OmarBradley

14 minutes ago, downzy said:

As DD said, it's not just about the allegations, and it's not about just one person.  

Crimes such as sexual abuse don't necessarily have clear cut, direct, and non-circumstantial evidence.  The reality is that a lot of times it comes down to the the accounts made by the accusers.

But I do find it funny you keep coming back to this topic despite having no interest in watching the film.  I ask this in earnest, are you afraid to watch it?  

With respect to some of the questions I raised two posts earlier, I found a Forbes article where a dollar amount of $1.5 billion is attached to the litigation filed by Robson and Safechuck.  But I'm not sure where the author of the article, which isn't a review of the film but a critique of the accusers, got that dollar figure.  Usually civil actions, especially ones that were dismissed, can usually be reviewed in a public file.  Any other reference to the $1.5 billion amount, such as in the wikipedia page, is linked back to this Forbes article.  Not saying the author is wrong, but curious where he got this information and how come no one else is reporting on it.  

That strikes me as a ridiculous figure, so I did some checking.

This page tries to address it, given the website name it's obviously biased and there are many problems in this author's argumentation. He basically says the media is complicit in promoting Jackson's guilt and they purposefully don't report the $1.62B (or $1.5B, depending on circumstances I don't really follow) figure because they don't want to publish anything to make Jackson seem innocent. This is the same sort of "the media is the enemy" strategy that Trump and conservatives pursue. I didn't read the entire article because it's an obvious opinion piece that omits sources and relies on assumptions.

This Forbes article (and another Forbes article posted only 4 weeks after the first article) are the only two legitimate sources I can see referencing the number, and neither note a source. Yet, they're not terribly legitimate because both are opinion pieces. And the author of the first article, Joe Vogel, has written two books on Jackson, not sure if they have a narrative of 'he was innocent' or if they're purely biographical. The second author doesn't seem to have previously published content about Jackson. 

Regardless, that as much Googling as I care to do on this, but it is troubling that there is no legitimate source for the figure "demanded" by Robson in 2013 (or 2015/2016 as some articles seem to claim).

Okay, I lied and I did some more Googling. I was troubled that some of the recent articles dispute each other regarding when the lawsuit was first initiated. It looks like they're all correct to a degree, in that the initial documentation was completed in 2013, but major events in the saga occurred in 2015/2016.

I found this article from 2013 - the article states toward the beginning the $ amount requested is not public (at the time at least, but I still can't find anything 2013 - 2019 that definitively says the amount).

This article talks about the circumstances surrounding the dismissals of lawsuits, I believe downzy already mentioned these points, but here they are.

Okay, I found a site hosting a bunch of court documents. I perused a few entries and didn't see a dollar amount, but I've already spent way more time on this than I intended and the conflicting information is messy enough that even I, enjoyer of details and argumentation, have no interest in hurdling through all of these articles and documents in some Pepe Silvia-esque investigation.

19 hours ago, action said:

I'm trying to compose a coherent hypothesis about what happened, given the pertinent facts, but I just can't.

let's suppose MJ sexually assaulted these kids. If MJ was a sexual predator, there will be lots of victims. Right? If the 4 hour documentary is to be believed, MJ's created a whole enterprise around him with the sole purpose of luring children in and raping them. So the claim is, MJ made lots and lots of victims. Inevitably then, some of these kids had told their parents worrying things in the early '90s. Remember, these kids are sexually assaulted in our hypothesis.

The logical thing to do then for most of these parents, is to go to the authorities. Now you will always have parents who will have refrained from telling the cops for whatever reason, but not nearly every one of them. This is something, that I'm not willing to accept.

Well it turns out, the parents didn't go to the authorities. Other than the jordy case, I dont remember others. That's a fact that is clear and it needs to be reviewed with a clear mind.

the question needs to be asked: why? why didn't they go to the authorities?

-> Ockhams razor tells you: because there weren't any more. 

-> Another hypothesis is, these parents were deliberately putting their children with MJ in the hope to set him back a few millions of bucks. This, notwithstanding the cries of distress of their children. In other words; these parents were absolute scumbags. What I find peculiar then, is why don't these children sue their parents nowadays? There are no reported cases of some of these children having a major fallout with their parents, over the horrible things they put them through.

