• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "usa". Back to normal view
    1. 2020 US Presidential Election Day - Discussion Thread

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed. We have a thread here in ~news that's more focused on articles and events, but I also want us...

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.


      We have a thread here in ~news that's more focused on articles and events, but I also want us to have a more conversational space to process the day. Consider this an open forum for your own thoughts and feelings.

      50 votes
    2. Trump/Biden 2020 Presidential Debate #1 Discussion Thread

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed. Watch on YouTube Other viewing options Debate starts ~10 minutes from the time of this...

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.


      Watch on YouTube
      Other viewing options

      Debate starts ~10 minutes from the time of this posting.


      Info from The Washington Post:

      Location: Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. (This was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame withdrew, saying the fact that it would have to limit student attendance and volunteer opportunities because of the pandemic erased the reason to host a debate at the university.)

      Moderator: Chris Wallace, anchor of “Fox News Sunday”

      Details: The debate will be 90 minutes long and have no commercial breaks. There will be no opening statements. Wallace will dive right in with the first question to Trump. It will be divided into six 15-minute segments that Wallace has chosen. They are:

      1. the Trump and Biden records
      2. the Supreme Court
      3. the coronavirus pandemic
      4. the economy
      5. race and violence in cities
      6. the integrity of the election
      56 votes
    3. I can't get my head around US President Joe Biden polling poorly and Donald Trump polling well

      I can't get my head around President Biden polling poorly and Trump polling well. I don't think I need to provide details for people on this site, but Trump was so horrible as a president and...

      I can't get my head around President Biden polling poorly and Trump polling well.

      I don't think I need to provide details for people on this site, but Trump was so horrible as a president and President Biden has done such a good job. Even if Biden was a passive placeholder four years of him would have been better than 4 more years of Trump.

      I don't understand where the low polls are coming from. Particularly for groups that would not do particularly well under a Trump regime like African Americans and youth.

      I see some people complaining about President Biden's age, but his administration has been doing a good job and Trump is only about 4 years younger ( and in much worse shape ).

      I don't get where the hate is coming from.

      I remember the "red wave" that never happened and articles explaining why polls aren't as accurate as they used to be. However, that answer feels too easy to me, a cop out.

      Maybe people are angry about greedflation. However, Trump's presidency when it wasn't about vindictiveness was all about neglect. I can't believe people think Trump would be better for the economy -- that he would even try beyond the stock market so he polls well.

      *Disclaimer:

      My apologies if this is the wrong place for this conversation. I thought here or "talk" would be the best choices, though people in "talk" might not want political conversations.

      94 votes
    4. Democratic Debate #1 Thread (Night 2)

      welcome to debate #1, night 2. the first thread on this turned out to be about twice as active as i was expecting (i estimated at most 50 or so replies), and that was for the "undercard" so unless...

      welcome to debate #1, night 2. the first thread on this turned out to be about twice as active as i was expecting (i estimated at most 50 or so replies), and that was for the "undercard" so unless something changes with this night, i think we'll be doing these in pairs from here on out--at least until either the DNC pushes out enough candidates for one debate, or activity drops significantly in these threads. previous night's thread can be found here if you'd like to continue the discussions of last night's candidates. anyways here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:

      first off, i recommend you sort by newest first instead of the default since this thread will likely be semi-active and covering a live event.

      How to Watch:

      The debate is being broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo, and will air live across all three networks starting at 9 p.m. ET.
      Telemundo will broadcast the debate in Spanish.
      The debate will stream online free on NBC News' digital platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, the NBC News Mobile App and OTT apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, in addition to Telemundo's digital platforms.

      livestreams will also be available on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube because the DNC mandated that of its partners for the debates.

      The Candidates:

      Democratic Presidential Debate: See The 20 Candidates Who Will Be Onstage

      • Michael Bennet (Senator from Colorado)

      Bennet is running on fixing a broken political system, the blame for which he puts at the feet of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Bennet says spending from wars and tax cuts was essentially the U.S. lighting “money on fire.”

