TwinIon

My point is basically that BSG was never broadly popular enough to support a spin-off. Of course, it's all relative. BSG was getting ~2M viewers (+ or - depending on the season), which would be pretty good compared to a lot of shows now (The Expanse averaged less than 1M). Unfortunately we have no real data on how well Star Trek Discovery is doing, but Enterprise's worst season in 04 beat BSG's best season the same year. Enterprise's first season was nearly double that. The rise of time shifted viewers through BSG's run and the broadcast/cable divide makes those numbers of questionable value, but I still think that BSG was never a sufficiently popular IP for NBC to use it as a selling point for a new subscription service. Maybe I'm underestimating BSG's popularity, or fans it gathered on DVD or streaming. I'm just skeptical of the IP's value at this point. Of course, the new show might just be marketed as a new Sci-Fi series, with little to no emphasis on its connection to BSG, making all this a null point.

While sheer scale makes companies like Uber and We Work the poster children for VC funded nonsense, moviepass is my gold standard for insane business strategies. It's still shocking to me that for a single monthly payment of less than one ticket, moviepass would absorb the full retail cost of as many tickets as I was willing to show up for. I'll give them the credit for accelerating the release of viable theater subscription services, but everyone who gave them money should be put in the investors hall of shame.

I trust Moore to have a good take, so creatively I think this is probably a good thing and I'm interested to see what this show ends up being. As a business decision, it's kind of baffling. BSG was never all that popular, with it's one existing spinoff getting quickly canceled. I don't believe we're in a world where 'Battlestar (2004) spin-off' is a selling point to broad audiences. I love BSG. I think the reboot series is one of the top few sci-fi shows of all time, right up there with TNG. I think the mini-series/pilot is amazing and that 33 is a perfect episode of TV. I'm happy to hear we're getting more of it in whatever form that comes. I just don't expect it to be a hit. That said, launching a new streaming service might be the best time possible to come out with a show like that. If critics like it, NBC might approve multiple seasons just hoping to get some buzz, regardless of viewership.

Like almost everything about this movie, this could go very well or very poorly.

I have my IMAX ticket tonight. I've been out of the country since it's release and I don't think it'll be available in IMAX after this weekend, given it's pretty terrible box office.

I have yet to see When They See Us, but I'm happy for Chernobyl win it. I feel like Chernobyl is the kind of series that will be kind of timeless, where every once in a while some thread brings it up and everyone re-discovers how great it was.

That is a good trailer. I don't think it reveals too much, instead doing just enough to remind you of the mood of Breaking Bad.

I kept hearing praise for this and expected it to be a much more quiet movie than the trailer sells. It certainly has my attention.

I watched the new episodes on the plane yesterday. It's kinda fun, but overall I'd say it's just fine. I'm enjoying the story well enough but it's not all that funny, at least compared to good Simpsons/Futurama. Still, I'll probably keep watching for the time being.

What is clear above all else is that Feige is very capable of producing enormous blockbusters. He's very capably shepherded the MCU, but I don't think it's clear where his producing skills shine outside of that particular rubric. My guess is that Feige will be quite good at making a Star Wars film feel like a Star Wars film. Beyond that, I don't think his involvement says much more than the fact that he wanted to be involved.

So Trump posted a CNN clip from Wednesday to prove a claim he made on the following Sunday. The man is not well.

While not recent news, I personally wasn't aware of SB 206, a California bill dubbed the "The Fair Pay to Play Act." The bill allows student athletes at public or private schools that earn more than $10M in media rights revenue (Division I) to profit from their name, image, or likeness. It would not allow the NCAA or anyone else to stop a student that is being paid from participating in athletics nor would it allow schools to change their scholarship. Schools would still not be allowed to pay athletes. The bill has already passed through the CA Senate, and is now going through the state assembly. If it is signed into law, it would take effect in 2023. It's back in the news thanks to some supportive tweets from Lebron. I've long been in favor of college athletes getting paid, and anything that takes power away from the NCAA is alright in my book. It could be an interesting world if CA schools are the only ones where athletes are allowed to get paid. I imagine other states would follow, but there would likely be holdouts. Imagine the recruiting dynamic if you know you can get paid directly if you go to USC but Alabama still has to pay you under the table.

In what seems to be a move made purely out of spite from the Trump administration, the DOJ has launched an antitrust investigation into four automakers that agreed to meet California's more strict emissions standards. Ford, Honda, BMW, and VW are under investigation for the CA deal that was announced in July. Trump has been trying to rollback Obama era emissions standards, but in general automakers haven't been going along with it. As Trump has been fighting for the rollback, automakers have largely decided to side with California, likely in an effort to avoid regulatory uncertainty in federal law. That has made Trump try and revoke CAs waiver, a legal move that it seems they're unlikely to win. This investigation just reeks of pettiness and spite, and it feels like an abuse of power.

I'm no expert, but I didn't find anything in that proposal immediately objectionable. Putting more mortgages back in the private sector, while still forcing Mae and Mac to pay a "security fee" makes sense. Allow competition in the market, but keep a close eye on it and create an emergency fund just in case they break anything.