-> So what do we have left? suppose these kids told their parents (as they most certainly will have done), but these parents didn't react accordingly, MJ continued his gruesome activity, but no cases were filed by these parents, AND the authorities didn't find conclusive proof during multiple investigations. This hypothesis is full of inconsistency and doesn't make fucking sense.

So in short, I fail to come up with a reasonable explanation on why there were so little reported cases, "in tempero non suspecto".

 

 

10 hours ago, action said:

MJ's children are obviously going through a lot of suffering, and it's in part because of this docu.

it's cause (the docu) and effect (trauma). The causality is evident, and the causal action was deliberate.

they could also have foreseen that their docu would cause distress to his children. No one wants to hear all those accusations about their dad.

There were other ways, for those two "victims" to somehow get reckognition and find some kind of healing or closure. Plenty of ways, it's not up to me to sum them all up, but they chose this way and it causes harm to innocent children.

Victims have every right at reckognition. They don't however, by their status as a victim, have the right to cause trauma themselves.

Even if they are victims, they still need to act carefully, like you me and everyone else. they don't have the right to cause the suffering that they do.

also, suing MJ's estate is beyond pointless. MJ is dead. How could they possibly find closure by suing the MJ estate? How? does it make them feel better in any way? I'd like to know the psychological processes behind that one.

7 hours ago, action said:

I'm not going to watch the documentary downzy, for the sole reason that they have already proven to be skilled liars, before court and under oath.

they kept on lying in court, they answered all these questions, but they kept a straight face and didn't gave away their lies. they fooled everyone in that room. lawyers, judge and jury.

case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

it is a fact, that these two people know how to put on an act. don't give them money, give them an oscar I say.

if they can do it in court, they can also do it in a 4 hour documentary

I'm sure the documentary is brimmed with emotion and makes for a damn good propaganda movie. It takes two great actors to pull this off, but again, they already did in court.

I'm not of bad will, I'm just putting things in context. I'm not watching 4 hours of lies, because other than a fine case of acting this proves absolutely nothing.

I know you mean well Downzy. I feel your confusion, I'm there too. Me too wants to know the truth but for me, these two individuals are highly skilled liars. 

I wasn't going to post because I'm not really invested in this. Just watching from the sidelines, and I haven't researched the details.

But I've been compelled to post because you're relying on some faulty assumptions.

The first bolded sentence is an assumption with little evidence behind it. And then you proceed to base your entire post on that assumption! You discuss the 4 hour documentary, but also admit to having not watched it... so maybe you should? Don't mean to sound condescending, but you'd be in a much better position to discredit it if you listened to its arguments and provided valid reasoning for why you find them false.

The second bolded sentence is another assumption. Like downzy said, experiencing trauma as a child (or adult tbh) is not as straightforward as you are assuming. And you don't know how many children were (or were not, I'm open to him being innocent) assaulted. It's quite possible it was just the 2 people featured in the documentary - I don't know for sure, but neither do you and you can't base argumentation on "fact: many were assaulted, so why have only a few come forward?" And again, given the circumstances surrounding reporting assault, it's completely unsurprising there are only a handful of accusations and not an armada.

Third bolded sentence, this is some insane victim blaming. The truth is uncomfortable for some people? Big fucking deal. Jackson's kids are likely financially set for their lives (and X amount of generations of the family) - some bad press and a tainted legacy (which is already semi-tainted) is not likely to lead to significant distress. They may feel it's significant, with everyone "attacking" or "ganging up" on their father, but things will cool down in the public sphere again and they can go back to being ridiculously rich and secured using a fortune their father earned. I maybe feel a tiny bit sorry for them, but not enough for it to affect how I'd conduct the accusations.

Fourth sentence, okay what is your suggestion to the victims on how to get recognition of this issue and closure? Obviously it is far too late to go to the police, for actionable steps at least. Even civil proceedings seem out of reach. So instead of a documentary they should have, what? Written a song? Developed an app? Performed a play? Done a 60 Minutes special? I don't see how any of the alternatives to a documentary are more effective for recognition and closure and.

