Perhaps. I won’t find fault with someone who took every reasonable measure within their power to try and maintain some degree of ethics. Bitching about Ben and Jerrys corporate management sounds a lot like letting perfect be the enemy of good. Just my take on it tho.

Important caveat: IANAL.

I’ve seen elsewhere the response to the Ben and Jerry’s news hitting basically boiling down to “fucking cry about it sell outs, you got into bed with Unilever”. Which, sure, fine if that’s your (general “you”, not you specifically OP) perspective, far be it from me to yuck your yums. That being said, according to the AP article I read, they carved out (or attempted to) the right to continue to manage the social justice aspect of the Ben and Jerry’s brand without interference, in perpetuity, as a condition of the sale. As I understand it, Unilever has done a number of things to erode those carveouts, basically by repeatedly spinning off portions of the business into new companies, which they argue are not beholden to that agreement. For example, despite Ben and Jerry’s public support of Palestine and objection to their products being sold in Israel, Unilever simply licensed the product to Israeli manufacturers who sell it under their own brand names. Additionally, and this is what appears to be what precipitated this departure, they are now spinning all of their frozen confectionary brands off into something like Magnum Foods (because the two things I want to have on my mind while looking for ice cream are guns and condoms).

Like, I understand anyone who looks at the hundreds of millions that these guys received in 2000 and has difficulty mustering sympathy for their plight. That being said, I don’t begrudge them their pay day. They said, at the time, that the partnership would enable them to extend their social justice campaigns beyond what they could do as independents. From what I’ve seen, they’ve largely lived up to that over the ensuing years.

At least Kirkbride’s fever dreams were entertaining…

For both rich atmosphere and unique game mechanics, you could do a lot worse than Return of the Obra Dinn.

If you’re unfamiliar, the presentation evokes early PC (or Mac, more specifically) black and white “1 bit” games, but real time 3d. This already is very distinctive, but the gameplay also sets it apart.

You are an insurance investigator with a magic pocket watch which allows you to travel back to the moment in time that someone expired, if you find their corpse. From these brief flashes (and by cross-referencing the ship manifest) you piece together what happened to all the crew and passengers on the ships ill-fated voyage, before it’s baffling reemergence years after the fact.

I don’t want to yuck your yums, since it’s sort of a subjective call, but I wouldn’t necessarily call 200 meters a “long distance” shot. It’s not close range, but hitting a mostly stationary human sized target at that distance is, if not “easy”, certainly achievable with a minimal amount of firearms experience. I think this holds true even without the assistance of scopes or other optics. For reference, basic rifle marksmanship qualification for the armed forces has you taking on targets out to 300 meters with iron sights, and, despite never firing a weapon prior to basic training, I was able to consistently hit the 200 meter targets (though beyond that range was a coin flip)

Furthermore, calling the weapon a high-powered rifle is, to some extent, redundant. Again, it’s subjective, but pretty much any firearm which fires rifle caliber ammunition is going to be by default “high-powered”, unless it’s .22LR. That’s the only rifle cartridge I can think of that is commonly available that would not qualify as “high-powered” by a reasonable definition.

The only reason I bring up this little bit of pedantry is because, as you mentioned in your post, calling it a “long distance shot with a high powered rifle” leads the listener towards certain conclusions that are not well-founded at this juncture. It’s not inaccurate or untruthful, but I do think it leaves out relevant context.

This sounds like something George Clooney’s character in O Brother Where Art Thou might say.

Personally, a proverbial pile of proctologists pass as performers called “The Soggy Bottom Boys” perfectly.

Boo to all you naysayers! The first was a gloriously funky (and, you know, more than a little moldy) hunk of aged cheese, and I’m excited for the sequel.

I like Vin best when he’s getting to let his nerd flag fly, and it doesn’t get much more “Vin Diesel: Turbo Nerd” than a movie based around his personal DnD campaigns.

Wrong! Or, at least, in Lincoln’s case, you’re both kind of correct. Lincoln had, at the insistence of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at least one company of Union cavalry assigned to his protection. This was in addition to Ward Lamon, a personal friend of Lincoln’s from his lawyer days who took it upon himself to act as his bodyguard. Indeed, Lamon and Pinkerton clashed over the President’s security even before the war broke out. Pinkerton claimed an assassination plot was afoot in the lead up to Lincoln’s inauguration in early 1861. There is some debate over the validity of these claims, as Pinkerton’s intelligence gathering capabilities seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Regardless, the cabinet took these claims seriously enough to change Lincoln’s travel plans at the last minute, and he arrived in DC under the cover of night and with only Lamon present with him during the legs of the journey where Pinkerton claimed the most danger lie. Once inaugurated, and in the midst of the war, his protection became a military matter, which is when the cavalry companies stepped in. However, he routinely delighted in giving them the slip. In 1864, someone took a pot shot at him whilst riding through DC, and he was forced to take his protection more seriously. It was at this point that the DC police assembled a 4 man permanent bodyguard detail.