      • Joe Biden (Former vice president)

      Biden’s top concern is less about reshaping America and more about returning America to “normalcy.” He argues that if President Trump gets another four years, the DNA of the country will be fundamentally altered.

      • Pete Buttigieg (Mayor of South Bend, Ind.)

      The 37-year-old is making a generational-change argument. He argues for progressive processes — like fixing redistricting and voting rights — in addition to policies — like being more cautious on war and more progressive on climate change and health care.

      • Kirsten Gillibrand (Senator from New York)

      She’s focused on women’s rights, especially when it comes to health care. She boasts that a Fox host called her “not very polite” for speaking out about the “nationwide assault on women’s reproductive freedoms” and “fundamental human rights for women.”

      • Kamala Harris (Senator from California)

      Harris’ slogan is “for the people,” and she’s making the case that President Trump is a “fraud.” The former prosecutor says Trump is fighting for the wrong people — the powerful and wealthy — while she wants to “advocate for the voiceless and vulnerable.”

      • John Hickenlooper (Former governor of Colorado)

      The centrist has a pragmatic message. He says pragmatists aren’t against big things; they know how to get them done. He has also spoken out against Democrats’ lurch toward socialism, warning that moving in that direction would reelect President Trump.

      • Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont)

      Sanders wants to beat President Trump, but he believes the way to do it is not with “middle-ground” approaches, but with promising wholesale progressive change. He’s the only candidate willing to wear the (democratic) socialist label.

      • Eric Swalwell (Representative from California’s 15th District)

      He has focused his campaign on ending gun violence in the country, targeting semiautomatic assault weapons in particular by calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback.

      • Marianne Williamson (Spiritual guru, entrepreneur)

      The New Age author is campaigning with a philosophy of “Think. Love. Participate.” As an outsider to politics, she believes change needs to come from the outside and that “half-truth tellers” can’t beat President Trump.

      • Andrew Yang (Founder of Venture for America)

      The startup investor is running on a data-first approach to the presidency. His big idea is to address the threat of automation with a Universal Basic Income, in which every adult would get $1,000 a month.

      The Rules:

      Candidates will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. No opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.
      Five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.

      The Analysis:

      NPR has 7 questions of their 8 for the debates which apply to today's debate:

      Will Biden stand up to the scrutiny?
      Is the debate an opportunity or danger zone for Bernie Sanders?
      Can Harris and Buttigieg stand out?
      Do the pragmatists or progressives win out?
      How much of a focus is Trump?
      How will foreign policy factor in?
      Who will stick in voters' minds?

      other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:

      34 votes
    5. Is keeping Donald Trump in the 2024 US election beneficial to Democrats?

      Yes, Trump has a real chance of winning in 2024 and that would be dangerous for the world in many ways. On the other hand Trump seems like the easiest candidate for the presumptive nominee...

      Yes, Trump has a real chance of winning in 2024 and that would be dangerous for the world in many ways.

      On the other hand Trump seems like the easiest candidate for the presumptive nominee President Biden to beat.

      1. A lot of Americans are rightly scared shitless of Trump and will turn out to vote against him.
      2. Trump is likely to try to dodge debates which benefits Biden, who has a stuttering problem and a gaffe problem.
      3. Trump is elderly, like Biden so that somewhat neutralizes the age issue for Biden.

      If Trump was removed from the election DeSantis might become the front runner or nominee

      1. He is young, and the age issue would be on Biden again
      2. He might have the debates Trump would have eschewed and do well in them
      3. DeSantis would likely pick up Trump's base in that situation

      The worst scenario with Trump being removed from the election would if someone other than DeSantis became the nominee

      1. Again, the age issue would be a thing for Biden again
      2. The unknown nominee could be a better debater than Biden
      3. The unknown candidate would have neither Trump's nor DeSantis's baggage, causing more voters to stay home or swing voters picking him/her over Biden

      Edit:

      To clarify, I mean what would happen if Trump was kept entirely out of 2024 - no 3rd party runs, no vote splitting.

