She's absolutely correct that the random collectible toy thing has been around for a long time. Baseball cards certainly count, or even the toys found in cereal boxes years ago. The difference is that physical toys can be traded with friends, or donated, or resold - they're a tangible good with actual, if minimal, value.

Loot in video games to me is comparable less to "surprise" toys, and more to... hrm. Maybe... playing bingo for non-transferable airfare tickets? There's a real, "fun" prize, that has value for the winner but only the winner, and only in a limited context, and if you don't win you leave with nothing of any value. Note that bingo along those lines would be considered gambling in most contexts (know it would be where I live, at any rate...).

If that move isn't henceforth referred to as "The Plaza Maneuver" then I fear all is lost.

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

I mean... that takes a lot of dedication, and they've clearly done a really good job. That said, I don't get it. A scene or two as a student project, sure. Remaking the whole movie though seems like a really odd way to spend a massive chunk of your life.

The lack of new voice actors seems like it could be a legal problem too, but perhaps they've already cleared it with the big D.

Eh, I agree in theory but think that in practice it's a rather pointless endeavor. The type of person who is self-centered and entitled enough to make the "it's someone else's job to clean up my shit" argument is not the type of person who, in my experience, is remotely likely to change. Narcissism precludes negative judgments on one's self. Plus most of the time calmly explaining anything to a person who already feels you've wronged them is not going to result in the outcome you'd like. You might say that some of the time it'll have a positive impact, but I think on balance the amount of strife I'd put myself through for that rare "win" isn't nearly worth it.

I do feel this approach might work if there's a friend or family member with the offender, but even then at best it's a dice roll. Maybe the other party will point out that the asshat was in fact in the wrong, and that may alter their behavior in the future just to avoid an argument. However, if the 3rd party spends a lot of time around the entitled asshole in question then there's a good chance they either behave similarly themselves, or are well aware of the asshattery and know it's pointless to fight them on it. So... yeah. Maybe a semi-public shaming? Don't think filming would ever help things stay cool though.

That 2nd one totally isn't a mistake. "If you look really closely you can see that this is a special effect!" Yeah, not the same as a mistake.

What's with all the PJ Harvey today? Initially when I saw four all clustered together I assumed she'd died or been horribly mangled in a stage collapse or something...

I might actually be ok with a live action movie of the D&D cartoon. Who knew?

Current prediction: that dude is gonna end up being suuuuuper evil.

There's this idea I've tried to incorporate into my life. 1) Nobody on earth is correct about everything 100% of the time. 2) No one can really know what they're wrong about (as one wouldn't maintain a belief they know is wrong) 3) I'm a person on earth, so I'm wrong about things and don't know what they are.

I hope the things I'm wrong about are minor. This guy here? He ended up with a pretty damned big wrong.

Come to think of it, that show hasn't had a dragon frickin' bite anyone yet, has it? That seems wrong.

Yeah, it really isn't an accurate descriptor. I don't think there is one, though "alternate society" or perhaps "parallel society" feels close.

That bit at 10:13 - 10:28 seems waaaaaay too significant to cram into 15 seconds. Dafuq?! Like, how did that not come up in conversation ever?

Luke: You knew my father?
Obi-Wan: We did some crazy shit together, son.

Huh. And here I thought they were supposed to be part of the Marvel universe (created in the same accident that blinded Daredevil).

DC going to Netflix would be a reaaaaally smart move on their part. Have a couple decent shows, tie them into some movies that aren't fucking awful, and people might actually give a crap about their universe.