unclevlad

Might be interesting to see how this goes. It wouldn't surprise me, tho, if Jungle Cruise was never slated for a huge theatrical gate. This one *screams* Stream Me On Disney, since it's practically an infomercial promoting the parks.

Yeah, Brady's inclusion is pretty bizarre, as is his choice to appear. Side note: I can't imagine why they don't let Charles Barkley appear on camera............................

Obviously, the state of the sports world is a wreck, if *Britain* can approach 60 medals.................. <dives behind the steel-lined door....>

Given Disney's similar actions? I lean to straight corporate greed, rather than sexism. I can readily see your tactical analysis, tho. Even if you can't win in court, you can largely quash it by winning the PR battle...and a great way to do that is to make SJ seem like a lone wolf.

Long NYT Opinion piece on this that I saw a few minutes ago. We shouldn't be surprised; Carlson's got an extensive track record of antipathy to diversity. There is an interesting, contrasting story in the NYT as well. One of the points was that strong-arm, authoritative, patriarchal politicians have a perception advantage. The gap from authoritative to authoritarian isn't great.

I don't get creeped out, I get disgusted. Only part of it is the genocide; an equal part is the suggestion that it was divinely justified. I try to avoid the genre but there's a LOT of it that tries to slide under the radar masquerading as sci fi, urban fantasy, and superhero genres.

"Back end bonuses" are a major part of the contract compensation. Disney's playing very fast and loose. Streaming was third...theatrical release, DVD and PPV, then streaming. This suggests the streaming would be a relatively low-value aspect. Disney made it co-primary. On the assumption that the percentage of streaming revenue going to the actors, is significantly lower than the earlier phases...the shift to streaming immediately, can be read as a deliberate move to circumvent the contractual obligations. The interesting parts to me are at the very end. The first suggests pattern and practice, altho this won't affect that many movies so far. The second suggests Disney may recognize their legal basis isn't very good. After being burned in the writers' situation, they should think so, I would say. But it makes their response to SJ rather egregious. Some people inside Disney's legal arm have probably been roasted over the coals.

In one of the stranger innings of the season... Cards have a 4-2 lead going into the 8th. Pitchers allow a 2-run dinger to tie it...then it gets weird. They load the bases with 2 outs...then issue 4 straight walks. In other news...J.R. Richard died today. I *vaguely* remember him; he played with Houston in the 70's until forced to retire after multiple strokes, several not detected until after the fact, when he was only 30. Playing for Houston back then, pretty much guaranteed anonymity to anyone outside the immediate area, pretty much. Little to no TV back then, and the Astros were not very good. UNTIL 1980. The Astros won their division....but Richard pitched only half a season. The Astros had picked up Nolan Ryan; the two were perhaps the most terrifying pair since Koufax and Drysdale. He went 10-4 with an ERA below 2, in 17 starts...but arterial obstructions in his arm (detected) and neck (NOT detected but led to the stroke) ended his season, and effectively career, in mid July. So he never saw the playoffs. I do remember comments that he was one of the *hardest* pitchers to hit...largely because it was like...who? Houston. No TV, no internet. But they're citing Dale Murphy and Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan...and today, during the Mets broadcast, Gary Thorne and Keith Hernandez talked extensively about him. Hernandez also called him the toughest pitcher he ever faced.

With unfortunate collateral damage. We can hope for a silver lining. Hey, you stupid denier types! How about thinking about your little kids?????

Not a good day for tennis fans. Nadal loses in Washington in the 3rd round, to the 50th ranked player in the world. This was his first event since Paris. He'd aggravated the foot injury that's been the major issue in his match the day before. Federer says he's going to skip the next 2 events due to his knee situation. He hasn't played since Wimbledon. That clearly raises the question of whether they *can* continue to play at anything like their former level. Win individual matches? Yes. Beat almost anyone? Probably. Beat the top guys? Maybe. Win 5 matches in a row? Ehhhh..... Another aspect to the problem is that they're starting to drop in the rankings. The ranking procedure was tweaked due to Covid, quite reasonably; I think it's beginning to return to normal. If they can't play, their rankings may start slipping faster. That means tougher opponents earlier. Fed's down to 9th, which means he could have to face the 5, 2 and 1 seeds. Nadal slipped to 4th...but the next event, next week, is the Rogers Cup in Canada. It's a Masters 1000...and Nadal is the defending champ. Those points come off his ranking once that event starts. That drops him to 6th, before whatever he can earn.