      45 votes
    6. Tildistas in the US, who do you support in the 2020 Democratic Primary?

      supplementary condorcet voting poll, if you'd like to answer in more nuance and provide some data to compare against when i ask this question later on down the road. poll has been closed as the...

      ~supplementary condorcet voting poll, if you'd like to answer in more nuance and provide some data to compare against when i ask this question later on down the road.~ poll has been closed as the week i said it'd be open has elapsed. thanks folks, and of course feel free to continue replying to this thread,

      (foreigners are also welcome to chime in on who they'd vote for if they were eligible)


      it's still 200 days to the iowa caucuses, but since this election cycle began literally six months ago already and we already have one debate under the belt, we're probably far enough along in the primary at this point that at least some of the billion candidates trying to run for the coveted position of democratic nominee for president in 2020 are making an impact on you, and nobody has actually asked this on here recently, weirdly enough.

      i'll probably ask this question again in... i dunno, three months (so mid-october)? and see what changes between threads (if anything does).

      47 votes
    7. Democratic Debate #1 Thread

      welcome to debate #1, night 1. given tildes's small size, i'm not really sure how this will go, so my plan here on paper is to do two threads (one today, one tomorrow) for this set of debates, and...

      welcome to debate #1, night 1. given tildes's small size, i'm not really sure how this will go, so my plan here on paper is to do two threads (one today, one tomorrow) for this set of debates, and then based on how active this set is make a decision on whether or not to consolidate them for the many future debates that will happen. if things go particularly well or poorly tonight though, i might expedite that decision (hence the un-specific title), but we'll see. anyways, here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:

      How to Watch:

      The debate is being broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo, and will air live across all three networks starting at 9 p.m. ET.
      Telemundo will broadcast the debate in Spanish.
      The debate will stream online free on NBC News' digital platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, the NBC News Mobile App and OTT apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, in addition to Telemundo's digital platforms.

      livestreams will also be available on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube because the DNC mandated that of its partners for the debates.

      here is the youtube link.

      The Candidates

      Democratic Presidential Debate: See The 20 Candidates Who Will Be Onstage

      • Cory Booker (Senator from New Jersey):

      Booker is running on an aggressive optimism, promising to bring people together and fight for things like criminal justice overhaul, improved economic opportunity and LGBTQ rights.

      • Julián Castro (Former secretary of housing and urban development):

      The former Obama administration housing chief is running on hopeful notes. He promises students being saddled with less debt, veterans being respected, people of color being safe and immigrants being welcome.

      • Bill de Blasio (Mayor of New York City):

      Leading the country’s most populous city, de Blasio is running on putting working people first and is touting his record on minimum wage, sick leave, health care and universal pre-K. And he’s running against President Trump’s immigration and climate policies.

      • John Delaney (Former representative from Maryland’s 6th District):

      Delaney has campaigned in early states for nearly two years. He takes a pragmatic approach, especially on health care. He has spoken out against “Medicare for All,” a stance that hasn’t sat well with liberal activists.

      • Tulsi Gabbard (Representative from Hawaii’s 2nd District):

      The military veteran is running on a platform of “peace,” to end foreign wars and use the money to spend in America.

      • Jay Inslee (Governor of Washington):

      His campaign begins and ends with the threat posed by climate change. He argues that the economy and fighting climate change are not incompatible and that a green economy creates jobs.

      • Amy Klobuchar (Senator from Minnesota):

      Klobuchar believes in a pragmatism that’s rooted in her senatorial experience and a Midwestern optimism. She believes it’s necessary to reach out to solve problems and bridge divides between rural and urban communities.

      • Beto O’Rourke (Former representative from Texas’ 16th District):

      Best known for almost beating Ted Cruz, O’Rourke has a “positive, unifying vision.” He wants to fix American democracy with changes to campaign finance and voting, and to end wars, reduce gun violence, address climate change and guarantee women’s health care.

