Yeah, we're all good, sir, thanks for scoping out the landscape.

It might even make you more excited to see it. It's basically like when they bring in Tom Hanks to talk about a movie that's not out yet to stir up interest.

I'm still extremely curious about the 3D 48. I will definitely be seeing that. Previously my intention was to see it like that first.

However, recently Dorkman made the point that you run a high risk of being miserable due to the circumstantial details of watching a new media form for three hours, and completely tainting your first experience with the movie. So now I'm not so sure.

As someone who doesn't know anything about Lost, everything everyone has said sounds fucking ridiculous.

...

Just being a non-contributing asshole over here. You could levy similar claims about Who, for instance.

What's the difference?

Once The Matrix is on a DVD, what is the difference we're talking about between the DVD and the Quicktime? Is your contention that you simply pay for the price of a very expensive blank DVD with a file and some paper on it? A blank DVD is about fifty cents, The Matrix is $15. Where's that $14.50 going? Who gets paid?

How do our views differ? Several paragraphs, please. I'm tired of chasing down point-by-points. Gimme a philosophy in total to compare to my own.

Okay!

I'll play. I wrote and backspaced out an "I'm out, you're trolling" post, but I'll play.

Take the AGGREGATE TOTAL of funds you can vouch for having been appropriated to a single project through subscription, patronage, donations, and performance cost, and compare that to what gets put up for "just making a movie" in the studio system. (EDIT: You edited in "government subsidies, media levies," and I'm willing to fold those into the previous statement. Add those too.)

Are we in the same order of magnitude?

If the answer is yes, provide a lot of citation.

If the answer is no, then you now see what's so hard about this.

EDIT: Added clarity, we'll say a nice round (not-on-the-high-end) number for a studio movie is fifty million. Hit me.

Asked regardless.

This friend is an attractive young lady.

Teague: folks, male and female, on the DIF board are trying to sort out if gunn is a sexist.
his work being one thing, the old blog post being another, the retraction being a third thing.
what's your read?

Her: He's definitely absolutely not a sexist. He just has a particular sense of humor that most people don't realize is him just pushing it.

Teague: is there anything in particular that you draw on to make the conclusion he's not a sexist?

Her: I've hung out with him several times, had multiple conversations with him, heard him speak of relationships and women in his life, etc

Teague: gotcha. without attributing you, can I use you as an unnamed source in the thread?

Her: sure, go for it.

Meh, I'll do it.

Let's try to walk back the heat in this thread a bit, y'all. More conversation, less aspersions.

...says the sister-whore post guy, but, you know. Let's de-escalate.

*cough*