust it enough since the sequel trilogy, save for some epic word of mouth. Similar with anything DC. I don't think the Snyder cut is gonna make much of a splash. Maybe Marvel or maybe even Pixar? (Of course, Toy Story 4 was lame, so who knows). Only time will tell. These different streaming services are trying very hard to rise from the crowd and be relevant/essential viewing. I wonder who comes out on top and who fades away...
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
28,262
789
113
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
I guess it depends, at least in part, on how the word of mouth goes. Disney tried it with Mulan. They made it a premium product (rejoice, you must pay extra!) on D+. All indications I heard were that it tanked, due to non-existent to bad word of mouth, and most folks saying, "Pay extra? Buahahahahahahahahahahah... no."

I think it might be different with a Marvel phase whateveritisnow full on movie. Maybe the next Spidey? Dr Strange? They have enough of a record of being good enough to pay extra for. But, on the other hand, they've already established that series content from SW is included (Thank the Maker!) so we already get The Mandalorian (some of the best SW since ROTJ) for the price of normal admission. And I believe we also expect to get the upcoming Marvel series' for no added cost.

Can they generate Avengers-like interest for something you have to pay extra for on the small(er) screen? I don't think SW can do it at this point. Nobody would trust it enough since the sequel trilogy, save for some epic word of mouth. Similar with anything DC. I don't think the Snyder cut is gonna make much of a splash. Maybe Marvel or maybe even Pixar? (Of course, Toy Story 4 was lame, so who knows). Only time will tell. These different streaming services are trying very hard to rise from the crowd and be relevant/essential viewing. I wonder who comes out on top and who fades away...

But that's the beauty of this.. HBO Max is getting every WB first run movie AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.

Unlike “Mulan” — which Disney+ charged its subscribers $30 to watch after unsuccessfully waiting for a theater release — or “Trolls: World Tour” — which Universal Pictures released to VoD — there will be no extra charge for HBO Max subscribers to watch these new films.

So imagine if Mulan had been included @ no additional charge. I bet a lot of people would have given it a play and more of a chance than a $30 "premium" type thing.

I feel like this is giving HBO Max a BIG leg up over the other services.. which they can do since WB owns HBO. Disney COULD follow suit with Disney+, but as of yet they haven't done so.

It's 'free', it's only for a month.. so if people really do like it, they may pay after that month to see it again or own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderDan19

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
Yeah, I was down to 1-2 theater trips per year, usually a superhero film and a SW film. While I don't have a theater in my house per-se, I have a giant TV, 7.1 surround sound, a super comfy couch, and cheap snacks.

Will I miss occasional overpriced trips to the movies for big cultural touchstone films? Sure, I suppose. Will I lose any sleep over theaters going away? Not likely. Home theaters are not the same experience, but they've narrowed the gap enough that I'll be hard pressed to care a whole lot.

It's much like live sports. In my younger days, I spent every-other weekend at a UT football game or nascar race. In the last decade I've been to exactly two events, both just so my son could have the experience. Part of the reason we don't go as much anymore is just having a family and being busy, but it's naïve to think that a good chunk of the reason isn't the 65" tv sitting 7 ft from my face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderDan19

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
28,262
789
113
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
Yeah I mean having an 82" TV and surround sound is NICE. It's still not the same as a gigantic screen and full real ass-shaking sound.

Definitely good enough for most standard fare movies.. but like you said, the big ones, the ones you talk about for weeks, those were fun to see in theaters. I would have seen Matrix 4 in theaters, even if I'm super skeptical that it'll be any good. DUNE? Maybe. Godzilla vs KONG and Mortal Kombat? $6 discount night, drunk, definitely.

Have to figure we'll see the smaller chains go away, maybe the bigger ones buy up some of their spaces. I do like that some are doing screenings where you +9 people can rent out the theater for a movie for like $100. $10/person seems fair for a private showing.. but it depends what movies they can show.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
I'm not an expert on the movie theater industry, surprise, surprise. I understand why AMC would be unhappy about this, but why would AMC have any sway over studios? If a studio makes a film, are they contractually obligated to exclusively offer it to theaters first? Are they not allowed to make direct-to-streaming content?