      • Tim Ryan (Representative from Ohio’s 13th District):

      He’s running on “rebuilding the American Dream,” and that means, in his view, blue-collar jobs, public education and health care.

      • Elizabeth Warren (Senator from Massachusetts):

      You name it, Warren has a plan for it. She’s not running to create a new system, but she is running on big, structural change, including increased regulation and scrutiny of Wall Street and banking.

      The Rules:

      Candidates will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. No opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.
      Five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.

      The Analysis:

      NPR has 5 questions of their 8 for the debates which apply to today's debate:

      Does Warren make the most of commanding the stage?
      Do the pragmatists or progressives win out?
      How much of a focus is Trump?
      How will foreign policy factor in?
      Who will stick in voters' minds?

      other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:

      34 votes
    8. The summer of busts

      Note: Because the post is already going to be long enough, this will only cover the movies from May to July. August still counts as the summer movie season, but there's usually not a lot of big...

      Note: Because the post is already going to be long enough, this will only cover the movies from May to July. August still counts as the summer movie season, but there's usually not a lot of big movies released, and this August hasn't been particularly interesting so far (do we really need to wait for Blue Beetle to bomb to talk about DC?).

      On paper this should have been a great summer: The last Guardians of the Galaxy movie, another installment in the highly successful Fast and Furious movies, another Disney live-action remake which have been incredibly successful, a movie featuring Michael Keaton back as Batman, Indiana Jones, and a Tom Cruise movie after his highly successful Top Gun sequel.

      That was on paper.

      So what actually ended up happening?

      Well a lot of busts.

      First let's go over the saga of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3. Early on it was a contender for a billion dollars this summer. Unfortunately for Disney Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania came out with the absolute worst reception of any Marvel movie since Eternals (and honestly even then it was definitely worse received). The Marvel brand was now tainted, at least a little. Pre-sales (that being the sale of tickets that people buy in advance) was looking bad. At one point it looked like it might open below 100 million.

      In response to this, and confident in the product they had, Disney decided to drop the review embargo earlier. Resulting in similar positive critical reception that Black Panther: Wakanda Forever received . This finally made pre-sales climb higher, and once people actually started watching the movie positive word of mouth lifted it up to 118 million for the opening weekend. Still, this was much lower than what Guardians 2 opened up to six years ago (145M). It had a similar Cinemascore (the gold standard for audience reception) as Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (A) but if we look at other factors it indeed had better word of mouth. It's because of this glowing word of mouth that it was able to leg it out 358 million. Having the best multiplier of any Marvel movie since... well the first Guardians. It also had more appeal internationally than the previous two Guardians movies (maybe due to the darker tone) and it made nearly 850 million worldwide. Which is phenomenal, especially considering it got off to a shaky start that first weekend.

      I should re-iterate: Marvel movies don't perform like this anymore. They usually have big openings and weak-ish legs. Having a softer opening but longer legs is a thing of the past for these types of fan driven movies, they're usually reserved for films aimed at older audiences.

      I'm gonna group the next two May releases together. Fast X and The Little Mermaid also had high expectations. Both are coming from predecessors that have made billions of dollars. And actually, both didn't perform too bad overall. Fast X didn't do well domestically (it's basically a dead franchise stateside) but did very well internationally making 700M WW, and The Little Mermaid didn't do well internationally but did pretty well domestically nearly reaching 300M DOM and 550M WW. These are respectable grosses. Just one problem: their budgets. Fast X is sporting a 340 million dollar budget, making it one of the most expensive films ever made, and The Little Mermaid is sporting a 250 million dollar budget. The break-even points for these films are 850M and 625M respectively. They did not reach them. They would have been profitable if Fast X had the same budget as F9 (225M) and The Little Mermaid had the same budget as Cinderella (95M). Those would have been the responsible budgets to make these films with, but alas shit happens. They were both shooting during the pandemic, which raised costs on productions, and Fast X had to switch directors half-way through production.. Still, money losers are money losers.

