The Conservatives will take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if they win the next election, Kemi Badenoch has announced.
The announcement comes after a review by the Conservative party's lead lawyer found staying in the ECHR blocks migration reform and leads to the persecution of military veterans.
After all the bother with NI and Brexit, you'd think that the Tories would have learnt something and rememebred something by now. The Bourbon biscuits of our time?
I don't think that losing Northern Ireland would be as an existential issue for a PM (any PM) as losing Wales or Scotland. They've been half out of the door for a long time and retention feels more like a Westminster project than one the regions are fully committed too.
I would think the point is that the Tories of all people would insist on keeping NI. Even after plunging it into chaos, and upsetting the EU, notably Ireland as already pointed out.
We should be seeking to abolish NI, I've said so all along.
The bit of land with Belfast in it can piss off too.
I also tend to think that military veterans who have committed serious crimes should, indeed, be persecuted, as should all criminals
Agreed, I'm quite happy to see any British veterans punished under British laws passed by the British Parliament.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
I think some people are in group 2 because they anticipate a Reform/MAGA-type government going for group 1. That's why we need some strong centrist-dad leadership now that sees us reform the convention OR withdraw from it and replace with our own set of laws that closely resembles it. The former option would seem easier.
Oh, and I'm sure some people are in Group 1, because they actually want it the EHCR reformed, but believe the only way that will happen is with the threat of departure.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
Mesa thinks not all sins around the Prequels are fan sins. Some are, but not all.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
International cooperation is a neutral concept. It is entirely specious to call it 'a good thing', and one could come up with a vast list of examples where international cooperation has been a very bad thing. The good or otherwise lies in the precise nature of the cooperation.
Where a court can (and does) interpret its own mandate liberally to strike down laws undreamt of by its founding signatories, and where there is no accountability, and even the combined weight of several elected Governments suggesting reform (ours not among them) is dismissed, it is clearly not a good thing.
He has, for a long time, seemed to believe anything he sees on TV or the last person he speaks to. Back when he even used to be challenged a little from the GOP he would often counter critique with 'I saw it on FoxNews' and tell people to take it up with them. During the one trial that actually happened hed' print out favourable news stories and read them out for the press as proof of things.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
He has, for a long time, seemed to believe anything he sees on TV or the last person he speaks to. Back when he even used to be challenged a little from the GOP he would often counter critique with 'I saw it on FoxNews' and tell people to take it up with them. During the one trial that actually happened hed' print out favourable news stories and read them out for the press as proof of things.
He has sent troops to 'stop the war' based on a 5 year old news report.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
Mesa thinks not all sins around the Prequels are fan sins. Some are, but not all.
Oh, I agree with the prequels. Though I have seen a couple of nutters go back to reevaluate The Phantom Menace, and decide that it's not terrible...
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
The Conservatives will take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if they win the next election, Kemi Badenoch has announced.
The announcement comes after a review by the Conservative party's lead lawyer found staying in the ECHR blocks migration reform and leads to the persecution of military veterans.
After all the bother with NI and Brexit, you'd think that the Tories would have learnt something and rememebred something by now. The Bourbon biscuits of our time?
I don't think that losing Northern Ireland would be as an existential issue for a PM (any PM) as losing Wales or Scotland. They've been half out of the door for a long time and retention feels more like a Westminster project than one the regions are fully committed too.
I would think the point is that the Tories of all people would insist on keeping NI. Even after plunging it into chaos, and upsetting the EU, notably Ireland as already pointed out.
We should be seeking to abolish NI, I've said so all along.
The bit of land with Belfast in it can piss off too.
I also tend to think that military veterans who have committed serious crimes should, indeed, be persecuted, as should all criminals
Really?
I think they should be prosecuted.
But each to their own, eh?
Both. Criminals should be persecuted, so that a life of crime is really shit.
The Conservatives will take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if they win the next election, Kemi Badenoch has announced.
The announcement comes after a review by the Conservative party's lead lawyer found staying in the ECHR blocks migration reform and leads to the persecution of military veterans.
After all the bother with NI and Brexit, you'd think that the Tories would have learnt something and rememebred something by now. The Bourbon biscuits of our time?
I don't think that losing Northern Ireland would be as an existential issue for a PM (any PM) as losing Wales or Scotland. They've been half out of the door for a long time and retention feels more like a Westminster project than one the regions are fully committed too.
I would think the point is that the Tories of all people would insist on keeping NI. .
You'd think so. But now? Not so sure.
Wouldn't be very "British" or "Conservative" of them. But given the last decade and a bit, when they pissed on almost everything I thought was Conservative policy, maybe you have a point.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you can avoid lawyers.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
The Star Wars "Sequel" Trilogy is the worst fan-fiction in history!
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you can avoid lawyers.
In the real world many democracies have their own domestic court as their supreme court and not an international one like the ECHR.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
Even back in 1977, and that was also in the original SW movie, my friend pointed out the absurdity of a photon cannon actually recoiling. I hate to think of the energy of that particular cosmic ray.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you can avoid lawyers.
In the real world many democracies have their own domestic court as their supreme court and not an international one like the ECHR.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you can avoid lawyers.
In the real world many democracies have their own domestic court as their supreme court and not an international one like the ECHR.
And do these national courts not involve lawyers?
I think you need to re-read what I wrote as I never said there should be no lawyers domestically.
What is the Reform policy on how Mayoral Elections should be set up in England?
What about the London Assembly?
