|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 15, 2024 7:56:20 GMT
Saw Bob Marley: One Love and Madame Web today; probably a bad choice for us to go on Valentine's Day as both movies were packed. They also reminded me that I hate people who wander in well after the movie has already started. I mean seriously? There are at least 30 minutes of ads and trailers before the film begins and you're still late? How the fuck do you manage that, and why even bother? If I've missed a single minute of the film, I won't even enter the screen. Not that that's ever happened, because we actually know how to be on time for a movie. Both films had waves of people walking in literally 10-15 minutes after the opening credits. Meaning they had to shine their phones up and down the aisle because, surprise, it's dark! Annoys the hell out of me - I find it super distracting. I'm also annoyed that we went to see Madame Web. How was Bob Marley:One Love. Temped to go to out to see it.
It's been advertised enough. Everyone here is walking around, absently minded singing "Don't worry, about a thing. Cause every little thing, gonna be alright"
It was fine. Pretty by-the-numbers as far as biopics go; I could probably have just read his Wikipedia page - it would've been more accurate and about as creative.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 15, 2024 12:43:53 GMT
Part of the best experience of seeing a movie in theaters are the previews. I never wanna miss those. I've shown up late to a movie once but it was a last minute decision to go in and see it. Was Dead Silence a horror movie. That said, you might have been better off missing parts of Madam Webb. That movie looks truly terrible with some really bad acting just judging by the trailers. It gives me Halle Berry Catwoman vibes without Halle Berry in tight leather. Dakota Johnson has that Kristen Stewart "im bored" energy to her acting that im not a fan of. This is to be expected though as she got her big break in 50 Shades and that was written to be a Kristen Stewart knock off after Twilight fan fiction. Isabela Merced was fine in the one film I saw her in but she was a teenager I think. I dont care for Sydney Sweeney. I get guys obsess over her but outside of the big boobs she reminds me of SpongeBob. It was dreadful. There’s talk about it being worse than Morbius; I’m not sure about that but only because I can’t be bothered to think about either of them any further. They were both horrific. What really annoys me are the 'media' outlets trying to drag down the MCU. I've seen multiple articles with titles like "New Marvel movie a total disaster," and "New Marvel movie debuts with 17% on Rotten Tomatoes." This isn't a Marvel movie. It's a Sony production using Spider-Man related characters because they own the rights. Every Sony movie not done hand in hand with Marvel has been absolute trash.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 15, 2024 13:07:08 GMT
It was dreadful. There’s talk about it being worse than Morbius; I’m not sure about that but only because I can’t be bothered to think about either of them any further. They were both horrific. What really annoys me are the 'media' outlets trying to drag down the MCU. I've seen multiple articles with titles like "New Marvel movie a total disaster," and "New Marvel movie debuts with 17% on Rotten Tomatoes." This isn't a Marvel movie. It's a Sony production using Spider-Man related characters because they own the rights. Every Sony movie not done hand in hand with Marvel has been absolute trash. Into the Spider-verse wasn't done hand in hand with marvel and won the Oscar for best animated film.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 15, 2024 13:10:50 GMT
What really annoys me are the 'media' outlets trying to drag down the MCU. I've seen multiple articles with titles like "New Marvel movie a total disaster," and "New Marvel movie debuts with 17% on Rotten Tomatoes." This isn't a Marvel movie. It's a Sony production using Spider-Man related characters because they own the rights. Every Sony movie not done hand in hand with Marvel has been absolute trash. Into the Spider-verse wasn't done hand in hand with marvel and won the Oscar for best animated film. Maybe they should stick to cartoons then.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 15, 2024 13:47:57 GMT
Into the Spider-verse wasn't done hand in hand with marvel and won the Oscar for best animated film. Maybe they should stick to cartoons then. They should. It's the best ever depiction if comic art on screen (honorable mention to Sin City as the second best). Comic book characters and stories work better in animation anyway, especially when you revutionize animation style like they did there. Hell, most superhero movies are like 85% animation anyway at this point. They might as well take them the rest of the way.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 15, 2024 14:24:28 GMT
