The Star Wars Economy is Bigger Than You Think
How the franchise changed the way movies make money
If you didn't know that a brand new Star Wars film is coming out on December 18, 2015, then you may be living in a galaxy, far, far away. After all, merchandising for the new film is everywhere with new Hasbro toys on shelves, CoverGirl makeup that promises to show off your "dark side" and even Campbell's soup featuring tiny noodles that resemble Star Wars characters.
But this merchandising is nothing new for Star Wars. It's just the latest example of how the original film franchise revolutionized film making through the merchandising of every piece of its world.
"The interesting thing about this is that it all feeds into the other parts of the empire," says Chris Taylor, author of the book, How Star Wars Conquered the Universe: The The Past, Present, and Future of a Multibillion Dollar Franchise. "The
more of a success The Force Awakens is, the more of a success the merchandising will be."
Taylor says, up until the release of Star Wars: A New Hope, merchandising never worked out for the movies. But, because of the long-term popularity of the film, the merchandising hit the shelves at the right time.
"Because it stuck around for so long, it actually meant that you could actually get the merchandising to consumers while the movie was still in the theaters, which was huge, and it had not been done before," says Taylor. "There was an incredible repeat-ability to it and there was a cult."
That cult of fans bought action figures from Kenner, iron-on t-shirts from Factors Inc. and event jewelry in the shape of X-wing fighters from the Weingeroff jewelry firm. Further, they began to recreate the world of Star Wars on their own, making their own memorabilia from scratch.
Although fans technically were using the likenesses of Lucasfilm property, the company didn't crack down on most of them. Instead, they let the fans form and build communities like the 501st Legion, a group of fans who made their own storm trooper uniforms based on the design seen in the films and the R2 Builders, a group with a goal to build realistic R2D2s.
Disney bought Lucasfilm in 2012 for $4.05 billion in 2012 and adopted the allegiance to fans in the process. For instance, the R2 Builders became so much better at building the sassy robot's engineering they were tapped to work on the R2D2s in The Force Awakens.
But what kind of Star Wars should we expect from Disney?
"I think Disney is very, very smart in the way that it approaches its subsidiaries," says Taylor. "Pixar was treated like the crown jewels, they could make whatever they wanted to make. Same was true of Marvel. We almost don't think of Marvel as a Disney subsidiary and really the same hands off approach has been taken to Lucasfilm."
About 8:55.
Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Shot by Alex Manning.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe I'm a dork, but I was REALLY hoping for an interesting discussion about inflation, the value of credits, maybe a few references to Sabacc, how the Empire manages monetary policy, etc. That would have been awesome.
To say nothing of Seinar System's brilliant corporate inversion strategy to Alderaan enabling huge subsequent write-offs from corporate tax liability.
I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai....
http://www.4cyberworks.com
You're also privileged. The more open-minded among us are concerned about the global warming effects of the Imperial Economy on Alderaan. Let me guess - that was a moon that caused it.
Wait - are you suggesting that it *was no moon*?!
We are concerned that rebel-made global warming is leading to the proliferation of the Wampa population on Hoth.
Trade Federation = Taxi Cartels + Unions
Discuss
You'd probably trust your cargo to any rapist piloting a freighter.
Jabba did - and look where he ended up.
Tatooine had a serious rape culture problem.
Maybe I'm a dork.
FTFY
oh and...
NEEEEERRRRDDDZZZZZ!!!
Well, yes, clearly. The handle is relevant here, too.
If you think discussing fictional economies is interesting I would think the Obumbles administration would have you enthralled.
May the farce be with you!
#EwokLivesMatter
Stop the appropriation of indigenous Ewok culture!!
Their pelts make great coats.
OT- Taking some business classes I'm getting informed that the normal cost vs quality analysis doesn't apply anymore because the perception of the businesses altruism/sustainability/goodfeelz is important.
This point seems a bit derpy to me since the quality always was a subjective measure of how it made people feel as a measure of cost benefit. My opinion is officially wrong though.
The feel-good measures won't be constant, though. What represents an important progressive crusade today won't mean anything in a year, so I would think the long-term effects would be small.
