Marketer. Photographer. Husband & dad. Lego, Minecraft, & Preds hockey fan. Movie buff, but pls #NoSpoilers!

Also @pwnicholson@mastodon.online Also @pwnicholson@pixelfed.social Also @pwnicholson.bsky.social Used to be @pwnicholson on IG, FB, TW, etc

  • 1 Post
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle



  • “lack of experience in the area…”

    Boeing dwarfs SpaceX in experience building spacecraft.

    Mercury and Gemini spacecraft were both built by the McDonnell Corp. That company merged with the Douglas Aircraft company (which built the 3rd stage of the Saturn V rocket) becoming McDonnell Douglas in 1967, which merged into Boeing in 1997. Boeing itself co-manufactured the space shuttle orbiters with Rockwell.

    On paper and judging from experience and history, if you were going to pick a single company to build a spacecraft, it would be them. Not some brand new company run by a space-obsessed software engineer.

    Clearly Boeing has huge cultural issues and has for a while.

    Just saying if you wanted to go off experience alone, they’re the best there is.



  • Or what has been called one of the most historic and tumultuous years of a century (1968)… Yeah.

    Now I gotta look up 1973. Never heard it mentioned in this context…

    Answer:

    • Roe vs Wade
    • Vietnam War officially ended, US pulls out of Cambodia
    • OPEC oil embargo started
    • Wounded Knee occupation
    • Major flooding of the Mississippi River
    • New tallest building in the world (Sears Tower)
    • Nixon goes to China and US opens official office in Beijing
    • Battle of the Sexes tennis match
    • Secretariat wins first triple crown in 25 years, smashing records
    • “The Miller Test” for obscenity is established by the US Supreme Court
    • Two notable commercial airline crashes with fatalities (both in Boston, interestingly)
    • Egypt and Israel sign peace accord
    • Much of the Watergate scandal played out in 73, though Nixon didn’t resign until August of '74







  • Exactly. Early Marvel was deeply about character and their depth and character flaws that made them interesting. Thor, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanov, and especially Tony Stark were interesting and complex personalities. (Bruce Banner and Clint Barton…eh).

    The stories in recent Marvel products are fine. Mildly interesting serials. Ok popcorn fare.

    But the character development has been getting more and more lacking. Even Thor has been reduced to 'dumb blonde'/'dumb entitled rich kid' gags.

    I think that's part of what makes Loki one of the only really interesting outings for Marvel recently. He stayed reasonably conflicted and complex.


  • I assume someone somewhere decided that it was going to net a profit (after already sunk production costs and yet-to-be-spent promoting costs and other obligations) of less than $30 million.

    So if given the choice between hoping it maybe makes $20-40 million in net profit vs a guaranteed $30 million as a tax write-off, that's easy math for the number crunchers.

    I have no idea but they could also have decided they didn't want to spend to promote it. It costs a fortune in money up front to promote movies these days, even after the movie is 'in the can'. Money is getting more and more expensive with interest rates going up, so financing even promotional costs is more expensive.