Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mister Pops

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 228
31
Books & Comics / Re: Comixology 4.0 - not sounding good.
« on: 23 February, 2022, 03:46:14 PM »
How did your friend manage that, do you know?
I don’t recall. I think quite a lot of proof of ownership via counterstrikes. But even then, the attacks are all automated and so keep coming back. YouTube will merrily remove a channel if it gets three copyright strikes. A gamer I know had that happen to her, from a game supplied to her for review. It’s insane.

[dubious thing I think I heard in a pub]
I've heard if you run a youtube channel for profit, you should get the rights to a piece of music, even if it's a random sequence of notes/noises you made up yourself. Then you set up a secondary channel as the rights holder of that music. Then every time you upload a video to your primary channel, include your music, even if it's barely audible, and instantly copyright claim from your secondary channel. Then demonitize the video on your primary channel. It can stay up, no one else can copyright claim it now, and any associated revenue goes to the secondary channel, allowing you to continue earning from your content.
[/dubious thing I think I heard in a pub]

Disclaimer: I do not now, nor have I ever had a youtube channel. That could all be bollocks. I'm just continuing the internet's grand tradition of chipping in on subjects I know nothing about with second/third hand unreliable information.

Tom Scott made a good video about the youtube's strained relationship with copyright.

TL;DW: The copyright boobery isn't really youtube's fault. Copyright laws were written when only big media companies could produce and distribute content, and technologically illiterate politicians mistakenly believe DMCA has solved the problems caused by the internet's democratization of media production.

TL;DR: Copyright law needs a complete rebuild.

32
Books & Comics / Re: Comixology 4.0 - not sounding good.
« on: 22 February, 2022, 03:29:56 PM »
I would add that Apple also didn't make you buy all your albums again, you can easily rip your CDs onto itunes (LPs are a bit more of a ball-ache, you need a USB turntable and then split up the tracks manually et cetera and so forth). Their UI is a bit pants though.

33
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 21 February, 2022, 11:14:03 PM »
If they were going to remake something, Star Trek has plenty of good ideas, poorly executed. Star Trek IV is not one of them. In fact, The Voyage Home is kind of the opposite; a pretty fucking daft idea executed really well. It might be my favourite. Definitely doesn't need remade.

34
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 21 February, 2022, 11:39:10 AM »
Sorry. That was unnecessarily grumpy. I'd had a somewhat bruising run-in elsewhere with some real gate-keepery types and it wasn't fair to take that out on you. Apologies again.

No need to apologize, I know the types you mean and I'm quite aware I could easily get lumped in with them. And grumpiness is a necessity when talking about things you care about. Notice how I haven't posted any snark about the gritty Fresh Prince* reboot**, because although I enjoyed it back in the day, and think Uncle Phil is one of the best role models for fathers everywhere, I don't care as much.

"'Star Trek' is my favorite show of all time," he admitted. "But for some reason it never clicked with me until I started working on it, and then I fell in love with it."
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blogs/movie-talk/j-j-abrams-star-trek-too-philosophical-192548775.html

It seems like he saying he started liking it when it started paying.

Edit to clarify: I don't dislike the reboot movies or new TV shows because they have failed some sort of Trek purity test, I dislike like them because they have failed on their own merits. Shows like The Expanse, The BSG reboot and even going back to Farscape are/were better at doing the things STD and Picard are trying.


*if you're unfamiliar, I can provide a summary of the premise in rap form
**no really, Will Smith has actually done this

35
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 21 February, 2022, 12:24:02 AM »
I doubt anyone who enjoys Star Trek is involved in that show.

Wow. You gate-keeping fuckers can piss right off. I really quite like Discovery — if it doesn't tally with your notion of the One True Trek™ then, y'know, just don't watch it.

If you enjoy it, don't let me stop you. I have stopped watching, but I suspect if it was still on Netflix, I would be persisting through morbid curiosity.

I don't have a notion of One True TrekTM. However both Abrams and Kurtzmann have both stated in televised interviews* that they don't like Star Trek. It's "too philosophical" for them apparently. I have a problem with that. Just like I would have a problem with some randomer taking over Dredd even though they thought it was "too satirical" and then made him a big stupid selfish crybaby.

I try not to be a dick about things I don't like, but modern Star Trek just seems to trigger me.

*See previous comments about it being on John Stewarts show  and not wanting to search/link to it to avoid the algorithm inundating me with anti-Dubya era rants

36
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 20 February, 2022, 11:22:25 PM »

I enjoy the reboots more than bloody Discovery, which teeters on the edge of adequate.

