Hells yeah! !fuckcars@lemmy.world, !notjustbikes@feddit.nl.

The original footage as in footage of the Trinity test?

I suspect it would already be public domain under US law, but would lack the coverage they’d need to do anything meaningful with it.

Yeah exactly. Normal inheritance means their kids or spouse inherit, and the number of billionaires remains the same.

I was a huge fan of last year’s Dungeon & Dragons movie. Just make sure you’re not seeing the terrible ones from 2000–2012!

Unfortunately after that it gets very hard. I know a lot of people like 1998’s Willow, but I’ve never seen it to compare.

I’m seeing a fair few people recommend Pirates of the Caribbean, mainly the first 3 films. Which I agree are very good, but they’re not mediaeval high fantasy and they’re far more comedic in tone than LotR. Nevertheless, there does seem to be something similar. Maybe it’s the relatively low level of relatively soft magic and the fairly adventurous nature of them. And also Orlando Bloom in a starring role in both.

If you’re willing to add TV then Game of Thrones is much grittier but kinda similar (shame the quality drops off gradually after season 4 and then very quickly in the last 1–2 seasons). The Witcher is also good.

But yeah unfortunately there’s really nothing that quite compares in tone, subject matter, and setting to Lord of the Rings that is anywhere near as good as it, IMO.

Unclear to me if it was shared intentionally or something else

Huh? How could it have been unintentionally shared?

Ok? Not sure how that relates to what we were discussing about his languages.

My controversial take? Boba Fett doesn’t have enough personality in the movies for the show to be able to ruin him. He appears, does shit all, and then dies like an absolute chump. There’s no reason for him to have the huge cult following he does, unless you’re looking to extended universe non-canon stuff anyway.

I had the same experience as you and even bounced off it entirely and didn’t finish the movie. But I would highly recommend Matt Colville’s series of video essays on 2001. It can’t change how you first responded to the film, but it’s really well-reasoned and definitely gave me reason to think more about the movie.

(It’s an 8 video playlist, but only 3 are actually about 2001. Sorry, I just figured this was easier than linking each video individually.)

Yeah, he supposedly wanted to make sure the bomb was a practical effect because he thought that would look better. Neglecting the simple fact that you cannot do a practical atomic bomb explosion for your movie, and that gasoline is not a nuclear bomb.

Ready Player One

It being common does not make it ok. If she were just quietly anti-trans in her personal life that might be something we could overlook. But she is proudly and actively hateful towards trans people. She ignores the fact that trans women are even more likely than cis women to be victims of gender-based violence and pretends that trans women are actually predators. And she engages in bullshit “transvestigating”, drumming up witch hunts against butch cis women. She is actively causing harm against women, including the cis women she claims to want to protect. She’s a terrorist using stochastic methods.

No one comes back years later with a Time Turner and wrecks havoc

Fuck I hate her bullshit inconsistency with this. Prior to that shitty play coming out I could have given you a simple explanation for this. First: the time turners were all made inoperable during book 5 when the team went to the Ministry. This was shown explicitly in the text (and is an example of Rowling’s delayed reaction to criticism that I think the Shaun video brings up). It could be bypassed pretty easily if you wanted, but it also works well enough to explain why nobody else uses one anymore, for a kid’s book.

But more crucially, the way time turners work in the original is pretty clear: it’s a one-way trip back in time. In book 3 they travel back a matter of hours, and then work back to the “present” in real time. You can’t use it to go back and kill Hitler or something like that, unless you want to be permanently stuck in the past. It’s never said, but it’s feasible that it could have been expanded on by placing a hard limit on how far back you can go at all. Then she went and wrote the play and (supposedly—I never read or watched it myself) completely broke all of that. I suppose you could be generous and say she was following Sanderson’s 3rd law, but IMO it wasn’t so much “expanding” on what she already had as it was “completely retconning the way it works in a way that also undermines previously-established plots”.

Not sure why this was downvoted. It’s a very good point. Sanderson doesn’t like being openly critical of other authors but it’s pretty obvious that applying his laws to Rowling explains a fair amount of why her writing is bad.

Personally, I didn’t vote on you at all, but I think the lack of detail explaining why you don’t like it means it does deserve downvotes. If the reason is literally just ‘I don’t like the whole genre’, I don’t think it’s a very good comment. Like, I don’t particularly like romcoms, but I’m not going to bring up Love Actually as an answer to this thread because it would be unfair to bring it up when I’m just not even close to the target demographic. A more constructive answer would be a film that at least has other similar films that you do like.

If the story had gone the other way it’d be accused of being “born sexy yesterday”.

No Tolkien’s languages were created wholecloth by Tolkien. He just used similar phonemic inventories as existing languages, for example Sindarin having a similar inventory to Welsh. But the vocabulary and grammar are entirely their own.

The only God of War games I’ve played are the first two, on PS2, which is the only console I’ve ever had (well, apart from the Wii, which barely counts).

While I still just fundamentally disagree with your assessment that “Ragnarok was good though”, what’s definitely true is that calling Ragnarok good is utterly irrelevant in response to this specific comment.

Because this isn’t about Ragnarok. It’s about the notion that comic book adaptations can be taken seriously at all.

Then the last Thor movie came out and everyone was saying the same shit about that one that I was saying about Ragnarok and I’m just confused

OMG YES. I just don’t understand it. I didn’t love the 4th Thor movie, but it seemed to me like it had all the same problems that Ragnarok did. If anything, I was happy that it walked back the Jane Foster erasure that Ragnarok had committed. But everyone thought it was terrible even though it did most of the same stuff as the movie they all loved.

I haven’t actually seen the movie, only a few clips of it. I’m pretty sure they make him use his weapons, but maybe not his superweapon.