I love SLJ, but what a (public) temper-tantrum. I realize actors often have unique personalities and that he’s earned a lot of his success… But he’s also operating at some of the highest levels of privilege, wealth, fame, and adoration. And that’s not enough for him…?
A lot of actors think they have been snubbed by the Academy (some rightly so). But to publicly blame your directors and editors comes across as very whiney and is unprofessional. If he wants control over how something turns out, he should direct something, but currently that’s not his job.
Yes, that’s a good way to put it. He basically thinks he deserves an award, and the many people who vote for them do not. They could be wrong, they could be biased, there could have been a lot of performances that just barely surpassed him that year, etc etc. But he’s not entitled to an award, no one is! And again, I would argue he has been recognized for his work in many ways.
If you disagree, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t use straw-man arguments. I had several points in my comment and “he shouldn’t want to be recognized” was not one of them.
Nothing in this article suggests he thinks he deserved the award. What he thinks he deserved was to have his work showcased so that he could be considered, and that's entirely reasonable.
But he’s also operating at some of the highest levels of privilege, wealth, fame, and adoration. And that’s not enough for him…?
He's talking about the Academy Awards. You know, little gold statues for being famous enough at playing make believe to be noticed, and and good enough at it to be considered as one of the best of the well known.
If there's anything the rich, privileged actors can publicly whinge about, it's probably this.
The Luthor they haven’t done on film yet is my favorite, the Luthor who is physically fit, super intelligent, successful, charming.
Luthor was the pinnacle of what a human could be. Like ozymandias in watchmen. His name is Alexander, and he is supposed to be a modern day namesake. He is the perfect human, who is almost destined to be a world leader, then suddenly Superman appears, and can fly without effort, making Luthor who worked his ass off #2
Then Luthor finds out supes is an alien. Luthor believes that it is his human right to rule over earth if he is capable, and an alien has no right to stop him. If Superman had appeared in ancient times, would be have stopped Alexander, or Caesar or Augustus, would he have had the right to interfere in human affairs to that extent? Luthor went mad when Superman appeared, and won’t stop till he’s dead.
I like this take off Luthor as a xenophobe who thinks Superman, an immigrant has no business stopping his rise to power
I like it because you could see how it could be convincing if you didn’t know him. And I always figured that’s how it is with both Lex Luthor and Doom, they sound like good guys to the people they manipulate, but their motivations are based on pure ego.
“To continue offering you high quality original programming like X and Y, we have to raise our price for Amazon Prime. But don’t worry, we’re now adding a lower cost ad-based alternative called Amazon Subprime.”
So, as usual, most people will be fine with it and put the plastic bag back over their head.
The group of people that came up with this bill and it’s wording have no idea how the internet works. The idea that a site needs to pay to provide a link to another site is not well though out. The internet is built on links.
Canadian news companies shot themselves in the foot here. They want social media site to not summarize their news articles (this keeps users on the social media site). At the same time news companies also don’t want social media site to link to the news article (this directs users to the news site).
When news articles are summarized by social media sites it means that a individual can read the news article without going to a news site directly, thus a social media site gains financial with ad revenue directly from “content” it did not create.
What news sites wanted is user come to their sites directly to generate ad revenue on their platform. So a link would help users find this “content” and benefits news sites. Though news companies now also want to double dip and request that social site pay news companies for the link to their site.
In short, Canadian news companies wanted their cake and eat it too.
I’m not entirely sure how one could create a internet of interconnected computers and servers without links to one another and the webpages they serve.
Short of maybe making one “central hub” controlled by one state/entity. Though this would probably not turn out great.
Short of maybe making one “central hub” controlled by one state/entity. Though this would probably not turn out great
I think public search engines is a good idea though it would be multiple states
I suppose it’s because I’m old so I don’t like how centralized and profit driven the internet has become but I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used
I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used
It’s just strange when the law gets involved to carve out weird special cases for special interests.
If site operators don’t want incoming connections to their systems without having record of payment received from a referring party, they can simply deny the request. Hell, put up a big red notice that says “You are not permitted to access this website because the place from whence you came refuses to pay for your access. Please encourage them to do so to help fund our wonderful content!” for all anyone cares.
This is all perfectly negotiable through boring old contract law that has been around forever.
If Facebook wasn’t allowed to show more than just a link then they would react in a similar manner
Funny thing is that Facebook gave publishers what they call Open Graph many years ago to allow them exacting control over what the links entail. All of Canada’s major publications have adopted Open Graph. If you are seeing more than just a link, it is because the publication has explicitly given more information to Facebook to use.
If you don’t want Facebook to have that information… maybe don’t provide it?
If said posting fell under fair use there is little the publication can do, but that’s on purpose! We created fair use laws specifically to allow that behaviour. If that is not what we want anymore, logically we would revert the law, not come up with all kinds of weird and contrived bandaids to help only special friends.
If the post fell short of fair use, the publication would have the legal right to seek penalization for the person who posted the content. It would also be a violation of Facebook’s terms of service. In this case, the answer to your question is essentially yes. It cannot be prevented, per se, but corrective action can be taken – which also serves to dissuade others from doing the same in the future.