      June starts off with a bang. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse opens to 120 million, more than Guardians 3 and four times more than what it's predecessor opened to. With great reviews and great audience scores, it becomes the first true out and out success since Guardians 3. It also had a much lower budget than all the summer blockbusters thus far. 100-150 million, according to differing reports (we'll know by the next year when Deadline does their most profitable blockbuster list) making profitability much easier. The film basically covered it's production budget in one weekend. It legged out pretty well. Outgrossing Guardians 3 domestically (375M) but not being able to match it internationally making nearly 700 million WW. While it did "fail" to meet the high expectations of 400M DOM, it's still massively successful. And will remain in the top 5 grossing films domestically.

      The rest of June is a different story. First up we got Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, which was, at one point, one of the biggest movie franchises around resulting in two billion dollar films. While it beat expectations opening weekend, opening to 61M, it did not leg it out very well. 155M DOM and 420M WW is not a great number, especially not compared to it's 200M budget. It made less than Bumblebee despite having twice the budget. It's basically a dead franchise at this point, and it was not the win Paramount needed after Dungeons and Dragons also flopped.

      Then we get a double whammy. The Flash and Elemental open the same weekend. At one point The Flash was projected to open well above 100 million just for the weekend, but pre-sales told another story. Pre-sale trackers on the forum BoxOfficeTheory, saw what industry tracking couldn't: a lack of interest. The sales just weren't there. DC as a franchise is already on the decline. This was a movie about a minor character that debuted in Justice League (which also bombed heavily), with a controversial lead star, and just unappealing trailers, who would be interested? Michael Keaton fans, supposedly. That was what people were clinging onto. The older Keaton fans would come out and help the movie. Apparently there aren't any. Doesn't help that Keaton had his last Batman outing over thirty years ago, meaning no one below the age of 40 even really cares about him as Batman. It opened disastrously to 55 million. dropping throughout the weekend from toxic word of mouth. It didn't even manage to hit the lower end of those initial projections throughout it's entire run. WB dumped so much money into this, just for it to be the biggest bomb in their studio history.

      Elemental, on the other hand, ended up fairing a little bit better. Not on opening weekend. God no. It opened to 29M, one of the lowest openings in Pixar's history. But, it was really well received by audiences. And people kept watching it week after week, resulting in some of the best legs Pixar has had in a while. Reaching over 150M DOM, and over 400M (and counting) WW. If it reaches 500M WW, which it still looks like it might, it would break even theatrically. That's not great, as studios would love to make money theatrically, but considering this could have been a massive money loser for Disney, it's quite an impressive run. Thanks to Disney's re-commitment to theatrical, their animation studios are slowly building themselves back up in the eyes of audiences.

      To end the month came Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Supposedly the Top Gun: Maverick of 2023, at least that's what some people had pegged it as at the beginning of the year. Once again, it didn't work out that way. It premiered at Cannes to mixed reviews, and while the funko pop critics were able to get it to fresh on RottenTomatoes, the damage was done. Indiana Jones spent months with a rotten symbol. Even before that, trailer views were weak, the interest just wasn't there. Why? I think perhaps Crystal Skull was supposed to be the last outing for the character (which actually ended up being the second highest grossing film of 2008 and even outgrossed The Dark Knight internationally), and even before that The Last Crusade was supposed to be the last outing of this character. And now we're getting another last outing for the character. Except now he's 80. A fantasy wish-fulfillment character being 80 is probably not a great thing. It's also another situation where no one below 40 really cares about Indiana Jones (me excluded but I don't share the viewing habits of other people my age). So... it was over before it even started. It opened okay all things considering, 60M isn't bad. But it had mediocre drops week to week, no doubt due to mediocre word of mouth. And again, the budget was out of control. Initially reported to be 290M, the actual budget ended up being 320M. It didn't even get close to 400M WW. Making it one of the biggest bombs of all time, and certainly the biggest bomb of the year. This is probably the last straw for Lucasfilm. I can't imagine Disney letting them continue doing things this way.

