swanpride

The thing with Nancy is that she had a lot of hang ups even before the whole thing with Brian happened. She was basically ashamed of the job her husband had, always reacting angry when someone showed interest in what he does. It's not like Bill went around bragging to everyone, he was just reacting to other people's question. And in defence of Bill: He tried. Yes, he travelled a lot. But he also did what he could to be there for Nancy, and to be around every single weekend even though that put even more strain on him. This in combination makes it hard to be sympathetic towards Nancy, especially since we see very little of the shunning she must have experienced.

One also has to consider the time frame here. We see those events happening pretty close together, but what we are actually seeing is a time span of, I think, over a year between the time he speaks to them the first time and when it "ends". By this time the number of victims has nearly doubled. And Holden isn't just hopelessly naive by acting as if racism isn't a thing/problem because he himself has never experiences it, he is also constantly excusing the shoddy work of the local police. We know that he isn't pleased with what he sees, but those mothers don't know that. They just hear him making promises he doesn't keep.

They get the merch money anyway because they OWN the merch rights, they didn't need Spider-Man to cameo in the MCU to get exactly the same money and while 5% without any risk is nice, the 100% with a little risk they can get with any other property in the time slot they gave to Spider-Man is even better. Also, the 50% (with Disney paying it's share of the cost, btw) was the starting offer. Sony supposedly walked away at 70/30. And Disney will still have the merch rights to all the movies they do. Because, again, they are the property of Disney.

Yes. So what? If Disney had shared part of the cost, there would have been more money available for other Spider-Man related projects. It would have still been a win/win for Sony. Less of the risk, still a huge chunk of the gain, and they could still have continued with their various side projects. Disney isn't losing anything here. They can release one Marvel movie more instead of worrying about not stepping on Spider-man's toes, while also keeping the whole revenue.

Honestly, this focus on Charles Manson in America culture is kind of frustrating me. He just doesn't deserve this kind of attention. And he isn't even the worst serial killer out there.

The issue was that the march was supposed to make a big deal around the crosses in order to make them important in the mind of the killer. Since they arrived too late (except for the big one) and the march leader wasn't convinced about it anyway, she ensured that the cross was largely ignored, and the plan failed.

Honestly, I never got this attitude. I mean, I didn't like the first Spiderman trilogy. I sat it out and let the fans have their fun. I didn't like Fox's take on the X-men. I sat it out and let the fans have their fun. And in this case it is especially puzzling, because Sony could have done both. There are so many versions of Spiderman it could have explored, while also continuing the deal with Disney.

I think part of the issue is that Nancy never wanted Brian for himself, she wanted him to fill an emptiness in her life. And when the "beautiful boy" didn't quite work as she expected, she went straight into denial. Not that she is heartless or anything like this, but I feel that it's not necessarily Brian's wellbeing which is first in her mind. If that's where the case she would have told the mother of the victim that she first wants to think about her request and then asked the experts if that would be a good idea or not. Instead she sent her away because she didn't want to deal with it. It is her who wants to push everything away, not necessarily Brian. Though I hope that the show won't be so coarse to turn Brian into a serial killer.

I think it was less about "need" and more about the desire to rescue the Brand before Sony runs it into the ground with sh... movies. Also, Sony can do BOTH! Why should they just built two Spider-Man franchises if they can have three? I wonder if Rothman is the problem...he has never played well with Marvel. And we all know how little he understands Comic book fans.

And it is important to keep in mind to say "no" once a while. I mean, yeah, doctor's usually know what they are talking about, but sometimes it is a good idea to question them. Ie one time the doctors wanted to repeat a test on me which was very painful the first time around. I asked if that was really strictly necessary and after some prompting they admitted that it actually wasn't but without it they would have to keep me under observation for a couple of additional days. I then pointed out that I would have to stay those days anyway because they wanted to monitor something else. Also, always double check what medicine you get. Always! No matter in how much pain you are. I learned that the hard way.

The issue with the The Malthusian view is more that he was working of the assumption that birth rates would stay stable even if living conditions improve. We now know that this isn't the case: People who live in stable living conditions actually stop breeding so to speak. Hence the low birth rates in the majority of the European country, which is below replacement level. So it isn't necessarily about invention - invention might actually be an additional problem because it sometimes does lead to us using more resources then a single person should use - it is about humans actually adapting their "breeding habits" to their needs.

Well, there were still killings after he was arrested (remember, one of the highest crime rate in the country), but I guess none of those looked like they were the work of the serial killer. And naturally the ones who think it was the Klan would say that the Klan stopped because they were pleased that a black man got accused. Today though there is new evidence which links him to the killing of Patrick Balthasar. There was a hair samples found in the shirt of the boy, which both match the dog (as much as you can tell this with dog hair) and to 98% Wayne Williams. I mean, how likely is this? In this case the family of the victim actually does think that Wayne Williams was the killer. The reason why he was never convicted were apparently some legal issues. The show seems to suggest that there were other killers too, including known paedophiles. So in this case the "solution" isn't really satisfying, because a huge chunk of those killings aren't solved.