(London Assembly is currently the Additional Member System, and one of the Tory Additional Members ("Londonwide") is Susan Hall. Is she a potential defector - though the next Election will be some time away 2028? She won't imo be a threat to Farage, and I don't see her having much of a Conservative future.)
Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch together thanking the police and Burnham saying how important it was to welcome the leader of the opposition and the community appreciated that and we need cross party consensus
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, abruptly fired the navy chief of staff on Friday, removing an aide who had been key to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Pentagon.
Jon Harrison, who was appointed in January, had been key to broad changes made to the navy’s policy and budgeting offices. Together with John Phelan, a Trump mega-donor who was confirmed as navy secretary in March, Harrison had reportedly sought to limit the influence of the navy under secretary, who typically has a key role in managing that military branch’s budget.
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
Amazon seem to believe that using pictures of guns in advertising pictures for James Bond would be triggering for folk.
That must be why Amazon refuse to stream any films and series with any gun violence, well apart from the James Bond films they show, and the millions of other films etc where there are guns and shootings.
Bezos doesn’t strike me as being particularly woke or anything so I’m guessing he will be a bit annoyed at this and get it fixed.
That Reacher show, there is absolutely no over the top violence in that, other than perhaps 75% of every single episode.
James Bond is sex, sadism and snobbery, all wrapped up in the Union Jack.
The Americans can do the sex, badly, and definitely the sadism - but they absolutely cannot do the snobbery, or the Britishness.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
Does it?
Things change, and it might be that laws require fettling as a consequence. A law that is unchanging might soon become bad law, however well-intentioned the drafters were, and good the law was at first.
As an example: AIUI the international law on refugees was largely written at a time that refers directly back to the WW2 experience, and was undoubtedly good at that time. But times change. Whilst many refugees are still fleeing warfare, there are also many economic refugees, and also some countries are using refugees as a form of warfare. Travel is also much easier.
In addition, countries cannot be expected to take unlimited numbers of refugees.
So: we either rewrite the international law on refugees to reflect the modern world, or risk increasing numbers of countries ignoring it.
Indeed:
This is the key point, and what instead is happening is that (other than a few centrist dads ), the world is polarizing between:
1. We must remove all limitations on State power to do whatever they like. 2. The ECHR must never be altered in any way, shape or form, even if it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Conservatives used to be sceptical of state power. Is it the world that has changed or conservatism?
As for changes to the ECHR, I don't see any opposition to the possibility, but neither Reform UK or Badenoch's Tories are proposing change.
Any changes can be voted through Parliament if we are not in the ECHR.
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
By your argument, any international treaty is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
I have no qualms with international treaties that are implemented domestically by domestic Parliament and subject to change by our Parliament.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
Basic trade treaties require some sort of resolution process, i.e. an international court. They are not a violation of democracy.
Trade disputes can [and sometimes do] last decades and be resolved via negotiations, no need for an undemocratic court.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you can avoid lawyers.
In the real world many democracies have their own domestic court as their supreme court and not an international one like the ECHR.
And do these national courts not involve lawyers?
I think you need to re-read what I wrote as I never said there should be no lawyers domestically.
You can't blame a north Londoner being concerned about a lack of work for lawyers.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It’s obviously some allegorical commentary on Brexit or whatever. My take is the fat sluggish slow zombies eating worms and feces are the centrist dads like @Stuartinromford and @Eabhal
The alpha zombies are the human rights lawyers
All the flawed but brave and handsome patriots on Lindisfarne are us. The Leavers. The real Britons. The natives. And we must defend our Island
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
The Broccolis were not British.
But yes, they did really kill the franchise with the sludgy Craig era - or the last few films anyway.
I also think a bit, whence Britain goes, Bond goes. We are nearly bankrupt, and ruled by judges and committees who do not have the country's best interests at heart. If someone like Bond existed, his activities couldn't be funded, and if they were, he'd be prosecuted. A Bond film would be a ludicrous conceit. When we get a decent Government and a bit of national self-confidence, something like Bond can be credible.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
Mesa thinks not all sins around the Prequels are fan sins. Some are, but not all.
Oh, I agree with the prequels. Though I have seen a couple of nutters go back to reevaluate The Phantom Menace, and decide that it's not terrible...
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think that is actually a really good idea.
The 2015 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' film was filmed on those terms. It actually worked quite well. 'Atomic Blonde' also worked quite well as a very late Cold War piece. The problem was that not that many people seemed to want to watch them.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think that is actually a really good idea.
The 2015 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' film was filmed on those terms. It actually worked quite well. 'Atomic Blonde' also worked quite well as a very late Cold War piece. The problem was that not that many people seemed to want to watch them.
For both it was poor marketing.
Tarantino apparently asked to do Casino Royale exactly from the book - 1950s, Bentley blower etc.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
Mesa thinks not all sins around the Prequels are fan sins. Some are, but not all.
Oh, I agree with the prequels. Though I have seen a couple of nutters go back to reevaluate The Phantom Menace, and decide that it's not terrible...
And the Sequel Trilogy?
MCU managed to release a large number of films that (mostly) won plaudits from both the fans of the various comics and wider audiences.
They did this by a combination of interest and understanding of the source material, good writing, acting and directing.
Rather than childish “I must impose my vision on a franchise by re-writing it retrospectively” in each film
“Salisbury chatted candidly, and at times profanely, about a wide range of matters with Hegseth’s adviser Patrick Weaver … According to Weaver, Hegseth wanted Trump to expressly tell him to send [the 82nd] into the American city.”
