|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
On GHOSTBUSTERS? No, it's at $90 million now. The budget is $144 million and with marketing the break-even point will be $300 million (or slightly less), so it's about a third of the way there. If it doesn't get to $300 million, Sony will lose money. With no Chinese release, I can't see the film getting that far unless the positive reviews keep it afloat longer then expected and it works as an alternative for people who don't want to go see something like SUICIDE SQUAD or STAR TREK. The weekend figures for this weekend will be very telling in that regard (but it sounds like STAR TREK BEYOND has opened at a much lower level than either of its predecessors; whether that will help GB is unclear).
Sony have been bullish about wanting to build a franchise off of GHOSTBUSTERS, but I can't see that flying unless this first movie at least breaks even and gives them confidence to do a sequel.
Merchandising will probably help a bit, but this Christmas is going to be dominated by STAR WARS and POKEMON. GB stuff will likely do okay but I don't see it being a huge factor.
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.
4/5 is a bit much for a movie with a weak plot, crappy villain, and a comedy where 2/3 of the jokes don't work
The original GHOSTBUSTERS had a weak plot, crappy villain and probably a fifth to a quarter of the jokes didn't work, and I'd be inclined to give that 5 stars ;)
Films can rise up above their weakness, and sometimes can rise up above them massively. This does so pretty well.
$46 million was actually over projection (which was $40 million), so Sony are reasonably happy with it and making pretty strong sequel noises. What needs to be seen is the tail and extent of the drop-off and how that factors into Sony's plans. They may decided to press on anyway and take a moderate success on the first movie as a franchise-building exercise. Hell, they're letting Zack Snyder make more DC movies and people are still arguing over whether BATMAN V SUPERMAN made a profit, or much of one, because its marketing budget was so much bigger than the norm.
STAR TREK BEYOND has had pretty non-existent marketing and its first trailer was a disaster, but it has pulled back some goodwill and the early review buzz is mixed but generally positive-leaning. I'd expect it to do okay but I'm not sure why people are expecting it to go nuclear when neither of the previous two did and this one has far less hype and marketing behind it. In fact, I'd expect BEYOND to be much more at risk from SUICIDE SQUAD launching right behind it than GB.
As for what I thought of the film:
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 :)
Bethesda "borrowed" a NEW VEGAS mod's storyline for a FAR HARBOR quest. Nothing illegal about that, as Bethesda automatically own everything from fan-created FALLOUT mods. But they didn't credit the creators of AUTUMN LEAVES or acknowledge it in any way, despite their questline using near-identical characters, events and locations. Disappointing behaviour.
Speaking of winter in King's Landing, anyone else notice how much earlier their white raven arrived than Winterfell's?
Different season, different raven. That was back in Season 2, when the raven signified the end of summer and the start of autumn. It's now 2-4 years later (seriously, the timeline of the show is rather screwed up by this point) and winter has arrived.
Damon Griffin wrote:
It hasn't as a serious concern. However, GRRM did sign a development deal with HBO three years ago and they've talked to him about his other books which don't have deals with other studios, specifically TUF VOYAGING. I think HBO want to ease into science fiction with WESTWORLD first, they're still a little way from producing a space opera, so that's likely on the backburner. More likely is WILD CARDS, since HBO would like an adult-oriented superhero series and the rights just lapsed at SyFy. That will probably only happen if HBO decide not to do the WATCHMEN TV series with Zack Snyder though.
For a GoT spin-off series, GRRM actually still owns all of the rights to the other material and he's already said he doesn't want to do a series about Robert's Rebellion but would be happy to discuss Dunk & Egg. I think his preference would be an occasional TV movie following the short stories, but there's no reason they couldn't do a full series mixing the short story adaptations with original stories. It'd be far cheaper than GoT and a lot less intense. The only problem is if the audience would want to tune in without any dragons, magic, Jon, Daenerys or Tyrion.
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.
