Excraft

This seems very likely and does beg the question - who at Sony thought this movie would be able to bring in that kind of money to even come close to breaking even, let alone turn a profit? I think what @ZacKing said earlier about sunk costs makes sense and that's a big part of what's going on. It certainly seems to me that studios are reluctant to give up on the superhero genre since they've already invested so much money in it. That and I agree with those who've said Hollywood way overspends in general, specifically way, way, way too much on actors. It's insane the amount of money being paid to some of them, especially when you have SAG/AFTRA going on strike over wages and such. I don't disagree, although I'd say I don't have much hope at all for Kraven coming anywhere remotely close to breaking even either. He's not that interesting a character in my opinion and certainly isn't one that would be a box office draw. Personally, I think Sony is better off selling the Spider-Man rights back to Disney and pocketing the cash. Certainly a better investment than churning out turd after turd that's bleeding them dry.

I was one of the eight this morning who tried this and can confirm the Kronos Titan did not spawn for anyone. I tried this again a couple more times today and found that spawning the Kronos in Talos is indeed bugged. He seems to be spawning too close to the Hospital and is getting droned. I tried this 3 times and can repeat the result with the following steps - Run "Operation: World Wide Red" arc. Run through all missions until "Stop All Wildflower Agents" mission. Complete "Stop All Wildflower Agents" mission. Before exiting the mission, use Oro portal inside the mission. Go to Oroborous and then select Talos Island destination. Kronos Titan doesn't appear near hill area next to train. NOTE: The Kronos Titan USED TO spawn right at the bottom of the hill on the street prior to this patch. The result I was able to repeat is after waiting a minute or two on the hill, start moving around Talos to see if it spawned somewhere else. Where I was able to repeatedly find him spawning was by moving NE into the hospital parking lot. The Kronos Titan would spawn in that parking lot, then immediately disappear. I was able to do this three times so far. I think this is too close to the police drones. It's the only place I've seen it spawn in since the patch. You never needed to move off of the hill before as he'd always spawn right at the bottom of the hill. I'll try this again tomorrow to confirm again, however it does seem this is bugged since last patch.

I see @Yumichan beat me to it already for the bug report. I tried this a couple more times today and this does look to be bugged with regard to the Talos location. I'll put my findings into the other thread. Good to know. Thank you.

So a group of 8 of us each ran the Operation: World Wide Red arc via Oro individually to coordinate a mass Kronos spawn in Talos. We were 0 for 8 in spawning him, so whatever changes have been put into place to correct Adamastor, it looks like it totally broke the ability to spawn Kronos in Talos. Talked with a few others in game who had a similar result since this patch went live. Seems like this change broke more than it fixed. Is there any "official" word on whether or not spawning multiple Babbages and Kronos Titans via coordinated teams considered an "exploit" now? Would be nice to know so we can all avoid wasting our time any further on these activities.

Fixing Adamastor I could see since he can be AFK summoned and farmed solo, however since other GMs "have to be worked for" then their rewards shouldn't be changed so drastically, if at all in my opinion. I can already envision a whole host of other fun GM spawning activities getting smacked by the nerf bat because of this. I don't know about all the servers, but periodically several teams on Excel, Torch and Everlasting are coordinating multiple Synapse runs to spawn multiple Babbages simultaneously. I guess we can assume that this bit of occasional fun will get smacked down as well?

Adding a close button doesn't change this. It just provides those who would want to close it the option to do so. Those who are interested in keeping it can.

Sorry to be blunt, but the task list window for the SBB event is very annoying. It can't be removed or closed completely. Best we can do is minimize it a bit, but it's still taking up valuable screen space and can get in the way when trying to play the content. Windows like this should always be able to be dismissed or closed as to not obscure the screen for the player. Any way of getting this window to have a close button so we can remove it from view? If there's an option for this already, I don't see it anywhere. If not, please give us the option to close this window and others like it. Thanks.

I have to agree with others here. This is a super, super annoying change and should be rolled back and/or removed entirely in the next patch. "Making tips drop less" does absolutely nothing to prevent this text from obscuring the screen when it does happen. There has to be a better way of notifying the player of these drops instead of this annoying text. The game is already over polluted with VFX. It needs less, not more.

Saw a character broadcasting in LFG with the word "Jedi Master" in the name. Sent over a PM just to let them know the word Jedi is trademarked and that it's against the CoC, so he may want to change it. The player tried his best to get into a debate with me that the word Jedi can't be trademarked because and I quote "words can't be trademarked". Hope they enjoy the name while it lasts.