Salisbury also referred to Kash Patel as “a giant douche canoe.”
“This is how Kash survives,” Salisbury wrote. “He will do this stuff for the man but day to day giant douche canoe.”
“Salisbury chatted candidly, and at times profanely, about a wide range of matters with Hegseth’s adviser Patrick Weaver … According to Weaver, Hegseth wanted Trump to expressly tell him to send [the 82nd] into the American city.”
Salisbury also referred to Kash Patel as “a giant douche canoe.”
“This is how Kash survives,” Salisbury wrote. “He will do this stuff for the man but day to day giant douche canoe.”
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
He got $4 billion dollars when he sold Star Wars. I think he can live with it.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
It enables them to get thru shielded territory. They are held in orbit by a rather large drop ship and then dropped just outside the shield, making their way in by "foot".
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
It enables them to get thru shielded territory. They are held in orbit by a rather large drop ship and then dropped just outside the shield, making their way in by "foot".
(narrator: Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense)
Some chicken wire across the particle exhaust vent would have buggered the Rebel Alliance's plans for the destruction of the Death Star. For example.
It’s obviously some allegorical commentary on Brexit or whatever. My take is the fat sluggish slow zombies eating worms and feces are the centrist dads like @Stuartinromford and @Eabhal
The alpha zombies are the human rights lawyers
All the flawed but brave and handsome patriots on Lindisfarne are us. The Leavers. The real Britons. The natives. And we must defend our Island
Always have a drink to calm the nerves before take off.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are fine - it just requires writers and directors who don’t try and reset everything and contradict everything in each subsequent film because “my vision”
Collective story telling. As I noted above MCU managed it and made zillions.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
The legacy fans are i) addicted to canon and ii) want stuff that is broadly like the old stuff. The newer generation of showrunners i) find canon risible and ii) want new stuff to attract new fans. The tension does not often lead to good stuff, but let's consider some examples
i) THE MANDALORIAN: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good western story. Succeeded
ii) ANDOR: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good revolutionary story. Succeeded
iii) THE ACOLYTE: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, was meandering. Failed
iv) STAR TREK: DISCOVERY: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
v) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 1 and 2): mostly kept to canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
vi) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 3): did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically ST:TNG: series 8. Succeeded
So it's fairly simple. Have showrunners who know the show backwards, don't violate canon, and tell good stories with a beginning, middle and end.
(I won't go into Dr Who because it has its own problems)
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
I think you need to be more explicit: "France has had terrible female PMs, and is looking to add a terrible female President to the list."
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Star Wars says Hello!
TBF, Lucas didn't really understand what he owned before he sold it...
In a way. But IMV, like Star Trek, the worst thing about Star Wars are its fans. Too many feel as though they own the franchise, and anything that goes against their views is *wrong*.
Which might be fine, except for the fans have many disparate views.
The longer a franchise goes on, and the more fans it gets, the harder it is to create compelling stories that the fans will like. Not impossible, though, as Rogue One might show.
The legacy fans are i) addicted to canon and ii) want stuff that is broadly like the old stuff. The newer generation of showrunners i) find canon risible and ii) want new stuff to attract new fans. The tension does not often lead to good stuff, but let's consider some examples
i) THE MANDALORIAN: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good western story. Succeeded
ii) ANDOR: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good revolutionary story. Succeeded
iii) THE ACOLYTE: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, was meandering. Failed
iv) STAR TREK: DISCOVERY: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
v) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 1 and 2): mostly kept to canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
vi) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 3): did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically ST:TNG: series 8. Succeeded
So it's fairly simple. Have showrunners who know the show backwards, don't violate canon, and tell good stories with a beginning, middle and end.
(I won't go into Dr Who because it has its own problems)
AND DON'T TELL ME THAT'S A F***ING KLINGON D7 BATTLECRUISER BECAUSE I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE AND THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE
AND AS FOR THE ENTERPRISE PYLONS, WELL (Take a break - Ed)
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
It enables them to get thru shielded territory. They are held in orbit by a rather large drop ship and then dropped just outside the shield, making their way in by "foot".
(narrator: Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense)
Some chicken wire across the particle exhaust vent would have buggered the Rebel Alliance's plans for the destruction of the Death Star. For example.
(narrator: the reason for the Death Star vulnerability is that it's deliberate sabotage by one of its designers. This is the plot of "Rogue One")
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
The Broccolis were not British.
But yes, they did really kill the franchise with the sludgy Craig era - or the last few films anyway.
I also think a bit, whence Britain goes, Bond goes. We are nearly bankrupt, and ruled by judges and committees who do not have the country's best interests at heart. If someone like Bond existed, his activities couldn't be funded, and if they were, he'd be prosecuted. A Bond film would be a ludicrous conceit. When we get a decent Government and a bit of national self-confidence, something like Bond can be credible.
Bond can still work.
None of those aspects of Britishness have gone away, it's just our elites have lost confidence in them.
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
I think you need to be more explicit: "France has had terrible female PMs, and is looking to add a terrible female President to the list.:
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
I think you need to be more explicit: "France has had terrible female PMs, and is looking to add a terrible female President to the list.:
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
The owners of the IP sold it to some rich Americans who don't understand the thing they have bought and are going to make a mess of it.
It's the risk you take when you allow people to buy and sell stuff freely.
Couldn't think of a decent name, VFX look dodgy as shit, music is crap, not even a decent funny from Baby Yoda....
