I hope by now people know me well enough to know I am far from a Trump supporter.

But we would be missing out on a huge opportunity here if we didn't highlight that 99% of what politicians say is different looking, but equally foul bullshit.

I'm not joking. If you actually look into the 'facts' and 'statistics' that are used to push and promote the different policies, they are all based in falsehood or manipulation of meaning, a few off the very top of my head:
- Austerity - based on a study that was discredited not long after it was used to strip assets and cut funding for those who need it most
- Immigration caps - Theresa May talks big about reducing immigration now, saying what a problem it has become but she was *home secretary*, responsible for handling immigration policy
- Benefit caps - for years they have painted benefits cheats as the great drain on the British welfare system with TV shows and press releases, but the majority of the benefits bills go towards subsidising low pay (working tax credits, people in full time work that doesn't pay enough to live on) and paying rent to private landlords (rents which are unregulated, landlords who are already privately rich).
- Greater autonomy for local government - sounds great, we get a better say about things that affect us locally, except when we say that we don't want fracking in Lancashire, they over rule us and say we WILL have fracking in Lancashire. Greater autonomy only meant "we're not giving you any more money."

I'm barely getting started. You can go on and on - tax policy when it comes to big multi nationals who don't pay their fair share, but we let them haggle and pay a tokenistic amount - but the reason we don't have enough money is because of the burden of benefits cheats and immigrants??? We paid for the damage done by the financial crash, but the same people are still in charge and now they're taking billions in bonuses too - why don't we get any of it back!??

I can turn on the news at any time and within 30 seconds find something that is skirting with the truth or outright pulling the wool over our eyes.

The entire political system is fucked up in America and in the UK, it's not just Donald Trump. Donald Trump is like a huge fist sized bubble in a strip of freshly laid wallpaper. We don't just need to fix the big obvious bubble; we need to change the way we put wallpaper up because when you look at the rest of the wall, there are thousands of smaller bubbles that amount to the exact same problem of a fucked up wall.

Donald Trump is the dead canary in the coal mine. He's the clear and obvious indicator that something is horribly, horribly wrong. Getting rid of the canary's corpse does not solve the fucking problem.

The blowback from the alt-right, these vicious people spouting nationalism and racism and sexism. AND the constantly bickering and clamouring SJW lefties who want to dominate free thought and free speech. Both these sets of people have been pitted against each other intentionally so that they don't turn on the people at the top. It is the oldest trick in the book - don't blame the guys in charge, blame each other, it gives us longer to get away with it. Divide and conquer. Spread hate, spread war, spread fear, spread anger and people gravitate to the extremes... they are easier to control at the extremes.

...rant over i guess

TLDR
If you found this boring, if you didn't want to look into it, you're part of the problem. You're contributing to the environment in which Trump can flourish.

There is no scrutiny, there is no being held to account. There is only the court of Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers.

I was floored when I first saw the movie back then, along with Pulp Fiction. But anything new and unique about it has since been beaten to death. The deliberately innocuous background music in a violent scene, the overly glib cursing, the “serious” discussions about some pop culture horseshit, references to childhood cereal brands, tv shows, cartoons, etc. I rolled my eyes when someone was smoking “Manzanas Rojas” in “The Hateful Eight”. Stagey derivative bullshit.

Bill Nye Climate change fool. A TV show hack with a new grove to spin.

A degree in Mechanical engineering does not make you a climate scientist.

I agree with every thing he said.
I'll never vote Hillary. I'll never vote Trump.

Every election there is always some BS floating around about why we have to vote for an R or a D. The Supreme court one has been used several times before.

Enough is enough quit succumbing to their will continuing the rigged game. Never vote for anyone with an R or a D next to their name on the ballot. They are private clubs which control who can become the next president. Doing so will keep us stuck with the same shitty system we have today.

I would rather vote for Roseanne Barr or any other completely unqualified horror from beyond than continue to support the reality TV show we have today.

Voting for a third party is the only way my vote is not thrown away. If I support Clinton or Trump I lose this election and the next one as well.

I'm definitely not a film student (or a student of films). I'm not really savvy enough to confirm this guy's thesis about what Snyder is doing wrong.

But one part rang massively true for me -- when he talked about Avengers Age of Ultron and the farmhouse scene. Honestly, I didn't like Age of Ultron all that much, but that scene stuck out as a good one. From being a fan of Joss Whedon's TV shows, I think he is a master of making characters that we get invested in. We identify with them or see elements of friends / family / whatever in them, and that makes it much more rewarding to watch them do amazing (or even mundane) things.

That farmhouse scene in Age of Ultron was a really good example of that. And I didn't feel anything like that, at all, for any of the characters in Batman v Superman.

I don't know that Whedon's very character-centric approach is necessarily a whole lot better for creating extremely compelling storylines either, but I think it can cover a lot of blemishes in that department.

I feel like I've seen this on VideoSift before, but maybe I saw it elsewhere. Good effects for the budget. (especially in 2000)

I find it's a bit sad actually, many new TV shows (and some movies) have this quality of effects, even though the technology's so much more advanced and they can afford to pay for good quality.

I finally watched it a while back and this does indeed seem pretty accurate.
In particular for me though the storytelling was fairly incoherent, seemingly only a poor construct intended to connect the story between a few major plot points, with far too many contrivances. It's a similar problem to the slipshod storytelling that crops up quite often in TV shows.

This is from a TV show, right? I am pretty sure I recognize 3 of the actors there.

There are millions of people all over the world who do this very thing all the time. It's a myth perpetuated by TV shows like "the biggest loser".

