|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Belle Sorciere wrote:
Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.
Thanks to Hollywood accounting, flops don't exactly mean what they used to anymore. SERENITY was a failure on initial release, but actually turned a profit once foreign sales and media releases were taken into account. PACIFIC RIM was pretty damn close to failing, but then got a lift from abroad and is now getting a sequel (although they had to fight for it). The new STAR TREK movies made, on paper, reasonable profits given their budgets and marketing, but under-performed against Paramount's targets which has caused them issues (and STAR TREK BEYOND is not looking great either at the moment). There's actually a very good chance that BATMAN VS SUPERMAN's profits were nowhere near as good as it first looks, as the film's marketing budget (especially internationally) was considerably higher than the norm.
GB is now passing $90 million, which means it'll certainly make its production budget back, but may struggle to get to marketing as well. It'll certainly recoup the rest on DVD, Blu-Ray and streaming. So the film being a flop isn't realistically on the cards. It isn't a slam dunk for a sequel though, and Sony will have to think hard on that. Sometimes studios will double down on a franchise and deliver new installments as a sign of good faith even if the franchise has not delivered as highly as you'd hoped. But it'd be tricky to do that if the film hasn't recouped on the initial box office run.
What they'd need to do is come back in a couple of months and see where the film stands once the theatrical run is over and then look at where the media release and streaming takes them.
Every male character was an idiot or a jerk.
Like in the original movie (okay, maybe that was a little harsh).
The villain gets powers out of nowhere.
Like in the original movie.
Stupid fart jokes
Like the original movie had several stupid dick jokes and jokes about how hilarious it was to stalk a woman.
No repercussions for their actions, like being suspects in a murder.
As the movie explained, rather clearly I thought, they were getting cover from the Mayor's office from the start.
Violating their own rules where they end up flat out killing ghosts rather than trapping them.
I don't think you can kill ghosts (there may be a clue in the description there). Their equipment either traps them, disperses them or sends them to Michigan.
They pulled super ghost fighting moves out of nowhere and never missed a single shot. Somehow even had pinpoint accuracy on an arced long range shot.
This isn't true at all. They constantly miss almost the whole time. They shoot up the subway tunnel before finally trapping the ghost and then he escapes anyway. They blast up the theatre (the manager screaming about the art deco getting shot) before managing to land a hit. They also somehow manage to completely miss the giant creature at the end of the film. Their hit ratio is way below that of the original film.
The ghost driving their car to help them for no reason.
Slimer doesn't help them. He steals the car and at the end of the film they trick him into driving into the portal (rather conveniently).
This was no where close to the dry subtle humour of the original.
Original what? Certainly not the original Ghostbusters. The original GB was certainly more restrained and grounded (to a certain degree), but it wasn't exactly a Noel Coward play.
It is still only going to be available on CBS's pay platform, right?
In the USA, yes. Space gets it in Canada and the rest of the world will get it on Netflix.
Given the box office numbers that isn't likely. It is far more likely that they will continue to milk their cash cow in its current form.
The box office numbers for the new TREK films have been well below Paramount's expectations. They wanted to build up to a $1 billion franchise to go up against the Marvel movies and the STAR WARS films, and the fact they've not even gotten to half that took them by surprise. They dialled things up for INTO DARKNESS and that didn't work either, hence a budget cut for BEYOND.
Both of the previous films made profits, but it was a near thing (especially for INTO DARKNESS). BEYOND is opening at a lower ebb than either of the previous movies and has serious blockbuster competition with SUICIDE SQUAD, so it's questionable how successful it's going to be. At the moment it's Abrams's star power and Paramount's lack of an alternative franchise which is keeping talk of a fourth film alive, and if BEYOND is another modest success I can see Paramount either retooling altogether or only doing the fourth film if Abrams returns to direct.
The new TV series will be set in the Prime Continuity after DS9/VOYAGER/TNG (the anthology thing turned out to be a rumour, as did the idea it'd be set between ST6 and TNG). Bryan Fuller said they have the ability to bring back some of the characters and actors from those shows, which isn't possible if it's a fresh reboot or set in the Abramsverse (and CBS doesn't have the rights to the Abramsverse, unless they bought them behind the scenes which doesn't seem likely).