The Hans Solo movie might be a classic in comparison.
Watching that, what's the lore behind the AT-AT walker design? It seems utterly blooming stupid for most uses. I can understand the advantage of a weapons platform being high up, but this is in a universe where things fly very easily.
It enables them to get thru shielded territory. They are held in orbit by a rather large drop ship and then dropped just outside the shield, making their way in by "foot".
(narrator: Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense)
Some chicken wire across the particle exhaust vent would have buggered the Rebel Alliance's plans for the destruction of the Death Star. For example.
(narrator: the reason for the Death Star vulnerability is that it's deliberate sabotage by one of its designers. This is the plot of "Rogue One")
Unfortunately the cost-cutting empire got some dodgy builders in, who left some chicken wire lying across the particle exhaust vent and forgot to remove it afterwards.
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
He has, for a long time, seemed to believe anything he sees on TV or the last person he speaks to. Back when he even used to be challenged a little from the GOP he would often counter critique with 'I saw it on FoxNews' and tell people to take it up with them. During the one trial that actually happened hed' print out favourable news stories and read them out for the press as proof of things.
He has sent troops to 'stop the war' based on a 5 year old news report.
He's a toxic, senile old loon, but one surrounded with some very dangerous people who know how pander to his worst instincts, and use that to make policy.
Resignation letter from ousted longtime federal prosecutor in Eastern District of Virginia
It issues a scathing rebuke of Justice Dept leadership:
Prince is a career local politician - it's his only job - and representing Havering & Redbridge - Havering being pretty much reform central in London - he simpky sees that standing for Reform is his only chance of holding his assembly seat. His politics arent particularly extreme, and since the sole Reform GLA member and presumably now group leader is one of his former Redbridge councillors who fell out with his fellow Tories during Prince's leadership, I would imagine a fair amount of humble pie was needed from Prince - although enabling Reform to form a group on the assembly represents a significant benefit to them.
Said Reform GLA member is Alex Wilson who was at university with me and I know a bit from campaigning for IDS too in 2019.
I suspect Alex will have enjoyed asking Prince what first attracted him to join the poll leading Reform Party from the polling third Tories?
Though Kemi will give a sigh of relief no further Tory MPs have left yet
Wilson is pleasant enough, but a bit of a bumbling idiot, and I suspect Prince is already working out how he can take the top job.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
What's happened?
James Bond is best known for wielding his Walter PPK, but if you're looking for his signature sidearm on Amazon, you won't see it. Prime Video has made changes to its posters, and where Bond was initially holding a gun, it has been removed. Not only that, but the company appears to have done this using Photoshop, and it shows.
Walther PPK, Jimmy B’s preferred sidearm apparently.
Come to that why is a foundation stone of British cultural significance punting a hun pistol?
Good question. It’s explained in the books, and at the start of the first movie. But it’s too dull to set out here and I’m not sure I understood correctly anyway.
Could have been worse. Boothroyd actually said he thought the Russian equivalent was better...
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Italian weather forecasts turn the forecast wind speed red, if it reaches 20 km/h (13 mph!!), and tonight there’s a wind weather warning out as the forecast is that it might gust as high as 40 km/h (=25 mph!!). Italians really are terrified of the wind, since they hardly ever get any.
At Glasgow station, most trains delayed or cancelled.
I don't think the weather in NW England is as exciting right now as in Scotland, but I've just been up Rivington Pike and it was a trifle brisk up there. Possibly the windiest conditioms I can remember.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
Long story arcs are necessarily more complicated and so more likely to go wrong, and there's also the pressure for each episode to have its own narrative arc which often causes problems.
But if you consider something like the Aubrey and Maturin novel series, you have something with a long period narrative arc (the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars) and short period narrative arcs for each novel. Now, that was easier for Patrick O'Brien, because he had a lot of the plotting done for him by reality, but I think it works because each story doesn't try to upend the long narrative arc in one go. Sure, the protection of Britain's trade with India is important to the war, but the naval campaign in the Indian Ocean is relatively self-contained, as an example.
I think a big problem is that the writers often don't have the confidence to do small stories within the context of a larger arc. If everything is a potentially massive turning point that will change everything then I think the story loses credibility in the eyes of the viewer/reader.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
I thought the Harry Potter films were awful, because they couldn't fit in all the material required for the overarching plot arc. They end up relying on the viewer knowing the books well enough to fill in the gaps.
Italian weather forecasts turn the forecast wind speed red, if it reaches 20 km/h (13 mph!!), and tonight there’s a wind weather warning out as the forecast is that it might gust as high as 40 km/h (=25 mph!!). Italians really are terrified of the wind, since they hardly ever get any.
At Glasgow station, most trains delayed or cancelled.
I don't think the weather in NW England is as exciting right now as in Scotland, but I've just been up Rivington Pike and it was a trifle brisk up there. Possibly the windiest conditioms I can remember.
Good to come across a couple of posts I can actually understand!
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Not every MCU movie was great. Some were average. And some weren't even that.
The crescendo leading up to to Endgame was good... albeit probably overlong.
Put it like this, I haven't watched it again. (Unlike the first Avengers movie, which was excellent.)
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
I thought the Harry Potter films were awful, because they couldn't fit in all the material required for the overarching plot arc. They end up relying on the viewer knowing the books well enough to fill in the gaps.