Fifth sentence, no, victims do not need to be careful. Victims of illegal acts need to come forward in whatever manner they are comfortable with, so long as it's legal and doesn't cause genuine harm (genuine harm: something like former drug cartel captives publicly disclosing info which results in retaliatory acts, NOT temporarily injured feelings within very well-off individuals). If victims feel the police/legal system won't address abuse properly (which is widely documented to be the case), I understand why they take to other means. Do they have a right to cause suffering? I'd rephrase that and say they have a right to come forward and if the truth causes suffering, sorry that's the truth and the record must show it.

Sixth sentence, I don't know the answer to this for sure, but my assumption is it's because: what else would you sue? The record labels? Jackson's tour manager? Those may not be bad ideas if they were complicit in the abuse, but the estate is obviously the most direct entity to address the situation.

I can't comment too much on your final post. I haven't seen the interviews or watched the court proceedings. All of what you say in that post may be true, but it does not justify the previous errors in argumentation. And apparently, the documentary addresses why their stories have shifted. You can't convincingly say "case closed" when you haven't heard the latest entry of evidence. 

Again, I don't really lean one way or the other. The guy was a weirdo, but I've seen no decisive evidence either, partially because I haven't looked into any of the accusations/data myself. But I also don't approve of spotty argumentation when defending him. And I'd say the same if someone was accusing in a manner bereft of reason, but I haven't seen that in this thread.

And I would add, I don't blame the children/family for defending MJ or noting discrepancies or even saying they've been negatively affected by the accusations. They have a right to speak and I don't know many humans who would turn against their loving parent without decisive evidence. That being said, you are neutral, you are not a Jackson child. So while they may have some valid reasons to complain, your complaints on their behalf are misplaced, IMO.

5 hours ago, adamsapple said:

On a sidenote...I don't think people like Eddie Van Halen, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Slash and many more grade a world class superstars would have worked and performed with him in public if they would have heard or noticed anything disturbing regarding his relation to children. If anyone's interested, look up what Macauley Culkin and Corey Feldman had to say about Jackson. As for conspiracy theories, listen to the "History" album from 1995 and pay attention to the lyrics.

Eh. Harvey Weinstein thrived in Hollywood even though his abusiveness was an open secret. When you know someone personally, you don't want to believe the accusations. I'm actually watching something similar happen right now. There is a known scammer operating in some Discord servers I'm in. Despite the repeated attempts of people trying to unmask his scams (which can be done pretty much indisputably), some people are flocking to his defense because they know him and they haven't personally seen the side of him others have. 

Humans seem to want to defend those they see as part of their 'tribe/network,' regardless of the validity of the assertions or accusations.

It seems players discover a new issue with Anthem every day. The more people/time on Anthem, the more it seems it was rushed out and the devs were quite aware how unpolished it was.

I could list off 20-50 things wrong with the game, but the most 'lol' one is that the starter rifle is better than any higher level weapon in the game. Literally the starter rifle you get when first creating a character is better than ANY weapon you can spend hundreds of hours grinding for because of the way Anthem's weapon/damage/health scaling system works (or doesn't work, depending how you view it).

This (among other things) has made the player base realize why there is no stats page in the game: the stats system is fundamentally flawed and it's likely the devs realize this. Many of the numbers, health gauges, etc. players see on screen appear to not reflect actual values of what happens in the game. So creating a stats page would just emphasize how broken the system is. It also explains the notable lack of explanation/description for in game systems - the mechanics either aren't working properly or they were built in such a convoluted and twisted manner that the devs themselves aren't 100% sure what's going on, or they don't want to draw attention to the fact that the system is unfinished.

EDIT: Some credit to BioWare, they've acknowledged the starter gun issue and are saying that's not how they intended the system to work. Will be fixed in a patch next week,

Players are also starting to ask questions about the content 'drip' and where all of the promises from E3s 2017 and 2018 are. Obviously, BioWare has largely ignored these complaints.

Also, Anthem is crashing PS4s to the point in which you could lose data and have to rebuild the database in your PS4 - it is possible to do this at home yourself, but it is not a standard process. No bricking has been noted, but this is still a pretty serious issue and some Sony reps are flat out recommending people not play Anthem on PS4 at all until the issue is patched.