My take on the new film:
It's a very good film, blowing the other two Abrams pictures out of the water and comparing favourably to many of the older ones. It makes a lot of very clever choices which recall the older, slower-paced films whilst also delivering enough explosions and action beats to satisfy the modern casual cinema-goer. The two styles don't entirely mesh, but they do a pretty good job of it.
Every single time a player raises a well-argued and perfectly logical objection to something that's going on, the GM should now just say "These are all reasonable points" and just carry exactly on as before. It's going to be a meme.
I'd lovelovelove a Tuf Voyaging series, I just can't imagine who'd play the title role. I read all the Wildcards books up to a certain point, but never related to the characters on an emotional level.
Conleth Hill seems like a good choice, but he might be bored of playing bald dudes by that point :)
Has there been any discussion on this thread about how N.Ireland is affected by this? Ot affects the greater part of my family (militarised border? Good Friday agreements still valid? Etc.) but I'm too drunk to go into it
So far various people in government have looked at the rhetoric in Northern Ireland about what's happened, the risk of a return to violence, and the mind-boggling expense and practical issues involved in putting border checks back in place, and gone for a stiff drink in the bar. Like Gibraltar, it's something that they didn't quite think through before the election and now the very thought of addressing it is causing migraines.
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
Steve Geddes wrote:
There is some angst over this issue. It very much looks like Scotland has to pass the separation from the EU as law as a devolved issue. It can refuse. Britain can overrule the Scottish decision if it chooses, but the only 100% legal way of doing that is to repeal the Scotland Act which allows devolved power to Scotland. Effectively, it would have to abolish the Scottish Assembly. That would spark an enormous constitutional crisis in the UK. It would also drive the chances of Scottish independence towards probable. Devolution - giving Scotland much more autonomy but not outright independence - took the wind out of the sails of full independence in the 1990s and this would put it right back in.
I saw nothing that indicated the referendum was actually binding and never imagined that with or without a nonbinding referendum the PM could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the EU. Do you think he could do so without the referendum?
The referendum is nonbinding in itself, but Cameron had promised that its results would be respected by the government. That's been taken to mean that the results would be accepted as binding, unless it was supersceded by a second referendum (now off the table) or a general election result where the winning party had campaigned on a platform of remaining part of the EU.
Just completely ignoring the results would be highly controversial. Both Labour and the Tories would think hard about doing that, because they would hand an enormous propaganda coup to UKIP if they tried and would suffer the consequences at the next election.
Questions from an American. How many times has the Supreme Court of the UK and its predecessors been overturned by the EU's Court of Justice? And what does the return of sovereignty do to those decisions?
Rarely. The British Supreme Court was required to "take note" of rulings from the EU Court but was not legally bound to accept them. It did so due to convention. The one thing that got people so enraged - us not being able to deport terror subjects to countries where they would be tortured - was actually down to Britain's own laws prohibiting rendition, and the EU merely reinforced the fact that it'd be illegal under both UK and EU law.
The issue here - another factor not really explained very well during the referendum - is that EU law is decided upon by European nations together. In fact, many of the laws regarding human rights were originated by British legal experts and then adopted in Brussels and replicated in our courts here.
The principle power of the EU was that UK law could not contravene the four pillars of membership of the EU (free movement of goods, people, capital and services). After leaving the EU, we will then be able to adjust those rules and prevent, for example, free immigration to the UK from anywhere in the EU. The problem is that all four factors are interrelated: you can't have one without the others. We've actually spent an enormous time talking about two of the pillars, people and goods (i.e. trade) but not much on the other two which are just as important. The EU over the weekend said that Britain's ability to trade capital and services in the EU (the so-called "financial passport") will also be withdrawn in the result of Brexit, limiting the ability of British banks and financial instituions to operate in Europe. Since Britain's economy rests firmly on the bedrock of financial services and the movement of capital this is an absolutely massive problem and is what has gotten the markets in a furore.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
This is relevant to my interests, but sounds like young adult fiction, which I'm generally not a fan of (anymore).
It's been marketed at YA, but it's certainly not written like it. It's quite an adult book in a few ways. No graphic sex or anything like that, but it is quite violent. The Battle Royale comparison I think is apt for that: just because most of the cast is teenage kids, that doesn't make it a kid's book.
Regarding Valyrian steel:
It's widely theorised that forging Valyrian steel requires a human sacrifice. The Westerosi blacksmiths have lost the knack of it forging it because they don't know about it - fire and blood is needed, not just fire itself - and might balk at sacrificing people to forge more blades.
