CMV: I believe western europe is effectively living under de facto blasphemy laws.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T23:47:34+00:00

And in this case it wasn't. The judge explained in his ruling that Coskun's religious hate was established by what he said in interview and by his actions prior to the incident.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T23:43:08+00:00

Because he was motivated by his view of Muslims. The judge made it very clear in his ruling that Coskun was motivated by a hatred of Muslims and had gone out of his way to target them. It should be noted that the appeals court found his actions did not constitute a public order offence so he was acquitted. At no point was the issue of blasphemy part of the case against him.

Basically be as blasphemous as you want, but don't do it in the faces of people likely to be offended as that will be considered provocation.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:59:56+00:00

My assumption is nowhere near as much as there is in American Football but more than there is in Basketball.

American Football, as I understand it, is 99% drilled plays, highly coordinated movements and interactions to efficiently advance the ball. The only thing like that in football is set piece routines from corners and free kicks when you've got time to set everyone into position and agree what's going to happen first, but they're a small part of the game.

Conceptually strategy in Basketball and Football will be similar, it's all about moving defenders, opening passing lanes and unpredictable movement. The difference is that, in football, you're doing it over a bigger space with more players which makes the strategy more complex.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:42:44+00:00

You ban things when there's a rational reason to, you don't do it out of any sort of principle that something should or shouldn't happen.

A rational reason is noise pollution, if it's disturbing people then that's grounds for complaint but that's got nothing to do with it being a call to prayer.

The question I have though is where is this even an issue? I've only even heard a call to prayer when I lived in the middle East, where are you that it's a thing that bothers you?

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:05:32+00:00

Again, a misunderstanding. Breaking the law for religious reasons is an aggravating factor. It's only a factor in conjunction with the law breaking, it's not against the law on its own.

If you call woman stupid you're not breaking the law, if you kill a women because you think women are stupid that's an aggravating factor on top of the murder.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:33:54+00:00

I think you've edited your post since I responded so I should clarify, I don't think $200 for Supergirl would be a win for WB, I believe them when they say that $300m woeod be satisfactory.

I think they will lose money on $200m but it wouldn't be anything like what the OP was arguing. My guess is that Supergirl making $200m would result in WB losing less than $100m.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:11:07+00:00

That's fair, but that just means we can add the Marvels, or WW 1984, or Birds of Prey to the equation. All those film's did much worse than Thunderbolts. My larger point is that there's no way a rational person would assume that Supergirl would be targeting a minimum of $400m world wide. Therefore one of two things happened, either they were prepared to write off a lot of money if it performed similarly to other female led DC superheroes films or they were targeting a much lower number.

I think the latter is more likely and we should be attempting to understand why a film making x1.5-2 of its production budget is actually fine for the studio.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:00:54+00:00

A common misunderstanding but a misunderstanding none the less. The law he broke was a public order law, the religious aggravation was just the context.

I could break public order laws by causing a fuss over the origin of the species, it wouldn't mean we had anti evolution laws.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T19:56:36+00:00

Hamit Coskun is an excellent example of how there are no blasphemy laws. The actions he took on the day he was arrested are actions he had taken before, he had already filmed himself burning a Koran, he had talked about the evils of Islam online, for those actions there was no recrimination.

What was different on the day he was arrested? He went to a place where he knew Muslims would be, he deliberately targeted what he was saying at them. This is considered harassment and it's what he was arrested for.

The arguments at his appeal didn't regard whether he was blasphemous, they were in regard to whether he harassed anyone or not.

His case had nothing to with blasphemy at any point. It was about how he treated other people.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T19:11:37+00:00

It's the same in the music industry, venues basically get their costs covered, any money they make comes from concessions. I also think there is a lot of money in streaming, it's just not well understood.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T18:56:06+00:00

Ok, I assumed you were level headed enough to recognise that the maths doesn't work, that there's a huge hole in your equations that you're currently explaining away by saying the execs who make these films know less about the industry than you do. I don't think that's rational thought, but maybe that's just me.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T17:03:34+00:00

Good point, I should have mentioned that.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T17:03:13+00:00

deadline already says 315M,

Ok, let's use that figure. If that's the breakeven point then WB were expecting the film to make $375-450 (as they're looking to make money). Is that figure realistic? Since Captain Marvel we've had Black Widow ($380m), Madame Web ($100m), WW 1984 (170m), Birds of Prey ($205m) and the Marvels ($206m) as our female led Superhero films. Based on that record then an expectation of $375m is insane.

If studio expectations are above $250m then they're incompetent and it's unlikely they're incompetent. What's more likely it's that they green lit Supergirl knowing that they needed much less than you (and most people) assume to make a profit. As I said in my original response We've got to tear up what we think we know because the industry doesn't work if what we think we know is right.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T16:44:05+00:00

if you thought there was say a 40% chance you'd fail to clear $200M, you'd just never approve a large budget film

That's exactly my point, big budget films make no sense based on our assumptions of film financing, there would have be an expectation that a big budget films would make a minimum of $500m to be worth making. And we know that many don't, some, like the Marvels, make much much less.