Awful is harsh: let's not forget that 70% of people who saw the movies never read the books, and they clearly got enough out of the movies to make it onto the next one.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
The infinity saga was brilliant, it has a few duds in it but the overall quality of storytelling is good and it still left room for individual movies like Winter Soldier.
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
When I worked in a bookshop, the first two Harry Potter books had just come out and weren't quite the massive phenomenon they became. I recommended them to a mother who wanted something to help a child deal with the loss of a family member. I think the books are great at addressing death and loss for children.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
Long story arcs are necessarily more complicated and so more likely to go wrong, and there's also the pressure for each episode to have its own narrative arc which often causes problems.
But if you consider something like the Aubrey and Maturin novel series, you have something with a long period narrative arc (the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars) and short period narrative arcs for each novel. Now, that was easier for Patrick O'Brien, because he had a lot of the plotting done for him by reality, but I think it works because each story doesn't try to upend the long narrative arc in one go. Sure, the protection of Britain's trade with India is important to the war, but the naval campaign in the Indian Ocean is relatively self-contained, as an example.
I think a big problem is that the writers often don't have the confidence to do small stories within the context of a larger arc. If everything is a potentially massive turning point that will change everything then I think the story loses credibility in the eyes of the viewer/reader.
Big things are made up of little things.
That's what I told my wife on our wedding night...
And so the enshittification of James Bond has commenced. The government really needs to think about having restrictions on foreign ownership/control of culturally significant property. Amazon are going to take a great franchise and ruin it and ruin it's legacy.
The Flemming novels exit copyright in the UK in 2034. Amazon/MGMs power will wain.
That sounds like a good call by the family Broccoli.
Selling was a good call. The copyright expires because Fleming pegged it in 1964.
Italian weather forecasts turn the forecast wind speed red, if it reaches 20 km/h (13 mph!!), and tonight there’s a wind weather warning out as the forecast is that it might gust as high as 40 km/h (=25 mph!!). Italians really are terrified of the wind, since they hardly ever get any.
At Glasgow station, most trains delayed or cancelled.
I don't think the weather in NW England is as exciting right now as in Scotland, but I've just been up Rivington Pike and it was a trifle brisk up there. Possibly the windiest conditioms I can remember.
Good to come across a couple of posts I can actually understand!
If you’re ever in Italy, go to the beach in September! In July and August, the air is still, and beaches are full of wall to wall Italian families all renting their square metres in the sun. But as soon as there’s the slightest breeze, Italians whisk their children off the beach for fear they will come down with some unspeakable medical complaint, and since the completely still air along the coast has usually passed by September, you can go to previously popular beaches and find them almost empty. Provided you don’t mind that all the beach bars and pizza places have also closed, it’s a great tip.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
When I worked in a bookshop, the first two Harry Potter books had just come out and weren't quite the massive phenomenon they became. I recommended them to a mother who wanted something to help a child deal with the loss of a family member. I think the books are great at addressing death and loss for children.
Now that you mention it I started reading Harry potter in 1999 just after my grandmother died, I was 11 years old at the time and it probably did help.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
I thought the Harry Potter films were awful, because they couldn't fit in all the material required for the overarching plot arc. They end up relying on the viewer knowing the books well enough to fill in the gaps.
Awful is harsh: let's not forget that 70% of people who saw the movies never read the books, and they clearly got enough out of the movies to make it onto the next one.
Awful is harsh. I thought the actors were really well cast, and for someone who had read the books (several times) it was fun to see certain scenes play out.
But there were key parts of the plot where it felt like they'd randomly cut half the words out in order to make it fit the running time.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
The infinity saga was brilliant, it has a few duds in it but the overall quality of storytelling is good and it still left room for individual movies like Winter Soldier.
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
Pedantry alert: the Spider-man movies are made by Sony, and while they are got Kevin Feige as a producer, they contain elements that are not quite MCU canon (not to mention Venom, etc, which are definitely not canon).
Of course, Spider-man and Peter Parker appear in the MCU movies, and his appearance there are definitely canon.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
I thought the Harry Potter films were awful, because they couldn't fit in all the material required for the overarching plot arc. They end up relying on the viewer knowing the books well enough to fill in the gaps.
Awful is harsh: let's not forget that 70% of people who saw the movies never read the books, and they clearly got enough out of the movies to make it onto the next one.
Awful is harsh. I thought the actors were really well cast, and for someone who had read the books (several times) it was fun to see certain scenes play out.
But there were key parts of the plot where it felt like they'd randomly cut half the words out in order to make it fit the running time.
I was really looking forwards to the TV show but then they fucked up the casting of Snape very badly. If they wanted to race swap a character Snape was among the worst to do it with. Lupin or Sirius would have been the correct choice. It's also really hurt the hype for the show, constantly the comments in social media posts are relating how poorly they've cast Snape and how he's the worst character to race swap.
After that my excitement for it disappeared, there is a Sora 2 Harry Potter anime floating about the internet somewhere which was brilliant, I hope some enterprising OpenAI super user feeds it the all 7 books and it spits out 50h of anime...
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
The infinity saga was brilliant, it has a few duds in it but the overall quality of storytelling is good and it still left room for individual movies like Winter Soldier.
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
Pedantry alert: the Spider-man movies are made by Sony, and while they are got Kevin Feige as a producer, they contain elements that are not quite MCU canon (not to mention Venom, etc, which are definitely not canon).
Of course, Spider-man and Peter Parker appear in the MCU movies, and his appearance there are definitely canon.