Similar thing with the dragon eggs, they only hatched after Mirri Maz Duur was sacrificed along with them and Dany took her walk of faith into the flames. It does beg the question why the eggs at Summerhall didn't hatch, but that may have been because the deaths were accidental rather than a deliberate sacrifice.
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.
Any such move would require the EU to change its fundamental rules to allow it to kick a member state out. Britain itself - which remember is still a member until the process is completed - will simply veto it. I suspect others - maybe Greece or Poland - would be starkly tempted to as well as the precedent would be alarming.
A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.
Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" He was also under the impression that the Leave camp had a plan all ready and waiting to roll.
Later that day Sky News political editor Faisal Islam asked a prominent Leave campaigner what the plan was for Brexit and they replied, "We haven't got one."
All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.
Yup. We live in interesting times.
The EU has given the UK more than enough already. And they are still not satisfied. No point in trying to coddle them any further as they will always want more and are not even able to be reasonable about this. Playing with the EU's existence and the risk of yet another grave financial and economical crisis just to advance individuals' political carreers.
I fully agree. Britain got a colossal amount back from the EU for putting not a massive amount in. This message was not even remotely communicated at all by the Remain campaign during the referendum. A lot of British people think we put in less than we got out. Many of those same people have now been told that EU funding for their (often poor and neglected by London) regions will now be pulled and that nice new business centre or sports complex won't be happening and they're confused and angry about that.
All I'm saying is that if UK aims to use the letter of article 50 to hold hostage all EU, it's not completely impossible that other countries agree to go for the spirit of the text and cut it short. Certainly not tomorrow, but maybe in some months time, especially if the Financial crisis goes deeper and drags all of the continent down.
This won't happen. There is no legal mechanism in the EU for forcing a country out against its will, and introducing one quickly and in a knee-jerk reaction to Brexit would ring alarm bells across Europe, not to mention being tremendously out of character for an organisation that prefers a more measured, careful response to issues. They will instead enact pressure through other means (perhaps a hint of a moderately better deal if we invoke Article 50 sooner). This morning, in fact, they seemed to be saying that they'd be - relatively - happy as long as Article 50 is enacted by the end of this year, two months after when it is being proposed.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).
The Leave campaign has reneged on its two primary campaign promises in less than 72 hours, so they're getting there.
Interesting reports suggesting that Boris's thinking was that Britain would vote Remain, he would congratulate Cameron and they'd hug it out, Boris would then dutifully and loyally support Cameron for three years, glowing with praise for him, hinting at a peerage, and then be ushered into office with the EU matter at rest, the economy improving and able to begin the Glorious Golden Age of Boris.
The fact that Leave won and he is now expected to negotiate the UK's departure from the European Union has left him with a rictus grin on his face as he's realised that he has absolutely no clue at all on how to do that. That's why he went off to play cricket yesterday rather than talking to anyone and has spent today apparently in emergency meetings with Gove and other Leave Tories trying to work out WTF they are going to do. Becoming PM and having to negotiate Brexit amidst a suddenly declining economy and the potential breakup of the United Kingdom was not in his script.
I think it's sad that many of the pro-leave are already regretting their vote. In fact quite a few younger people who voted to leave have since been interviewed by various agencies and even stated they voted to leave because they thought their vote wouldn't matter.
Apparently it was not communicated well that the rules for the referendum were different to a general election (where the Tories won majority control of Parliament last year with just a third of the vote) and that some people thought that if their area got a majority their vote wouldn't count, so they protest voted or didn't bother voting at all.
That the same petition that is all over social media and anyone in the world can sign?
Nope. You need a UK address to sign the petition. In theory people can simply use a friend's address, but their vote would then be discounted if too many people use the same address and if they do not appear on the electoral register.
The petition does allow non-UK-born residents of Britain and also 16 and 17 year olds to vote. Both groups were unable to vote during the actual referendum, amidst great controversy.
I am at a loss as to why these people think that they are either 1) going to get EU money despite not being part of the EU or 2) going to get the same amount from a British government voted into office on a mandate of reducing spending to all-time record lows.
Damage Report: Day 2 of the New Order (Hail, Boris)
$2.1 trillion wiped off the world economy. Er, sorry about that.
Britain loses its 5th position in the world GDP rankings to France. India not far behind.