Maybe they should stick to cartoons then. They should. It's the best ever depiction if comic art on screen (honorable mention to Sin City as the second best). Comic book characters and stories work better in animation anyway, especially when you revutionize animation style like they did there. Hell, most superhero movies are like 85% animation anyway at this point. They might as well take them the rest of the way. I'm on the other side of that argument. Once the vfx industry showed it was possible to do this kind of storytelling with real people, I'd rather see an actual person with genuine facial expressions. Fairytale or sci-fi Disney/Pixar stuff is fine all ages entertainment, but I'll go with real people every time. Sticking specifically with the superhero theme, Into the Spider-Verse was fine, and the Incredibles movies are a blast; but generally speaking, I'd still rather watch real people.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 15, 2024 16:40:49 GMT
They should. It's the best ever depiction if comic art on screen (honorable mention to Sin City as the second best). Comic book characters and stories work better in animation anyway, especially when you revutionize animation style like they did there. Hell, most superhero movies are like 85% animation anyway at this point. They might as well take them the rest of the way. I'm on the other side of that argument. Once the vfx industry showed it was possible to do this kind of storytelling with real people, I'd rather see an actual person with genuine facial expressions. Fairytale or sci-fi Disney/Pixar stuff is fine all ages entertainment, but I'll go with real people every time. Sticking specifically with the superhero theme, Into the Spider-Verse was fine, and the Incredibles movies are a blast; but generally speaking, I'd still rather watch real people. At this point something like Guardians of the Galaxy is one real guy surrounded by zero human looking people, including 2 fully animated main characters. This kind of thing usually just serves to highlight that the real actor is just clearly standing in front of a green screen and nothing surrounding him is real. Sticking even more specifically with Spider-Man, Into the Spider-Verse looks like a comic brought to life in a literal way that couldn't be done in 'live action,' while even the generally pretty good new spider-man movies never look real or convincing at all. Even something as ordinary as Spider-Man in his costume standing there not doing much, something that looked great in 2002, looks entirely artificial now. Now they use effects to clean up wrinkles on the suit, or smooth out the seams, and they animate expressions into the eyes, etc. I generally enjoy the MCU movies, but the over reliance on CGI has gotten to a point where it's crossed into the visually absurd, which suits it sometimes, but also never looks or feels like anything but a cartoon with the occasional human face peaking through. And of course it's all anyone's preference, but the notion that 'cartoon' is a derogatory term is something I'd push back against. Not that that's exactly what you're doing, but people do, and animation is just a tool and there are animated films in every genre.. many of them much more artistically fulfilling and emotionally mature than what most of us watch in a multiplex.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on Feb 16, 2024 19:46:25 GMT
It was dreadful. There’s talk about it being worse than Morbius; I’m not sure about that but only because I can’t be bothered to think about either of them any further. They were both horrific. What really annoys me are the 'media' outlets trying to drag down the MCU. I've seen multiple articles with titles like "New Marvel movie a total disaster," and "New Marvel movie debuts with 17% on Rotten Tomatoes." This isn't a Marvel movie. It's a Sony production using Spider-Man related characters because they own the rights. Every Sony movie not done hand in hand with Marvel has been absolute trash. The first two Tobey McGuire Spidey movies were good to great. SM2 still gets talked about as one of the best ever. Not sure you are counting those since they proceeded the MCU. TASM had moments mostly just the chemistry of Andrew and Emma though, they carried terribly written films. The Spider-verse films are really good, especially the latest one. That was my favorite film of last year. The first one gave me a headache a bit with its animation but was a good film. Venom while not a great film I found to be a lot of fun. Never watched the sequel though as it didn't seem very good and I love me some Carnage and watching Woody Harrelson who I enjoy doesn't give me Cleves Cassidy vibes at all so I skipped it. Morbius looked laughably bad so I skipped as well. So out of the 11 they have made non Disney relationship I've enjoyed 5 so that's almost a 50% approval. With MCU's track record the last couple years they are getting close to about 50% for me too. I'm hopeful DP3 will be good but that first trailer didn't get me as excited as I had hoped. X-Men 97 though has me in all the hype.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 16, 2024 20:02:11 GMT