You'd think that if they make a movie, they could release it when and how they see fit, theater chains be damned. It would be like Wal-Mart fighting hasbro b/c BBTS got an exclusive toy. Feels very wagging-the-dog.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
28,262
789
113
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
I'm not an expert on the movie theater industry, surprise, surprise. I understand why AMC would be unhappy about this, but why would AMC have any sway over studios? If a studio makes a film, are they contractually obligated to exclusively offer it to theaters first? Are they not allowed to make direct-to-streaming content?

You'd think that if they make a movie, they could release it when and how they see fit, theater chains be damned. It would be like Wal-Mart fighting hasbro b/c BBTS got an exclusive toy. Feels very wagging-the-dog.

I imagine it's a bit more contractually entwined since ALL theaters can sell is movies (and popcorn) whereas Walmart can sell a ton of other things and doesn't need Hasbro. Now theaters can sell lots of other movies too.. but it still whittles down their potential if a big player backs out.

I am sure there is also a lot of other you scratch my balls, I scratch yours with regards to theater count, product placement, etc. Why does X movie get Y number of screens on premiere day vs a competitor?
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
I have no doubt there are agreements in place for all sorts of various things in the marketing and distribution realms, but the basic decision to distribute your film however you see fit, especially in a pandemic when most theaters are closed, seems like a fundamental right big studios wouldn't give up so easily.

Seems like whoever owns the movie rights and financed the film should be able to recoup their investment in the best way possible, no matter what the popcorn jockeys say. I'll be curious what kind of legal standing AMC thinks it has and what loopholes for catastrophic events the hollywood lawyers have in the fine print.
 

Videoviper

illuminati
Officer Club
Aug 15, 2012
5,697
316
83
Behind a camera watching you!
The theaters work with certain distributers, (think how every shop is either coke pepsi or other) Theaters are contracted with their distributers who have negotiated already that they will deliver X number of films at every Y number of weeks to provide fresh content. So unless you are a super rich theater you likely aren't using multiple distributors unless you have a blockbuster that you would pay rate+X for.

Now add to this the distribution model, theaters pay XXX for movies, DvD bring in XX+? with the HBO/showtimes only paying X because it is not first run. This differs from the Netflix HBO Maxx model where they would pay XXX to be the first run, This is usually done when said studio has helped finance the movie. (Not the case in the WB deal.)

So for sake of argument, theaters come back & things get back to "normal" now theaters can choose not to run WB movies, This is the general bulk of the profit, & biggest indicator how well a film does over time. Really some clunkers of a movie can still turn profit 20+ years later if the broadcast rights play out right.

So with theaters out of the picture why should HBO pay XXX for a studio now losing a lot of money, because they cut their leg off to save the toe?

Ultimately the theater model has been changing for a while, & its possible what we see in theaters could be totally different. I would love to see more of an event type place where theaters could be used to do corporate events/plays/rent out & play movies (But hey I am the AV guy, I like to do contract work more)
 
Last edited:

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
Dollars to donuts it wasn't a native that set that off. Even our crazies won't ruin christmas.

UNLESS it was for the insurance money. Could be a business that the pandemic has cratered and they decided insurance fraud was their only way out.

But I will still be stunned if it wasn't some fur-ner who hates baby jeebus.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,770
696
113
46
VA
Last I heard is that it was set off in an RV and that the perp did himself in the process. Portable meth lab? Filled it with CNG and struck a smoke? 🤷‍♂️
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
9,455
857
113
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
From the news I've seen, it was just a disgruntled old guy working alone who wanted to "be remembered". I think he had mental issues. He apparently was not out to hurt people since he did it early morning and broadcast a warning for people to leave the area. All very strange for a bomber.

But he did it right outside the ATT hub, and his father(?) had worked for ATT, and so they think there might be a connection there. It took out half the state's 911 grid for several hours, not sure why that was running through a single office in the first place, seems strange. Lesson learned I suppose. I don't think he left behind any notes or manifestos or anything, but they've raided his home and I'm sure a thorough search of his computer will reveal some kind of motive.

Like all events of this type, they interviewed his neighbors who all said he was quiet and kept to himself and they were shocked he was involved. No matter the location or tragedy, this is the exact same thing "the neighbors" always say.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