But when you have institutions like CalPERS making decisions based on that, it could have significant short term effects.
the perception of the businesses altruism/sustainability/goodfeelz is important
Only for the customers who can afford to pay a premium for it.
Try using the phrase 'pretentious horseshit' in your class. See how that goes over. Add in a 'smug' just for good measure.
Don't forget pompous, self-centered, and imperious.
What is true is that tastes are constantly changing. One can capitalize short term on some of them, but that still amounts to successfully reading the market. Sounds like someone did a little renaming of things to sell a book to a bunch of academics by playing on reading their latest whims.
"Brand Equity" (aka "Goodwill") has always been considered an intangible asset on a company's balance sheet.
I don't see how anything has changed... or why any business class would suggest there's any new kind of accounting which changes the way companies should do business, or how they should be valued in any potential acquisition.
I agree. Maybe I'm reading more into it but I am always weary of people trying to claim that cost/benefit or supply/demand must be modified by some other. Usually it turns out they just want to shoehorn in some silly justification for "market failure." "You see our regulations are just giving people what they want, responsible companies."
The concept that people just aren't making the choices they want them to make escapes them. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
goodwill only applies to companies that have been acquired, and includes a heck of a lot more than the power of the brand.
Point out to them that 'quality' is not just the product itself. *The whole sales environment* is part of the cost/quality analysis.
Target is basically Walmart with a better store interior - and you pay for that extra.
The tiny grocery store down the street from me sells mostly the same stuff as the Albertson's 10 miles away - but smells of old vegetables and mildew and the costs of the the stuff they sell is altered to reflect that.
OT
For the yokels!
Saying you only need to fear fear is like saying you won't tolerate intolerance. It's not saying anything. You're still fearing something just like you're still not tolerating something.
So he uses the Japanese analogy. Except they did have to fear the Japanese because they did want to kill us. They just didn't have to fear Americans of Japanese descent because they weren't fighting for Japan. So what they needed to really worry about was anyone that shared the same ideological goals as the emperor.
So we're back to Islam being an ideology, not a race. And still no justification for why taxpayers owe shit to Syrians who aren't in this country.
HAHAHAHA!
So, these people, who have the same ideology as ISIS, felt the need to leave everything they owned and become refugees to escape the people they have a common ideology with?
Talk about a false premise.
How about the absolute fact, that the US created their tormentors (ISIS)? Not feeling any responsibility there at all? We make the mess and it's the rest of the world's responsibility to deal with it?
No just some of them do. And it is impossible to tell which ones are which. I know you are profoundly and proudly stupid but Jesus Christ this is a new low for even you
Fuck off troll.
Just because people are fleeing ISIS doesn't necessarily make them wonderful people. A large segment of Syrian refugees are supportive of ISIS to some degree, and nearly all are Muslims, which means their religion tells them be (essentially) anti-libertarians: misogynist, Jew-hating, anti-free-speech, etc.
[citation required]
Here you go.
I must have missed it, can you copy the part that said a large segment Syrian refugees support ISIS to some degree and then paste it here?
I see no question even asking if they support ISIS in that citation. But I may have just missed that data, as the article is so long.
So if you'd be so kind as to help me out?
Unrelated to Syrian refugees, but speaks to Israeli Arab support:
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Isra.....ays-434969
The figures below are just the problematic Syrian refugee responses. (Note: percentages do not overlap, meaning "Strongly oppose" is not a subset of "Oppose.")
"To what extent do you support or oppose the declared objectives of the anti-ISIL campaign to "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL"?
20% "Oppose."
11% "Strongly oppose."
"Do you consider ISIL to be a direct threat to the security and stability of your home country?"
15% "No."
"In general, do you have a positive or negative view of ISIL?"
4% "Positive."
9% "Positive to some extent."
10% "Negative to some extent."
"A large segment of Syrian refugees are supportive of ISIS to some degree,..."
So 4% is a large percentage? I think it would be better for everyone's safety if you just stayed away from statistics.