Actually Venom was made canon during No Way Home along with all of the other non-MCU Marvel movies. I'm told that Disney had a stench of desperation about them when negotiations commenced to keep Spider-Man in the MCU. Last time Sony had to give up 25% of BO receipts, it's supposedly substantially lower for the next deal and there's more creative control for SPE. I've also heard it opens the door for Disney to buy it in full under certain conditions, namely Sony buying WB studios and streaming division.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Harry Potter was a brilliant example of a series, with a great overarching plot arc and story, great characters that grew with the series, and superb world-building. It all generally just works. The films are slightly more uneven, but still excellent.
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
I thought the Harry Potter films were awful, because they couldn't fit in all the material required for the overarching plot arc. They end up relying on the viewer knowing the books well enough to fill in the gaps.
Awful is harsh: let's not forget that 70% of people who saw the movies never read the books, and they clearly got enough out of the movies to make it onto the next one.
Awful is harsh. I thought the actors were really well cast, and for someone who had read the books (several times) it was fun to see certain scenes play out.
But there were key parts of the plot where it felt like they'd randomly cut half the words out in order to make it fit the running time.
I was really looking forwards to the TV show but then they fucked up the casting of Snape very badly. If they wanted to race swap a character Snape was among the worst to do it with. Lupin or Sirius would have been the correct choice. It's also really hurt the hype for the show, constantly the comments in social media posts are relating how poorly they've cast Snape and how he's the worst character to race swap.
After that my excitement for it disappeared, there is a Sora 2 Harry Potter anime floating about the internet somewhere which was brilliant, I hope some enterprising OpenAI super user feeds it the all 7 books and it spits out 50h of anime...
If Amazon were making it they would be photoshopping out their wands ;-)
The Conservatives will take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if they win the next election, Kemi Badenoch has announced.
The announcement comes after a review by the Conservative party's lead lawyer found staying in the ECHR blocks migration reform and leads to the persecution of military veterans.
After all the bother with NI and Brexit, you'd think that the Tories would have learnt something and rememebred something by now. The Bourbon biscuits of our time?
I don't think that losing Northern Ireland would be as an existential issue for a PM (any PM) as losing Wales or Scotland. They've been half out of the door for a long time and retention feels more like a Westminster project than one the regions are fully committed too.
I don't see Ireland being kind whilst NI has a disfunctional Government and what a large fiscal deficit - so needing a modest subsidy.
(Numbers removed - the point stands but I'm not clear that they are correct.)
The Republic won't hesitate to take Northern Ireland.
Really? My friends from Ireland have always led me to believe you couldn't make a present of the six counties to anybody, but maybe they have misled me.
Politically they can’t say no
But they would gulp hard, swear loudly and ask for a dowry. A very large dowry.
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
I've not seen it but did know that Mel Smith had become a film director because he'd get occasional mentions in the racing press, especially around Cheltenham time (mid-March). I think he directed the first Mr Bean film.
Will any of the One Nation Tory MPs walk after Badenochs ECHR announcement ?
There aren’t many left admittedly but still leaving the ECHR is certain to cause problems with that wing of the party .
It would be rather ironic if, expecting Farage to welcome another Tory MP it ends up Ed Davey welcoming his first defection of a Tory Home Counties MP following Kemi’s ECHR exit announcement today.
Kemi will certainly hope though that overall the Conservatives make a bet poll gain from Reform after this announcement and her proposal to scrap net zero. If not Cleverly will likely replace her within a year
I think Caroline Nokes would be the one most likely to walk . The problem with the Badenoch policy is that she’s now boxed herself in and leaving the ECHR alone wont solve the problem . Are the Tories also going to leave the UN Convention Against Torture ?
Labour are planning to change the legal framework around this. If it works, it will be a moot point. If it doesn't work, then support for leaving will only grow.
Liberals and internationalists should be proposing a new framework for modern times rather than doggedly protecting the status quo as if it is scripture.
The ECHR goes back to the Congress of Europe in 1948, convened by Churchill (Conservative), Adenauer (Christian Democrat) and Mitterrand (Socialist). The lead person in drafting it was David Maxwell Fyfe, a UK Conservative MP. It is as much a product of conservatism as anything else, but conservatism has lost its way.
So what?
It's not working today, and needs either fundamental reform or a new settlement.
It works fine. It's just become a bogeyman for Daily Telegraph headlines.
If it’s article 8 that’s the issue just pass an Act of parliament disapplying Article 8 and saying that no judgement relating to article 8 will be enforceable in the UK
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
The infinity saga was brilliant, it has a few duds in it but the overall quality of storytelling is good and it still left room for individual movies like Winter Soldier.
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
Pedantry alert: the Spider-man movies are made by Sony, and while they are got Kevin Feige as a producer, they contain elements that are not quite MCU canon (not to mention Venom, etc, which are definitely not canon).
Of course, Spider-man and Peter Parker appear in the MCU movies, and his appearance there are definitely canon.
Actually Venom was made canon during No Way Home along with all of the other non-MCU Marvel movies. I'm told that Disney had a stench of desperation about them when negotiations commenced to keep Spider-Man in the MCU. Last time Sony had to give up 25% of BO receipts, it's supposedly substantially lower for the next deal and there's more creative control for SPE. I've also heard it opens the door for Disney to buy it in full under certain conditions, namely Sony buying WB studios and streaming division.
How does that work when it looks like Ellison getting WB is a done deal
So I see that Japan looks set to appoint its first female PM.