The Guardian outlines two scenarios where an election is called. Two-thirds of MPs vote on Monday to call a new election. In which case the earliest it could happen is Oct. 15th. It seems that many Labor MPs don't want a new vote until the Brexit delay bill just passed becomes law. Many don't want an election until after the European council would potentially agree to the extension, which would happen on Oct. 17-18. It also sounds like some just don't want an election before the 31st, to ensure that there isn't any trickery. Should the vote of no confidence go through, the opposition gets 14 days to form a new government. Assuming that fails, they'd then have to wait 25 days, meaning the soonest the election could be held is Oct. 29th. It sure seems like Johnson thinks that even in that scenario it would be plausible to no-deal brexit on the 31st, which seems pretty insane to me.

Well, it certainly makes sense. Take an oil, turn it into a vapor, get it into your lungs, vapor turns back to oil, now you have oil in your lungs. It does make me wonder if there are other, non-cannabis vape solutions that use vitamin E acetate or any other oils. I'm sure someone at the FDA is trying to figure that out right now.

I'm surprised by the reviews. I wasn't super hyped for this, but I'm glad to hear that it's a real evolution for the series. I just played through 4 on Gamepass and it felt like stepping back in time. Hearing that Gears has taken notes from Uncharted and the recent God of War makes me far more excited.

I really like John Cho, but I'm very dubious that Bebop will translate to live action. A villain like Vicious can work in animation, but that kind of over-the-top baddie would probably feel pretty silly in live action. Same goes for a goofball like Ed. There are Bebop stories they could tell that might transition a bit better, but they're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me it's a good idea.

I feel like people try to sound so above it all when talking about critics or review scores, but I tend to find them pretty useful. I'm probably going to see Ad Astra regardless of what critics or audiences think of it, and when I hear Mother! got an F cinemascore, I was even more excited to see it, but when a movie that could easily go either way gets decent reviews, I'm much more likely to check it out. When I see Booksmart with a 97%, it's an extra incentive to reserve a seat. When The Kitchen gets a 21%, I'll probably skip it unless I hear or read something to the contrary. I'm not dogmatic about it; I read message boards, listen to podcasts, and have friends that see lots of movies, but reviews are an easy early filter. That said, I personally tend to find that critics reviews are far more in line with my taste than the audience scores. The problem that Qurator is trying to solve is audience scores, and I think they're correct that those numbers are too easily manipulated, I'm just not sure how useful their filter will be. It's not just trolling that is the problem. It's fanboys for actors or franchises or directors or studios. It's random review bombing for the luls. It's people reviewing the trailer. How would a quiz stop people from review bombing the next comic book movie when they can probably guess the major twists trailer unseen? How about the next Disney remake? I'm pretty sure I know the entire plot of "The Art of Racing in the Rain," and I did not read the book.

As much as I'm dubious about speeding and red light cameras, putting them on school buses seems like a good idea, I hope they help. I've only seen a school bus stop near my home a couple times, and each time while I stopped for the bus, someone else went drove right by. Both of them slowed down to go around, but still, it's not that hard to stop and wait.

I wonder what the market will be like for this. Bad Boys II made about as much as the second Fast and Furious movie, that came out the same year (2003). Since then we've gotten seven F&F films, which seem to be bringing in rather diminishing returns. I just don't think there's a huge appetite for this franchise.

Did it just get canceled because Tim Cook just heard about it? There were rumors that he was reviewing all their content, which must not still be true if this got by him for any amount of time.

Since we bought one last night, I'll soon be able to let you know how it gets on. First impressions are pretty good. With the premium package on the EV, the MSRP might be $45k, but in the end this is a Kia that starts at $25K. It meets those expectations pretty exactly. I don't expect any rattles, but I guess we'll find out after we put some miles on the thing. The Niro seems like it has a higher fit and finish than my old Civics, and at first glance seems about on par with a Prius or my friends new CRV. Turns out that the $7500 market charge went away really fast when you just email every dealer in a decent radius and ask for a price. No one tried to quote us anything over MSRP, although a number of dealers wouldn't give out numbers over email. The exact color/package car that my wife wanted wasn't hard to find, with most dealers having one in stock, so she was able to negotiate over email for a few days before we went in to see the most receptive dealer last night. Even though I don't suspect that it'll be very necessary, we'll probably get a Level 2 charger installed in our garage when we get back from an upcoming vacation. With the standard charger, it should get a full charge in ~28 hours. So even if she drove it to empty, an overnight charge should still get her more than 100 miles.

I was reading through the Guardian's live coverage, and I'm confused as to what the Kinnock amendment actually does or how it got passed. It just says that "MPs opposed to it did not put up tellers" and that the No lobby was full at the time. I really don't understand parliamentary procedures, but it seems pretty odd that you can pass something because you didn't count the votes against it, when there were votes against it. Still, it seems pretty unclear what it actually forces anyone to do. It seems that it resurrects the May deal in some way, but it doesn't seem like it's binding in any particular way that I've seen given. This whole thing is such a mess. Now I guess we get to see if Johnson can get his election in time.

Yeah. That'll do it. I'm not surprised that such a diet would cause health problems, but I had no idea that you could lose your vision, hearing, and bone density because of it.