Amentep

They could subvert expectations and go for "Old New Orleans". Or "Nouveau Orleans". Or "Orleans Where the Mutate Crabs Eat You".

A lot of the early press was that it felt like a war film. Perhaps its just me but if Star Wars is going to be a bigger filmic brand, they probably can't make all of their films be "Star Wars" space fantasy adventures. Like Marvel has been introducing elements of other genres (like the very 70s spy-film vibe of WINTER SOLDIER), they'll probably need to embrace other film genres into the SW universe.

Maybe Not really knowing anything about the business I was surprised to hear that a movie making 60% abroad was a big deal. Given the entirety of the world I just assumed that would be normal Boy was I wrong Iirc, the usual split is 60/40 in favor of domestic. Some movies do well, but a lot don't. Some movies don't get fully released abroad (like Ghostbusters not making it to China). Othertimes movies are produced by one entity and distributed domestically by them but by a different company overseas meaning only the domestic gross goes to cover the expense.

There are some films that do so well outside of the US that the US film-makers make sequels regardless of stateside performance. Conan, for example, has a sequel because of how well it did in Europe which doubled the films profitability. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief mad 60% of its $230 million internationally, thus the sequel. I think though the international box-office is becoming more important - particularly with Chinese funding companies investing in some of these big-budget spectacle films (Alibaba Picture Group put money towards Star Trek Beyond and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, for example) As I recall have one "****" and a bunch of other cursewords or two "****s" is an automatic PG-13. Its the reason why an otherwise innocuous film will have a character bust a couple of "****s" out. The reason why PG-13 is the sought after rating is because post-Temple of Doom the PG rating was seen as a secondary "kiddie" rating with G (in fact most animated films are PG instead of G now). Gone from PG was intense scary sequences (like in Temple of Doom), violence and brief non-sexual nudity. Despite years of proof otherwise (pretty much all of the drive-in fare and cheap slasher films of the 70s and 80s), the general thought is that R rated films are considered "limited in audience" (partially because of various lawsuit that led to cracking down on underage and unescorted youngsters buying tickets). Until recently (Deadpool for example) an R rating was considered a box-office deathknell. Even horror films, long the purveyor of cheap R-rated thrills of the grindhouse era have mostly moved into PG-13 scares (a point often derrided by horror & gore fans).

The first one had a relatively modest big budget ($60 million) and did ~$230 million worldwide. Over 60% of that was in foreign territories, but it was worth it for the producers involved to make a second one.

Actually, the film is being called sexist by some reviewers. Both Harley Quinn and the Enchantress are oversexualized, don't you know? It's also been called sexist because of something Slipknot does, and racist because El Diablo is the only Hispanic male and he runs a gang. And racist due to the use if BET.

There was aleady an animated movie and an animated TV show in tge works before the new film came out. It seems a stretch to me to tie the existence if the animated films as any sort of comment pro or con in relation to the live action film.

Weather is probably a bit part of it - might even be why Pennsylvania was dumped after the pilot. I'd imagine that Harlan being a smaller town (so less places to stay) and not necessarily as accessible as a location in California might also be a factor. Most of Harlan County was made up of small mining camps and a lot of unoccupied mountain space for many, many years and last time I was there (some years back, admittedly) a lot of the roads were small and winded up and around the mountains with lots of curves and dips and raises.

Having looked it up earlier, my understanding is that the rule on searching vehicles comes from prohibition and the idea that if the police officer stops a vehicle it believes to be carrying contraband. Because vehicles can be moved from the jurisdiction during the time used in getting a warrent it was deemed permissible to search for contraband. There were then a bunch of refinements and mobile homes deemed to be more vehicles than home.

Pics a fake; the guy who created the fan art is apparently upset his art was used in this gag.

Was never a fan of Ben & Jerry's myself, to be honest.

My only concern with WWs setting is Steve Trevor crashed his plane on Themyscera, WW1 wasn't exactly known for its long range fighter planes was it? Depends on the planes involve, I think. Doing some poking around it seems that many of the planes in 1917 were ranging somewhere between 600 km to 800-900 km. In 1918, though, some of the sea boats (like the Curtis NC) could do ~2,000 km. That'd be a little more than that of a P-51 Mustang (~1300 km), a very common US fighter plane in WWII. Of course using the Curtis would move Trevor from the Army Air-Corps to the Navy... Anyhow Themyscira never had a definitive location in the DCU (although it was in the Pacific in the Golden Age and IIRC somewhere between Greece and Turkey post-crisis before being granted the ability to move after its sacking and retreat from Man's World) so they could probably make it work somehow.

In the Backer update they just mention there will be more physical options, but don't go into detail so I imagine its just something they're not ready to show.

Divinity Original Sin 2: Character Creation video. I'm liking the look of character creation (said knowing very well that'll I restart a dozen times to try out new character ideas most likely).

I haven't watched Justified yet (maybe someday) but I was disappointed to find out it was filmed in California and not Kentucky.

I play a lawyer on tv.* I think seat belt laws were passed nationwide since federal transportation dollars were put up as the carrot if they were approved the state. *Disclaimer: not an actual tv lawyer either. PS - auto correct changed my misspelling of disclaimer to ducksimmer

Only true if your car is parked. So theoretically the police could fly a helicopter over your car, have an officer climb down a rope ladder from the helicopter, then dive through an open window and that officer could search your car until you could stop it and it wouldn't be illegal (provided he stopped searching once it was no longer in motion and became private property)? Seriously though, IIRC, the Carroll case led to reduced expectation of privacy with regard to car searches in context of the 4th Amendment (thus greater lattitude to search) based on their ability to be moved out of the district before a warrant could be gathered. Arguably (I'd think) this isn't about privacy so much as it is public safety. The government already forbids you drinking alcohol and driving, for example. But in that case there's a clear link to the activity and the impairment (and yes you can be drunk before getting into a car, but tossing back a bud as you drive would also get you pulled over). So arguably the question would end up being whether the activity in a not-as-private-as-a-house vehicle has a clearly proven ramification outside of the car. Which I'm not sure it does. Or I could just be totally wrong on everything, totally not a lawyer.