You do know how addition works, right, Mr. Statistician? Follow me closely here: 4% positive plus 9% positive to some extent = 13%. So, about one in eight refugees are positive about ISIS to some degree. Now, apply that to the tens of thousands of Syrian refugees that Obama (and utterly clueless libertarians) want to take, and it means importing thousands of people with a positive view of ISIS. Think about that.
"How about the absolute fact, that the US created their tormentors (ISIS)?
I think a more-accurate characterization is that = US action in Iraq, and its subsequent empowering of the Shiite majority in Iraq, provoked the rise of a sunni-rebellion which *eventually* morphed into ISIS... years later, when the Syrian civil war provided grounds for their emergence
You could also add ISIS probably inadvertently benefited from arms the US supplied to the Iraqi army as well as various syrian rebel groups.
But saying that "the US created ISIS" at all is a conceptual stretch that requires a cartoonish, over-simplified view of recent history.
Even if you qualified it by saying, "unintentionally"... it wouldn't help much. Technically, ISIS didn't even come into being until 2011 or so, which technically is when the US was leaving Iraq.
Some can and do argue that ISIS exists.... because *the US left Iraq precipitously*; not because it 'was there' in the first place.
I don't take this view... but its on the same cartoonish level as the claim that the US 'created' ISIS
Pretending US actions were the sine qua non of Sunni Islamic Nationalism assumes that Sunni radicals would have otherwise been just cozy with any changes in the regional status quo - aka 'the Arab spring'. Which I think no one with a brain actually claims.
Calling it an "Absolute Fact" on top of that ... well, just sounds like bluster to cover up a very weak claim.
"Cartoonish, over-simplified views of recent history" are all some people have.
Gil
ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), quite literally, which didn't come to power until the US invasion.
ISIS is blowback from an ill-advised war and attempts to install a democracy in the ME.
"ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),"
If they were the same thing, there'd be no need for a name-change, would there?
"Was" is the verb you were looking for
I know the history of the group. Some of the people who formed it came out of AQI, which was mostly non-existent in 2011.
That doesn't make them the same thing, nor does it make your claim about the US "Creating" things via "Blowback" any more plausible or "absolute" fact-based. You're trying to pretend that your strong claim is entirely validated by weak and circumstantial evidence. Its not.
Gil
This isn't even debatable. ISIS IS and WAS AQI. The group came to power because of the Iraq war.
If you wish to claim they stepped up to the power vacuum that we left in the region, fine, that has some merit, but the progression was Al Qaeda Mesopotamia to Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) our primary foe there, to Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in 2011.
You may claim that an ISIS equivalent MIGHT have come into existence anyway, but that is NOT what happened. AQI=ISIS and AQI came into existence to fight Americans in Iraq. Period.
"=ISIS and AQI came into existence to fight Americans in Iraq. Period."
By your own absolute-fact-asserting logic = the US stopped being in Iraq in 2011.
Who is ISIS fighting now?
Who were they fighting in 2012-2013-2014?
Apparently the US is 100% the motivating factor, the sine qua non of ISIS, without which they have no purpose at all...
yet they strangely seem focused on capturing territory in Western Iraq and Syria, where there is (and was!) zero US presence.
By your own claim -- you'd think if the US had extracated itself from the region, ISIS would have no reason to exist?
Remarkable. So many chickens and eggs.
Quibble all you want Gil.
" ISIS IS and WAS AQI.. The group came to power because of the Iraq war'
Again - this isn't even technically correct (the worst kind of correct)
AQI was mostly eradicated and its leadership in jail when the US started to leave iraq.
The few members of AQI who later went on to get involved with ISIS only did so after being let out of US controlled prisons. And where did they go? Syria.
And they didn't "Come into power" until a few years into the Syria rebellion, where they sucked up huge amounts of money from Saudi & Gulf financiers to help get rid of Assad, who the Sunni establishment saw as being the 'weak link' in the emerging Shiite-crecent that was starting to take over the entire northern flank of the middle east.
In short = there was no "US" to blow-back against by 2012. Yet you're claiming the US is the ONLY thing that ISIS was concerned with
The more-obvious reality is that ISIS is simply a sunni insurrection against the growing power of Shiites (and by extension, Iran) in the region. And/or an opportunistic movement to take control of Syria when a reconquista of Iraq is too difficult.