Yes, you are quite right that the Canadian news media does not appropriately understand the technology they are trying to use and regulation should disallow their use of it going forward.
I’m not entirely sure how one could create a internet of interconnected computers and servers without links to one another
One could always look at the history books, I guess. It is believed that the first real-world use of hyperlinks on the internet took place in 1991. It is also believed that the Internet as we know it was born in 1983. That means we lived through eight actual years of this “unimaginable” internet.
It is the NiH syndrome attempt to recreate Usenet all over again. One would think the audience is smart enough to read between the lines, but then again, the audience doesn’t understand the difference between the internet and services on the internet, so I suppose I wasn’t smart enough to recognize that I couldn’t be so generous. I too am part of the same audience.
You actually made the argument for the bill, and then twisted it to justify Facebook and Google’s domination of the ad market.
The specific problem they’re solving is that that there’s a majority of Facebook users who get their news from Facebook, and probably the majority of those users don’t actually click through, so the news organizations get no money. Facebook and their users are benefitting from getting headlines, but the companies incurring all the costs to generate those headlines are getting too little money from that to sustain themselves. This is why this bill has to exist and why it’s necessary to protect Canadian news organizations.
That is a stupid argument. I agree about the summary part, but paying even for just a link is idiotic. If someone asks me for the directions to a restaurant, I don’t have to pay the restaurant for giving directions to it. If they did ask for cash for this, I’d simply stop recommending the restaurant. I have no duty to them, and they have no right to me.
Facebook is doing the same thing. You want payment even if I only point people to you? Then I will simply stop pointing people to you. I owe you nothing. If I didn’t provide a summary but the people still don’t click through, then maybe your content is shit and people aren’t interested. Why should I have to pay to protect you from that?
The analogy makes no sense lol you’re not a content aggregator and people don’t eat directions.
News websites produce content that generates value for social networks. If that value is worth paying for having that content (the link tax) is a matter of accounting only. Facebook seems to believe it’s not for now, that’s all there is to it.
I said I have no problem with a tax for content aggregators. If they provide a summary of the content so that users don’t have to visit your site. That’s fair.
But wanting to be paid also for just a hyperlink? That’s idiotic. That is a service they are receiving (for free). Why do I say that? Because when social media stop linking to content at all, the media producers start complaining about reduced traffic. So the links clearly provide value to the media companies.
So they simply took it too far. “we want to be paid for the service we provide” (the content itself) is fair. “We want to be paid for a service we actively want and are receiving for free” (the hyperlinking to their site on social media) is not.
Is the movie actually understandable without subtitles?
The plot and story for Tenet was right up my alley, but my inability to understand the dialog frustrated the crap out of me - and I have a pretty solid home audio setup.
After having seen it, there are some scenes where it is difficult to follow the dialog which I’m sure is intentional. I haven’t seen Tenet but I think Oppenheimer is not as bad in this regard, in part because there’s less exposition – this is all based on real events in the real world and there aren’t a lot of mechanics to have to explain, and also because the story isn’t as plot-driven as many of Nolan’s thrillers. No MacGuffins, no car chases, shootouts or real twists; it’s more about the man, his relationships and how his career plays out. That said, for example there is a scene where he’s talking to his wife outdoors, it’s windy and they’re not facing camera and the fact that I couldn’t follow what they were saying did take me out… instead of being engaged in the conversation I was more aware I was sitting there watching Chris Nolan dialogue, waiting for it to be over.
just watched it in a barbenheimer combo. the dialogue wasn’t as clear as in barbie, but much better than tenet! So still ‘nolany’ dialogue, but well watchable without subtitles.
how are you just allowed to drastically lower the quality of a subscription like this. yeah i’m selling my new streaming service, it has 7 channels, $1 a month. no actually sorry it’s $7, 3 channels, and 2 of those channels just run ads on a loop. thanks for keeping autorenew on.
I’m just hoping it doesn’t go the way of RoboCop and the total recall remakes. Wesley Snipes is the perfect role for that, basically Hugh Jackman’s wolverine.
Maybe we just need to let Hollywood do the AI thing for a while so people can see how creatively bankrupt the execs are.
The problem with that though, lots of studios are already creatively bankrupt and most people don’t seem to care. IMO the recent Mario movie could’ve been a hell of a lot better and instead, it’s like a really tasty candy that loses it’s flavor fast. 90% of Hollywood’s releases today fall under that same category of quality and it’s still making studio lots of money.
Obviously I fully support the writer’s strike, but I’m afraid it might just mean fuck all in the end because the population just doesn’t seem to care about good story structure and character chemistry and such. I realize Mario may just be a kids movie, but so was The Incredibles and that movie had way better story structure.
Maybe we just need to let Hollywood do the AI thing for a while so people can see how creatively bankrupt the execs are.
I don’t think this will end like you think it will. Last time we had a writer’s strike, we got reality “reality” TV, a cursed genre that continues to grow more popular and more vapid than ever.
I pay for Prime for the next day postage, prime video is just an extra i occasionally use. I’ll just pirate their stuff in future and ignore their clunky TV app
deadline.com
Top