IAmTheClayman t1_jbzm5zu wrote

Just a reminder that getting “cancelled” isn’t a thing, but the will of the public very much is. The BBC and supporters of the anti-asylum bill have publicly demonstrated that they are in the minority, and attempting to punish Lineker has backfired on the BBC in a major way.

Difficult position for them to be in given the way their funding works, but the smart thing to do would have been not to take any action before seeing which way the wind was blowing


IAmTheClayman t1_j6iklwk wrote

Right, except YG got an interpolation license from the rights holder, which means he was legally allowed to recreate the song. Rick Astley is arguing that just his voice is a separate, protected asset, and that YG was not allowed to imitate it.

In the US at least I’ve never heard of that being a thing, and if it is a thing in UK law I would argue that YG doesn’t sound anything like Rick Astley on his song. He’s singing the same notes, but the tone and quality of his voice sounds nothing like the original


IAmTheClayman t1_j6gyczs wrote

Because it’s a pretty ridiculous lawsuit. Astley is arguing that Yung Gravy is copying his vocal patterns.

A) that’s not actually something protected by copyright, trademark, or any other law, and

B) you’d have to be completely tone deaf to think YG came anywhere close to sounding like him.

Now joking aside, it seems that YG did correctly get a license to interpolate the original song (meaning he has access to the original composition but needs to record everything from scratch, versus sampling where you just use a snippet of the original recording). The lawsuit argues that Astley’s distinct voice is a resource protected under “right to publicity”, which is something I’ve never heard of in the US so maybe it’s a UK-specific law


IAmTheClayman t1_j67mr1s wrote

Dude I’m a game designer. I’m not nearly smart or talented enough to be a scientist.

That said, that’s some solid false equivalency. Great food critics aren’t all great chefs. Most movie critics have never directed a film. Also I was mainly making a joke buddy


IAmTheClayman t1_j4jca1o wrote

So we really shouldn’t be engaging with this argument, because the “Godlessness” already implies the OP has drawn a very pearl-clutching conclusion, but for the sake of argument I’m gonna wade in.

Rick and Morty is a project made by many people. There are two major showrunners between Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland. They head up a writers room that changes from episode to episode, but generally consists of about a half dozen people each episode. Different directors come in to work on episodes, with some repeats but lots of one-and-dones. And then there’s the voice actors, who appear to also contribute to last minute dialogue choices.

While Justin’s voice is obviously a major part of the show given his role, it’s just a part. He’s not secretly slipping in messaging that at least a dozen other people in the production pipeline have missed. Everyone involved has signed off on what is being made. What’s more, most plots are the brainchild of Harmon rather than Roiland by the duo’s own admission, and in recent seasons they’ve handed more of the reigns over to their senior writers.

Is Justin Roiland not a great guy? If the allegations are true, yeah he’s definitely got issues to work out and I’ll have lost a significant amount of respect for him as a person. But Dan Harmon also has a lot of baggage between his history of alcoholism and unwarranted sexual advances, but he is supposedly much better now and has made amends with those he harmed.

But overanalyzing the show in light of this news is just silly. If you don’t want to like Justin Roiland the alleged domestic violence would be reason enough, don’t go reaching for more reasons when you’ve got justification right there


IAmTheClayman t1_j1scowj wrote


Is it a little funky in spots now? Sure, especially with what’s come to light about Whedon. But you can’t deny just how important it was when it was on air, both to the people who watched it (inspiring a lot of people to get into acting or pursue filmmaking) and to other shows getting produced (the Doctor Who revival likely would not have happened if not for Buffy).


IAmTheClayman t1_j1nreg8 wrote

If it’s serialized, the answer is easy: any episode that doesn’t meaningfully move the plot or character relationships forward. That’s not an indicator of quality mind you - the episode “Ember Island Players” from Avatar: The Last Airbenders is total filler, but it also happens to be one of the funniest episodes in the series and a fan favorite.

Now if you’re talking episodic TV the answer is harder. If there isn’t an overarching plot, wouldn’t every episode technically be “filler?” I think in that case people do actually use the term as an indicator of quality, with bad episodes labeled as filler so that future watchers can know whether those episodes are skippable


IAmTheClayman t1_j14t9ol wrote

“Quick, we need to churn out an article before the holiday break!”

“Uhhhhh, I know! I’ll write something about how the MCU show set during Christmas is good to rewatch at Christmas”

“Johnson, you genius! Someone’s getting a holiday bonus”

(FR though, I liked Hawkeye but this might be the laziest in a long line of lazy Collider articles)