No one would cry foul if you merely said that US actions 'contributed' to the growth of ISIS; your desperation to assert that there is absolutely no grey-area whatsoever and that you have a simple, causal argument on your side is where you go Full-Retard.
Are you disputing my citations, or have you simply not read them?
Yeah, that's the thing with terror organizations...mostly eradicated doesn't do fuck-all for ya.
I challenge you to cite where I said any such thing.
I said that the Iraq war "created" what is now ISIS. Prior to the US invasion, there was NO AQI, who is now ISIS.
The fact that AQI is now ISIS isn't debatable. It happened. It's documented. You can speculate all you want about what MIGHT have happened in alternate realities. This DID happen. The origins of AQI/ISIS were a direct result of the Iraqi invasion and the organization thrived due to the power vacuum we created.
You can attempt to twist it to fit your anti-blowback narrative, but this is the history.
""Are you disputing my citations, or have you simply not read them?'"
I read what you cited and pointed out that you're wrong.
Sure, "some members" of AQI went on to form ISIS.
Your specific claim that ISIS only purpose was to fight the US is entirely wrong.
ISIS didn't even come into being until the Syrian civil war, when the US was in the process of leaving Iraq. the organization called ISIS (*very much unlike AQI) is entirely focused on establishing a regional caliphate
Your attempt to create some simplified "US invades Iraq = ergo, ISIS 2015" isn't at all supported even by the broad-brush facts you're trying to use to fortify that claim.
You're certainly free to speculate that, sans US invasion of Iraq, that ISIS would never have come into being. But that's all it is.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
AQI came into existence to fight Americans in Iraq. NO OTHER REASON! AQI morphed into ISIS.
You seriously don't follow that logic?
" Yet you're claiming the US is the ONLY thing that ISIS was concerned with
I challenge you to cite where I said any such thing."
The below quote is pretty unequivocal =
"""ISIS and AQI came into existence to fight Americans in Iraq. Period""
"period", at the end of a statement usually means an emphatic = "and nothing else".
Unequivocal?
AQI (which now calls itself ISIS) CAME INTO EXISTENCE TO fight Americans in Iraq.
Which is a far cry from saying.
And if you can't see the difference between those two statements, you are simply arguing in bad faith and I'm done.
You were done a while ago
This is like arguing that the US is responsible for Stalin, because we intervened to fight Lenin in the Archangel Campaign. Communists and Islamists have agency. They are not motivated simply by how other people react to them.
"They are not motivated simply by how other people react to them
There was also no Sunni / Shia divide before the US arrived.
Not feeling any responsibility there at all?
Just like progressives, war-boners are completely and totally incapable of admitting to unintended results of their good intentions. Because blowback was not intended, it could not possibly be the result. Therefore there is nothing to feel responsible for. Meanwhile they continue to pave the road to hell.
Yeah, but "intervention" does not explain Islamic terror. It's silly to think that if only we had not been interventionist, then Islamic terror groups would not exist. Islamic expansion and terror predate any responses to them.
I don't think anyone is saying intervention is the sole cause of Islamic terrorism. That straw man is trotted out often because it is easy to refute. But military intervention most certainly created power vacuums that allowed the condition to fester and come to a boil.
Not to mention the fact that people usually don't like it when their friends and family are killed, and that can incentivize them to join militaristic groups that they may have never considered joining otherwise.
By that logic the military intervention is the result of them. They killed US families.
And that applies to Americans, too....
And that applies to Americans, too....
How many Americans have friends and family who died at the hands of terrorists, and how many people in the Middle East have friends and family who have died at the hands of Americans?
This is just stupid.
I'm the bad guy because I can fight better than the person that attacked me?
" That straw man is trotted out often because it is easy to refute. ""
No, someone seems to have trotted that argument out all by themselves.
The history of Islamic terrorism is the history of Islam.
Suthenboy nails it.
Even the First Crusade was spurred by the fact that the Muslims had gone back on their promise to allow Christian pilgrims free passage to Middle Eastern holy sites.