Jack Vance: "The Complete Lyonesse" and "Tales of the Dying Earth".Fritz Leiber: "The First Book of Lankhmar" and "The Second Book of Lankhmar"
Michael Moorock: "Elric of Melnibone"
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.
One thing I have noticed watching the BBC is that people (politicians and experts) are either ecstatically happy or doom and gloom depressed. This leads me to think that nobody has a deep understanding of all the implications of this vote. Reactions are too simplistic, not nuanced enough.
That was a major problem. Exiting or remaining in the European Union is an insanely complicated question. People have said it's a divorce but it isn't: it's separataing conjoined twins who have fused together almost at a cellular level, but instead of doing it in infancy it's trying to do it at age 45 and hoping against hope that both survive the process without long-lasting damage.
This is why Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even a lot of the Conservative Party vehemently refused to put this into a referendum, because they did not believe that the majority of voters - whether a mechanic from Gloucester, a banker in the city or a doctor in Liverpool - would have the time to sit down and read through every single possible outcome of the consequences and then make a considered judgement. If there was ever an issue that we voted career politicians to take a position on having sat through five hundred Parliamentary briefings on it and taken the advice of hundreds of civil servants and experts, it's this one.
It's true, as with most things that the people cheering it probably won't be very happy in five years when they realise what they've lost, and it's also true that the doom-mongers may be sighing with relief in five years that things did not go as badly as they could have done. But I don't think there's many people, apart maybe from the most insulated Leave campaigners, who genuinely don't believe that this decision has profoundly damaged Britain's social cohesion, sense of national identity, economy and political landscape. If we bounce back fast, it's not a major problem. But I don't think anyone really believes we will bounce back that fast.
Apparently there's now a legal question in play. Corbyn thinks, as the sitting leader, he can gain re-nomination for the leader automatically. But the rules were changed a while ago and apparently the current understanding is that Corbyn needs to re-gather the nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party as everyone else does. As it stands, he cannot get enough nominations to stand again.
Exactly how that pans out with the party at large is unclear. Labour supporters may abandon the party in droves, or it may turn out that rather more people share the PLP's position than the hardcore Corbynites suppose.
If Corbyn does manage to stand again and then win, de-selecting the rebellious MPs will be extraordinarily difficult. Each one of the 140 local Labour party committees will have to deselect the MP in question which is actually far harder than you'd think mid-Parliament, especially for those MPs who have been there for decades. You also have the problem that it may trigger by-elections in each constituency and the Labour Party having to fight lots of little elections. It'd actually massively simplify the process to just wait for the next election if a snap one is going to be held in November or February and then re-select the MPs then. However, realistically the Labour Party can't be paralysed for those five or eight months or whatever, that would just help it be wiped out at the election.
Labour have got to sort this out ASAP. Contrary to some beliefs, they actually can turn things around incredibly quickly and win (such as Tony Blair transforming Labour into New Labour in just three years and going from winning what may have been a very modest victory into a landslide) but to do so they're going to need the Conservatives to implode, to find an articulate and charistmatic leader with a strong, easily communicated vision and stop the infighting.
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.
Gollancz have got an excellent "Complete Chronicles of Conan" collection, along with great one-volume collections of Jack Vancer's LYONESSE and DYING EARTH series. They also have the complete Fritz Leiber Newhon tales, but in two volumes, and an Elric collection which brings together the novels but not all of the novellas and short stories.
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.
The voyage from Dorne to Mereen across the narrow sea is what, a couple/few days? It would have taken the dragon queen's armies weeks to prepare for their voyage, which is plenty of time for Varys to return.
Nope. Meereen is three thousand miles from Westeros. It's not even on the Narrow Sea, it's on the Summer Sea along Essos's south coast. On a medieval sailing ship, it's maybe a month's voyage with favourable winds. And it's not a trip you make easily, as you have to sail right around the volcanic peninsular of Valyria through pirate-infested waters. The show has seriously lowballed the logistical challenges faced in moving armies around by sea. There's a reason why, 1066 excepted, Britain has never faced a successful nautical invasion despite being only 25 miles from Europe across the Channel and often massively outnumbered by its enemies.
