Having to start commuting again for work has really revived my hatred for smokers.
Awesome that my only option for not getting a fateful of tobacco right after getting off the train is to literally walk into traffic, and even then its a good 40% chance that across the street there's someone lighting up while waiting for the bus.
The music mogul thing definitely worries me about the main actual conflict of the first half of the story.
Like with the shoe executive thing you have, if you accept the films terms, an actual dilemma between the immediate human good that saving his chaffeurs kid would do, and the fact that he's liquidated all his shit to prevent the shoe company from making shoes out of paper so they break in time for the next season, instead trying to provide a theoretically broader social good of providing quality shoes that people can rely on.
But with a music mogul I can't really conceptualize what transforms the dilemma of "do I spend money on a peasants brat or hoard it like a big dragon?" to something that an audience can buy as a hard decision outside of personal financial trouble. Like is he gonna try and stop the company from making AI playlists?
It's a shame that the new Spike Lee remake of High and Low finished filming months before the Healthcare CEO shooting.
Feels like doing an interpretation of that and going way more in depth on the subject of the death penalty would be the main interesting take that an American remake could have.
Instead the new trailer just kind of looks like shitty aura and hype moments with little to no substance. Obviously a 1 minute trailer will be limited, but it kind of gives off the same red flags as his Oldboy remake. A more low key thriller reinterpreted as bombastic and flashy.
So far it seems like the only real details out there on the new film is that the main character is a big name music CEO instead of a mid tier shoe company executive.
I feel bad for his wife but also her direct comment in the article is really fucking funny.
My husbands doctors actually think he's doing just fine, and this other guy is the one they are really concerned about.
I think they would probably just contest that logic, as that also would inherently define a huge amount of martyrs as being bound for hell, as well as a lot of da troops and shit like that.
Not necessarily direct praxis but any kind of hand repair skill seems like just fundamentally good to learn and also a fun hobby, like hand sewing.
If they were already targeted by the state then does this actually matter, does the English courts generally allow take backsies for "supporting terrorism"?
I don't think it's always that so much as remembering how infuriating earlier wireless headphones were, every single pair I used to get in my teens lasted barely a year before something started making them unusable.
And compared to when wired headphones start experiencing problems there was way less of a dying period, when the wireless died it was just the end of the line right away, which sucks if you dont have the money to get another pair right away.
The show obviously couldn't really have a "happy" ending, and if he just gets shot(on screen) or goes to jail that's sort of expected of mob fiction.
Maybe a conventional ending could be good if we assume perfect execution, but for novelty and lasting impact it's hard to say that it's a bad ending.
Can't see the article for some random reason but I'm gonna guess it's parents who had their kid get startled and scared or some shit like that.
Summer Eternal does have some of the key creatives(that we know of) from this project, so there's hope that some of the inspired concepts will carry over to what they make.
This does answer my much earlier question about whether or not the British courts recognize take-backs in regards to terror charges.
But also separately, do they fucking anglicize Irish names when they charge someone in court?