So maybe it isn't wise to set fire to a powder keg. Oh, too late.
FTFY
This might be of some help to you:
True Believers:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/.....-believers
Most followers of Islam don't like ISIS. Who does? Followers of Islam with PTSD:
http://classicalvalues.com/201.....terrorism/
War makes more people with PTSD. Our Wars in the ME are not helping. Unless we are willing to occupy the ME for 50 years - until the PTSD dies out. We did that with Germany. It worked.
"We did that with Germany. It worked."
Military Occupation.... cured German PTSD?
Did "Killin Natsies" have nothing to do with it? Your 'psychological trauma' theory of international conflict is fascinating and i believe would make for an interesting and readable newsletter to which I would gladly subscribe.
Zing!
And I love the argument (though I haven't seen around here) that goes like this: "Syrian refugees aren't a terror threat at all! But if we don't let them in, it'll piss them off, and they'll become terrorists!"
First we had to defeat the Nazis. Then we had to keep the Germans from starting another war. To do that we had to occupy Germany.
Why did Hitler get for followers? People with PTSD from WW1 would be the most susceptible.
You're serious?
" Then we had to keep the Germans from starting another war. To do that we had to occupy Germany."
You really are, aren't you.
Short answer = No.
Longer answer = Soviet Union
Really dude... just stop with the PTSD thing. It was funny the first time.
Well. You should read some of the immediate post WW2 literature. The occupation of Europe was in part to keep the Germans from starting another war. The Soviets may have been the main consideration they were not the only one.
Further:
I spent a few years in an outlaw motorcycle gang and every single one I discussed the matter with had been abused in childhood.
In the US about 10% of the population has PTSD. Why not more? Because only about 20% of the population has the genes for PTSD.
If you look up the responses of people to PTSD you will find it fits the definition of evil.
My guess is that you have never had PTSD. People who have never had it have no idea.
"I spent a few years in an outlaw motorcycle gang"
Did you watch a lot of gladiator movies together?
"In the US about 10% of the population has PTSD."
No kidding. Only ~33 million? I'm shocked no one has noticed. Was there some national-crippling-trauma that i've overlooked? Was it the canceling of Soul Train? because I'm still getting over that.
"Why not more?"
I was just about to ask
"Because only about 20% of the population has the genes for PTSD."
Well, i was going to go with "most people haven't been raped or served in combat", but that would have been my second guess.
So, "Everyone has PTSD". Which naturally explains why the Nazis were actually all PTSD sufferers. I feel like I've heard this argument somewhere before...
Only about 10% get it long term. It can rise as high as 20% in a war zone. So Hitler was speaking to that 20% and was wildly approved of - you know "He understands us." And it seems that he carried another 13% on top of that.
Well if you read the literature having the symptoms for a while is not enough. They have to persist for longer than three months for it to be counted as actual PTSD.
By The Maker you are ignorant. And parade yourself as a font of knowledge. You been rubbing PBP on yourself?
==============
Re: 10% of the population.
Gilmore - lots of people have noticed. But it is not public knowledge. You have to read the literature. Drug taking is very common self medication for the problem. And the number of drug takers in the country? About 30 million - although it could be higher. The stats are not entirely reliable due to illegality.
Now it is true no large studies have been done connecting dopers to PTSD. My theory is that the drug war would end ASAP if it was framed as a War On The Traumatized. Thus no studies on the intersection.
"By The Maker you are ignorant. "
I'm pretty familiar with mental illness.
I'm also pretty familiar with the incredibly weak evidence provided for claims about the actual prevalence of very hard-to-diagnose 'disorders'... which are often nothing but a new label being slapped on populations who suffer from a wide variety of different symptoms.
According to the same DSM... EVERYONE suffers from depression. And I think half the population has some kind of sexual problem. These kinds of data are frankly just bullshit "conceptual" %s psychologists use to describe the frequency with which they encounter people complaining about the same stuff. They aren't any 'hard facts' one can actually use to say anything about the wider world.
You remind me of Ice Trey, who got extremely fixated on a audio recording of the Michael Brown shooting and believed that from 'measuring silent gaps' in the audio he could establish facts about who was where and how fast they were moving.