What's the purpose of the video? Generating ad revenue for Vox. They're a business after all. But secondary to that, I think the purpose of the video is simply to educate people about the importance of nutrition in weight loss. You would be amazed at the number of people who don't understand it.

I don't think you could really call it clickbait (other than the fact that everything is clickbait, so the term becomes meaningless). In fact, it's almost the opposite of clickbait... the main point is given away in the title. It's not like it was called "you won't believe this one amazing weight loss method" or some shit.

Batman the Animated Series is the first TV show I ever bought the DVDs for. It's the definitive Batman to me. The animated movies are great too, like Under The Red Hood, The Dark Knight Returns, and Mask of the Phantasm.

As an NZ resident, I am morally obliged to point out that Australia is a horrible place populated by criminals and terrible rugby teams, but I did live there for two years and in reality, it's not actually that bad.

Yes, their government are a shower of complete dickheads both in their own right and in the fact that they have their collective head shoved so far up Americas arse they can practically see the back of uncle sams tonsils. The immigration policy is pretty much barbaric and they seem hellbent on ruining the country as fast as humanly possible. And I haven't even gotten started on how unbelievably racist the country as a whole is (this is a country that only got rid of it's "White Australia Policy" in the 70s).

Border security, while they can be complete arseholes are not nearly as bad as they're portrayed on those TV shows. They do have a lot of idiots flouting the biosecurity laws (Johnny Depp is the least of their problems), but in general as long as you don't make the mistake of not being white, they're far more interested in any fruit you might have than any bills with coke on them. (side note: don't bring cash to Australia, almost every transaction is electronic there).

But the country itself has some great things going for it. Some of the scenery is amazing, the parts of the reef that aren't bleached are stunning, the food in the cities is amazing (as is the coffee, especially in Melbourne and Sydney).

@Zawash -- all true. And yet, just because Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson are/were awesome, it doesn't make IP and copyright rules any more sensible.

My opinion: those respectful and well-done parodies and homages (say, Pants are Overrated's Hobbes and Bacon) are fair use. The person/people that drew Calvin peeing on things? Fair use also. There is a big difference between "tasteless" and "should be illegal".

Selling car decals with those images is different, because then you're treading all over the "not for profit" element of fair use. However, tracking down tons of small-scale infringers on that, or even worse, average people who simply buy the decals/shirts/whatever and likely don't know or care to know about IP and copyright laws is ... a losing battle at best, and punitive towards *fans* of the IP at worst.

There are many many examples of going to idiotic (IMO) lengths to protect IP. Disney suing local bakeries for drawing some character in icing on top of a kids birthday cake. Metallica suing Napster, University internet hosts, and even individual downloaders of their music. Teachers being sued for playing a clip of a TV show, movie, or song as part of their lessons. Etc. etc.

At some level, copyright is a good thing. Or at least a necessary evil. But the litigious zeal with which IP and copyright are "protected" these days seems like we've lost sight of the "art before commerce" element that is a huge part of why Calvin and Hobbes was so awesome. And why IP is something worth protecting (within sensible limits).

First Contact has three unforgivable flaws.

1. The time travel plot makes zero sense. Why do the Borg need to go back to that particular time to assimilate humanity? Why don't they go back to pre-WW3, where there were a) more humans to assimilate and b) lower tech weapons? Why do they need to interrupt the moment of humanity's first contact with the Vulcans? Why do they give themselves such a tiny margin of error by only giving themselves a few days to assimilate Earth before the deadline? Why don't they send Borg down to begin assimilating humanity straight away? And the Enterprise conceals itself from the Vulcans by hiding behind the fucking moon.

2. The writers fundamentally ruin the idea of the Borg by giving it a figurehead it doesn't need. They are not a collective if they have a Queen; they are subjects.

3. Worst of all, Picard's characterisation is a complete volte face. Seven seasons of the TV show proved that Picard just isn't a man who stoops to revenge. Only a year or so after recovering from his own assimilation, Picard has the chance to cripple or destroy the Borg forever and he doesn't take it, because he's a man of balance and pragmatism, not of blind rage. His sudden change into Captain Ahab is lazy and it's unearned. Picard, like everything else in the film, is dumbed-down for the sake of the action, and the character as written undermines the work done over the course of the TV series, amputates him from Roddenberry, and is frankly unworthy of being performed by Patrick Stewart.

Star Trek: First Contact is fucking dumb.

Of course I have to concede to subjectivity and some of the action is very exciting (if still stupid; the "no firing at the deflector dish oh except when you do" incident is a prime example). But it's only possible to enjoy it as an action movie if you like your action movies to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

Well that's pretty patronising. I'll disabuse you of your misapprehension: I'm a lifelong fan. I've seen all of the series and all of the films. I understand Star Trek pretty fucking well. I think that what you don't understand is that these things are subjective.

I think the TNG films are horrid. Tired, clichéd, uninspired revenge plots that don't represent the TNG TV series or Roddenberry's ethos at all, and as you say, with an emphasis on irrelevant space action and some pretty egregious plot holes. And they are boring, which Roddenberry-era Trek never was, even at its most talky. It's not just the writing and production - half the time the actors are basically sleepwalking their way through the films, and are often completely different characterisations from their TV show incarnations (particularly Picard in First Contact).

That I prefer this trailer over the TNG films isn't so much praise for Beyond as disdain for the lazy work presented from Generations onwards.

I can be forgiven for thinking it's a non-sequitur that has been edited in for effect, the basis for reality TV shows.

Editing <> Reality