Sad news continues from Brazil. Broke 20M cases. Getting pretty close to pass the US in total deaths; the gap unfortunately closed a great deal in the last 4 months. It was about 270,000 in mid-March; it's about 70,000 now. Fortunately, they are showing a notable decline in new cases and deaths over the last couple months.

Mmm...true enough, I suppose. I think it's why Subway's running their current, VERY!!! expensive ad campaign pushing a "refresh." Whatever...but they're paying Steph Curry, Serena Williams, Megan Rapinoe, Tom Brady, and Charles Barkley (voiceover only, but still). SERIOUS cash had to be dropped on that lineup.

Haven't seen a promo like that in ages, not that I look for them. I think I'd rather try that pho challenge over, say, some of the uber burger ones. Altho they do note...still got 3 pounds of meat. Y'know...if a restaurant has to promote itself by this kind of gimmick, there's probably a really good chance it's not one you want to patronize....

I will grant that I didn't bother scanning down too far, but they seemed largely business as usual. Which is more depressing than anything. One comment might be the closest to capturing the state of things. "I just simply can't believe ANY news program. Lies from all sides...." It's not whether you agree with it, but the degree of distrust and disillusionment it suggests. I rather suspect that comment represents the silent third camp that is larger than we expect. Could also be a consequence of the emotional battering that's been *so* intense for the last 20 months or so.

We can offer sympathy and best wishes to the family. And...yeah...I think I'll end on that as well.

If that happens, losing the back issues of the NYT counts as among the least of my concerns. Know the saying..."the good news is, it'll probably kill ya. The bad news is, it might not....."

Get the online edition, save the trees.

Slow sports day, or final proof that ESPN has totally lost it? ESPN 2 is currently showing a cherry pit spitting competition. I kid you not. EDIT: and they followed it up with Marble Racing. OK, well, this one's described as a spoof/parody of Olympic events, but still...

The structure unfortunately allows people to avoid responsibility for their choices. There was an op-ed in the NYT earlier this week, suggesting that insurance companies should start denying claims to Covid patients who have chosen not to be vaccinated, on the premise that this was avoidable, or a fundamentally risky choice like some activities Or like allowing higher rates for smokers relative to non-smokers. Your choice has consequences. This probably can't be done, tho, without full authorization of the vaccine. Which is understandable; what it points out is that the approval process is intended to deny first, accept second.

Finney was OK, but I wasn't fond of Anthony Perkins, Sean Connery, or Richard Widmark particularly. Martin Balsam didn't fit right as Bianchi. Don't recall if any of the ladies cast were a real issue; I do recall that the Countess Dragomirov role came off a bit forced to me, but...I read the book a long time ago. Caught the movie last year. To me it just felt like the actors were, too often, being their screen selves...not their characters. YMMV. It was well received at the time.

Of course. Murder on the Orient Express. Not a bad movie, but a good example of the failure of the studio system. Casting was big-name but NOT necessarily well-chosen.

So was Poirot on the flight?

Mmm...OK, I see your point. Not sure I agree with handling it that way, altho it's a relatively narrow trap and readily avoidable. I actually often just take Characteristic Running (and especially Leaping) to 0 and just buy it in the Powers section; I find it a little neater. Leaping's Accurate is an adder I particularly like, when the character is formally trained.

In a similar vein, more personally...there is a part of me that says, yeah, jerks, you're too stupid to live, so I won't be mourning at your funeral. And another part that says...well, yeah, but those hospital and life insurance tabs are paid by everyone eventually, so it's costing ME money because they're so stupid. These aren't admirable; the first is callous, the second selfish. But they are real feelings that need to be acknowledged, if not used to make policy. Dean's comments are nothing I haven't thought myself...and hated myself, to a point, for thinking them. Which, of course, is another side of the problem...

Or maybe just sneakier.