I mean that was more-or-less Werner Herzog’s natural delivery, they just had him go in and read a buncha lines; somebody decided that Basically Werner Herzog was the right fit for that character and then they went out and got him to do it.
(I imagine this is how Stephen Tobolowsky gets many of his acting jobs too)
I wouldn’t discount Harris’ innate advantages there too; he was 10 years older than Gambon, aged more poorly (having been an alcoholic hellraiser in his younger years), and his natural delivery - even when he was much younger - had that sort-of wizened wheezing sound to it; “old and physically frail but with incredible magic power” was sort of baked in even before he added any actual acting to the mix.
But I don’t know if there’s an alternative who would have been better in that regard; the three I’m aware of them talking about were Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, and Peter O’Toole, but the latter two would have played him very much like Gambon did, and I’m not sure if Lee could have pulled off “frail” either given his voice + physical stature.
One of the few non-Avengers in the list of all-time highest grossing actors.
One of Chief O’Brien’s more elaborate holodeck simulations
With him, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, and Alan Rickman all gone, the only members of the Hogwarts Professor Tontine left are Maggie Smith and Warwick Davis.
I hope they make it - snow leopards seem to be in the gray area in between endangered species which humans can + will spare no expense to keep alive, like pandas and kakapo, and endangered species that are almost certainly done for, like the Vaquita and the Javan rhinoceros.
So this is why Elon is suddenly more upset than usual about bots
Hope everyone enjoyed the coldest summer of the rest of their lives.
He’s 47 now, so when he gets out he’ll be 2/3 of the way through his own 70’s show.
China’s not actually pissed about that, they just love coming up with excuses to get their population riled up against Japan.
More nuclear = less coal, that’s the thrust of like half of the comments here dude
The thing the studios don’t seem to appreciate about this is that once they can have an AI generate Iron Man 7, so can any other schlub; you can say you want to watch a movie where Iron Man enters a mini-golf tournament with Genghis Khan and the 1927 New York Yankees and it’ll make one for you.
There are 3 possible outcomes, basically:
AI is never more than a curiosity as far as movie making and this whole argument was pointless;
AI gets good enough to replace a lot of the capital-incentive grunt work of movie making, like VFX, but not high-level creative work like writing / directing / production design, so making AAA movies gets cheaper and the big studios lose power while indie studios gain more;
AI gets as good at making movies as humans are, in which case we don’t need studios at all.
None of these are good for them; the status quo is actually the least bad outcome. The real game, I suspect, is that they hope that they can convince writers that AI is a big enough threat to a) make concessions in other areas to stop it and b) be grateful they’re still employed at all; a world where AI actually replaces creative talent on films is a world where we don’t need studios at all anymore.
3800 people a year die from coal plant pollution in the US alone; there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl
Yes. And yes. Article on the F-35.
Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y’know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
That’s not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren’t even remotely equivalent.
(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)
I’m not downvoting because I don’t agree, I’m downvoting because the statement is factually inaccurate - coal power produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power does.
Here’s an article - coal naturally contains trace amounts of radioactive elements and burning a bunch of it concentrates them.
The fact that you’re bringing up Japan (which is massively overblown - you’re at more radiation risk from a coal power plant) shows you’re not serious about this.
There’s legitimately not enough space for everyone to bring a carry-on, especially on smaller planes; until that changes, carry-on fees are as good a way to allocate that space as any.