I'm on the other side of that argument. Once the vfx industry showed it was possible to do this kind of storytelling with real people, I'd rather see an actual person with genuine facial expressions. Fairytale or sci-fi Disney/Pixar stuff is fine all ages entertainment, but I'll go with real people every time. Sticking specifically with the superhero theme, Into the Spider-Verse was fine, and the Incredibles movies are a blast; but generally speaking, I'd still rather watch real people. At this point something like Guardians of the Galaxy is one real guy surrounded by zero human looking people, including 2 fully animated main characters. This kind of thing usually just serves to highlight that the real actor is just clearly standing in front of a green screen and nothing surrounding him is real. Sticking even more specifically with Spider-Man, Into the Spider-Verse looks like a comic brought to life in a literal way that couldn't be done in 'live action,' while even the generally pretty good new spider-man movies never look real or convincing at all. Even something as ordinary as Spider-Man in his costume standing there not doing much, something that looked great in 2002, looks entirely artificial now. Now they use effects to clean up wrinkles on the suit, or smooth out the seams, and they animate expressions into the eyes, etc. I generally enjoy the MCU movies, but the over reliance on CGI has gotten to a point where it's crossed into the visually absurd, which suits it sometimes, but also never looks or feels like anything but a cartoon with the occasional human face peaking through. And of course it's all anyone's preference, but the notion that 'cartoon' is a derogatory term is something I'd push back against. Not that that's exactly what you're doing, but people do, and animation is just a tool and there are animated films in every genre.. many of them much more artistically fulfilling and emotionally mature than what most of us watch in a multiplex. At least two of the other GOTG characters (Drax, Gamora) look human. You can see their faces and watch them emote. They're basically humans with green face paint. As far as Spider-Man goes, I really don't have a ton of interest in the character either way, so an animated version really isn't going to register much with me. Look at the Avengers. Other than Hulk, they're all human and don't even wear their masks most of the time. Favreau even came up with a brilliant way to show Tony's face while he has the helmet on in Iron Man. I want to see people being people, not caricatures with exaggerated features moving unnaturally. The CGI is mostly during the action scenes of an MCU movie; a cartoon is always a cartoon, and it doesn't feel real to me. But you're right, it's up to the beholder. A friend of mine hates fantasy and sci-fi stuff. He's an engineer, and if it isn't something that seems feasible in a physical sense, he just tunes out. LOTR is just a bunch of idiots with pointed ears or whatever to him. And I get that. Obviously I disagree with him, but I get that things translate differently in everyone's brain. I think there are plenty of very good animated movies, but they'll never have the same effect on me that standard filmmaking has.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 16, 2024 20:09:51 GMT
What really annoys me are the 'media' outlets trying to drag down the MCU. I've seen multiple articles with titles like "New Marvel movie a total disaster," and "New Marvel movie debuts with 17% on Rotten Tomatoes." This isn't a Marvel movie. It's a Sony production using Spider-Man related characters because they own the rights. Every Sony movie not done hand in hand with Marvel has been absolute trash. The first two Tobey McGuire Spidey movies were good to great. SM2 still gets talked about as one of the best ever. Not sure you are counting those since they proceeded the MCU. TASM had moments mostly just the chemistry of Andrew and Emma though, they carried terribly written films. The Spider-verse films are really good, especially the latest one. That was my favorite film of last year. The first one gave me a headache a bit with its animation but was a good film. Venom while not a great film I found to be a lot of fun. Never watched the sequel though as it didn't seem very good and I love me some Carnage and watching Woody Harrelson who I enjoy doesn't give me Cleves Cassidy vibes at all so I skipped it. Morbius looked laughably bad so I skipped as well. So out of the 11 they have made non Disney relationship I've enjoyed 5 so that's almost a 50% approval. With MCU's track record the last couple years they are getting close to about 50% for me too. I'm hopeful DP3 will be good but