#even Sony didn't try that shit at launch

[satellitefool]

Absolutely bizarre decisions from Nintendo at the Switch 2 conference. $450 Console and $80 games. No shit people are shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well I guess not then."

Even outside of a global economic collapse, that shit would've been ridiculous. Inside one, it's batshit insane.

This should have been the easiest win in the history of the industry. Sony and Microsoft were, and still are, taking turns hitting themselves over the head with a shovel. All Nintendo had to do was not fuck up catastrophically.

Then they walked on stage and said, "Actually, we've decided to price gouge most of our audience out of the market. This will go well for us."

[perseidlion]

This is why streaming is dying.

I'm Canadian, and I used to watch Star Trek on Crave. Crave saved us for awhile from the fracturing of the streaming landscape because it stayed as an umbrella service for quite some time. I used to get Star Trek, HBO, WB shows, Starz, Sony stuff...basically Hulu + HBO + Paramount. That was actually worth it because for the same monthy fee I could get House of the Dragon, Star Trek and more.

But that wasn't going to last forever. When Paramount+ launched in Canada, Star Trek got taken off Crave. I'm a huge Star Trek fan but even I couldn't justify a FIFTH streaming service just for Trek.

So I waited until Discovery was finished. And then I binged it and season 4 of Lower Decks. And then I cancelled. I won't get it again until S3 of Strange New Worlds and Season 4 of Lower Decks are finished, then I'll binge and cancel again.

There is literally nothing else on P+ I want to watch. I looked, because if there was something I'd cancel Netflix for a bit. But it's all movies I've seen and don't want to rewatch, shows I already have access to on other streamers, or things I have no interest in.

When the networks were working together to put lots of tasty treats under one streamer, it was absolutely worth it. I'd pay $20 a month for Crave if HBO kept making good shows (instead of cancelling them, RIP Our Flag Means Death) and if P+ had lots of Trek (and...didn't keep cancelling those shows like they did Lower Decks and Discovery.) Between that and Trek that would mean I always had a show releasing on the platform that I wanted to watch.

As long as there isn't a steady diet of things that appeal to me, I WILL keep subscribing, binging, and cancelling. Churn is the reason these networks aren't profitable. But there is literally no incentive for me to NOT do that when the things I want to watch are scattered across 5-6 different streamers, each charging $15+ a month.

In trying to get their slice of the pie, the networks have guaranteed there isn't enough food on their buffet to keep people coming back for more.

It creates a vicious cycle. This fracturing means there's not enough budget to support the flagship shows/franchises. Then, they get cancelled and/or budget reduced. So they take away or vastly reduce the thing I want to watch the most.

PLUS none of the networks are nurturing the cult hits/franchises of the future. Shows that have the potential to be the reason I subscribe are being cut off at the knees after virtually no promotion.

I watch every new show like Dead Boy Detectives knowing there is a very high likelihood that this will be the only season I'll get to watch. So much potential is left on the table. If there were four or more shows like Dead Boy Detectives and Kaos getting ongoing commitments from Netflix I wouldn't even consider cancelling my subscription. Instead, I know that any show that isn't an immediate cultural moment is probably getting the axe, or getting two seasons, max. Especially if it's SF&F. Especially if it's queer.

We live in the world where even the critically-acclaimed and franchise-based House of the Dragon is getting truncated episode runs and reduced support.

Regardless of how you feel about how Game of Thrones ended, that franchise is a cultural juggernaut. House of the Dragon is legitimately good and packed with talent. The rough patches of Season 2 can be easily traced back to reduced budgets/cut episode run at the last minute that forced the production team to scramble and adapt.

Honestly. Is there anyone actually committing to their series other than FX, AMC, and Amazon with Rings of Power? Although RoP can also be considered a sunk cost fallacy since Amazon invested a SHIT TON into the IP and the series, so they need it to work. They also have a wobbly track record supporting other shows. (I will never forgive them for cancelling A Leage of Their Own.)

FX and AMC are the only networks that feel like they're actually supporting their content. And what do you get for that? Shogun, one of the best shows in recent memory. The show absolutely swept awards season (and rightfully so) and is now setting itself up to be a tentpole show in the mold of such classics of the historical fiction genre like Deadwood, The Tudors, and Rome.

Interview With the Vampire, is an AMC show which has a very active and passionate fandom eager for more of it and Anne Rice's Immortal Universe. This is a rare example of a new franchise (albeit based on an existing, well-know IP) is really finding its feet and its audience. The audience for it is not of the size of something like House of the Dragon, but AMC is feeding the audience it does have unapologetically, with queer camp horror full of messy, toxic relationships.

Then there's What We Do in the Shadows, which seems to be ending on its own terms this year. FX is a Disney subsidary which somehow manages to commit to the series it creates, which proves it can still be done.

I do hope that FX and AMC continues to support their weird and wonderful shows, and I hope they keep getting rewarded for it with high ratings and awards so that the rest of the networks will smarten up.