I wasn't really arguing it was regarding liberties (although GD make a good 4th Amendment point, I think), just throwing my $.02 about the thing. I think there are potentially a number of reasons to dislike such a law, not just any encroachment on liberties.

It's a matter of personal freedom to be a liability to everyone around you? Actually.. that explains a lot about your country come to think of it So here's the actual phrasing of the proposed law: "An operator of a moving motor vehicle shall not engage in any activity unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle on a public road or highway." My first question would be - how do you define "in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle"? In other words if I can talk to my passenger and operate the vehicle safely, but the next person could not, does the rule apply to the lowest skill level (implying that one couldn't talk, listen to a radio, drink, eat, listen to navigational directions from phone or device, etc since all of those things COULD interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle) or does it go by some sort of individual test, and if so what would that test be? My second question is how are the police supposed to prove that it was eating a taco that caused you to drift out of your lane and not say, tiredness, road hypnosis, or just plain wool gathering on your part. Or is the assumption if I have a taco wrapper in my car, that it was the taco that distracted me? My third question is does it mean listening to the radio guarantees that I'm pulled over whether it actually interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle for me or not? Or does this just become an "add on" penalty to, say, when you get a citation for an accident you were in with no other purpose than to tack on more penalties to those responsible for accidents?

Because Wonder Woman is holding Doomsday with her Golden Lasso while Batman is weakening him. Which Superman can't do as he's weakened by kryptonite.

Sure, she's a fighter, but could she have stabbed him with the spear in the right place, hard enough to kill him without anyone holding him? I'm not sold on that point.

SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) [spoilers ahead] Overall I thought it was a good, entertaining film. Its not perfect (and I think I see what may have turned critics off) but I think the characters are more true to their comic counterparts than any of the DC films that have come before it. And ultimately it ends up being a fun film; I do suspect there might be a better film lurking inside it, though. The film has several narrative threads woven together; primarily we see the stories of Deadshot and Harley Quinn as a through story. However I don't think that the film started out with this being the case, I think that originally Enchantress and El Diablo had to have an equal amount of story time. From a story perspective this gives two characters who have family (Deadshot, Diablo) and two who have relationships (Enchantress-Rick Flagg, Harley Quinn-Joker) to compare and contrast through their story-arcs. The edit as is focuses the story heavily on Deadshot and Harley, but at the expense of a transition between the first third and the second third. This comes off clumsily and confusing and I imagine is the point that critics are getting thrown out of the story narrative. I've read that none of the Enchantress stuff was supposed to be flashbacks, and I think that is what was supposed to be part of the transition. Also for a "Dirty Dozen" style film, we get little footage (also possible in the middle) that would have shown the 'team' meeting one another. If I'm right this lessens the impact of Enchantress' turn, but as is the film does okay without it. But once we kick into the second third, the film kicks into high gear and rolls along just fine; while I think Joker and Enchantress get short shrift from the edit, there is enough there to "get" their characters. The rest of the Squad don't have a lot of time spent on them, but there's enough there to get the basics of their characters. That said, whoever thought it was a good idea to re-edit Killer Croc's backstory with footage from later in the film - you were wrong, it was a bad idea. The goals are clear - if simple; free an asset, not defeat the bad guys. But as with every other "Dirty Dozen" style film, the mission goes pear-shaped and they have to figure out what - if anything - they can do. As to Amanda Waller's controversial moment towards the end I've seen some complaints over - that was classic Amanda Waller. She's not a good guy; one of the re-occuring themes of the book is that Waller - the nominal good guy protecting the nation/world is quite willing to do the most horrible things ever as the "ends justifies the means" and she will do whatever it takes to keep a secret a secret, to protect those who need protecting or whatever goal she's focused on. She's the ultimate embodiment of the needs of the many outweigh the few - and she's totally willing to sacrifice the few to protect the many even if it means outright killing them. Its a dark moment (although I feel the film may have kept more dark moments on the editing room floor) but its a dark moment that's true of the character. All in all, I enjoyed the film a lot and I hope we get a director's cut version for home media. And I may have to go see it again in the theaters. So in your version of BvS with Wonder Woman spearing Doomsday - who is the one holding Doomsday still with WW's Golden Lasso? It can't be Clark, he'd be weakened by Batman's kryptonite weapons that were weakening Doomsday and also by the Spear itself as it got close to Doomsday and thus Superman would be unable to hold him still long enough for him to be speared. So that leaves you with ... Batman and Lois? There's a lot to complain over with respect to Wonder Woman's role in the film, but in the final fight, as presented, she's really the only one who can hold Doomsday long enough for Superman to get a clear shot with the spear.

He was killed in 1992 and they still sent him to the Hague? Harsh!

Yeah, irony is so ironic. :|

IMO, since we'll probably never eliminate the political parties entirely, the better solution to what we have now is to have multiple viable parties; Libertarians and Green seem to be the most likely candidates for such at the moment. In a way I hope the R & D having such divisive candidates may allow the system to really branch out, with voters trying to grasp at alternatives such as they become viable past this election cycle. "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." - George Washington, 1776