British stock markets collapse by 8%, but recover 2%. Worries of further losses next week, but some suggestion there could be a further recovery. However, the markets overall think there will be two years of volatility due to the Brexit negotiations and then a further period of volatllity as the impact of Brexit is measured.
British currency and economy crashes in the worst one-day decline since Black Monday in 1987. In perspective, this was far worse for the UK economy than any day of the 1990s recession or the late 2000s one.
Britain credit rating downgraded to "Negative" by Moodys. Standards and Poor strip Britain of its AAA credit rating.
Morgan and Stanley reveal they have a contingency plan to shift 2,000 UK jobs to Dublin and Frankfurt and will enact it if we don't get a free trade agreement with the EU. HSBC apparently has a similar plan.
The investment sector will have to stop trading in Euros. This was already annoying the Eurozone. When we're out of the EU altogether, we simply won't be able to do it which will hammer investment banking. Which would be less of a problem if the British economy wasn't overwhelmingly based around services.
The ECB confirms that Britain will lose its EU financial passport if we don't allow free movement of peoples, which will impact Britain's ability to offer financial services to Europe. Since that's the underpinning of our economy (we actually make nothing in this country that others can't do instead) that's "mildly" worrying.
Spain confirm that the c. 800,000-1 million British people (mostly elderly) living in Spain won't have to worry and they probably won't be deported back to the UK. Oh, and by the way can they start having some discussions about the control of Gibraltar? Not that the two are related, at all. Oh, and all those people living in Spain will now have to buy private health insurance because they won't be protected by the NHS any more.
EU funding for the British regions (which basically keeps Cornwall, a large chunk of Wales and parts of Northern Ireland afloat) will be terminated. £1 billion+ EU funding for British scientific projects, including our contributions to the LHC, will be terminated.
But, good news! The government has indicated that it will take over the EU subsidies for private landowners, so the British taxpayer will shortly be paying Iain Duncan Smith £150,000 a year for no readily explicable reason.
That's what makes me worry about this. How bad are they going to make things for the people?
Very. Cameron and Osborne's policies have inflicted colossal economic and societal damage on the UK, and there's always been the fear that they - coming from the centre-right of the Conservative Party - were actually the least worst option from the party. The likes of Iain Duncan Smith, whose policies at the Department of Work and Pensions drove hundreds of people to suicide, and Michael Gove, who almost destroyed the British education system, are not going to hold back on taking things much further. Boris Johnson is actually much more centrist and liberal than people give him credit for, so if he emerges as PM things may not be quite that bad.
The vote to leave was mainly by the older generation - that is, the people who won't have to live with the long-term consequences of this. On the other hand, the younger people voted overwhelmingly to stay - and they're the ones who will be impacted the most if the UK actually decides to go through with it. (The resolution is non-binding, and Parliament technically could ignore it if they wanted to. They may still choose to do so if they decide it's politically acceptable.)
It's worth noting that 16 and 17-year-olds were barred by voting, which was hugely controversial because they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum two years ago. They were overwhelmingly for Remain, and of course this will affect their long-term prospects.
EU citizens who'd been living in the UK for over 5 years - in some cases more than a decade - were barred from voting. A lot of British voters overseas, who were also overwhelmingly for Remain, also found themselves unable to vote due to complications in arranging it. So given the narrowness of the victory, yes, it's more than slightly controversial.
All this talk of the Youth getting shafted - what is the youth unemployment like in the EU again...? Oh right.
That's down to the Euro, which was a hideous mistake and should be abolished, and to the internal policies of each country. Britain was actually highly praised in the EU for how it's handled the economy and weathered the financial storm, even Germany took some inspiration from it and France's current problems stem from being unable to do the same thing.
So the Leave campaign won by forging an unholy alliance between the hard-right of the Conservative Party and the older, disenfranchised, northern working class citizen who hasn't voted since the Thatcher years, on the basis that the Tories would massively invest in public services and local resources.
In terms of unlikely alliances, this probably isn't quite up there with the Nazi-Soviet Pact but may certainly be in the Sauron-Saruman ballpark.
There is a slight problem here, namely what happens to those disaffected working class voters when the Tories continue to sell off the NHS, continue (if not double down on) austerity and keep shrinking government and public services. Maybe a resurgent Labour under Corbyn, having survived the new leadership challenge and vanquished the last remaining Blairites, sweeps them up and delivers this country to a socialist utopia in 2020. Or UKIP starts hoovering them up at a rate of knots as part of its potential new raison d'etre, "encouraging" immigrants already here to start going home.