If we hadn't just come out of a golden age of streaming where every network was producing excellent TV, all of this heavy cancellation and fragmentation wouldn't be quite so devastating.

Entertainment seems like it's constantly in a feast or famine churn. Right now, we're careening toward famine, which is full of one-season shows, overextended franchises, flagship shows being cut/restrained and a whole lot of cheap dreck.

It's the reality TV heyday all over again and I hate it.

[caparrucia]

@garbria replied to your post “(This is assuming you played FFXIII, so if you...”:

Well, now I want to play FF13

​You should! It's available on Steam and on Xbox, I'm pretty sure (I have the collection for Xbox One, because Sony decided it didn't want to port that one to the PS5 and I'm deluding myself to believe that means they're working on a remaster even though the game really doesn't need it.)

XIII suffered a lot of criticism at launch, most of it was a lot of misogyny, a vast majority of the rest is incongruent in the context of the trilogy (but it's fair criticism, because we didn't KNOW it was a trilogy, at launch, or what that trilogy would look like long term) and the smallest remaining is actually fair and valid.

Common criticisms of XIII are:

"It's a hallway!" Which is true, but it is thematically relevant, and only really valid for the first game. It is addressed (beautifully) in XIII-2 and Lightning Returns, because the point of trapping the player and the characters in a hallway is to highlight through gameplay the concept of prophecy and fate as well as to reflect on the player how the characters are acting.

"The story makes no sense!" The story makes perfect sense if you understand it as a god's long term gambit. But specifically the complaint is that the characters are trapped in a situation where killing the big bad will trigger the apocalypse, and after going back and forth about it for twenty hours, they settle in on killing the big bad. People notice, correctly, that this still not really a choice, but they fail to land on the fact nothing in XIII is meant to be a choice. Because it's all ordained and determined by the gods (plural, this is important.)

"The ending is an asspull!" The ending is a literal act of god, yes. There are no consequences in XIII for it, so you can end on a high note if you don't play the rest, but the entirety of XIII-2 and Lightning Returns is a protracted analysis of why "and then God meddled to save our asses" was the worst possible thing that could happen. And also a great example of why we're gonna end up punching The God in the face over it.

"All the story is in the databooks!" This is... a valid complaint! A lot of the lore and history of this world is contained in the datalog, and only briefly or obliquely referenced by the characters. Meaning, if you want to REALLY understand what's going on, you're gonna have to read a lot. The reason, from a game structure perspective is that the story in XIII really isn't about the war between the gods and their gambles and the history of the world: The story of XIII is about grief and loss and refusing to give up on your loved ones, no matter what, and how that fundamentally changes and propels its protagonists (plural! All 6 of them!) into becoming the kind of people who punch God in the face for all his fuckery.

What XIII actually delivers on is one of the most well-rounded and healthy romantic relationships I've ever seen in media, period (should out to Serah and Snow for not being toxic dipshits, either way), a fantastic and nuanced cast full of flawed, complex characters that are trying their best despite the fact there's literally no options and no choice that could possibly fix their situation, and a nuanced, dynamic combat system that is easy to learn and takes time and skill to master but which will allow you to ridiculous shit while also relying on AI that's both distinct per character, but also reliable. Which like. When was the last time you played an RPG where you could trust your AI party members to not fuck you over mid-boss fight?

Also, it looks gorgeous and I love it.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Ya know, I got bit by the Marvel bug again. After seeing THUNDERBOLTS*, which I'm doing a second round on very soon for various reasons, I decided to catch up on the three movies I missed just because. Probably won't be doing the Disney+ shows, though, I have other things lined up.

Of the three MCU movies I haven't seen in full, I watched THE MARVELS.

I was very curious to see what this movie was, why it became the nadir in Marvel's box office woes, and why it was largely rejected by audiences in addition to its mixed critical reception...

I... Actually quite liked it! Well, certain aspects of it! There's some genuinely cool and neat stuff in this movie, but it's all undone by a lot of other things.

I can totally see what went wrong here, so here's my autopsy for a year and a half old flop movie!

For starters... It's definitely in the BATMAN & ROBIN vein of comic book movies, in that it embraces a lot of silly and kooky aspects that - for some - only work on the printed comic page and in cartoons. Stuff like the planet where everyone speaks in song, the flerkens devouring the space crew to a CATS musical number, etc. The female characters unabashedly being all goofy. See, I don't have that problem whatever the medium, depending on how it's done. I'd say THE MARVELS' embrace of the silly stuff makes it work for me, unlike how some CBMs and live-action/CG takes on cartoons try to hide said stuff behind realism or whatever. Like, nothing in this movie was any "cringier" than - say - THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER and even a chunk of the jokes in DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE. But, they passed the grade and made shit-tons of money. This flopped hard, like embarrassingly hard. I remember when the movie was out, at the theater I work at, I had some guy come out of one of the screenings. He was grousing "they're all singing, I can't take this anymore" to me, and presumably went to get a refund. I guess a line is firmly drawn when it comes to these inherently weird and silly movies, huh?