that first trailer didn't get me as excited as I had hoped. X-Men 97 though has me in all the hype. The first two Spidey films were ok, but I never felt they were incredible. As an adult, I'm just not that interested in the teenage melodrama that comes with the character. SM 3 was garbage and killed the franchise. The reboot looked so terrible, I've still never seen them. The MCU version of the character is the best Peter Parker but maybe the least 'Spider-Man' like and more like Iron Man-lite. You couldn't pay me to watch the Venom films, they're unintentional parody. It's a clown show, Venom has the same voice as the talking pig in Big Top Pee-Wee. Venom was one of the darkest characters in the Spidey comics, a Venom movie should never be classified as 'fun.' They just have no idea what to do with the Spider-Man IP at that studio. Morbius and Madame Web seem like direct to video fare from 20 years ago, I can't believe they exist and would never even consider watching them.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 19, 2024 21:27:54 GMT
The first two Tobey McGuire Spidey movies were good to great. SM2 still gets talked about as one of the best ever. Not sure you are counting those since they proceeded the MCU. TASM had moments mostly just the chemistry of Andrew and Emma though, they carried terribly written films. The Spider-verse films are really good, especially the latest one. That was my favorite film of last year. The first one gave me a headache a bit with its animation but was a good film. Venom while not a great film I found to be a lot of fun. Never watched the sequel though as it didn't seem very good and I love me some Carnage and watching Woody Harrelson who I enjoy doesn't give me Cleves Cassidy vibes at all so I skipped it. Morbius looked laughably bad so I skipped as well. So out of the 11 they have made non Disney relationship I've enjoyed 5 so that's almost a 50% approval. With MCU's track record the last couple years they are getting close to about 50% for me too. I'm hopeful DP3 will be good but that first trailer didn't get me as excited as I had hoped. X-Men 97 though has me in all the hype. The first two Spidey films were ok, but I never felt they were incredible. As an adult, I'm just not that interested in the teenage melodrama that comes with the character. SM 3 was garbage and killed the franchise. The reboot looked so terrible, I've still never seen them. The MCU version of the character is the best Peter Parker but maybe the least 'Spider-Man' like and more like Iron Man-lite. You couldn't pay me to watch the Venom films, they're unintentional parody. It's a clown show, Venom has the same voice as the talking pig in Big Top Pee-Wee. Venom was one of the darkest characters in the Spidey comics, a Venom movie should never be classified as 'fun.' They just have no idea what to do with the Spider-Man IP at that studio. Morbius and Madame Web seem like direct to video fare from 20 years ago, I can't believe they exist and would never even consider watching them. I haven't seen either of the Venom movies, but the decision making tells you everything you need to know - this is a character who violently eats people's heads and murders and maims people with reckless abandon....let's make it PG-13! Ya know, for the kids! Studio executives have the unparalleled ability of destroying the very thing that gives them any clout in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2024 0:27:28 GMT
The first two Spidey films were ok, but I never felt they were incredible. As an adult, I'm just not that interested in the teenage melodrama that comes with the character. SM 3 was garbage and killed the franchise. The reboot looked so terrible, I've still never seen them. The MCU version of the character is the best Peter Parker but maybe the least 'Spider-Man' like and more like Iron Man-lite. You couldn't pay me to watch the Venom films, they're unintentional parody. It's a clown show, Venom has the same voice as the talking pig in Big Top Pee-Wee. Venom was one of the darkest characters in the Spidey comics, a Venom movie should never be classified as 'fun.' They just have no idea what to do with the Spider-Man IP at that studio. Morbius and Madame Web seem like direct to video fare from 20 years ago, I can't believe they exist and would never even consider watching them. I haven't seen either of the Venom movies, but the decision making tells you everything you need to know - this is a character who violently eats people's heads and murders and maims people with reckless abandon....let's make it PG-13! Ya know, for the kids! Studio executives have the unparalleled ability of destroying the very thing that gives them any clout in the first place. He's a straight up villain, but if you want to make him into some kind of anti-hero, fine. But why turn it into some kind of PG-13 action comedy? Then again, it made a ton of money so what the hell do I know?