      Next one comes a sad one for me personally, Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning - Part One the first big movie of July. They decided to release it over a 5-day weekend. And, more importantly, decided to open the weekend before Barbenheimer. Unfortunately, that meant that no one was paying attention to Tom Cruise's latest critically acclaimed action film. It opened below 80 million for the 5-day weekend, below Indiana Jones even. It's only hope was to leg it out well. But again, two big movies would come out a week later. Mission Impossible was yet another victim of Paramount's idiotic release date decisions. Dungeons and Dragons opened a week before Mario, despite positive reviews and audience reception that ended up dropping like a rock too. If Paramount had picked more empty dates both of these movies would have done better. MI is the only blockbuster this summer to be extremely well reviewed, to get positive audience reception (same scores as Fallout) yet not be a success at the box office. The budget didn't help, 290M, it was one of the first productions to restart during the pandemic that's where this audio of Cruise yelling at crew members breaking protocols comes from. They actually set the standard for productions during the pandemic. But, money losers are money losers, and Paramount has been bleeding a lot of money.

      One of the more interesting success stories so far this year is Sound of Freedom. Originally produced in 2018, 20th Century Fox held the distribution rights. When Disney bought Fox they shelved the movie. Angel Studios then got the rights to the film. They opened it on the Fourth of July weekend (America!) to rave audience reactions. It opened modestly, to 19 million, but has legged out spectacularly. Outgrossing summer blockbusters like Transformers: Rise of the Beasts and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Domestically anyway. It was powered by conservative influencers and the often reliable christian market. It's been debated if this should count. As they had a pay it forward service, meaning people would buy tickets for others to use for free. There were several reports of sold out screenings playing to a largely empty room. Whatever it is. It's money for movie theaters. And it's clearly playing well to an underserved market.

      Now we get to the big one: Barbie and Oppenheimer. For over a year these two have been building up hype. Christopher Nolan, who usually has his films distributed by Warner Bros., was incredibly unhappy with how they sacrificed his film Tenet during the 2020 pandemic and even was even less happy when WB announced that their entire 2021 slate would be day and date on HBOMAX. He then takes his next project to Universal, after they agreed to a laundry list of demands. They pick the date July 21st, because that's the date Nolan likes and is "reserved" for him. Warner Bros originally had Coyote vs Acme there, a live-action Looney Tunes film with John Cena. However, they remove Coyote vs Acme from the schedule (it still has no release date) and instead put Barbie there. It originally started off as a "battle." Who would win, who would flop? But as we got closer, it became something else. The stark contrast between the two films, while both being from filmmakers who are lauded by younger people online, led to the creation of Barbenheimer. It wasn't "which one will win" it was "we're excited for both." It also wasn't, as some people think, manufactured by Universal and Warner Bros (why on earth would competing studios work together) it was organic. If it wasn't organic it wouldn't have worked. Barbie opened to over 160M and Oppenheimer to over 80M.

      What makes their successes so great for the industry, is that they're in genres that have not been doing well post-pandemic. Even pre-pandemic comedies like Barbie were struggling. The last big comedy to hit 200M DOM was Ted back in 2012. Barbie easily blew past that. It's also a female oriented film in a time where women have been one of the slowest demographics to return to theaters. Adult dramas were also on lifeline. Elvis had been the highest grossing one post-pandemic, but pre-pandemic we would get multiple hits. In 2019: 1917, Little Women, Ford vs Ferrari, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood all grossed over 100M DOM. In the two years since the pandemic only Elvis managed to hit that mark. But now Oppenheimer, something that on paper is tailor made for the end of the year Oscar season, opens like a blockbuster in the summer. It's the first drama to make over 200M DOM since Joker, and first non-franchise drama to make that much since Bohemian Rhapsody and A Star is Born crossed that threshold back in 2018.

      Maybe it's a fluke, maybe it was just because it was these films specifically. But it's hard not to feel optimistic that this will translate to other dramas like Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon, and other female-oriented films like Wonka.