More than that, however... The problem dates back to when Marvel Entertainment was a thing, the main unit that Marvel Studios reported to. Marvel Entertainment was run by CEO Ike Perlmutter, known cheapskate and right-winger. Perlmutter had this committee that Kevin Feige and crew had to take orders from, a group who compromised productions like AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON. It also helped push high-profile directors like Edgar Wright (who was set to direct ANT-MAN) away. Feige eventually broke Marvel Studios off from Marvel Entertainment, so that he and his crew only had to answer to Disney. The Ent end of things eventually faded away, so it's just Marvel Studios, Marvel Comics, et al. now.

But for a period of time, they struggled with Perlmutter. Perlmutter held up the development of a Carol Danvers-led Captain Marvel movie, in addition to a Black Panther movie and a Black Widow movie. He didn't let it - or Black Widow solo - happen because he thought female-led comic book movies were box office poison, citing... Checks notes... CATWOMAN and ELEKTRA. Oh that Hollywood logic. I get that next-to-no other female-led superhero movies existed back in the day (we wouldn't get a theatrical Wonder Woman movie 'til less than a decade ago), but what a crock. Especially since the MCU could launch someone like Iron Man or Thor into a pretty successful movie. Oh, and there was some pretty bad stuff in his emails that leaked during the Sony hack of late 2014 as well. Stuff that makes me say, "Yeah, that all checks out." So, that dingus was nay on a Captain Marvel movie. The character was, IIRC, rumored to appear in AGE OF ULTRON, but that didn't happen. Her first onscreen appearance wouldn't be until 2019...

Carol Danvers should've entered the picture loooong before that. During a fan event in fall 2014, Marvel Studios announced CAPTAIN MARVEL for a July 2018 release, though it would later be delayed to March 2019. We first get the onscreen hint of her existence at the tail end of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, released in April 2018... And then her movie, with HER onscreen, comes out within weeks of AVENGERS: ENDGAME. Ya know, that little movie of no significance? Yeah, March 2019. The film is largely set in 1995, establishing that she had been around before Tony Stark announced "I am Iron Man". Carol's memories are compromised for the majority of the film. I think CAPTAIN MARVEL is a solid movie overall, but this should've come out during Phase 2 at the latest. That way, we could've gotten a proper CAPTAIN MARVEL sequel sometime around 2017-2019, and maybe some other miscellaneous appearances in other movies. To better ingrain the character into the public conscience. A sequel that would expand Carol as a character now that they got the amnesia stuff out of the way, a problem unique to her movie that wasn't a thing in IRON MAN, THOR, etc. A sequel that looked deeper at her corner of the cosmos and how it contrasted w/ the Guardians and Thor's sides of the universe. Who she really is, what her stake is in the ongoing Kree and Skrull conflicts, and whatnot.

So, I felt, when watching THE MARVELS, that her side of the story felt so undercooked. Because her character hasn't been given much prior to that. First appearance, she's memory-drained. Then a few minutes at the beginning and end of ENDGAME... Okay? An appearance in a SHANG-CHI credits scene? Uhhhh. And an appearance in a Disney+ show, MS. MARVEL. Not counting WHAT IF...? stuff and whatnot.

Yeeeah, she uh doesn't really have much of a presence in this franchise, does she? I think her movie coming so late is part of what caused that, and her in-and-out appearances in ENDGAME... but Marvel Studios could've easily made a proper sequel for her, post-ENDGAME. That would've made bigger bucks, I feel. Instead, they decided to do a movie where it's equal parts hers, equal parts Kamala Khan's! So the movie is trying to catch audiences up on both her (and all the Kree-Skrull stuff) and Kamala, and also Monica Rambeau. Like... THE MARVELS should've been the capper to a Carol Danvers trilogy, *not* the follow-up to CAPTAIN MARVEL. So I'd imagine this slapdash story with a completely forgettable villain, a story that - IMO - amounts to so little for any of its characters, a story that needed audiences to know who Ms. Marvel is... Didn't cut it for moviegoers, hence the wholesale rejection of it.

A real shame, because director Nia DeCosta - who Bob Iger implied was to blame for the movie's misfortunes, suspiciously not also mentioning Peyton Reed and his flop ANT-MAN sequel that came out that same year - and the cast were clearly having fun with the material and doing what they all could w/ such an overcooked mess.

I'm guessing some threads remain despite the movie's misfortunes. Monica is in another universe and with the X-Men, the X-Men of course are fully breaking into the MCU in AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY next year. At the moment, Carol, Monica, and Kamala are not set to appear in DOOMSDAY, but I reckon they'll appear in some form later on down the line. SECRET WARS perhaps, or whatever comes after that.

Anyways, I get why it struggled, sucks that it did and it sucks that a more meaningful conversation about these movies often get lost in a sea of raging YouTuber manbabies who all have the acumen of a gnat. But there was plenty of neat stuff to pick from this one, as far as live-action comic book movies go.