habanhero

?? I'm not following your train of thought.

So you are expecting David Fincher to make a smashing 3rd season for a vastly lower budget, automagically get everyone and their grandma to tune into the show, make Netflix a profitable company again, fix everyone's scheduling conflicts and close all negotiations, all the while fulfilling rest of his contract obligations to make other films like Mank + The Killers?

Anything else? Why not bring peace to the Middle East and eliminate COVID? /s

Everything you said suggests you have very little understanding of how any of this works and you're just airing grievances of how Fincher is "failing" your weird expectations.

budget was a curse placed on him by a witch?

What do you mean? The budget is what it takes to make the show. It costs what it costs and the outcome is the show you all love. It's David fucking Fincher and he is legendary, Netflix knows it going into the deal and of course it's gonna cost them, as it should.

absolved of the concrete reasons it got the usual Netflix treatment of two seasons and stone dead.

Of course he can, for the exact reason you stated, it's the Netflix usual schtick and MO. I'm sure Fincher's scheduling, actor contracts etc are also a factor in the 3rd season not getting made, but I find it unreasonable to pin it all on Fincher.

Bottom line is, if Netflix wanted it made, they will find a way to get it made. The quote from Fincher suggested otherwise.

"But it’s a very expensive show and, in the eyes of Netflix, we didn’t attract enough of an audience to justify such an investment [for season three]."

Verbatim quote from the article. What do you think it means?

It’s like Netflix has never heard of a “loss leader”. People don’t pay exorbitant subscription fees to watch the latest Project Runway knock off show.

Netflix is notorious for spending a metric fuckton of money to the point that a great deal of their shows are "loss leaders" (and usually followed by prompt cancellation). The "Project Runway" comparison is irrelevant - although Netflix has plenty of trash reality shows, by no means that's all they do.

I also find it difficult to believe it’s more expensive than the average TV drama, considering Fincher already has a development deal with the network.

I don't have a good sense whether Mindhunters would be expensive or not, but my anecdotal experience says it's not a mainstream show. It's just not the hits like Stranger Things, Wednesday or perhaps the One Piece that Netflix needs to survive. 1899 is another victim of the Netflix gambles - an extremely stylish and intricate show that died a premature death, even though it launched to great reception.

"But it’s a very expensive show and, in the eyes of Netflix, we didn’t attract enough of an audience to justify such an investment [for season three]. They took risks to get the show off the ground, gave me the means to do Mank the way I wanted to do it, and they allowed me to venture down new paths with The Killer [his next feature]. It’s a blessing to be able to work with people who are capable of boldness."

Can't exactly blame Fincher for that outcome. Jonathan Groff said as much, Mindhunters is Fincher. The creator of the show is part of its DNA. Would you really want Fincher to hand it off to someone and potentially pull a Dexter or GOT S8?

Yeah, I'm still playing a fair bit of GamePass on the Deck (Starfield!) I used the method via Microsoft's official support article and it's holding up pretty well.

I'm not sure your assessment of the "cost of damages" is really accurate but again, that's not the point.

The point of the lawsuit is about control. If the authors succeed in setting precedent that they should control the use of their work in AI training, then they can easily negotiate the terms with AI tech companies for much more money.

The point of the lawsuit is not one-time compensation, it's about the control in the future.

Y'all are missing the point, what you said is about AI output and is not the main issue in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is about the input to AI - authors want to choose if their content may be used to train AI or not (and if yes, be compensated for it).

There is an analogy elsewhere in this thread that is pretty apt - this scenario is akin to an university using pirated textbooks to educate their students. Whether or not the student ended up pursing a field that uses the knowledge does not matter - the issue is the university should not have done so in the first place (and remember, the university is not only profiting off of this but also saving money by shafting the authors).

It's a good show that stands on it's own. Manga / anime adaptation or not, it succeeded by actually being an entertaining show.

I'm a casual One Piece manga fan and I would say it is probably the most faithful adaption to the source material. Most of the sets and scenes are bang on and the cast is just fantastic and likeable. Luffy, Zoro and Nami in particular are great casts and really grew on me. But most importantly the show has heart, which is something a lot of the modern show lacks and tries to substitute with paint-by-color beats.

100% worth watching and would recommend.

Edit: Buggy the Clown's actor is da BOMB

I'm not talking about Masterson, Epstein and their crimes - I'm talking about Kutcher, who has done more to help anti-child trafficking than all you keyboard warriors put together. Guilt by association is not a thing, despite how much you get off on it and want to wish it into reality.

anyone who says differently is blatantly in support of rapists, rape apologists, or is undoubtedly one themselves trying to justify monstrous behavior.

Witch hunt 101, anyone? You're so excited to judge, sentence and exert perverse power over another person's life, you don't even realize you are doing the exact same thing as history's witch hunt instigators, under the guise of a modern, rebranded religion.

directly involved with covering up a rapist

This is a pretty serious accusation. Just because he wrote a character letter does not mean he is actively involved in covering up a crime, that's a gigantic leap.

his true character

And what would that be? A person who vouches for his friend? Someone who misjudged another person's character, a mistake presumably you'd never make?

I think it's fair to judge

No, you think it's fun to judge and it's your excuse to feel morally righteous and superior. You've made some accusations and backhanded disparagement based on what info? How is any part of it "fair"?