I think both BioWare and EA are to blame here. Funny, I said the exact same thing with my ME:A 'review.' But what I didn't not there is: I think Frostbite is the problem. It's an engine designed for Battlefield, not versatile RPG experiences. But EA has enforced an "every dev must use Frostbite" edict. Hard to blame BioWare for making mediocre experiences when it's likely the engine is limiting compared to what they worked with on ME:T and the first two DA games. However, I can't fully blame EA. It's clear in Anthem that development was messy (or maybe even rebooted midway through?) and the repetitive content, chopped up story, and limited narrative are due to development decisions. 

I still like the game overall, but there is so much squandered potential with the game's vision. I am 28 hours in and I think I have 3-6 more hours of main story. Combined with Freeplay/Contracts I think I will "complete" Anthem at around 40 hours of play. Not terrible, but I still don't see how this is going to be a worthwhile 'live service' experience, especially with the bare-bones roadmap they've released.

They really should have made a regular single-player game with Anthem's flight/combat and maybe included an optional MP mode like in ME (and DA:I might have had this?). 

16 hours ago, Twinfoot said:

I: “They say, you're planning a new record with Guns N' Roses. Is there any truth to it?”

Slash: “At the moment, there is a lot of activity focusing on it.”

I: “What does that mean?”

Slash: “The focus clearly lies on it. Most definitely. A lot of energy is put towards the idea of making a new album possible. We will see. Until it happens, I continue to work with my other band, the Conspirators, which is also a good, authentic rock-'n'-roll band.”

Yeah, GNR is not actively working on a record. It sounds like Axl is mulling over whether he wants to do one, how he wants it to sound, etc. and everyone is waiting on him to get in a rehearsal room. Duff/Slash/Richard seem calculated in their responses, being vague but leaving the possibility with a slight tone of hopefulness. I think they're hoping Axl relents as much as the fans are. Though they don't have financial incentive to push him along.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 1-2 years from now these statements from Slash turn into, "Yeah we really tried, but we just couldn't get it to work."

And wtf do these sentences mean?! 'The focus clearly lies on it,' 'a lot of energy is put towards the idea'...  It's all bullshit speak. Energy being put toward the idea?! Get in a fucking rehearsal room and jam ideas, Axl. As long as the focus is on thinking about a record, it's not going to happen.

6 hours ago, beautifulanddamned said:

What if I came on here and said:

Guys, I need some advice. I have a seven year old son, Billy. A few years ago we moved next door to a thirty five year old man, Steve. Steve is very kind to us, soft spoken , quite successful. Well known in the community. Steve told us he had a very rough childhood and so prefers to socialize almost exclusively with children. Well, just boys really. He has become very close to Billy, showering him with love and affection, buying him (and us) gifts, even taking him away on trips and vacations. Billy often sleeps at Steve's house, in Steve's bed, Steve having assured us that "it's the most loving thing a person can do." Billy seems really attached to Steve, emotionally and physically and I worry a little bit because Steve seems to have "favorite" boys that stop being "favorites" as they get older. I'd go get Billy now, but there is a series of alarms that go off when you walk to Steve's bedroom door. Anyway, people are starting to tell me that this all seems very inappropriate and that there was a multi- million dollar pay off to another little boy who alleged sexual abuse but it's not like I have proof that anything is happening, right?

You indirectly raise a good point, I actually brought this up with some friends last night as we discussed.

Regardless of alleged sexual misconduct, aren't these odd experiences for a young child to have? Like, wouldn't you as a parent rather your 12 year old boy hang out with other 12 year old boys and not 40 year old men? Wouldn't you rather your child learn organically about the world and experience things with his peers rather than being given unyielding adulation and presents and money and trips. I could see it from both ways: some parents may think "what an amazing opportunity (for us too)," but if it were me I'd be thinking "no, I'd rather you play baseball with Timmy from down the street than go to Aruba with a 40 year old man."

It just seems to be odd experiences for a normal child to have and I wonder how that affect's their psychology in life. (again, even regardless of alleged sexual abuse).

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Jackson wasn't extremely eccentric, irresponsible and in possession of some deep psychological issues. All of this of course gives you the Peter Pan complex. But this does not necessarily entail paedophilia. 

I think Lenny is saying that if a regular Joe Schmoe did the same things Michael did, he would be labeled a pedophile pretty much immediately and there wouldn't be a debate about "well he only had nude pictures and slept in the same bed but never touched them!" But Michael gets an artist pass because "eccentric."