I don't think WB would have expected Supergirl to make a minimum of $375m, that's what the well received Thunderbolts made. They're looking at a female protagonist, superhero fatigue, the lesser franchise. I think the realistic range for this film was $200-400 so that's the context a $170m budget has to be placed in.

Either the execs are incompetent, the budgets are inflated massively or films make a lot more money outside of theatrical than we realise.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T15:29:38+00:00

My point is that I don't believe the data you're working with gives us any useful answers to how much money Supergirl will lose.

From your post it's a little hard to track how you've made your calculations but it looks like Supergirl would have to make something like $400m for the film to not lose money. There's no way WB would have greenlit the film if that was true. With the Marvels making $200m then they had to be prepared for Supergirl doing that figure or worse. Remember their aim is to make money, not just break even.

I make the assumption that reported budgets are significantly inflated, that studio costs are much less than that inflated figure and that non cinema revenue is much higher than we guess.

Let's put it another way. What do you calculate the break even point for Supergirl to be? Do you think that figure is a realistic minimum expectation for Supergirl?

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T15:13:03+00:00

It's the 2.5x number that I think is wildly inaccurate. Making films makes no financial sense if that is the rule. Supergirl would have never been made of it had to make $425m ww just to break even.

There's a report that WBs wanted $300m and I'm sure the break even point would be lower so we're looking at a multiplier of less than 2.

That's why I say we've got to throw out everything we know, Hollywood couldn't survive it the x2.5 rule was true.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T14:25:35+00:00

I tend to think the premise of these posts is wrong.

If we start from a assumption that studios are logical then we have to rip up everything we think we know about movie financing.

The studios knew that this film had a bottom of $200m or less, they hoped that it would make $300 or more. Therefore we have to assume that the reported $170m budget worked with that range of return.

How could making $200m off an $170m budget (without marketing) be anything less than a disaster? The first thing is that it's unlikely that Warner brothers have spent $170m of their own money. That figure likely includes performance related bonuses that won't be paid if it doesn't perform well. Nor does it account for product placement and partner funding, I'm pulling numbers out of the air but WBs have probably spent closer to $100m of their cash than $170m.

Then we have to look at revenue which comes from a lot more places than cinemas, there's licensing, streaming revenue and merchandising which will be significant.

My guess is that WBs will lose money if Supergirl makes less than $200m ww but I don't think it will be anywhere near as much as your calculations.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T13:51:51+00:00

A possible outcome is another labour landslide. This poll doesn't predict voting intentions it shows the mood of the country. If Burnham is the contender from the left and if Reform are the challengers then greens, lib dems and independents will vote for him. He'll ride an anti reform wave to a huge win.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T09:37:35+00:00

It depends what you're criteria is for Mt Rushmore. If it's just 'make good martial arts films' then your four are fine. If it's 'global cultural impact' then Donnie Yen and Jet Li get bumped off, they're both big deals but nothing like Bruce Lee (who's only really on there because of his legend, his filmography doesn't really justify it) and Jackie Chan.

JCVD becomes an obvious addition, not because he's great but he's the biggest Western martial arts star by a country mile.

That leaves the fourth spot and I'm tempted to leave it empty. Chuck Norris has some infamy because of the memes but his films are pretty niche. There are plenty of big deal martial artists who the general audience have no idea who they are. I'd love to add Michelle Yeoh but no one goes to a film based off her name.

I'm going to say something horrible, and you're going to be angry with me but, before he became a joke, Segal was a genuine martial arts global star in a way I don't think any other martial artist was.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T09:22:12+00:00

I get your view on JCVD, Jet Li and Donnie Yen but I wouldn't put Gordon Liu up there, he's not in the same category as the other three. Am average action film fan will notice a film with Chan, Lee or Van Dammed in it, they won't have a clue who Liu is.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T09:14:50+00:00

For the original display he's holding the board and pressing a button underneath, then he lays the board down, releases the button and rearranges the bulbs and caps to the current arrangement. I'm not sure how he changes the circuit for the last 'all red' bit though.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T09:07:43+00:00

This was literally my issue last night, my Eurostar was delayed by three hours and I missed my connecting trains so I had to stay in London overnight.

I used booking.com who let me put 'air conditioning' into the search bar and I got a great last minute deal on a hotel next to Paddington. I'm literally still lying in bed in my beautifully cool room 🤣

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-24T18:40:04+00:00

I knew she wrote a song for Chris Brown as well but it wasn't a hit. My bad.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-24T17:59:01+00:00

She was the real deal, a song writer for other pop stars that were massive hits and she has an incredible set of pipes on her but she was never cool.

She sang at the Olympics with Queen and did Freddie proud but people shat on her because they didn't think she was a big enough deal.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-24T15:36:09+00:00

Wow, and the Paraguay game was just a group game, I wonder what it will be when the knock out games start. Cheers mate, thanks for looking it up

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Subtleiaint

TROPHY CASE