I doubt anyone who enjoys Star Trek is involved in that show. If there is, they're fans who think season one of Next Gen and DS9 were the best, or that Wesley Crusher and Neelix were inspirational. Maybe they hired a Trek advisor who's a bigger fraud than the indigenous American consultant they hired to flesh out Chakotay.

37
Off Topic / Re: Life is riddled with a procession of minor impediments
« on: 20 February, 2022, 12:57:14 AM »
The storm blew down part of my fence. Spent my Saturday fixing it and making sure the rest of it was secure. I swear storms were more benign before the met started anthropomorphising them. Still, it was nice change from Brexit and covid being the source of my embuggerances.

38
Off Topic / Re: Threadjacking!
« on: 17 February, 2022, 11:51:17 PM »
I'm assuming that everyone knows that the largest religious group in the world is 'lapsed catholic'?

I prefer the term "recovering cath-aholic".

39
Off Topic / Re: Threadjacking!
« on: 17 February, 2022, 08:24:18 PM »
If it turns out tangible planes of reality only exist because of Grant Morrison's imagination, I would be OK with that, but it's also the most Grant Morrisony bullshit ever.

It's just anti-catholic slander ...

'Round these parts, that's just the local assembly's policy. My wife, who had considered becoming a nun*, pointed out the whole limbo thing to me when I raised this story with her.

*and regrets not doing it since marrying me....ZING

40
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 17 February, 2022, 04:20:47 PM »
Quantum Trek was OK. A bit uneven and I don't think a prequel series was a great idea, but it gets bonus points for its bold choice of a Christian rock theme tune.

41
Off Topic / Re: Threadjacking!
« on: 16 February, 2022, 11:59:11 PM »
If any of those babies had died, would they have been eternally damned to hell because of a clerical error?

42
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 16 February, 2022, 11:49:37 PM »

43
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 16 February, 2022, 08:28:53 PM »
That's barely a joke, and if I can't nit-pick Star Trek, what's the point of even having an internet?

44
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 16 February, 2022, 05:57:38 PM »
I keep meaning to look into Warhammer 40,000. Is there a resource that summarises or abridges the first 39,999?

45
Film & TV / Re: New Star Trek Movie Proposed.
« on: 16 February, 2022, 04:09:13 PM »
You forgot about the asian fella*
I didn’t—I said mostly white men.

Quote
I get your point, but I think that's just an artefact of being based on a show from the ‘60s.
No, it’s down to decisions made with intent. There is no reason why, in a reboot, they couldn’t have gender flipped half the leads, and made some more of them not white... It’s just laziness, a lack of imagination and, probably, a fear of fanboys throwing their toys out of their prams ... that leads to the status quo.

Fair enough. They might not neccessarily have had to gender flip anyone. Having given it a bit more thought, they could have included Janice Rand, but gave her a more senior role.  Flip the roles and make Christine Chapel Chief of Medicine, with Bones as Head Nurse. Make "Number One" the XO (but y'know, give her an actual name) and make Spock just the Science Ofiicer . I would not be surprised if they didn't know these characters existed though.

As much as I like Simon Pegg, a gender-flipped Scotty (Tammy O'Shanter?) couldn't be much worse than his portrayal.

But I think we can all agree that the worst of all the casting decisions was having Bones played by Carl Urban AND THEN BARELY FUCKING USING HIM!

Quote
Quote
I don't know why he wants to make another one. Maybe
My guess: ££££££$$$$$$€€€€€€.
Well yeah, like I said, nerds are an easy mark.

Quote
apparently you have to set phasers on stun
No you don't, the 2009 film explicitly shows Kirk switching his phaser to kill on the Romulan ship.

Yes, I'm aware phasers have both a stun and kill settings. My issue was that, from everything I had seen in Star Trek up to this movie, "Set phasers to stun" seemed to be the standard procedure. The Federation/Starfleet was presented with a pacifist organisation that had developed a weapon that could render an aggressor unconscious without maiming or leaving horrible scars. The kill setting was for extreme circumstances. Lethal force and unneccessary violence was frowned upon. So Starfleet officers carrying swords as a matter of course seems a bit off to me. A contemporary military officer carrying a sword would be weird. A knife? OK, but a sword? And contemporary militaries are most certainly not pacifist organisations.

Even Worf left his batleth at home.

Mostly.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 228