      Smaller successes and optimism for the future of theatrical:

      I covered the big movies. But what about the rest of the slate? Movie theaters can't just survive on 20 or so big movies a year. They need the smaller films to still deliver some money. These past two years, the box office has been incredibly top heavy. We either got films that only made a ton of money or we got movies that made no money.

      Let me give you an example of the struggle of this specific market. The Peanut Butter Falcon was the 100th grossing film domestically of 2019. It grossed 20 million. In 2021 it was The Father with 2.1 million, in 2022 it was Cyrano with 3.8 million. You can see the toll the pandemic took here. But you can also see slight recovery.

      I believe 2023 is the year we see substantial recovery in his part of the market. Smaller, non-franchise, and art-house films have been making more money than they have been in the past two years.

      Let's look at some examples:

      Asteroid City has the highest opening PTA (per-theater-average) of any film since the pandemic. Over 100k PTA something that used to be more common before the pandemic. And, once it goes wide, grosses 27 million domestic. Compare that to Wes Anderson's previous film which grossed 16 million domestic.

      Past Lives also opens to a healthy PTA of 58k. That's higher than TAR and The Banshees of Inisherin. And that's without any star power and without having a well known Director. It has Oscar buzz, to be fair, but so did the other two and it still managed to outgross both of them when it went wide. So these types of awards films are already doing better than they were even six months prior.

      No Hard Feelings not so much a small film, it's not an art-house film, and it's not an awards contender. It's a mid-budget comedy that relied solely on star power as a selling point. It's exactly the type of movie that failed countless times in 2021 and 2022. Yet, it outgrossed star-studded R-rated comedies from last year such as Amsterdam, The Menu, and Babylon pretty easily. Making 50 million domestic. It, perhaps, did not turn a profit theatrically, but it at least made some of its money back. Even a year ago, the thought of this type of movie making anything more than it did would have been unfathomable. Even Ticket to Paradise, which did make more than No Hard Feelings especially internationally, was PG-13 and had two old school stars headlining it instead of one young one.

      I think these three movies really do show how much the market continues to improve, even as we faced massive bombs. When something as benign as Theater Camp can open with a PTA on par with Banshees of Inisherin, we're definitely heading in the right direction.

      This was quite the summer for Hollywood. With so many high profile bombs, and two surprise hits, this already feels like a transformational year for the industry. Trends are changing. Franchises from the 2010s (mostly from Disney) are no longer the guaranteed money makers they were. The unions are on strike. Studios are looking to cut costs. It's a whirlwind.

      98 votes
    9. Affirmative action and its role in your life

      Initial SCOTUS rulings on affirmative action were before my time. I agree with the concept. Do you? Has it affected you positively? Negatively? Now that affirmative action has “ended” and we’ve...

      Initial SCOTUS rulings on affirmative action were before my time. I agree with the concept. Do you? Has it affected you positively? Negatively? Now that affirmative action has “ended” and we’ve totally “solved racism”, what is the path forward? There’s a lot of opinions out there but I want to know what real people think about the consequences in all our lives, U.S. or otherwise. Let’s talk.

      49 votes
    10. Democratic Debate #2 Thread (Night 2)

      welcome to debate #2, night 2. with night one out of the way, and the expectations set by our first night of candidates, we turn to a much more diverse, much more ideologically separated group of...

      welcome to debate #2, night 2. with night one out of the way, and the expectations set by our first night of candidates, we turn to a much more diverse, much more ideologically separated group of candidates ranging from asian-american technocrat andrew yang to moderate-progressives african-americans in booker and harris, and from berniecrat-type tulsi gabbard to solidly moderate joe biden. it seems likely that we'll see more fireworks today than we did last night, especially given CNN's adversarial lines of questioning in the first night. as always, here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:

      i recommend you sort by newest first (or order posted) instead of the default since this thread will likely be semi-active and covering a live event.