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Feb 20, 2024 12:32:42 GMT
I'm surprised at Marley's success. For a lot of people, Bob's Legend album comprises their entire Jamaican music library.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on Feb 21, 2024 20:14:38 GMT
I haven't seen either of the Venom movies, but the decision making tells you everything you need to know - this is a character who violently eats people's heads and murders and maims people with reckless abandon....let's make it PG-13! Ya know, for the kids! Studio executives have the unparalleled ability of destroying the very thing that gives them any clout in the first place. He's a straight up villain, but if you want to make him into some kind of anti-hero, fine. But why turn it into some kind of PG-13 action comedy? Then again, it made a ton of money so what the hell do I know? Venom is totally up in the air in terms of a villain, anti-hero etc. He started out as a full villain only due to his popularity in the 90s turned anti-hero. Then add in that there are different hosts to Venom each host takes the character in different directions. Scorpion was a host for a bit and a villain. Flash Thompson had it and had a series called Agent Venom and he was a hero and like an agent of SHIELD, an Avenger,, and a member if the Guardians of the Galaxy. I believe. Eddie Brock the original and most known host has basically turned full hero now days. Last I am aware of there was a series called King in Black where they introduce the Symbiote God Knull who I believe is the original owner if the sword from Thor Love and Thunder. Eddie Brock Venom was the protagonist and hero of that series. So yeah, the Venom movie basically skipped over his villain arc and just made him into an anti-hero/hero which for the sense of the film makes sense because they didn't use Spiderman at all and wanted him to lead a new franchise. Venom can literally be anything at this point. The film wasn't great and cheesy at times but I found it pretty entertaining. Its definitely not for everybody though.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 29, 2024 17:20:29 GMT
At this point something like Guardians of the Galaxy is one real guy surrounded by zero human looking people, including 2 fully animated main characters. This kind of thing usually just serves to highlight that the real actor is just clearly standing in front of a green screen and nothing surrounding him is real. Sticking even more specifically with Spider-Man, Into the Spider-Verse looks like a comic brought to life in a literal way that couldn't be done in 'live action,' while even the generally pretty good new spider-man movies never look real or convincing at all. Even something as ordinary as Spider-Man in his costume standing there not doing much, something that looked great in 2002, looks entirely artificial now. Now they use effects to clean up wrinkles on the suit, or smooth out the seams, and they animate expressions into the eyes, etc. I generally enjoy the MCU movies, but the over reliance on CGI has gotten to a point where it's crossed into the visually absurd, which suits it sometimes, but also never looks or feels like anything but a cartoon with the occasional human face peaking through. And of course it's all anyone's preference, but the notion that 'cartoon' is a derogatory term is something I'd push back against. Not that that's exactly what you're doing, but people do, and animation is just a tool and there are animated films in every genre.. many of them much more artistically fulfilling and emotionally mature than what most of us watch in a multiplex. At least two of the other GOTG characters (Drax, Gamora) look human. You can see their faces and watch them emote. They're basically humans with green face paint. As far as Spider-Man goes, I really don't have a ton of interest in the character either way, so an animated version really isn't going to register much with me. Look at the Avengers. Other than Hulk, they're all human and don't even wear their masks most of the time. Favreau even came up with a brilliant way to show Tony's face while he has the helmet on in Iron Man. I want to see people being people, not caricatures with exaggerated features moving unnaturally. The CGI is mostly during the action scenes of an MCU movie; a cartoon is always a cartoon, and it doesn't feel real to me. But you're right, it's up to the beholder. A friend of mine hates fantasy and sci-fi stuff. He's an engineer, and if it isn't something that seems feasible in a physical sense, he just tunes out. LOTR is just a bunch of idiots with pointed ears or whatever to him. And I get that. Obviously I disagree with him, but I get that things translate differently in everyone's brain. I think there are plenty of very good animated movies, but they'll never have the same effect on me that standard filmmaking has. It is up to the beholder, and there's no accounting for taste, but we waste our time trying often enough anyway, so I'll come back to some of these messages I didn't see or forgot about and waste my time again anyway. What I'd say about it feeling real in marvel movie or whatever, is that we've gotten so far away from realism that they've lost that as a possibility anyway. I saw some piece of black panther or something, maybe one of the avengers, the other day and it's just so divorced from the relative low level of reality that they once relied on. Nothing looks real. Even the people's faces look artificially lit, or comped in, and even mundane scenes walking into a building or something always seem to be shot on a green screen. The backgrounds are always fake, and always look fake... And when they decided that 'nano-tech' would be their solution to not make the actors have to wear uncomfortable costumes any sense of grounding it in anything resembling the real world was gone. A wrist watch can magically contain an iron man suit that just materializes at will on Robert Downey Jr. and no relative physics matter. None of it seems real, so to me putting real people into obviously, entirely artificial worlds looks much sillier than if everything exists on the same plane. But that's besides the broader point anyway... I'd just say that animation being made up of only caricatures with exaggerated expressions is a very narrow view of animation. Sure, that's the most common style, but there's more that can be done differently in animation than in really any other kind of art form, because you can play with any and all filmmaking techniques and any and all art styles... many of which can only be done in animation. Rotoscoping, for instance (which in some ways has mutated into motion capture...some might say) combines an artists rendering with entirely realistic movements and expressions. That style can't really be capture any other way. There's stop motion that can be done to replicate realist filmmaking, or can be stilted and off, can look like CGI, can be done with clay, paper cut outs, photographs of people, or like Jan Svankmajer proved you could stop motion animate real people by asking them to move into new poses for individual frames. They've made an entire feature film by animating paintings in the style of Van Gogh. I saw an animated short about an aging impressionist artist that was losing his memory to Alzheimer's done using stop motion figures and with characters and environments done in the style of his work.. his wife later appears to him in fewer and fewer brush strokes animated in more spare ways until she sort of dissipates into just a series of painted dots when he can no longer recognize her anymore. There are all sorts of things that animation can do beyond anything that I've described, but that's just one example of the emotional and artistic impact that had real impact on me greater than any other film I've ever seen on the subject of dementia, that couldn't have been achieved outside of animation.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 29, 2024 17:35:13 GMT
X now with a pop-up every single time you block an ad, asking if you want to try premium or whatever to block them.
