I've watched this trailer somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty times today. I am VERY excited for this movie. I have certain apprehensions about some of the things they're showing, but mostly I'm just stoked. I love the first Abrams Trek to pieces, so a second helping unencumbered by the prequel/reboot plot gymnastics of last time, and enCumberbatched, villain-wise, is just such an exciting prospect.

I just hope they don't push the whole "Into Darkness" thing too far. There aren't enough fun movies anymore. Especially action and sci-fi.

I've got to disagree with season three being brilliant. Season three is competent, moreso than the seasons that came before. And most of the cast has found their character by now. And yet... I know it's a cliche to say that the book is better, but the show is just the story of the comics told less effectively. And I say this not even as a real fan of the comics. I had never heard of them until the show came out. I read the first five TPB's in between the season one finale and the season two premiere. It's a good comic, but I haven't had the urge to read more just yet. That said, the storytelling of the comic is head and shoulders above what they've done with the same material in the show. The characters are better developed and the story takes more shocking turns, even within a largely identical framework.

I listened to the episode having seen nothing more than the trailers that were posted here a while back. It's still an interesting discussion about documentary filmmaking and the fan-film subculture in general. I probably would have gotten a little more out of it if I had seen the documentary beforehand, but it was entertaining nevertheless.

The song is one of the sole redeeming features of Live and Let Die for me. That and the incandescent Ms. Jane Seymour.

I just don't understand who's putting up the money to make films in this grand new utopia where everybody can have everything for free. Film became a business and stayed a business because you just can't make films unless they make money back. If nobody HAS to pay money for entertainment, most people WON'T. Yes, you have a certain type of person, like a lot of people on this forum, I'm sure, who would donate money to support their favorite artists. But they're going to be a minority. And if there's no money to be made in film, why would anybody make a film?

EDIT - Jimmy pretty much said the exact same thing, and better. Thunder-stealing asshat.

That's fair enough, point conceded. Doesn't make piracy any less objectionable in my eyes, and it doesn't change my thoughts on the proposed "pay if you want," system, but you have me here.

Okay... First of all, we've already agreed that the legal system has laws against piracy. So obviously your definition is not the same as the one in use by the legal system, or you would consider piracy stealing too.

Second of all, theft is defined with any number of different wordings, but all seem to agree that it's taking somebody else's property without their permission. Yes, it used to mean strictly the physical act of taking, because that's all there ever could be. That's not the case now. You're so hot for updating things for the 21st century, let's do this one. Taking = acquiring. Okay, acquiring somebody's property without their permission. Films are intellectual property. You don't have permission to possess that property without first having paid. If you acquire a film without paying money for it, you have just stolen that intellectual property.

MP3s aren't available for free LEGALLY, though. Most people don't like to break the law. You can say torrenting something isn't stealing because you're not taking it away from anybody, or you would never have paid for it anyway, but it's a form of stealing. And there ARE laws against this particular variety, even if they aren't strictly enforced. That's a big part of the reason why places like Apple can still sell MP3s.

If every MP3 that you could buy on iTunes was conveniently available for free somewhere else on the internet, I'm sure you'd be seeing a much different story.

It's true that every pirated copy is not necessarily a lost sale. Somebody may torrent Transformers 3 and watch it for free, but they would never pay to watch it. I'm with you there.

But why would somebody willingly put their product in a position where people could do that more easily? It takes time, effort, and money to make a movie, and you make that investment in the hope that the movie will turn a profit and you will be compensated. So you make a distribution deal, and people have to pay if they want to see your movie. That's a fair system. Why should a company willingly indulge the people who want to see it for free, who don't care enough to pay? There's no benefit to them. With digital copies it may not be a physical object you're selling, but it's still a product and it still has value. The system you outline doesn't make any sense.

I never understood why World is Not Enough gets pretty unanimously shit upon. I thought it was quite a solid Bond film. Weaker than the previous two, but better  than probably all of Roger Moore's output, and at least You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever from Connery. That puts it in the top fifty percent. It's fun, the action is good, the Bond girls are gorgeous, Brosnan has really settled into the part, the plot is fairly unique, actually... What else are we looking for?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/20/ … f81000001f

That's the most exciting news for me so far. Michael Arndt's good and all, but come on...

That's not fair. What if she'd been molested as a child and was just trying to make sense of it all?