Recent content by blur

The very Wikipedia entry you're citing as your source lists in its side bar of Pacific War facts: 7 December 1941 – 2 September 1945 (3 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 5 days) So again, I return to what I said: Historians agree the war in the Pacific started 7 December 1941. Very straightforward...

Historians agree the war in the Pacific started 7 December 1941. You can make up alternate dates to be different and edgy - I don't know your reasoning - but in any conventional discussion of the war, people take that to be the date it began. Not some smaller regional stuff that happened a...

LOL, I can't believe you're doubling down on this but, for heaven's sake, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 is not regarded as part of WW2. Is this some sort of weird political statement you're trying to make or do you really not know that the dates of these two events are miles apart...

Well, if you strip away the non-core stuff... he's ultimately a guy in five movies. That's not bad, but compared to someone like The Doctor, in Doctor Who, who can be played by anyone, and the series can theoretically last forever, or be resurrected at any time by any creative team and any lead...

I'm not German, but even I'm tired of the old cliches. Take the, "You're German, you can't be funny..." thing that you mention. I've worked with several Germans over the years who weren't, like, guys who had emigrated decades before and changed to be more like the locals, but were on secondment...

Well, that's certainly a brave viewpoint; that an incident between China and Japan, 7 years before Hitler invaded Poland is "part of WW2"?!

Losing four million subscribers - in one quarter - isn't a disaster? You're a very forgiving soul. Disney's shareholders didn't see it that way.

Broadly, I wouldn't think so. A) Because the deficit to recoup is so amazingly high, B) Physical media has been in a major decline for a very long time and, C) With the movie available on Disney+, a lot of people who may have bought it, once upon a time, may not bother now. So sales won't be mega.

I don't need to - I'm a history major. But thanks. My point remains; the movie is set in 1969 and they were so desperate to get a Nazi in there, instead of doing something else, they went down that sort of path, to the degree that they even have them fly back in time from 1969 in a Nazi plane...

I can see which side you're batting for, LOL :) But here's the thing, Alex. A couple of months back, Disney told its investors they'd just lost 4 million subs on Disney+. Shocking! This came on top of earlier sub declines in the millions, too. See...

I think the fourth film really hurt the franchise. I know people say, oh, that was fifteen years ago, but I really think it's the case. While 'most' rusted-on Indiana Jones fans would turn up to anything, people's memories - in general - are quite long. They remember that fourth film where not...

That would still be losing Disney/Lucasfilm a ton of cash, though. Say the film was $300m to make (some say more, but let's say $300m), and marketing was $100-150m (but let's keep it on the low-end at $100m), that's a $400m investment from Disney/Lucasfilm. Given the cinemas keep about half the...

It also raises the question of the timeline we're supposed to be playing to. In the lore, Mutt was born in 1938. Now, although the US was actively involved, officially involved, in Vietnam from 1955 onwards, we know that wasn't anything to do with Mutt, as he was still a greaser and meeting Indy...

I used to make a podcast that had Star Wars content. That content was probably a good half of the show, but I felt the fanbase was getting so... ridiculous... that I ditched talking Star Wars on the show. The year? 2015. I don't say this to be all, ohhh, look at me, I'm an edgy early adopter...

I barely use my Disney+ but the thought of turning it on and off when I want it is such a pain. And yes, I fully realise this is absolutely the way Disney wants its subscribers to be.