Seriously? (1) Could this be true? If so, how widespread is Bregret? (B) When you cast a vote, make it the one you actually want.
Anecdotally, quite widespread. This morning, the people of Cornwall - which voted for Brexit - suddenly asked if leaving the EU meant they'd lose their EU funding (hint: yes). And if so, would the small-government, ultra-capitalist, free market-obsessed Conservative Party step in and replace that funding (hint: no)?
That was far from being the sole argument of the Leave side.
It was the predominant argument once it became clear that they had comprehensively lost the economic one. At one point in the campaign the Brexit camp looked completely beaten because they had tried going toe-to-toe on the economy and were crushed. They had to double down on immigration, immigration and immigration (with a dash of sovereignty, which the Tories didn't want to get into too much because of how they won the last general election but UKIP was happy to) because the second they tried to fight on any other ground they dipped in the polls.
Julian Gollop, the original creator of X-COM (along with LORDS OF CHAOS and LASER SQUAD, and advising on the new Firaxis XCOM games), has announced a new X-COM-esque strategy game called PHOENIX POINT.
The game will play in a similar way to the original X-COM, with a world map from which you can organise research, recruitment and procuring equipment and then a turn-based battle mode where you fight the enemy in procedurally-generated landscapes. In a twist, there will also be procedurally-generated monsters and enemies, assembled on the fly from dozens of body parts and types to form hundreds of potential enemies.
The plot is that the melting permafrost has released a virus known as "the Mist" that mutates both people and creatures into terrible monsters. The Mist has also spread across much of the globe, destroying civilisation and reducing it to pockets surviving in Mist-free enclaves scattered over the globe. There are numerous factions of survivors, some of whom are more interested in fighting each other than the Mist, and you have to guide your faction - the titular Phoenix Point - to victory by arranging strategic alliances or even outright conquering other factions to help gather resources to drive the Mist back.
Gollop has taken inspiration from several sources: the original X-COM (and the third game, APOCALYPSE) for the strategic layer, which will be more involved and dynamic than the Firaxis games. The other factions will be fighting one another, researching and doing other stuff regardless of your actions, so if you kick back too much you might let other factions wipe one another out but you might also end up out-resourced, outnumbered and outflanked. The second inspiration is ALPHA CENTAURI, for the very different factions and their goals and ways to appear them. The third is survival horror: although the game has lots of combat and action, the monsters are disturbing and genuinely monstrous, constantly mutating and evolving to adjust to your tactics. The Mist is also active on the battlefield, capable of warping or mutating your soldiers if you don't find ways of defeating it. Some of the monsters are also absolutely huge. The final inspiration is the modern XCOM, which Gollop has praised for its approachability and accessibility, but thinks there is a way of getting a more complex and malleable game underneath. PHOENIX POINT will have at least 3 wildly different endings (possibly more) depending on how the campaign unfolds.
PHOENIX POINT's release date will apparently be in 2018 on PC, with console versions possible.
I think the decision not to do novels was down to Hasbro's insistence that the movie has to tie into the current books and help shift some more of them, so it'll probably be set in the "present day" of FR 5th Edition.
Apparently there was one comment from the studio that they saw the tone of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY was something they should aspire to: dramatic and serious (it's not an out-and-out comedy) but with a knowing, even slightly meta sense of humour.
Which is great if it works, but will be terrible if it doesn't.
It's set in the Forgotten Realms and will involve the Yawning Portal Inn, so at least part of the film will be set in Waterdeep.
They're also looking at the shared universe possibilities, so we may see DRAGONLANCE, DARK SUN, PLANESCAPE etc as future ideas. But right now it's going to be FORGOTTEN REALMS.
Kate Griffin/Claire North/Catherine Webb (her real name) is a pretty good writer. I'd be interested in seeing her stuff on screen. It's like a more literary version of Neil Gaiman's NEVERWHERE.
I think THOMAS COVENANT really is unfilmable. You can't not have him carry out the sexual assault he does in the books as that torpedoes the entire story (which is all about his redemption from that act), but it will also revolt and turn off viewers in droves (the same way it puts off enormous numbers of readers).
Tad Williams has indicated that there is renewed interest in MEMORY, SORROW AND THORN, especially since he has revealed that there will befive new novels in that world coming out in the next few years.