      How to Watch:

      The debate each night will start at 8 p.m. ET and last two hours.
      TV broadcast: CNN
      Free online stream: CNN.com, CNN apps
      Additional coverage: CBS News, NBC News

      CNN's stream is here.

      The Candidates:

      The second Democratic presidential debate: July 30-31, 2019

      ~ Night 1 (Tuesday, July 30): Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, author Marianne Williamson, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. ~
      Night 2 (Wednesday, July 31): Former Vice President Joe Biden, California Sen. Kamala Harris, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, former HUD Secretary Julián Castro, business leader Andrew Yang, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

      The Rules:

      A candidate "who consistently interrupts" on Tuesday and Wednesday nights will be penalized by having his or her time reduced.
      Campaign representatives have also been told there will be no "lightning round"-type questions requiring a show of hands or one word responses.
      The debate will be moderated by Dana Bash, Don Lemon and Jake Tapper. Each of the 10 candidates each night will be allowed to make brief opening and closing statements, the network said.

      The Analysis:

      NPR has 5 questions for this debate:

      1. Will there be any distinctions drawn between Sanders and Warren?
      2. Will some of the air be taken out of Sanders' sails because Biden isn't onstage?
      3. How is race raised?
      4. Who breaks out?
      5. Without hand-raising, will we get answers that are as clear?

      other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:

      Aftermath of Night One:

      Expectations for Night Two:

      24 votes
    11. IMO, Trump 2020 is better than a non-progressive Democrat

      In 2016, I was an ardent supporter of Bernie. But come the general, I voted 3rd party, because I was "Bernie or Bust." Many people accuse me of indirectly voting for Trump, allowing "the worst...

      In 2016, I was an ardent supporter of Bernie. But come the general, I voted 3rd party, because I was "Bernie or Bust." Many people accuse me of indirectly voting for Trump, allowing "the worst thing ever" to happen (esp since I'm in a swing state that went Trump). But here's the truth as I see it: Voting Democrat regardless of candidate, with their only qualification being "Not Trump," will only increase the USA's slide (deeper) into fascism.

      The reality I see is that even if Trump had never entered the 2016 race, 90%+ of the policy, judicial appointments, and everything else that he has done since being elected would be identical no matter which "R" candidate won the race, because all of these things are exactly what the GOP has been doing for decades. In that regard, I consider Trump more favorable than any other R candidate, because he is at least failing to do his "real" job: Hiding fascist, imperialist policy behind a charismatic smile and some clever words.

      Ultimately, this is the reason why I don't generally support Democrats either. Hillary's policy wouldn't have been as immediately destructive as the GOP agenda, but it also would not have stopped the march towards fascism. I voted my conscious in 2016, and will do so again in 2020. I just hope there are more people willing to do the same this time around.

      I like to picture that the government of the USA is digging a hole. With every shovelful, we're sliding ever closer to a fully authoritarian fascist regime, and the destruction of our planet. While Trump (and the GOP as a whole) has been calling in for backhoes and drills to speed the process....as far as I can tell, only two candidates in the 2020 primary are calling to stop the digging: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. At best, the other candidates are conveying messages akin to: "We need to compromise with the GOP and maybe slow down the rate at which we allow new backhoes to be brought to the pit."

      In my mind then, it makes more sense for 4 more years of Trump, than to allow another center-right candidate for his opposition. Because at least Trump isn't able to pull off the charismatic smile and/or intelligent language that the Regan's, Bush's, Clinton's, and Obama's of the world have that allow terrible things to continue behind a cloak of "incremental change." It wakes up those who would otherwise tolerate these horrendous acts, and perhaps inspires them to become more active. By allowing for the political discourse to end with "Anything is better than Trump", it just permits the overall platform to gradually, but continually shift to the right.

      And in my mind, it is the total death of real, dissenting voices in public discourse that is far, far worse than Trump winning another term could ever be.

      I would love to hear if anybody else in this community has had feelings akin to what I've described here, as I've only been described as "insane" by most of the people I've discussed this with in person.

      30 votes