- in essence, you're going from some extremely weak data on what the actual impact of PTSD is... inflating it wildly out of proportion, and then trying to apply it to things like "world history"....
.... and pretending its not batshit crazy. And that people who think you're batshit crazy should really "read more" so they can get more-hip to your jive.
""My theory is that the drug war would end ASAP if it was framed as a War On The Traumatized.""
PTSD = It explains everything!
PTSD does explain a considerable fraction of drug use.
And you might want to look into "abandoned child" Obama. And his cult of worshipers.
Gilmore, MSimon is right about post-war Germany. Yes, part of it was fear of the Soviets, but there was a widespread and not entirely baseless fear of resurgent Nazism: Werwolf.
It wasn't the "preventing war" part so much as the idea that "a military occupation was supposed to have cured the rampant German PTSD" part that I was remarking on for its kookiness.
No one knew it at the time. But that was the effect and it made Europe much more pacifistic. A lot fewer angry young men. That has its downside when the barbarians are at the gates.
IIRC FDR was referring to the fear brought on by the Depression, not the Japs, in his famous quote from his 1st Inaug on Mar 3, 1933.
"""859,629 refugees admitted since 2001""
The 859,629 whose entry was paid for by the US taxpayers and most of whom were not required to be admitted by any treaty or law but were voluntary invites by the Bush/Obama administration
We've done more than our share already.
I've watched the Zoolander 2 trailer more than I've watched any of the Force Awakens trailers.
Just cannot bring myself to care about Star Wars anymore, other than hoping that Red Letter Media tears it apart (if it deserves it).
Is t Zoolander 2 where he gets elected PM of Canada? That trailer is on all of the time.
Slightly OT unless you count Darth Vader:
Did Hitler Have PTSD?
Yes, and not only that, but his later career may well have been a case of post-hypnotic suggestion gone wrong:
This would explain how he served for years on the front, won the Iron Cross, but never rose above corporal. His former commanding officer said he "showed no leadership ability"!
Both your claims are false!! Hitler was a Gay Alien
There is more evidence for PTSD than alien. Of course to "normals" people with PTSD are aliens.
Have you ever been tested for RTRD?
Yeah. I Nuclear Power qualified in the Navy and became an aerospace engineer sans degree.
I was sec'try treas of the local Libertarian club for 3 years.
But I don't wear the same glasses every one else does. It was my specialty at work. Highly valued.
Just because you don't see any value doesn't mean there is none. It just means you haven't studied the matter.
Ah, I see. "Smart" people never believe stupid things. And everyone else needs to 'do more reading'.
Ignorance is the usual excuse. And now a days you have to be very lazy to maintain it.
About 10% of the population has PTSD. It does all kinds of unfortunate things to the people that have it and to our culture. And you are not interested.
You never exactly explained what 'trauma' so many millions of Americans suffer from that produced said PTSD.
Megalomania can be one of the symptoms of PTSD.
Do your headmates agree with you?
Obligatory.
You were all thinking it.
I know I was.
Black Lives Matter Protesters Viciously Attacked by Vengeful, Hate-Word Using "Mob" of Trump Supporters
I mean, it was a crowd! A gathering is a kind of 'mob'. And well, ok... maybe they were just gathered there to hear Trump being Trump, not for the purpose of Lynching Peaceful Protesters, but hey! when the opportunity to present itself came... they, well, jostled and pushed and stuff... And reportedly Hate Words were used against the Peaceful Protesters, magnifying the savagery of the violence
The video evidence unfortunately looks more like, "protesters yelling during trump speech". and then other people tried to remove them. WHICH IS TOTALLY NOT OKAY!
headlines in the media range from "Mob Beatings"... to instead highlighting Trump's Trumptastic reaction = "They probably *should* have gotten their asses kicked", or something.
The tactic here seems to be motivated by the success of the "Mizzou Car-Touching" incident
i.e. - A version of = "i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you ...where the goal is to 'provoke a reaction', then wildly exaggerate the reaction to the Nth degree, claiming evidence of Racism.
oh = bonus points to the Daily Mail for the "Triumph of the Will" overlay. If only they could have photoshopped in some book burnings in the background
Well, the main thing for the Mail does seem to be always to make sure Americans look all violent and stupid.