I'm not complaining. I asked a question in regard to the use of historical context. Historically, The Ancient One, Heimdall and Reed Richards were all portrayed as males of certain ethnicity. That's what comic readers remember and would be expecting to see when those characters were brought to life on film. Why did they need to be changed? As for the Ancient One in particular, the race/gender swapping was done in the MCU to not offend Chinese audiences since China is such a huge market now. Same with the Mandarin. As for Nick Fury, the Ultimates and Ulimate Avengers pre-dates the MCU, so it's not like Nick Fury being black in the MCU was out of left field. As for the last sentence there, that has to be one of the stupidest questions ever. Why does Supergirl or Wonder Woman need to be a woman then? Why does Superman or Batman need to be a man? You're virtue signaling. I think you and I both know there would be a literal meltdown of public rage were anyone to even consider making such a film.

Oh I agree with you 100% that an all black cast as Nazis in WW II would raise a lot of eyebrows. But so what? Isn't that sort of the point to go against type and give non-Caucasian actors and actresses more opportunity? And I completely agree, Denzel Washington would rock it as he always does. Since you're saying that comic book characters are less important to keep consistent, you'd be cool with Leonardo DiCaprio or Taron Egerton or Daniel Radcliffe taking the mantle of Black Panther in the MCU? Or how about Javier Bardem becoming T'Challa with an all Latino and Asians cast as Wakandans?

First, I'm not an American. Second, you didn't answer the question. Why would it be weird? Because of "historical" reasons? Ok, then why would this be more weird than changing the race and gender of the Ancient One in Doctor Strange? Or race swapping Heimdall and Reed Richards? Historically, every one of those characters were shown as a different race and/or gender for decades since their inception. Why are those acceptable changes, but black Nazis wouldn't be? Are you suggesting actors like Denzel Washington aren't talented enough to pull off the role?

Why? Why? To the consumers spending all that money on them, apparently so. There are AVN awards you know. I agree 100%. So what are these inclusiveness rules needed for in this day and age? Whatever happened to judging someone on the content of their character? Of course. Your opinion doesn't make them any less successful though. It just means you didn't like them.

You'd be condemned as a racist for casting him in that role or for not going to see the movie.

No, I'm not. Here is what you said - My response to this was that there were actors and actresses earning the highest awards and honors in the industry long before there were any "standards for inclusiveness" being mandated, and all of them earned those awards and accolades based on their talent. They didn't need "standards for inclusiveness". You trying to claim that's why they are able to win these awards, not because of their talent, is flat out wrong. Why don't you do some research and provide links to the "standards for inclusiveness" that existed in the industry when Sidney Poitier won his oscar? Good luck. Yes, he did and he did it through his incredible talent, not by having some arbitrary rule put in place. Right so you don't have any suggestions for objective measures. Define "garbage". What's "quaint" and quite hysterical is you desperately trying (and failing) to prove opinions are facts.

If you honestly believe there would be no public outcry over a film where all gay black actors were cast as Germans in a WW II film or a remake of The Color Purple with an all white cast, you're delusional. You also can't have this both ways. You've suggested people like and are drawn to familiarity, then belittle them when they complain about arbitrary changes to what they find familiar. This is absolutely positively 100% bullshit. Actors and actresses like Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Jamie Fox, Forrest Whitaker, Viola Davis, Alfe Woodard all won Academy Awards and Emmys long before there were these modern "inclusivity" requirements. They won because they were the best in their craft, not because of their skin color. Trying to say they only won because of some arbitrary requirement is a huge insult to their talent. You're really struggling to understand the concepts and differences between the subjective (opinions/feelings) and the objective (facts). You can dislike The Hobbit trilogy all you like. That doesn't change the fact that it was a financial success. As for the Little Mermaid, from what I understand it essentially broke even, maybe. If it did manage to turn a profit, then yes, it's a success too, regardless if some people disliked the casting. Numbers don't lie and facts are facts. It's a very simple concept to grasp. If you don't believe in facts, why don't you share with us what you believe is a better objective measure that isn't based on opinions or feelings? This hasn't been the case for decades now.

Yup. John Wayne (badly) played Ghengis Khan too and Mickey Rooney played a Japanese man in Breakfast at Tiffany's. But it's not the 1950's anymore.

Where that line is is a judgement call for the HC people to make. I'm sure there are overly anal zealots out there who are reporting characters for far, far less similarity than the examples you've provided. Ultimately it's up for the HC team to decide. If you see something questionable, report it. Let the GM team do their thing.