I was looking at the Atlanta case because I always match up what is seen on TV with what happened in reality in order to not get a too distorted view on history. And I have gotten the impression that not all the victims were killed by the same guy. I mean, that confused me about the show, they said "this guy killed because of some drug related thing, and here we have this one who doesn't match the others" and I was just thinking "yeah, okay, but isn't it possible that one or two of the murders were done for other reasons/by another attacker, but there was also a serial killer which did most of them?" I mean, all those bodies which were found pretty much at the same places or as some sort of answer to the police, they are most likely connected, but I would sort out every victim which did not vanish from the street, which was not a boy and which was killed in an usual ways, and consider that they were killed by someone else and for some other reason. They point out again and again that the only thing the victims had in common was the sociological environment, but once you consider the possibility that there was one main killer and a few killings which just happened around the same time or happened in reaction to the murder spree, and you can actually narrow it down a little bit more. I also wouldn't exclude the possibility that some of them WERE Klan murders committed because it was a "good opportunity" so to speak. What seems obvious to me is that the police initially did some really shoddy work, because they didn't care as much as they would have if the victims had been white. Also obvious to me is that the families of the victims, due to the dismissive way their cases were handled, don't trusted the police and were therefore more than ready to believe the Williams was innocent (regarding the killings of the boys, that is). Thing is, each time they reopened the case in order to look at evidence with new methods, it always results in him looking even more guilty. So it is highly likely that he WAS the original serial killer (but not the only one). But why should he admit that? Child murderers don't exactly have an easy time in prison, do they? He is most likely better off pretending that he is "just" a murderer of two adults who got framed by a racist police. Regarding Brian, I think he needed therapy from day one, to deal whatever happened before he got adopted (which might have been simply neglect, but he seems to have a problems with male adults in general), but since it is the 1970s, Bill sees it as a stigma, especially since he sees people like Kemper for whom therapy didn't work.

And they want to protect the brand. Sony will reconsider the moment one of their oh so genial movies bombs. Really, didn't they pay attention? People didn't watch Venom because they thought the movie was great.

Since they never clarified the plants/animal thing in the movie I chose to ignore it.

Just call it "hero land". See, done. I somehow doubt that Sony would even be allowed to use Tom Holland in a movie not made by Marvel studios. I just can't imagine that the contract wasn't clear about that particular point.

Honestly, even if they would manage to built some sort of Spider-Man franchise, it would still be a loss for them. Because they could do both. Or even three things. They could have one Spider-Man in the MCU, they could have their animated version (and weren't Disney and Sony agreeing on doing some sort of TV show together?) and they could built a live action world around ANY Spider-Man as long as he (or she) isn't called Peter Parker.

I suspect those people are still dead.

Yeah, pretty much. When they started out they were simply collecting news and weighted them based on how believable it was, but nowadays they are peddling to the Anti-SJW and the conspiracy crowd and have gone completely down the rails.

Also true. The question is if Sony wasn't ready to move at all or if they felt that Disney demanded too much. I can see that a 50/50 deal has them doing the math and thinking "yeah, in this case we get more by making just another venom".

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Alan Horn that he attempted to get more money out of the situation. In any case, I think that Sony is now testing the waters, seeing how the fans will react. And then it's back at the negotiation table.

So, I discovered the show and have finished season 1. Loved the start, not really sure what to make out of Holden. I am not quite sure how he went from being pretty laid back about his girlfriend to being so...possessive and egoistic. I mean, yeah, it's another time period, but on a personal level that is quite a switch. Though what really confused me was the teacher episode. I mean, I get it in the context of the time it was set in. But I am not sure if I get what they want to convey to the watcher. That Holden is right despite getting criticised? There is really no grey area there from the perspective of today's perspective. The teacher was asked to stop and he didn't, so he should be fired, never mind if his tickling was the start of grooming his pupils or not. What he did was f... disturbing. I think the most questionable part was the nickel. Because during a time in which teachers were still allowed to hit their pupils, the tickling is in itself weird but the nickel is actually what indicates that the teacher knows deep down that what he does is NOT okay. Plus, he is basically punishing bad behaviour this way. Holden was completely right to be concerned and completely right to say that he couldn't guarantee that this wouldn't develop into something worse. And while it is weird that he got involved, he was basically begged for help because nobody seemed to take this serious enough.

I am sure Feige will jump in and sort them out. Can't be worse than dealing with perlmutter...

Honestly, I liked every single one of Neals girlfriends - Alex, the girl on the island, the widow, Rebecca before she turned into Rachel - except Sara. Partly because most of the time she turned up it happened so that they could do the kind of cliche story beats I hate, like the love triangle.

I shudder to think what it do to the fabric of time to rewind five years.