And racist.
And dimwitted, uncultured, and dull.
So, accurate.
The US is reduced to making fun of Zimbabwe.
#BlackLivesFatter
#BlackLiveSplatter
In unrelated Lives Mattering events...
...there's this video of a Personage taking advantage of an unwilling female...
....who is interrupted by a Good Intentioned, bearded student person, who apparently seems to be saying how, "Not cool" the behavior of the former personage is (at least he seems to be talking, making some kind of reasoned appeal about the Not Okayness of the situation)...
...when the former personage shoots the latter point blank in the gut, sans any provocation other than what was likely his annoying pleas to Just Be Cool and stuff...
...and, lastly, for me the most intense part of the video =
....when the former personage then racks his shitty Tec-9 knock-off (apparently now only operating as a single-shot) to eject the first shell, then tries shooting the now-grounded-and-moaning-NOT-COOL-guy in the head at point-blank range, only to malfunction.... and he tries racking it again, and again points it at the DUDE COME ON guy's head, to no avail, at which point he decides to fuck off forthwith.
the part that gets me is how casually P#1 decides to blow wounded-and-moaning-guy's brains out, and is stopped not by any sober reflection on the merits of the idea... but rather a combination of his own incompetence & shitty firearm.
I sincerely doubt this will generate any comment from the outrage-o-sphere whatsoever.
Correction = the guy actually pulls the trigger at his head *3* times. Its like he wants to save a jury any deliberation time whatsoever.
But I'm sure this is all really the fault of white racism.
It hit the nightly news. And a photo of the suspected perp was provide.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the BLM people are actually concerned about what they claim to be concerned about.
The movement is no different from any of these lefty bs movements. They appeal to envy and grievances but they soon morph into full blown attacks on the bill of rights. The only equality they are interested in is in being more equal than others.
This wasn't about BLM so much as it was about a "horrifying video of a failed street-execution"...
....which will get zero press because it doesn't have any utility to the outrage-brigades.
By mentioning 'lives matter' the first thing that popped in my head was the deafening silence that will emanate from the BLM people. But yes, from the press also, whose motives aren't all that different.
It's on the front page of the NY Post now. I didn't realize the dude stopped his car to get out and help her. Wow.
A great part of this story is that NOPD wants him for aggravated battery, not attempted murder. Doesn't mean they won't charge him with attempted murder when they catch him, if they catch him, but it does mean NOLA gets to claim a slightly better attempted murder rate for the time being.
The med student really should've been armed. I can't believe he's not dead now.
"" NOPD wants him for aggravated battery, not attempted murder.""
@#)*(&$ WHAT?
The video shows the perp shooting a guy with raised arms, pleading for mercy.
Then putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger. Thrice.
I don't think i've ever seen a more vivid depiction of "Cold Blooded"-ness.
The only thing that comes to mind was ... this story about the old man who shot the teenage kids for trespassing... and executed one he'd only wounded
I was mistaken. I was informed that the original charge was agg. battery. It's now attempted murder, among other things. My guess is that whichever parish's DA is responsible for charging the criminal, started taking heat as the story grew legs, and up'd the charges.
I agree that it's as open and shut a case of attempted murder as it gets. I think they've made an arrest in the case, FWIW.
The old fart in Minnesota would've been fine, had he not audiotaped the whole damn thing, and given a confession to firing "finishing shots" into the burglars. Well, that and not giving them contact GSWs to the back of the head. Had he kept his mouth shut, destroyed the tape(s), and shot them from a distance, IMHO he'd have walked.
The law frowns on it when ordinary people execute criminals. Just ask that pharmacist in Tulsa who ended up catching life for finishing off the armed robber he'd disabled.
I was mistaken. I was informed that the original charge was agg. battery. It's now attempted murder, among other things. My guess is that whichever parish's DA is responsible for charging the criminal, started taking heat as the story grew legs, and up'd the charges.