I bet Twitter is gone & replaced with a new app by someone else by 2026. Ppl who like Twitter, headlines & links from all traditional newspaper sections (if you will) news-business-sports-politics-etc in one place with credible ppl directly able to be followed... can't be that tough a migration from to another.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 29, 2024 18:13:56 GMT
X now with a pop-up every single time you block an ad, asking if you want to try premium or whatever to block them. I bet Twitter is gone & replaced with a new app by someone else by 2026. Ppl who like Twitter, headlines & links from all traditional newspaper sections (if you will) news-business-sports-politics-etc in one place with credible ppl directly able to be followed... can't be that tough a migration from to another. My suggestion: Don't use Xtwitter. I've been doing it for however long Xtwitter has existed. I'm trying to think of how Xtwitter could be useful in my everyday life, and I can't come up with anything.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 4, 2024 13:15:20 GMT
Went to a Springfield Thunderbirds game yesterday. They lost, but that wasn't the annoying part. (Also, there were two fights in the first :55 of the game, and isn't that why we watch AHL hockey?) No, what bothered me was that this game was apparently 'Sensory Friendly.' No goal horns, no loud music or flashing lights on the jumbotron. What the fuck? Here's a thought, if you have sensory issues, maybe don't attend a live sporting event? I can assure you the crowd was plenty lively, particularly during the fights (and various scuffles that everyone is waiting to turn into a fight), so I don't see the point of billing the game as some kind of safe space. The place is nicknamed the Thunderdome for Christ's sake.
You know that old saying, "If you have issues with anxiety, or sensory overload, the best place to go is a to a sporting event with large crowds, emotionally invested in the outcome." Wait, you mean that isn't a saying?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 4, 2024 14:48:33 GMT
Went to a Springfield Thunderbirds game yesterday. They lost, but that wasn't the annoying part. (Also, there were two fights in the first :55 of the game, and isn't that why we watch AHL hockey?) No, what bothered me was that this game was apparently 'Sensory Friendly.' No goal horns, no loud music or flashing lights on the jumbotron. What the fuck? Here's a thought, if you have sensory issues, maybe don't attend a live sporting event? I can assure you the crowd was plenty lively, particularly during the fights (and various scuffles that everyone is waiting to turn into a fight), so I don't see the point of billing the game as some kind of safe space. The place is nicknamed the Thunderdome for Christ's sake. You know that old saying, "If you have issues with anxiety, or sensory overload, the best place to go is a to a sporting event with large crowds, emotionally invested in the outcome." Wait, you mean that isn't a saying? I'm annoyed by the implication that anyone is emotionally invested in the outcome of a Springfield Thunderbirds game.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 4, 2024 14:54:12 GMT
X now with a pop-up every single time you block an ad, asking if you want to try premium or whatever to block them. I bet Twitter is gone & replaced with a new app by someone else by 2026. Ppl who like Twitter, headlines & links from all traditional newspaper sections (if you will) news-business-sports-politics-etc in one place with credible ppl directly able to be followed... can't be that tough a migration from to another. I've never used Twitter and never will use "X," but I could easily see it failing in the near future. I suppose if Elon Musk wants to truly be the modern Charles Foster Kane he can resign himself to lose millions on it each year just because he feels like it, but every decision he has made with that company seems to have been a colossal failure, and "X" has got to be the worst rebranding in history. Bloomberg estimates that the move discarded somewhere between 4 and 20 billion dollars in brand recognition. Nobody will ever be comfortable calling it "X" ever. He will blame anyone and everyone else, but the failure of that clearly very valuable company will all be solely on him.
|
|