I did a list a couple of months back of all the books/series headed to the screen. In brief, it's a good time to be a Neil Gaiman fan:
Charles Scholz wrote:
Dragonriders of Pern is certainly far superior to fricking Terry Goodkind (one of the worst authors of epic fantasy to ever put pen to paper), but it's a bit of a stretch to say it's so much better than the other two. Dragonflight and maybe the next couple of books were decent, but Anne & Todd did ride that horse into the ground, flog it thoroughly after death, set fire to it and then tried to sell the ashes.
Funny think is that MacCaffrey has a cover blurb on all three of those other books saying how much she enjoyed them.
Women in the world of the Wheel of Time are superior to men in just about every culture apart from Amadicia and Tear (where they're more equal), based on the notion that since only women can use magic that acts as a more-than-force-equaliser and spills over into the non-magical world as well. It's an interesting approach and I think was handled quite well in the meta, but in the close-up-and-personal execution was flawed. But that's something that can be fixed fairly straightforwardly in an adaptation.
The Age of Legends probably lasted for between ten and twenty thousand years. The Aes Sedai, who came into existence at the end of the First Age (our Age), possibly through genetic engineering, spanned that entire period of time and from the off could live for 700 years, so it had to be quite a few generations for them. War had become a forgotten concept during that time, only existing in history books at best. Non-channellers could still live between 200 and 300 years. So the span of time involved had to be pretty big.
Exceedingly unlikely, but not a bad idea.
The WHEEL OF TIME is our world in the future. Not just that, but it's in the future of a time when people can travel across the planet in just hours (or instantly, via Aes Sedai gateways). Cultural and ethnic differences became utterly irrelevant during the Age of Legends. During the Breaking of the World that followed people were thrown together, scattered and mixed up all over the place. During the 3,000 years since the Breaking some re-homegenisation has taken place, but along cultural lines rather than skin colour or appearance.
Whilst going strictly by the books the entire main cast would be white and Caucasian until Tuon showed up, there's actually no real or dramatic reason why that needs to be the case. You could quite easily cast Nynaeve (who's always felt an outsider in the Two Rivers anyway) with an actress of colour with no bearing on the narrative at all. Or Lan, with more textual support as the Borderlands do seem to have attracted a lot of people in the WoT world of Asian descent.
The only people who do really need to be distinctive are the Aiel, who were actually the only race of people to retain their own appearance and culture even during the Age of Legends.
The previous legal difficulties have been resolved, and a major TV studio has optioned the WHEEL OF TIME rights. We should know who in the near future.
Prior to the legal kerfuffle between the Jordan Estate and Red Eagle, Sony TV was interested and based on the short period of time that's elapsed since the legal problem was resolved (last August), it seems unlikely someone else will have had time to have done anything. But never underestimate the ability of Netflix or Amazon to make things happen with mountains of cash. If it is Sony, I would be surprised if they didn't join forces with AMC again (like they did on BREAKING BAD), since their own epic fantasy show would augment AMC's enviable line-up of genre programming (alongside THE WALKING DEAD and PREACHER). But that's all speculation. We know it won't be HBO (they've never double-dipped in the same genre at the same time) but beyond that the field is wide open.
You're right, PC gaming as it was in the past (PC games made and played specifically for and on the PC) for all intents and purposes IS dead overall in the West (US, Canada and Europe).
I suspect Paradox, Firaxis, Roberts Space Industries, Creative Assembly, Larian Studios, Obsidian, Blizzard, Valve and CD Projekt Red, amongst several dozen others, might disagree with you. We've also seen the first few PC-exclusives in a while recently that really got attention from console gamers as well, most notably XCOM 2.
AAA gaming across the board is right down. EA recently pointed out that at the height of the PS2 era they would release maybe 80 games a year, maybe 10-15 of which would be marketed as AAA. Last year they released 12 overall, only a couple of which they marketed as AAA. The economics of making a AAA game no longer make a huge amount of sense, and will not until the workload and expense of making games drops significantly. If it doesn't, then we will likely see even fewer and fewer AAA games in the future. In fact, some recent AAA games have had to seriously sacrifice gameplay, content and options in order to have the expected level of shiny graphics (STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT being a prime example, looking great but having barely any of the same amount of content that BATTLEFRONT 2 had a decade earlier). This is a huge problem for the industry, one that has been solved by the rise of Kickstarter and indie gaming, and of course those things benefit PC more than console.