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
The US has had a female Speaker of the House though in Nancy Pelosi.
France, with Royale and Le Pen and the US with Hillary Clinton and Harris have also had female runners up in their Presidential elections
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
Arcs are good so long as the stories being told are good. Many of the best franchises are good because of good arcs.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
While I concede I am wading into territory here I know nothing about (I've seen Star Wars, but it was 30 years ago), all the examples your provide are relatively short. Maybe story arcs work over a handful.of films (at least where they're thought out in advance), but don't over more than that.
There were 23 films in the MCU Infinity Saga and it worked very well.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
Honestly, it was all a pretty dull way to watch 23 movies.
The infinity saga was brilliant, it has a few duds in it but the overall quality of storytelling is good and it still left room for individual movies like Winter Soldier.
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
Pedantry alert: the Spider-man movies are made by Sony, and while they are got Kevin Feige as a producer, they contain elements that are not quite MCU canon (not to mention Venom, etc, which are definitely not canon).
Of course, Spider-man and Peter Parker appear in the MCU movies, and his appearance there are definitely canon.
Actually Venom was made canon during No Way Home along with all of the other non-MCU Marvel movies. I'm told that Disney had a stench of desperation about them when negotiations commenced to keep Spider-Man in the MCU. Last time Sony had to give up 25% of BO receipts, it's supposedly substantially lower for the next deal and there's more creative control for SPE. I've also heard it opens the door for Disney to buy it in full under certain conditions, namely Sony buying WB studios and streaming division.
How does that work when it looks like Ellison getting WB is a done deal
I don't think the battle for WB has really started yet.
My opinion of the Harry Potter books and films has improved over time.
I enjoyed reading the books, but I did find them rather derivative of the rather classical British boarding-school style literature together with common magic / magic school tropes. Particularly the earlier ones. The later books became a bit less so, and a little more intricately plotted, but had their own problems in suffering from a lot of bloat and a feeling that editorial oversight had perhaps slipped a little given the pressure on Rowling to give everyone more content. I have, as time has gone on though, really rather come to appreciate the vision and the storytelling behind them a fair bit more.
The films, for the most part, are made with a lot of care and were pretty well cast and acted. The kids were still learning the ropes a bit in the first ones so they're a little clunkier, but they're still decent enough. I have absolutely no idea why anyone feels there needs to be a re-telling of those books/films right now - to me the existing films are a decently definitive telling of the story , the visuals still hold up for the most part, and the story probably deserves a few more decades before it gets re-told - but money talks I guess.
Comments
If we are, then any changes need to be voted through by every single country.
Foreign countries should have no say under our laws, it is undemocratic.
International cooperation is a good thing, it's not undemocratic.
Any that supersede or override Parliament are utterly undemocratic.
All international courts should be abolished. They are a violation of democracy.
@bgrueskin.bsky.social
Trump told NBC on Sunday that he saw some Portland riot footage on Fox and thought it reflected current events.
It didn't. It was 5 years old, from the George Floyd aftermath.
And we learned that due to the diligence of a local TV reporter, who got the transcript.
https://bsky.app/profile/bgrueskin.bsky.social/post/3m2ckguslck2r
Where a court can (and does) interpret its own mandate liberally to strike down laws undreamt of by its founding signatories, and where there is no accountability, and even the combined weight of several elected Governments suggesting reform (ours not among them) is dismissed, it is clearly not a good thing.
International relations should be an arena for negotiators and diplomats, not lawyers.
What about the London Assembly?
(London Assembly is currently the Additional Member System, and one of the Tory Additional Members ("Londonwide") is Susan Hall. Is she a potential defector - though the next Election will be some time away 2028? She won't imo be a threat to Farage, and I don't see her having much of a Conservative future.)
I think that just leaves the US and France as the G7 members who have never had a female head of government. Though France has had female PMs, just never a president.
Jon Harrison, who was appointed in January, had been key to broad changes made to the navy’s policy and budgeting offices. Together with John Phelan, a Trump mega-donor who was confirmed as navy secretary in March, Harrison had reportedly sought to limit the influence of the navy under secretary, who typically has a key role in managing that military branch’s budget.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/04/pete-hegseth-fires-us-navy-chief-of-staff-jon-harrison
A protester wearing a hoodie emblazoned with a swastika in a Star of David is amongst those arrested in Trafalgar Square.
The Americans can do the sex, badly, and definitely the sadism - but they absolutely cannot do the snobbery, or the Britishness.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
Superb movie. Genuinely horrific scenes
It’s obviously some allegorical commentary on Brexit or whatever. My take is the fat sluggish slow zombies eating worms and feces are the centrist dads like @Stuartinromford and @Eabhal
The alpha zombies are the human rights lawyers
All the flawed but brave and handsome patriots on Lindisfarne are us. The Leavers. The real Britons. The natives. And we must defend our Island
But yes, they did really kill the franchise with the sludgy Craig era - or the last few films anyway.
I also think a bit, whence Britain goes, Bond goes. We are nearly bankrupt, and ruled by judges and committees who do not have the country's best interests at heart. If someone like Bond existed, his activities couldn't be funded, and if they were, he'd be prosecuted. A Bond film would be a ludicrous conceit. When we get a decent Government and a bit of national self-confidence, something like Bond can be credible.
Tarantino apparently asked to do Casino Royale exactly from the book - 1950s, Bentley blower etc.
They did this by a combination of interest and understanding of the source material, good writing, acting and directing.
