Kirk At The Oscars
1 min read
At last night’s Oscars Award Ceremony, James T. Kirk paid a visit from the future.
Kirk, played by William Shatner, returned to give a little advice to Seth MacFarlane, who was hosting the event.
In the skit, Kirk warned MacFarlane that the headlines for the next day would claim that MacFarlane was the “worst Oscar host ever.”
“Your jokes at tasteless and inappropriate and everyone ends up hating you,” said Kirk.
Kirk went on to (rightly) criticize MacFarlane’s singing “We Saw Your Boobs” with a gay chorus, telling MacFarlane that he would be joining the chorus in July of 2015. When MacFarlane asked what he should do, Kirk told him not to mock the movies, but to sing a song that celebrates the movies, which MacFarlane does.
The headlines for the next day change to “Seth MacFarlane pretty bad Oscar host.”
MacFarlane gets more advice and again the headline changes; this time he’s only a “mediocre host.”
“That’s the best review I’ve ever gotten,” MacFarlane tells Shatner. “I’m going to take that.”
But he is persuaded by Kirk to do more, and is rewarded with “Best Oscars ever, says everyone except Entertainment Weekly.”
About The Author
So, that’s not a personal attack against any American? And that wasn’t name calling?
Secondly, Mitt, I’m sorry, but “If you are a corporation,”… I’m not… so……….
I do NOT have women conform to any standards that I have set for them. Where in the hell did you get that impression?
It depends on how you look at. Let alone on which side of the fence you are on.
It depends on which side of the fence you are on.
Actually, I have dealt with some dipshits like the ones you have dealt with. And yes, it was unpleasant.
You wrote: (some who were unfortunately not prim, proper, and lady-like). Obviously, you have standards you expect women to conform to, otherwise you would not have written what you did. Thus, you are a degrader of women.
Ok, then show us your understanding of international law as applies to distribution of entertainment properties.
I will have 0 issues with admitting you are educated on the subject if you are able to show that you are. So far what you have posted has seemed to show that you lack a basic understanding of the situation.
If you can show otherwise then as stated I am more than happy to say that you understand the situation.
International law here is irrelevant, as the distribution and selling of entertainment properties is controlled by mutual trade agreements between countries. Price differentials are complicated, but they must be fair and just on economic (or even moral) grounds. Most trade agreement has trade-offs where you buying, say resources, is compensation by, say technology. Market forces should determine pricing, but in the US corporations it is often perceived as an opportunity to exploit others – and have done it for decades. Unfortunately, this is coming to an en-pass, where many countries will no longer tolerate such anti-compedative behaviour and they will start to fight back. As I said before, unless America and Americans are able to understand this, when the backlash comes, you will be in the dark when its products are no longer supported and they go elsewhere.
For a simple blog site on Star Trek, this is an adequate explanation.
Stopping people seeing something that was already globally shown, then restricting it all then on pretence of some dodgy legal pretext, just openly makes enemies. It makes people, like me, more hostile to America and its economic system. After the devastating damage done in 2008 by the Global Financial Crises, which stems directly from the illegalities made within the American economic system, and damaged share markets right across the world, it is no wonder others have such a distrusting negative attitude. Attempts to improve the America via price gouging helps even less.
You are wrong. Griffiths’s crime was not recording something for personal use; it was redistribution to others, as with O’Dwyer. Even a quick examination of the cases would have told you this.
Actually international laws are not irrelevant as the individual countries have laws that must be adhered to. This is true whether you are talking about a importing a physical product, digital product, or distribution rights for any combination of the above.
It sounds like you’re someone that quite simply hates the US and doesn’t need an actual legitimate reason why. You will find any reason to lash out and complain.
Your posting shows that you have little to no understanding of the complexities of the legal systems, differences in tax rates, and differences in cost of distribution in various countries.
You talk about the differences in currency rates, but forget about the differences in the cost of doing business itself. You don’t take into account that the US price doesn’t already account for tax, that wages vary in different countries, cost of licensing items internationally, costs associated with localization (ie paying voice actors to re-voice parts), etc.
You assume that the cost for a product is always the same everywhere, because since it was produced there are never more costs associated with it after that original production. It’s a simplification of the worst kind mostly because it ignores many aspects that are key to why the cost is higher in specific areas.
If you want to complain about content not being available in your region then you need to speak to your government.
I have no doubts however that you’ll try to find some way to say I’m wrong again…but to be honest I won’t be replying any further. I’m way too busy these days…as you can see from the time that it took for me to check and reply this time around.