As for tablets and mobile saving PC gaming, that is actually, bizarrely, having a positive impact on core PC gaming. Stoic ported THE BANNER SAGA to tablet and had a really good impact, which has fed back and allowed them to put more money into THE BANNER SAGA 2 (out this week!) and 3, which benefits PC. The same for other companies. In fact (circling back on-topic) we wouldn't have FINAL FANTASY IX or the upcoming X and X-II ports on PC without the need for a mobile version. That's a win-win for everyone.
The biggest discussion going on right now at Sony and Microsoft is what the hell they are going to do for PS5/XB2. Because the current paradigm of designing ever more expensive systems to throw ever more polygons around is clearly unworkable without games costing over £100 and taking over five years each to develop.
Being pre-TNG pretty much guarantees no Romulans though, as there had been no contact with the Romulan Star Empire with a Federation Vessel for 50 years before the Season 1 TNG episode The Neutral Zone.
I think ST:TNG did overstate that in the first season. The Battle of Narendra III referenced in "Yesterday's Enterprise" seems to be the last major contact between the Federation and Klingson and the Romulans, and that was 20 years before ST:TNG rather than 50. The fact that the Federation goes from having 0 information on the Romulans in Season 1 to having detailed biographies of the Romulan government in Season 5 also seems rather unlikely. I think the "No contact" thing may have been retconned a bit even before TNG was over.
Considering that the PC gaming scene has been downright dead these last ten years or so, why suddenly get an interest in porting their games to PC? Because it's easy? Because it's a big market? Why?
Dead? Since when? :P
Ten years ago PC gaming was in decline, sure, but then caught the bounceback from Steam and digital sales going through the roof, and then caught another boost from the last console changeover (when it became clear just how unimpressive the PS4 and XB1 were going to be, technically). Over the last couple of years PC sales have increased impressively, to the point where games like FALLOUT 4 and GTA5 can sell *millions* of copies on PC in their first month on sale, regardless of the console versions. In fact, FALLOUT 4 sold 1.2 million copies on PC alone on its first day on sale. The game sold 12 million total on all platforms in its first month, so assuming more PC copies were sold after the first day, then easily the game could have sold over one-third of its copies on PC. That's a huge market.
Something that's also important is the long tail. Apparently Rockstar (for example) still sell a lot of copies of GTA4 (!) on PC every year thanks to Steam sales and mods, which means that although GTA4 on console outsold the PC massively on release, the PC version has now done as well, if not better. At a lower rate of return, sure, but the game is still selling and still making Rockstar money eight years after release on PC, which it really isn't on consoles.
As for why Square are doing this now, they've kind of eased into it ever since buying out Eidos (and its PC expertise) in 2009. They already had PC versions of FF7 and 8 from when they first came out (I've still got my PC copy of FF7 that I bought in 1998 right here on the shelf) so those were pretty simple to move across and update for Steam. FF4-6 were just the phone/tablet versions ported over as-is, so they were pretty cheap to do as well. They could then look at the sales, see how good they were (and apparently they were very solid) and then justify the higher cost of porting FF13 and its two sequels. Those games had XB360 versions which likely simplified some aspects of porting; if they'd been PS3 only the cost might have been prohibitive.
FF9 has fallen between the two stools: not being in full 3D, it's likely not been as complex as 13, but it's also been more work than the sprite-based pre-PS1 games. And it's a decent port, you can even click the mouse to move characters around on screen like a LucasArts adventure and can click on enemies and commands during battle, which I really wasn't expecting. They've done a thorough job with it and it's very good. As word of that spreads out, they'll sell a lot more copies, the PC market have great word-of-mouth about such things.
Any word on if they are reconsidering making this available only on thier new prime service?
It'll be available internationally on other services, I imagine, but right now CBS have only confirmed that the opening episode will air on regular CBS and the rest will air on their on-demand service.
If it's a catastrophic failure on that service, I think we'll see the show pretty quickly rerouted to more traditional release services.
I'm starting to wonder if we'll get scenes like those in the Supergirl series, filled with veiled references to a ship called the "Big E" that will never be actually seen on screen.
They could set it in the twenty-year window after the destruction of the Enterprise-C and before the Enterprise-D was launched, when there was no Enterprise around. Or just complete ignore it: the number of references to the Enterprise in DS9 and VOYAGER was almost completely non-existent.