Of course, Daenerys now has a safe landing spot in Dorne which will help things a lot.
Exactly. The EU was never meant to be an actual nation. But it's been moving further and further towards that, and I sympathize with those that do not want their national identities watered down to the point of non-existence.
This has always been a massively overblown fear.
The United States of Europe, as a theoretical concept, is grounded in the idea that the European mainland is dominated by two principal powers, France and Germany, and that the continent cannot survive as long as those two powers are in competition with one another for land and resources. The first and second world wars resulted from that, along with the Franco-Prussian War and the Napoleonic Wars. After a century and a half of conflict, France and Germany found a way around the problem by sharing economic goals, getting rid of their borders and creating a shared currency (also, ditching fascism helped). Great for them. But of course there are a few other nations on the European continent other than those two who weren't happy with them working in lockstep for their own interest.
That is actually why Britain signed the Maastricht Treaty without going for a referendum (and that was massively controversial at the time), because the Conservative government under Major absolutely did not want a Europe dominated by the Paris-Berlin axis (rubberstamped by Brussels and Luxembourg) with nothing to stop them doing whatever they wanted. And Britain was rather more successful than it's often been credited for at getting in there and making sure that not everything went their way.
Since 2008 Britain's power in the EU has actually grown: France elected Hollande, whose left-wing political viewpoints are completely incompatible with Merkel's pragmatic economics, and as a result France and Germany have gone through an ideological separation. Britain has stepped in, its economy has surged past that of France and the for the last few years it has done an excellent job of getting things done in Europe. Most notably, cutting the EU budget a few years ago during the height of the economic crisis. During the Paris/Berlin lockstep days, that'd have been impossible. But Britain made the argument and carried it. We've actually been helped by this by the new eastern European member states who likewise don't share the enthusiasm for a United States of Europe, most notably Poland.
Right now, there is far less chance of a United States of Europe ever coming into existence. Euroscepticism is rife across Europe, even in France and Italy, and is a small but influential force now in Germany. Britain had effectively won the argument on stopping the ever growing union. In fact, we really should have started redefining what the European Union should be: a trade alliance of nations with some common laws to enable trade and travel to be easier and an inner core of countries with the single currency (which, to be frank, is looking increasingly unworkable in the long run). And Britain's ability to define the EU and taking a leading role in it was only growing: under previous forecasts and remaining in the EU we would have overtaken Germany by 2030 at the latest as the primary economic power in the EU.
Of course, we've just thrown that possibility out of the pram.
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.
Werthead, the agreement (about the border) is the result of a bilateral agreement and won't change, even as a result of Brexit. Here's a link to the relevant story.
It's a bilateral agreement that either side can terminate at two years' notice. So far the Mayor of Calais and the representative for the whole region have said they now see no logical reason for France to continue shouldering the bulk of the costs of maintaining the camp on their side of the tunnel. Others in the French government have said that they won't be rushing to change agreements without further discussions with Britain. They COULD choose to terminate it and we would have no say in the matter. How that pans out depends a lot on French internal politics and the Brexit discussions.
A petition for a second referendum in the UK has reached almost 3 million signatures.
Despite that extraordinarily high figure, I would agree that it would be undemocratic to rerun the referendum. The result has to be taken as it is. The only grounds on which to rerun the decision would be if there was a material change to the premise of the referendum.
Of course, part of the premise of the referendum was that the government would spend £350 million a week more on the NHS and would also halt the free movement of people from the EU. And in the last 36 hours senior members of the Leave campaign have rolled back on both of those promises. Is that enough to justify a second referendum? Maybe. The new Tory leader has to agree that both of those promises are enshrined in the Brexit negotiations or I think they will come back to bite them.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As mentioned above, neither Yugoslavia nor its successor states were part of the EU (a lot of them still aren't), which was part of the problem, and then suffered arguments over borders, which the EU effectively nullifies. The religious disagreements were also quite strong, but the EU has also done a reasonable job of keeping those issues under control.
