The film ended with a sequel hook where Erica asked Pizzaz to help her destroy Jem. Kind of the opposite of how in the show the Holograms are formed to destroy the Misfits because Jerrica was a prissy dickbag

New Vegas is somewhat connected to the first two, forming a rough trilogy, but each of the three stands alone. New Vegas in particular, as it had to satisfy both classic and fallout 3 fans.

New Vegas is somewhat connected to the first two, forming a rough trilogy, but each of the three stands alone. New…

Honestly fuck Trudeau and the once and future king narrative that’s the basis of his political career

I thought they used a Queen

Murdoch’s supposedly actually a progressive libertarian when it comes to social issues— he just loves money more than his principles.

There’s a reason Josh’s “rehab” was mostly in the form of work— the Fundie Industrial Complex relies on a mixture of equal parts psuedo-slavery and grifting

Well, it would be kinda silly to deny that Zionist terrorism was a major concern during the interwar period, although the Islamic State is probably a better point of comparison and most of the major participants were later tacitly absolved by virtue of their involvement in the Israeli government.

So what you’re saying is that you've found the perfect man and there isn't any hope for the rest of us

So it should carry the same disclaimer that every docudrama in the UK is required to carry by law got it

The movie has no responsibility to tell the truth.

You’re literally making the same argument. The only difference is that you like games. I’m comparing you in the desperate hope that you realize how stupid you're being

So you agree with Thompson that the population as a whole can’t be trusted to tell fiction from reality and must be protected from themselves through censorship, whether self-censorship or state censorship.

No, they’ve been led to believe that the whole point of the film is that it’s an entertaining drama based to some extent on past events.

Your argument is based on the assumption that people can’t tell the difference between reality and drama on a screen. They just soak it up according to you, uncritically absorbing.

Why is it a bad thing? Give me a compelling reason that doesn’t involve tacitly admitting that you secretly feel like Thompson is completely right about basically everything.

Oh, I see what the problem is. You don’t understand the concept of fiction. You see, this is what’s known as a drama. While it may be inspired by real events, its goal is to entertain audiences.

That’s my point. Thompson in real life is a cartoonish lunatic who was more funny than threatening. Making him relatable and making his motives more plausible makes for better drama, just like making Richard III smarter and more villainous made for better drama in Shakespeare’s day

Of course it portrayed Thompson as a sympathetic character. The alternative was depicting him as a panto villain because that’s how unhinged his behaviour and filings were by that point in his career. The program maker’s only duty was to make a compelling film and pantomime villains aren’t that compelling.

Well, no, you don’t get that because you seem to think there’s a difference between taking liberties with what actually happened and taking liberties with what actually happened in a way that you arbitrarily term “lying” because you’re still smarting over Tipper Gore or something.

The BBC made the show as part of Make it Digital, a kind of twenty-first century version of the BBC micro initiative. The idea is to make computers and computer-related industries look really cool and more accessible while simultaneously doing educational outreach.