So, depending on when exactly you’re looking, Lincoln’s protection detail could have consisted of 2 companies of Union Army troops, Pinkertons, a self-appointed bodyguard cum lawyer pal, 4 police officers, a Freedman valet/bodyguard (William Henry Johnson), and a partridge in a pear tree.

Perhaps, but I think that misses the point of Gunn harkening back to Silver Age comics with this movie. Puzzling out the “logic” of who knows what and why is sort of antithetical to the exercise being conducted. It’s like the folks who get wrapped around the axle about the conclusion of Superman 1978 not making a lick of sense to someone with an elementary understanding of physics. Oh, Superman can turn back time by flying around the Earth backwards? That’s absurd!! Yes, it is, now shut up and pass me the popcorn.

If it is necessary for the story, Superman’s identity will become relevant. Otherwise, everything operates on a shrug and a hand wave, and I’m sort of fine with that. Secret identity management is a fun aspect of a character like Spiderman, for example, because his whole thing is the burden of being a gifted individual. Great power = great responsibility and all. Therefore, making Peter Parker suffer because of Spiderman is kind of baked into the text of the character.

Meanwhile, I think Gunn’s approach to Superman/Clark is that neither is burdened by the other. I’m not even really sure he views it as a duality in that way. The text of the film seems to indicate that, in Gunn’s view, Clark and Superman are indistinguishable from one another, or even that Clark (the human) takes primacy over Kal-El/Superman. This intentionally contrasts with the Snyderverse interpretation of DC heroes, which was much more interested in how INhuman the DC canon of heroes were, Superman most of all.

Per the article, Mid journey has signalled an intent to enter the traditional streaming and content production markets, placing it in direct competition with WB et al. I suspect that is the reason for it being specifically targeted.

I mean, tbh, I would consider VIP protection to be far less military-adjacent than police adjacent.

I don’t really have a dog in the fight, but what about Shawn Levy, the auteur behind such visionary films like Free Guy, The Internship, and the Night at the Museum series, inspires such confidence in you? Or, rather, why is Tropper a red flag for you?

I love this running gag.

You’re the one suggesting that your lack of attraction to these character models is an objective flaw. Which is, of course, semantically silly, if nothing else. Not finding a character (or person) attractive for whatever reason is your business. Taking to the forum and yelling about androgyny being objectively unattractive (in an online space which I’d wager has a disproportionate representation of trans and NB individuals) is an interesting choice.

Agreed. If you’re gonna do the “put as much star power on the poster as you can, we shelled out for these likenesses, we’re damn well gonna market them” thing, you as well dress it up a little. Also, punk rock Dr who is rad.

It looks just as stupid as it’s predecessor, but boy howdy do I think it will benefit from having Karl Urban in the protagonist role. No offense to Lewis Tan, since it was a Herculean task to make “Cole Young: Audience Surrogate” an interesting character within the milieu, but I’m ready for the Urbanaissance.

ALSO WILL SOMONE PLEASE HELP ME:

At the 40 second mark of the red band trailer, there is a fuzzed out melody which plays under the Standard Action Movie Trailer Percussion. It sounds vaguely like some of the stems from the Doom 2016 soundtrack. I swear I’ve heard it before, or something very similar, but, for the life of me, I can’t place it. It’s been itching at the back of my brain stem for days now. Anyone have any suggestions on where I may have heard that snippet before? It’s driving me nutty.

So, Fritz The Cat but dogs?

I haven’t seen a Jesus allegory yet, so it can’t be.

Aw man, you stole my answer.

For OP’s benefit though, I’ll expand on why. Clearly, with those directors being your self-professed favorites, you have an attraction to surrealism, or unconventional, shall we say, filmmaking. Tetsuo fits the bill. In my estimation, it’s essentially what would happen if you asked Davids Lynch and Cronenberg to collaborate on a live action Dragonball Z episode. There’s non-linear editing, repeated visual motifs which the director leaves to the audience to parse the significance of, a focus on vibe over narrative, striking black and white cinematography, psychosexual explorations of sadism and masochism, and a healthy slathering of KY Jelly and prosthetics to add some body horror to the melange.

This retrospective/review may be of interest to you if the series holds nostalgia value.