Rather than childish “I must impose my vision on a franchise by re-writing it retrospectively” in each film
“Salisbury chatted candidly, and at times profanely, about a wide range of matters with Hegseth’s adviser Patrick Weaver …
According to Weaver, Hegseth wanted Trump to expressly tell him to send [the 82nd] into the American city.”
Salisbury also referred to Kash Patel as “a giant douche canoe.”
“This is how Kash survives,” Salisbury wrote. “He will do this stuff for the man but day to day giant douche canoe.”
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1974485666307469573
(narrator: Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense)
Collective story telling. As I noted above MCU managed it and made zillions.
- i) THE MANDALORIAN: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good western story. Succeeded
- ii) ANDOR: did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically a good revolutionary story. Succeeded
- iii) THE ACOLYTE: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, was meandering. Failed
- iv) STAR TREK: DISCOVERY: violated canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
- v) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 1 and 2): mostly kept to canon, had showrunners who didn't care about the show, didn't make a lot of sense. Failed
- vi) STAR TREK: PICARD (series 3): did not violate canon, had showrunners that knew the show, was basically ST:TNG: series 8. Succeeded
So it's fairly simple. Have showrunners who know the show backwards, don't violate canon, and tell good stories with a beginning, middle and end.(I won't go into Dr Who because it has its own problems)
AND AS FOR THE ENTERPRISE PYLONS, WELL (Take a break - Ed)
Between the first and second Star Wars trilogies, George Lucas was behind two movies; i.e. he wrote them and they were Lucasfilm productions. One is -of course- Willow.
The other I had never heard of... and which was Directed by the late Mel Smith. (Yes, the British Mel Smith.)
Does anyone know the second movie? (And has anyone watched it.)
None of those aspects of Britishness have gone away, it's just our elites have lost confidence in them.
Star Wars (original trilogy), Back to the Future, Godfather and in recent years Dark Knight and the MCU Infinity Wars.
It needs to be done well. It needs a compelling overarching vision that tends to require someone who understands what they're doing and plans it out well.
Bad storytelling is a failure whether in an individual story or an arc.
Resignation letter from ousted longtime federal prosecutor in Eastern District of Virginia
It issues a scathing rebuke of Justice Dept leadership:
"The leadership is more concerned with punishing the President's perceived enemies than they are with protecting our national security"
https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1974233918011236679
MSNBC confirms: An FBI agent in the Washington field office has been fired for refusing to arrest and perp walk James Comey.
https://x.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1974259972226560290
The extensions to the universe (in film form) were flops IMV - because they failed in all those areas. Unlike the book series, there was no magic. Having magic in the story does not make the story magic.
All planned out by the same individual though, Kevin Feige, who ensured all 23 films worked with the same vision building up to the Infinity Wars finale.
But if you consider something like the Aubrey and Maturin novel series, you have something with a long period narrative arc (the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars) and short period narrative arcs for each novel. Now, that was easier for Patrick O'Brien, because he had a lot of the plotting done for him by reality, but I think it works because each story doesn't try to upend the long narrative arc in one go. Sure, the protection of Britain's trade with India is important to the war, but the naval campaign in the Indian Ocean is relatively self-contained, as an example.
I think a big problem is that the writers often don't have the confidence to do small stories within the context of a larger arc. If everything is a potentially massive turning point that will change everything then I think the story loses credibility in the eyes of the viewer/reader.
Big things are made up of little things.
The crescendo leading up to to Endgame was good... albeit probably overlong.
Put it like this, I haven't watched it again. (Unlike the first Avengers movie, which was excellent.)
Everything since then has ranged from nostalgia bait like Spider-Man or complete dogshit like She Hulk. Marvel is very much on its final of nine lives, they've gambled big time on bringing Robert Downey Junior back and paying Sony shit loads of money to keep Spider-Man in the tent but I'm not sure it will work, they've burned through almost all of their fan goodwill just like Star Wars and Star Trek did. People just aren't excited about seeing the next big Marvel movie in the way they were 10 years ago.
But there were key parts of the plot where it felt like they'd randomly cut half the words out in order to make it fit the running time.
MAGA is going to kill more people.
Of course, Spider-man and Peter Parker appear in the MCU movies, and his appearance there are definitely canon.
After that my excitement for it disappeared, there is a Sora 2 Harry Potter anime floating about the internet somewhere which was brilliant, I hope some enterprising OpenAI super user feeds it the all 7 books and it spits out 50h of anime...
But they would gulp hard, swear loudly and ask for a dowry. A very large dowry.
France, with Royale and Le Pen and the US with Hillary Clinton and Harris have also had female runners up in their Presidential elections
I enjoyed reading the books, but I did find them rather derivative of the rather classical British boarding-school style literature together with common magic / magic school tropes. Particularly the earlier ones. The later books became a bit less so, and a little more intricately plotted, but had their own problems in suffering from a lot of bloat and a feeling that editorial oversight had perhaps slipped a little given the pressure on Rowling to give everyone more content. I have, as time has gone on though, really rather come to appreciate the vision and the storytelling behind them a fair bit more.
The films, for the most part, are made with a lot of care and were pretty well cast and acted. The kids were still learning the ropes a bit in the first ones so they're a little clunkier, but they're still decent enough. I have absolutely no idea why anyone feels there needs to be a re-telling of those books/films right now - to me the existing films are a decently definitive telling of the story , the visuals still hold up for the most part, and the story probably deserves a few more decades before it gets re-told - but money talks I guess.