I agree that it's as open and shut a case of attempted murder as it gets. I think they've made an arrest in the case, FWIW.
The old fart in Minnesota would've been fine, had he not audiotaped the whole damn thing, and given a confession to firing "finishing shots" into the burglars. Well, that and not giving them contact GSWs to the back of the head. Had he kept his mouth shut, destroyed the tape(s), and shot them from a distance, IMHO he'd have walked.
The law frowns on it when ordinary people execute criminals. Just ask that pharmacist in Tulsa who ended up catching life for finishing off the armed robber he'd disabled.
If you think selling toys based on a movie is some big whoop-de-do paradigm shift, you should watch kids TV some time - there's a whole industry of selling movies based on toys. NYT article from 1990.
/eating my Pink Panther strawberry-frosted flakes as we speak
"In theory it could subject such shows to the new time limits on advertising in children's programming, but because of the way it is written, the definition would exclude almost all toy-based programs, like "G.I. Joe: American Hero" and "ThunderCats."
Under the Children's Television Act of 1990, a law passed in the closing days of Congress, broadcasters are not allowed to show more than 12 minutes of commercials on each hour of children's programming. Lobbyists who pushed for the legislation have long argued that shows based on toys should be considered commercials. If the commission defined such shows as commercials, they would be in violation of the new restrictions. "
So stupid. And yet... their "law" is what created that kind of programming in the first place.
Star Wars was a paradigm shift. For the first time, a movie was in the theaters long enough for the merchandising to be available at the right time.
(Not that there haven't been movie magazines and toys and such since the silent days, but Star Wars was an order of magnitude leap.)
I'm not sure I buy that. I owned a ton of Star Trek crap as a kid before Star Wars and that had been off the air for a good 5 years.
The big thing that Star Wars did was popularize the action figure.
Ah, but that was TV show merchandizing, not movie merchandising. And a TV show that was very successful in continual reruns.
I think the distinction is that movie merchandising was limited compared to radio shows and TV shows, because those often run for years, and movies tended not to be in the theaters long enough for that to work as well.
And of course having sequels makes a big difference, too.
"Star Wars was a paradigm shift. For the first time, a movie was in the theaters long enough for the merchandising to be available at the right time."
No. In the 60's movies lingered in theaters for long periods. Mary Poppins, released
Aug 27, 1964, was the highest grossing movie of 1965! I can recall a great number of movies being available for 2+ months.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Poppins_(.
And there was Mary Poppins merchandising, too, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to Star Wars and what came after. Which I think makes the claim valid: that Star Wars marked a paradigm shift.
My point is that lots of movies were in theaters a long time - that was not unusual about Star Wars. The marketing was definitely a paradigm shift.
I thought those were discontinued?
I've never seen them here or in the States.
Eh, look at Dracula.
Look at how much that has created by virtue of it being public domain.
100s, maybe even 1000s of movies
Toys. Licensed stuff.
Countless books.
Star Wars might be big, but imagine if we only had a 30 year copyright span. We'd have all sort of Star Wars stuff, even more than now.
Would a lot of it be crap? Sure.
There already is a lot of Star Wart stuff?
I'm not so sure that the merchandizing effect was so much a Star Wars effect as the timing. Star Wars sequels came out just on the cusp of VHS players which extended a movie's impact on popular culture. Prior to widespread VHS player ownership you could only watch a movie in a theatre or when it happened to be shown on broadcast or cable TV. Watching a particular film at will was not an option.
qwe
It's an hour and a half long fucking lame toy commercial, and all of my generation can't wait to give all of their money to this new dumb fucking pointless cultural moneymaking omnipresent fad, and I fucking hate everyone.
Star Wars was a 'paradigm shift', eh?
So all that 'Go Ape!' PoTA stuff never happened? Action figures, playsets, costumes, games, and all kinds of weird product tie-ins that really didn't work. AND day long sessions of all the movies playing.
Star Wars seems to have simply leapt onto the bandwagon.
Start making more money weekly.This is a valuable part time work for everyone.The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from ?100-?2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details
Check this link http://www.4cyberworks.com