I wonder, would you have no issue at all were a film or films produced as period pieces during WW II where all of the Germans were cast with gay, black actors? How about a biographical drama on the life of Nelson Mandela with an Asian man in the lead role as Mandela? Would you be fine with a film set in Wakanda cast with all non-black actors? Or a bio-pic of Queen Elizabeth with a latino man cast in the role of the Queen? Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be massive backlash against movie studios were any of this to happen? Jack Kirby and Stan Lee did it for decades. JK Rowling did it too. So did George R.R. Martin, Tom Clancy, Stephen King and so on. It may not be easy, but it isn't impossible. I get that historically there wasn't as much opportunity for non-Caucasian actors and actresses, but that's not really true any more and hasn't been for quite some time. There is a long and growing list of non-Caucasian actors and actresses winning the highest awards in the entertainment industry. You talk about staples of the comic industry like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the like selling well because people want familiarity. Isn't it understandable then for some people to question why race and/or gender swapping needs to take place if they want to see the characters they're familiar with? The LoTR trilogy brought in around 3 billion in box office. The Hobbit trilogy brought in just over 2.9 billion. Seems they replicated the success just fine. You could argue that that the Hobbit films had a much higher budget for various reasons so all tallied it made less overall in terms of profit compared to LoTR, but it still brought in a ton of money. But there again, it had fantastic source material to work with. It doesn't matter who is doing it. Those spewing division and hate should be ignored wherever they are and whomever they are. I think your assumption on this is about as wrong as wrong could be. As someone said above, it's not the message, it's the delivery.

Correct. It shows that for whatever reason, people spent their money on the film because they found it to be well crafted enough to spend money on. That's undeniable. Opinions are subjective whether you like it or not. You may believe that Citizen Kane or The Thing are much better movies than Barbie, but that's your personal opinion. The majority of movie goers disagreed and spent their money elsewhere. Again, that's undeniable fact. That's not at all what I said. Again, the "quality" of a film based on opinion is a subjective measure. Box office numbers don't lie. If a movie tanks, the audience didn't find it worthwhile to spend their money on. If a movie pulls in billions in profits, it's a success regardless of what some movie critic might say. There's been tons of movies that are critically acclaimed but failed at the box office. It's great the critics loved them and we may agree with their opinion, but the opinions of those critics didn't put money in the bank for the studio.

Both of those lists are meaningless as their based on the subjective opinion of the writer compiling them. How one person defines "good" and "bad" are entirely different than the next person. I can remember way back in the day movie critic Gene Shalit calling Star Wars a "nothing movie" that would "go nowhere" when it first premiered. I'm sure you could find people out there that believe films like Gymkata, Ishtar and Battlefield Earth are the most underrated true masterpieces of cinema in human history. Those are all a matter of opinion though. Ticket sales and box office numbers don't lie and aren't subjective. Whether someone likes a movie or not, if that movie brought in a ton of money to the studio and turned a hefty profit, it's successful and that means the majority of movie goers thought it was well written and well produced enough to spend their money on it. That's a fact and no matter how much you want to try and deny it, history proves that out.

So let me get this straight - films that are both critical and financial successes are not well written and produced? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. If that's you're point, then you're way off base and yes, history does prove that out. I'm not speaking for anyone either. However, it's not supposition that audiences who aren't attending movies aren't all of one group or another. Audiences in general aren't going to the movies anymore. You've been throwing around all sorts of reasons as to why people aren't turning out to see movies - post COVID, foreign competition and the like. While those are true to a degree, people are still turning out for good movies and there are well written, well produced movies surpassing the billion dollar mark at the box office.

The general audiences, made up of people from all genders, races and orientations, who haven't been paying to go and see movies. You seem to be trying to lump everyone into one group or another.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that successful movies aren't well written? Well written and produced films do well financially. History proves this out.

Why should he have to? Are you suggesting what he's saying is not true? All one need do is point to films like Oppenheimer to prove that out. Well crafted stories with a talented cast and crew are successful. Are you suggesting that the studio executives who are looking at cratering ticket sales, cratering profits and abysmal critical reviews are turning to their shareholders and saying that they're on the right track? Peter Jackson didn't have as much control over the process as you might think and as I recall, the Hobbit was originally meant to be a two film project that was "requested" by the studio to be made into a trilogy that tied into the LoTR trilogy more. As I recall, he didn't even want to direct it but MGM forced him into it. Ezra Miller is a lunatic. He's also not a very good actor and isn't "leading man" by any stretch for a film like that. Digging out 72 year old Michael Keaton to come back as Batman as nostalgia bait was done for a reason. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the point was more that it's an example of a financially successful, well received and reviewed film being done on a budget a fraction of what it would have cost in Hollywood. I certainly hope you don't work in the finance or banking industry in any way. I can assure you as I have friends working at major film studios, they are most definitely in the business of making a profit.