Baryon sweep is on standby. Now don’t none of you get any fool notions about walking away with the server’s accumulated trilithium resin.
Stuff’s highly unstable.
Until recently, stars could not foresee that technology would enable the use of their screen work for any reason other than the intended purpose. As today's actors become aware of this, legal experts profess, their wills could become more specific as to how they want to be cast after the final curtain has fallen. But even the most protective of estates may not be prepared for today's body-snatching technologies.
"People are working on totally digital models of people," says Joseph Beard, professor of law at St. John's University and author of "Casting Call at Forest Lawn: The Digital resurrection of Deceased Entertainers" (High Technology Law Journal, 1993). "Instead of cutting them out of an existing film, you'll be able to create a Marilyn Monroe and not rely on old films in order to put her in something new."
I think it’s only in the last decade or so that it’s become a practical reality, with likenesses of deceased actors popping up in films. Until this point, it’s probably been enough of a hypothetical that it wasn’t worth fighting over.
M’benga and Chapel met in the Klingon war and there are some flashback scenes to that. Also plenty of mention of it when Pike wants their combat skills. Ortegas is a war hero from back then.
It’s the episode where Boimler has his first command assignment and Freeman tries to prove she can fix computers.
Totally forgot about Vexillons world being a halo world. Huh.
Your complaint about SNW is really odd though. I mean… there’s like one episode about the Klingon war and a handful of references. It doesn’t focus on the Klingon War at all outside of that one episode. You have maybe 65 minutes of Klingon War content (the episode + references) out of 1200 minutes of Strange New Worlds. That’s like 5%. To ask for less is to outright ignore the impact that the war had on the characters and their experience from it because to ask for less is to erase either that episode or off hand references.
It’s not just the Klingon stuff, it’s all the tragedy and drama. Mostly on La’an and Una’s side. Spock is a culprit too, but at least his personal drama leads to shenanigans, which makes him tolerable. La’an and Una are no fun. Uhurua, Ortegas, Hemmer, and the engineer who got no arcs in season 2 are all more fun. Pike is boring but that’s okay because he knows how to let everyone else shine.
There has been good MCU content that actually has coherence - Agents of Shield, She-Hulk, Loki - but they’ve effectively had Showrunners.
Why Marvel thought it was optional, and everything could be fixed with editing in post is bizarre, but I’d argue that they’re just at the extreme end of a continuum.
Even with showrunners, some of the early seasons of the new era of Star Trek seems to have fallen into the same trap. To many big ego EPs each doing what they want and Kurtzman trying smooth it all out with editing in post.
Osunsami has kept coherence in the direction of Discovery in Toronto, but Picard season one and two was all over the place, frequently ignoring the tone laid down by Hanelle Culpepper in the pilot.
Thanks for posting this. I’m glad that the powers that be continue to use Mr. Horak’s talents in Star Trek. I would like to see a stand-alone Hemmer film, detailing his life before Starfleet, and how he came to join the organization. Is that likely? Who knows. Doesn’t stop me from wishing for it.
Competent admirals don’t make for exciting stories though. We don’t see toilets often in TV either, not because they don’t exist, but because we only see toilets when they relate to the story. Admirals in Star Trek are like Chekhov’s gun, we don’t see them unless they’re necessary for the story. Boring competent level headed not traitorous Admirals are just rarely necessary for good story telling unless they happen to be the protagonist dealing with drama elsewhere.
This is the typical anti-union shlock that wants you to think of yourself as a consumer rather than a fellow worker. They even assert the tired cliche, “the strike might make your [X] more expensive!”, entirely without evidence, which is literally management’s line. They then proceed to quote several executives/business ghouls and their opinions without critically examining them. Not a single union voice was cited.
Every victory for worker solidarity benefits everyone else - everyone except the execs, of course.
I think this is a misread. Management is getting the blame in this article for making everyone worse off including themselves.
The unions aren’t being blamed at all in this for the strike. If anything their commitment is credited with bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
The article links back to earlier reports from May that AMPTP had a deliberate union-breaking strategy, and planned to refuse to negotiate or to come to the table before late October.
It’s not anti union to point out how management bad faith behaviour and refusal to negotiate is negative for an industry and the broader economy that surrounds it.
Strikes are a blunt and costly tool, but an essential tool. When they last for months as this one has, and one party has been refusing to negotiate on many terms for even months before the strike, everyone in the industry suffers. One of the key points in this article is that AMPTP has managed to lose the PR war of this strike, as they very much deserved.
CNN has been consistently reporting on how the AMPTP has been refusing to bargain, and it’s in this context that it’s weighing the costs of the strike. In comparison to the Hollywood-based media that are owned by the content conglomerates (e.g., Deadline) this is much more neutral reporting.
Management is getting the blame in this article for making everyone worse off including themselves.
Anti-union shlock includes chiding management for not succeeding at various goals. An anti-union lawyer could’ve written this article, for how it reads.
The unions aren’t being blamed at all in this for the strike. If anything their commitment is credited with bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
I pointed out that the framing is inherently anti-union, emphasizing readers’ status as consumers rather than fellow workers. When strikes are framed entirely by their costs to you, it already sets up the union and workers to implicitly take blame. The last section is literally titled, “the consumer”. The last sentence is, “The real bottom line: We’re all almost certainly going to be asked to pay more for what we watch, wherever and however we watch it.”
Where is the heading, “the fellow worker”?
This is in every union buster’s handbook. It happens all the time. There are actual several framings of this vein throughout the article. Another is claiming that there will be less money to go around after the strike/TA, literally in one of those lopsided quotes from management and then uncritically repeated by the author two paragraphs later.
I’m not seeing anything in the article about bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
The article links back to earlier reports from May that AMPTP had a deliberate union-breaking strategy, and planned to refuse to negotiate or to come to the table before late October.
Links back to a previous article of someone from management anonymously saying they wanted to bleed the unions with a longer strike, yes. The only commentary made by the author is the claim that it didn’t work (obvious, since there’s a TA), that it ended up being bad PR. Also a good example of the light chiding a union-busting lawyer might give, lol. Though to be clear, it may not have backfired at all. Attempting to threaten and/or scare striking workers, to decrease their morale, is always in the playbook, and I’ve never seen management lose an opportunity to lie in order to achieve this. The union will usually use it as an example of how shit management is and try to rally against it even when it succeeded in scaring and demotivating a large chunk of the workers. I’ve seen it happen many times.
I don’t think the author is knowledgeable enough nor intentionally acting like a lawyer for studio execs, I think he’s just repeating framings handed down to him by those execs - framings that went through their lawyers. What he is guilty of is using, almost exclusively, their framings.
It’s not anti union to point out how management bad faith behaviour and refusal to negotiate is negative for an industry and the broader economy that surrounds it.
The article doesn’t say that.
Strikes are a blunt and costly tool, but an essential tool. When they last for months as this one has, and one party has been refusing to negotiate on many terms for even months before the strike, everyone in the industry suffers.
Incorrect. Execs never suffer, they just see slightly less good numbers in a war chest. Striking workers face hardship, yes, but then when they win, which requires sticking out long strikes, they receive all the benefits. It’s only the “consumer” that “suffers” the aftermath. See how the framing has gotten to you!? The tropes come for all of us, which is why we have to practice recognizing and opposing them.
One of the key points in this article is that AMPTP has managed to lose the PR war of this strike, as they very much deserved.
Yes, which reads like a friendly chiding of an ally’s loss. Really, I think the author is just lazy and either doesn’t know how to analyze the issue or avoided doing it, instead relying on lines from management.
CNN has been consistently reporting on how the AMPTP has been refusing to bargain, and it’s in this context that it’s weighing the costs of the strike. In comparison to the Hollywood-based media that are owned by the content conglomerates (e.g., Deadline) this is much more neutral reporting.
CNN is corporate garbage that must be consumed with a very critical lens.
But sources familiar with the matter told NBC News, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday that one major sticking point was the language surrounding the use of artificial intelligence. According to Variety, those negotiations had largely come down to matters of fine print, signaling that a breakthrough may be close.
But sources familiar with the matter told NBC News, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday that one major sticking point was the language surrounding the use of artificial intelligence. According to Variety, those negotiations had largely come down to matters of fine print, signaling that a breakthrough may be close.
quarks
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.