None of this has been 100% confirmed but apparently several sources at CBS have confirmed this information to the original site and to a few others like Den of Geek.
The current points of interest are:
1) Set in the original timeline, not the Abramsverse (as mentioned earlier, CBS don't have the rights to the Abramsverse without doing a new deal with Paramount).
2) Set after STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY but before STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION.
3) The show will not involve a starship called Enterprise.
4) The show will be "tightly serialised".
5) The show will be a "seasonal anthology" series like TRUE DETECTIVE and FARGO. Each season will be set in a different part of the STAR TREK universe and canon, and will be free to use different castmembers (new or old), settings and ideas.
6) The show cannot debut before 22 January 2017, as the CBS/Paramount deal requires six months to elapse between one project and the other (the next STAR TREK film, BEYOND, comes out on 22 July).
please tell us that Vin Diesel will be the voice of one of the main characters animal companions.
The original article said that the main warrior character was a "Vin Diesel" type. Which is a code phrase for "We want Vin Diesel." Dude is, of course, a massive D&D fan but that doesn't mean he'll sign up if the money and script aren't good enough.
Too much money. Would be funny though.
If SEAN BEAN is too expensive for this movie, I think it's going to be in trouble. Bean is an excellent supporting actor, but he's not a lead for movies and he doesn't really cost that much.
It's Rob Letterman, who directed MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, A SHARK'S TALE, GULLIVER'S TRAVELS and GOOSEBUMPS. He's...okay, I guess? He's had a lot of effects experience, and also worked on the CGI for SHREK.
I'm a lot less hopeful about the script, written by the guy who did WRATH OF THE TITANS.
Hasbro and Warner Brothers aren't exactly bringing top-tier talent to the movie so far.
They have released a blurb though:
"Based on the popular fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons originally designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and first published in 1974, the action-adventure tale centers on a warrior and his band of mystical creatures – including a half-dragon and a cunning gnome – as they embark on a dangerous journey to find a mythical treasure."
We know from previous information that the film will be at least partially set in Waterdeep and the Yawning Portal Inn will feature.
I am not entirely disheartened but I'm not seeing too much to get excited about at this time.
Larian already had great writers, this will be difficult for Obsidian
Even without Avellone, Obsidian have Tim Cain (the creator of FALLOUT and VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE - BLOODLINES), Josh Sawyer (PoE, IWD 1 and 2, FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS), George Ziets (PoE, DS3) and a few others who are pretty good. Avellone was their strongest ace in the hole because of FO2, PLANESCAPE: TORMENT, KotOR 2 and MASK OF THE BETRAYER, but their other guys aren't slouches. Some of the newer writers they brought on board for PoE were also pretty good, like Carrie Patel and Olivia Veras. Along with inXile they have possibly the strongest writing team in CRPGs. Larian are good, but I think D:OS's strength over PoE was much more from the gameplay systems and superior combat. In terms of plot/character/theme/story it was a lot less memorable.
Obsidian and Paradox are collaborating on a new CRPG called TYRANNY. This game will use the PILLARS OF ETERNITY engine and casts you as a Fatebinder, a servant of the Dark Lord Kyros who has conquered the world (the premise being that the ultimate battle between good and evil has been fought and evil has already won).
Unlike PoE, this game will not be crowdfunded (Paradox are funding it in full) and it's already pretty far down the line, with a release in late 2016 currently being expected.
More interestingly, this will be Obsidian's first-ever RPG that has been made with no input at all from Chris Avellone, who has decamped to Larian to work on DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN II. Obsidian's other writers are pretty good so this isn't a mortal blow, but I'll be interested to see what they come up with.
Yeah, I'd go much further and say that reading THE FIRST LAW is pretty much mandatory before reading the stand-alones. There are so many nuances, storylines and characters in the stand-alones that appeared or were set up in the trilogy that it adds a lot more to the reading experience.
Also, the stand-alones will form the bridge between the first trilogy and the second trilogy (which Joe has just started writing).
They confirm that the movie will be set in the FORGOTTEN REALMS and that the Yawning Portal Inn and the city of Waterdeep will feature. They also confirm that if the film does well they will look at doing other films in other worlds later on.
They also say they want to go for a different tone to things like THE HOBBIT and WARCRAFT, with a style of humour similar to GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. Hmm. Could work.