Saw it at probably 11. Had the same nightmares for probably 15 years. Really shouldn't have watched it. Woke up many times looking out the window for the blast from Sarah's dream that I had just seen in mine.
The Daniel Craig era was a modern update, though, so those defenders won't really be taking history into account. Not that the Broccolis never missed, but they were capable of moving with the times, and they did not blindly follow the money.
Amazon/Disney/Netflix/HBO move with the times by following the money, and by milking the reputation of respected brands and celebrities until they're dried out husks.
> and by milking the reputation of respected brands and celebrities until they're dried out husks.
Seems reasonable to me. The big question is why other creators are not working on creating new brands. There are more heroes, superheroes, super villains created nowadays. This is not some utility services which has to be mature, tried and tested even if old and boring that must remain in use.
No one's buying into that, it's too risky - supposedly. And it's not my field, but I have to think that writers coming up in this media environment have the formulas beaten into them from the start.
I'm struggling to think of truly original movie/TV created in the last 10 years that has stuck around . Maybe in TV there's a few, Severance comes to mind, but everything else is warmed over spy/supe/soap/horror/reality.
Even prestige dramas feel like they were designed to look and feel "important" without actually being important.
They are producing according to a small number of formulas because it's cheap, predictable, easy to make, easy to watch. Above all, we keep watching. Why would they take the risk of making something different?
Yeah, I don't think people realize how many times the franchise has been updated over the years. I'm conservatively counting five times (marked with asterisks) but I think the number could be as high as seven. And then you've got to consider that they've tried to finish the character unsuccessfully even before No Time To Die with Never Say Never Again.
Never Say Never Again probably shouldn't be used as an example of "the franchise". It wasn't produced by Eon or the Broccoli family as someone else owned the rights to that particular story.
Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek .... it feels like everything eventually devolves and runs into people or a situation where it doesn't seem like anyone has creative control / defined vision, and horrific writing and such decisions.
I think there's an easy middle ground, 10M is huge. 1k would be much more reasonable. That gives startups more than enough runway to be naughty while also making sure they fix things up before becoming a problem.
Having just read Lynch's Catching Big Fish, two quotes stood out to me:
"There's safety in thinking in a diner. You can have your coffee or your milk shake, and you can go off into strange dark areas, and always come back to the safety of the diner. "
"The light can make all the difference in a film, even in a character. I love seeing people come out of darkness."
Maggie Smith's character in both Abbey and HP brooked no BS. We're reaching the time now when more of the Harry Potter teachers are leaving this world, I am not looking forward to the students.
"Poker is a combination of luck and skill. People think mastering the skill is hard, but they're wrong. The trick to poker is mastering the luck. That's philosophy. Understanding luck is philosophy, and there are some people who aren't ever gonna fade it. That's what sets poker apart. And that's what keeps everyone coming back for more." -- Shut Up & Deal
I feel there are multiple notions of "luck" in common use and the ambiguous term leads to misunderstandings.
In my mind, the purest form of luck is, by definition, not something that can be mastered. It is 100% beyond one's control to influence. Examples might include: your genetics, flipping a fair coin, etc.
But lots of people talk about "luck" as though it's something that somehow one take advantage of in a willful way. They say "make your own luck." Or perhaps "put yourself in situations where you're more likely get lucky." Or maybe "master luck"?
That's all fine, and is a worthwhile topic, but I would call that "skill". Maximizing one's odds of something (even something involving luck) is a skill.
Perhaps by "mastering luck" they mean not allowing it to psych you out — even if you're on a long losing streak, even while doing everything right. But again, I'd say saying level-headed is a straightforward skill (difficult though it may be).
Anyway, that's my little rant on the ambiguity of the term "luck" (:
the quote GP is considering "mastering luck" as understanding emotionally that sometimes you will lose. the quote asserts that handling your emotions is more difficult than the skill of the game.
so i think there is a chance that the quoted person would agree with your comment here, as I think it is orthogonal to the quote
Luck follows (or at least positively correlates) with skill :) 30+ years ago in our company of friends in the university dormitories we had a guy who had the card deck handling skills of a major illusionist (and those skills were naturally a source of significant income for him). The guy was also tremendously lucky - well beside mere being alive and without broken bones while applying his skills for income :) - in particular once he won an amount enough to buy 1-bdrm apt in St.Petersburg back then on a scratch lottery ticket that he bought at a random place on our way while we were walking to some business meeting in a city that we just arrived that morning. If it were a skillful illusion, then it was way beyond anything i've heard or seen before :)
I used to be the absolute BEST at scratch lottery tickets. OTOH, "every ticket a winner" used to be a thing, and I had free access to an MRI machine at the time.
Lotteries are for losers, but scratch tickets are interesting crypto problems. Winning tickets are printed algorithmically and (at least around here) serial numbered. Given past winning ticket numbers (available via FOIA request, ask me how I know...) it's possible to determine winning serial numbers in the future. (At least in states that don't rotate their pseudorandom seeds, and some...don't.)
Finding the winning tickets out in the world such that you can get away with buying just them is a harder problem, as they're normally sold 'in order', and going around THAT is the thing that gets your winning ticket DQ'd.
There's always something nice about "free money", and it's achievable here, but an honest job is less work.
From personal experience, the main Quora experience is their Digest e-mails; less than a third are relevant topics.
And there are now constant "Edit:" updates on answers addressing the trolls and hateful responses, further dampening my interest in answering questions.
The last time I checked, they're custom (read: expensive) and require building out your own backend video storage.