This has been borne out in the last 36 hours. Britain controls the peninsula of Gibraltar, which borders the far southern tip of Spain, and has done for centuries. Spain has argued that it should be part of its own country because of proximity. Prior to the EU there were lots of arguments and threats over the issue. The EU nullified that because, well, it doesn't really matter when they're both part of the EU and then the UK and Spain made lots of money from Spanish workers who could cross the border freely to work in Gibraltar (at rather higher rates of pay than they could get locally, in some cases).
Almost immediately post-Brexit, Spain said soothingly that the estimated 800,000-1 million British expats living in Spain would still be welcome and could stay with no problems. And then, of course in a competely unrelated statement, said that they expected "joint sovereignty" over Gibraltar with the UK as a transitional stage before the colony completely joined the Spanish state. There was an interesting undertone there, "Give us Gibraltar and we won't force a million mostly old codgers to return to the UK and collapse your economy - er, more than it has been - overnight."
In addition, Britain helps pay for a migrant camp in Calais to stop illegal migrants crossing the Channel to Britain. To make that work legally, the border between Britain and France is at the edge of the migrant camp (as a bit of legal busywork to ensure that Britain has to pay for it, not just the French government). France has said that this arrangement - which can be terminated by either side - is no longer in their interest post-Brexit and they could choose to terminate it, which would allow migrants to enter the Channel Tunnel or even legally hitch a lift in vans to the far side at Dover, where a new migrant camp would have to be set up, 100% at the British taxpayer's expense.
The EU didn't do anything to prevent or mitigate the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Years of Lead in Italy, or ETA in the Basque country, either.
The worst excesses of those campaigns all took place before the modern EU was effectively founded with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. In addition, the EU actually is at a cornerstone of the resolution of the Troubles.
Technically, continued co-membership of the European Union by both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement (which effectively ended the Troubles), and the EU provides an important forum for discussions between Dublin and London. On paper, at least (the UK PM and the Irish Taoiseach usually have no problems just talking to each other direct), the EU provides an important forum for discussions between the Republic and the UK. The UK leaving the EU means that the Good Friday Agreement has to be reworked, which no-one really has engaged with because the mere thought of it causes politicians to break out in hives.
The Troubles (probably) wouldn't restart, of course, but the reintroduction of a physical land border between the Republic and the North and the end of free movement at will between the two states is going to be politically sensitive, problematic and migraine-inducing.
the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.
What do you base this on? A long-term good result for the UK requires the UK to either start building something to sell to the rest of the world - which there is no realistic prospect of - or for it to be allowed continued free access to the EU market, which there is also no realistic prospect of.
I assume HBO will have them film both seasons back to back.
Negative. Benioff and Weiss have simply hit a wall in being able to film 10 episodes a year with the production requirements that the final two seasons will need. The two seasons will need to be shorter or one super-sized season could be filmed, but we'd have to wait 18-24 months for it, which damages HBO's income for the next financial year. Two shorter seasons is the apparent compromise.
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.
Remember there'll probably be an XCOM 3, maybe even in 2018. XCOM 2 has a pretty massive cliffhanger ending.
Three wildly different endings??? Cool! Do we get red, green or blue again?
Nope. Apparently it's more of a NEW VEGAS deal, where you have three major end-states and then several dozen variations to each end state depending on how you interacted with the other factions. You can win outright by conquering everyone, or win through an alliance with other factions or, er, presumably just losing. There's also different methodologies for defeating the Mist which will have different results on the endings.
It's got to be an improvement on XCOM and XCOM 2 which had one ending each, which was a bit poor. Especially when XCOM 2 (kind of) completely ignored the ending from XCOM 1.
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.
Clearly we disagree on the issue, so rather than carry on with that dead end, I'll drop that there.
For those who may be interested, here's a selection of other reviews of the series: