Chindie

Aye I said as much when this loss figure was announced. Still, losing $200m... thats an impressive failure. You could almost market it as the biggest flop in movie history.

You'd have hated Aber then Tony - sandals all year round for a lot of students in my time there. I got pissed off today when a bloke came into the shop and asked me 'Are these going to get any cheaper?'.

You know earlier in the week it was announced that John Carter has been pitched by Disney after it's performance in it's 2 weeks since release, as set to lose them $200m? I hadn't realised it at the time, but if that does come to pass, which looks fairly likely unless it absolutely kills the home media market, it's the biggest loss maker in movie history. It's almost worthy of praise for failing that badly.

Started as a temp in October 2010, started a proper contract in Feb 2011, so don't qualify for redundancy. Would of been **** all even if I had. I figure our store will shut pretty sharpish. I imagine our last few shifts will be carrying preowned stock down the road to GAME, we're forever carting stuff between each others stores. The GAME will stay open, better location, costs more but does decent money more often than not. We take small figures consistantly, allegedly one of the most profitable sites in the company percentage wise, but it won't be enough to justify keeping us going, especially with other issues. I had said I'd be out of the company by summer. Guess I was right.

I'm working tomorrow so I might be able to get a better idea of 'the plan' then. I assume they're going to do what MCV guessed they would though.

I don't seem to be able to get the company I got referred to when they tried to put me on the government work programme when I was claiming JSA to leave me the **** alone. I've never set foot in their bastard office and I've spoken to at least 4 different people now since September asking for details for what I'm upto, each time I've told them I don't want anything to do with them and I'm no longer claiming JSA and they still ring up asking about work. I made the mistake today of telling them I may be out of work soon... she was like a vulture on a recently collapsed gazelle 'Oh well can I ring you in a couple of weeks to see what your situation is then?'. **** OFF I DON'T WANT ANYTHING FROM YOU, STOP RINGING!

Social libertarian, where all the good people are . Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are, however, grade A bastards. They're... like the religious nutjob of the political world. Arguing with them is like arguing with a Jehovah crazy, speaking from experience - a good mate is one.

Sea, see. Me Gusta. Paella? Going to the pub midweek, £2.30 a pint. £10-15 is plenty surely? £50 would mean *grabs calculator*, 21 pints. I wouldn't be able to walk for two weeks. £6 Fags £3 chippie lets say £3 pool lets say £3 juke box thats £15 say £2.50 a pint, 10 pints £25 theres your £40 and then throw in £10 for a taxi (if I dont make last bus) that there is your £50 You've made me feel boring. And there was me thinking we were in a recession! Don't smoke, don't feed the jukebox, don't play pool, eat before you go out (although I must admit to having little resistance to a chippy after a few beers). So my night out would just be the beer. But I couldn't handle ten pints (I may have done it a few times in my life, but only over a long session) - five would be a more plausible amount (and that would undoubtedly give me a hangover - see the appropriate thread). In full swing at university I was often spending over £50 on nights out. I could drink incredible amounts then. I think my most was £80 one night, and I remember nothing of that night at all. That would go almost entirely on booze, maybe £10 on food/taxi and say £5 for pub entertainment. That might explain the horrendous hangovers I would get and why I walked away from uni with a maxed £2.5k overdraft :oops:

I've gotten used to the hideous glee some people have at seeing a company go under. I've basically stopped using HotUKDeals since the companies issues went more overtly public, as reading the comments (which is a necessary evil on that site), for someone who was employed by that company, made me angry.

Unbreakable has some great moments (I always liked the cinematography when Willis' character basically fulfills his destiny - the scene in the house, and before that in the station, is shot superbly), and a nice concept. I really liked Signs, despite it's failings. It has one of the creepiest moments I can remember in a film - the Brazilian birthday party footage still gives me chills. After that he complete jumped the shark.

It's probably more accurate to say that above plot thing may spoil the entire plot. There was/is some cynicism over it because in the making of a film, you'd never produce a document like that (you'd have a full script, which that obviously isn't, or the pitch, which that also isn't, or the doc you make to give an exec an idea of what you're planning, which that also isn't because it's too in depth), and when leaks happen it's usually a proper production document that gets released. But thus far very little hasn't tied into that. I think it'll be more or less on the money, though I think it's going to be a bit wide of the mark on Theron.

She used to make watching Emmerdale just about doable. *drool*

MVC was reporting yesterday that one option on the table (of 4, 1 of which had been written off and the other was massively unlikely, leaving 'Go bust' or 'Go bust and try to start again' as options) was to voluntarily enter administration by the end of the week, dump half the stores (i.e. nuke Gamestation) and start over on Monday... which looks like it's happening. They won't close all of the Gamestation stores, a couple of them make incredible money and have superb placement - the New Street store has become so large that it's run as it's own region now I was hearing the other day. They'll keep a few choice stores. The others will go. Don't expect some massive everything must go sale either. Gamestation stock will go to Game branches. Some new stock, particularly Sony stuff, will go back to them (you may have noticed a sticker on the back of Sony products bought from Game/Gamestation/HMV recently, that basically says 'Property of Sony - go bust and we want this back'. Basically this means my job is not long for this world. My store is profitable, largely because it does steady trade and has absolutely tiny overheads, but the local Game does bigger money and is in a better location - meaning my store will be chopped, meaning I'm out of the job no doubt. I can't deny I don't like an awful lot of the job, and only did it to get some cash in my pocket and something on my CV post uni, but we've got some great guys and I've had a laugh more often than not and we're generally considered to be a good store. And now we'll all be out on our ear.

Just got a call confirming the above. : :|

Finished Game of Thrones, finally, the other day. Great series although it suffers a little from clearly being part of a far bigger story, and also clearly not having the budget for what it wanted to do. Hopefully the second season rectifies that.

The entire (suspected - though nothing shown this far has not fit into it, apparently) plot is out there if you know where to look.

Mentioning pig penises, they ejaculate a sort of sealant when they've done their business in an attempt to prevent any other males impregnating their female.

On the yoghurt knitter issue I always took issue with that because its always used, even in jest really, as an ad hominem - an attempt to discredit the argument one makes because they're a lefty. I have the same issue with the right wing versions (though I can't think of a perfectly analogous one, despite some spirited attempts by some to make the term 'Tory' achieve the same thing, it doesn't quite work the same). I appreciate that its usage waned, and even if it hasn't I now can't bring myself to read the political threads much, despite my interest, because they spent the last year at least being the most tedious and grim reading on the forum (although even that has lessened just a little recently...). On the actual point Mike raised... anything can get tedious, we all know that. Its that that kinda makes Mikes (and others including myself) gripe with the 'laddish' thing perfect for this thread. I found it's gotten tedious... boring, but it shouldn't really bother me. What it has achieved is me ignoring General Chat recently, because editting a person to say 'Cock' (hur hur hur) isn't my idea of the height of comedy, and theres only so much of that kind of stuff I can bother with. I've no issue with 'smut' per se, I'm fully in favour. It's just... grown old. Fast.

I suspect that Google+ has suffered both from turning up after the horse has bolted and also providing a niche take on the social network thing that not many people really care about.

+1 (and I know that I've contributed to it, but everything in moderation, including moderation) +1 aswell. I'm all for going into the finer details of most things, but I know when it has served it's purpose +1'd. Pretty much exactly as Mike said.

Theron's been fairly open about what her character is all about, you only need to read a little about that character to have a damn good guess at what her arc is going to be in this film. Fassbender will play a very big role. They originally kept very quiet about his character and it's only in the last couple of months they've really started to reveal what he is all about, in fact I think one of the viral vids they've released this week is basically a confirmation of his exact character... traits is the best word I can think of. Plot wise he'll be huge I think, but his screen time is not going to feature a lot of stuff that is going to sell the movie in a trailer (as well as not give the whole plot away...).

John Carter was doomed from day one. If it had been made years ago, 1950s or even before that, it might have been a phenomenon, because the original story is basically the genesis for all the pulpy sci-fi fantasy stuff that came after it, particularly Star Wars. It was going to be made into an animated film i the 40s IIRC, which might have made it into 'a thing'. Instead it was made for release in 2012 by which time all of modern sci fi has borrowed bits from it, improved immeasurably on those ideas, and mined the pulp sci fi genre to death, to the point that it doesn't really excite anyone anymore. So you've got an idea that is doomed. People are not going to care, because we've seen Star Wars, and we've all just about had enough of hackneyed sci-fi swashbuckling. And crucially, A Princess of Mars is not the huge phenomenon that can sell a movie just because it's a film of a massively loved book, unlike say the Harry Potter movies (a number of which are tosh... but so are the books on the whole), or the Lord of the Rings. That the books aren't really that good compared to the kind of things that have been written in the century since doesn't help, and nor does deciding that the best way to really make A) an interestingly plotted movie, and a kick off point for a new billion dollar franchise, was to take bits and pieces from about 3 of the John Carter books and stack them on top of each other. And then you hire a man to direct it who has never directed real actors before, and is learning about how to make a movie that has real sets and real props and real stuff that needs logistics and proper planning and all the rest, on the job. That's a challenge even for a small, not terribly ambitious project. John Carter is a sci fi epic (or it's meant to be, anyway). It's destined to have trouble. And it did. Stanton had to do reshoots and the like, which are notoriously costly. Even so, the big budget and the idea thats 70 years too late alone doesn't kill the movie stone dead. Hollywood knows that, more often than not, if you chuck enough money at film and have a name people know attached, that money will make it back to you. So they hired Taylor Kitsch as the lead man, best known for playing Gambit (hideously) in the awful Wolverine: Origins. Whoops. They might have saved it with a big name in the villain role, or the leading lady. Nope, they picked up Mark Strong, good actor, good villain... nobody in the US gives a damn. And the lead actress is known for the some total of **** all (though was also in Wolverine... but nobody remembers) And then they add 3D to it, because 3D must survive. And thats costly. That it was done in post production, notoriously a shitty way to make a 3D movie, didn't help it. Couple that people turning away from 3D and it's shot itself in the foot again. Disney land themselves with a massively expensive film that nobody cares about. They struggled to market it because of that (dropping the '...of Mars' from the name was effectively a desperate attempt to get people who just don't like sci-fi to see this in a cinema, hopefully widening the potential audience). In turn its bombed even harder than it might have done otherwise - it says a lot about how poor Disney think this is that they basically chucked it's prospects to the dogs after only 2 weeks. It'll become a cult film in a few years if it's lucky, because it does have some saving graces - the CGI is great (if completely underwhelming design wise), and some of the action scenes are allegedly very good. But beyond that Stanton turned out a stinker and always was going to.

Shock horror, Disney have basically written off John Carter as a $200m loss maker.

Shadow of Memories?

I've been excited about Prometheus, and I still am, but I do worry about exactly where it's headed. I suspect theres gonna be disappointed fan boys. Scott's always been keen to distance this from the Alien franchise, and while it's obviously got relation to that franchise, he's been talking up making this into a new franchise. I think he's less interested in this as a prequel to Alien, and rather more interested in using the association to go into something else (and quickly touch on the questions the fanboys have for Alien). Put it like this, I don't think the Space Jockeys are going to be as amazing a revelation as we might hope... But, it does look like Ridley Scott back on good, sci fi, form... so it ain't going to be bad.