I got curious and decided to take a look at some Destiny 2 gameplay.

Wow! Anthem is far less original than I thought it was. Honestly, Anthem looks like a Destiny rip off with the addition of flight. I'd have to play Destiny 2 to get a better sense for comparison, which I may do because the flow of that sequence I linked is much more interesting than anything I've encountered in Anthem so far.

This also answers a lot of my questions/grievances about Anthem in than some are due to genre and some are due to Anthem not being as good as Destiny in certain ways.

Has anyone played both?

13 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

No its just we have little interest in her contribution to this lineup.....a bit like dizzy.

Hey! Tell me with a straight face that Dizzy's bongo playing on 70% of the NITL setlist wasn't integral to the quality of the performances.

I'm sure this view has been said multiple times in this thread, but I'd much rather here UYI/AFD/Lies songs than James Brown, Soundgarden, Glen Campbell, or even The Who or AC/DC. Really seems silly to me to have so many irrelevant covers as a standard part of the setlist. Slither I get, CD stuff I get, LALD and KOHD of course, but anything past that is just annoying. The musician spots where they jam covers are fine with me, but I think that should be the extent of it.

On 3/2/2019 at 8:54 AM, MillionsOfSpiders said:

 

What's wrong with this song? It's not amazing, but I don't think it qualifies for the thread title.

But, here's one that does:

2 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

I think also the internet and social media in general have set the expectation that bands should be available to fans. If the bands position is dont expect guns to be the fan friendly band and list what they are and arnt comfortable in doing or giving to fans then fine ......just state that position. Which im sure axl could do in a twitter. My only gripe is that the SKMC organisation in communicating to fans is the complete opposite to the way guns operate.

Just goes to show which variables here are the constricting ones.  

I didn't like Slash's new album, but how he conducts his band is a great template for any artist trying to balance their sovereignty and fan involvement. 

1 hour ago, kiwiguns said:

To be fair the band and management are in a no win situation. Unfortunately fans on this forum are the minority of people that take issue with all sorts of actions the band takes on and off stage, or the actions of their management.

Given this you can understand why they dont feel the need to address the issue at hand.

Are the majority of people who attended shows as casual fans occupying their time worrying about YouTube clips being taken down?.

Given some fans that post here, if you place yourself in the bands and their managements shoes they would be responding to  every individuals issue they choose to raise.

Why is Izzy not involved - Please respond via a statement.

I dont like Frank's drumming. Steven has a better groove. Were is Steven - Please respond via a statement 

I think the band are a group of Aliens and dont think they should be called GNR. Why is the band still calling itself GNR - Please respond via a statement 

Melissa is not rock enough .why is Melissa in the band - Please respond via a statement 

I don't like Richards guitar playing - why are you letting him do his own interpretation and not the original note for note song written by Izzy- Please respond via a statement 

 

Even if they released a statement some will ignore the contents and believe what they want to believe based on their own perception or fixed mindset.

I think fans wanting to know where Izzy is or why Frank/Melissa are in the band are not at all equal-level issues to a malicious take-down campaign, allegedly at the direction of management. 

You say it's a "no win," but in this case it's actually a very easy win: 

"We have nothing to do with these people, we're sorry fans are enduring this and we don't condone malicious attacks."

That would score TB much needed points among the hardcore fanbase. However, if the truth is:

"GNR management directed two individuals to pursue copyright claims on our behalf. However, we erred in our judgement and these two individuals pursued methods we would have never imagined. We are very sorry to the fans who were threatened and we have ensured copyright claims will be conducted by management/actual employees from here on out."

If that's the truth, you may be correct it is a 'no win.' They would deserve some credit for owning up to it, but then the questions are: why did this take so long for you to admit? why did you hire two goons to do your work? It would be better from a PR standpoint to not say anything at all and let everyone forget about it... which feels like what is happening now, but we can't know for sure.

I do think it's possible this is just a case of a strict no comment policy, but I can also see the latter quote being the case. 

Saw Green Book yesterday. It was pretty good. Viggo's just always great. 

Sadly, it seems the film took some liberties that it didn't need to. Don Shirley's living relatives say they were never consulted about the filmmaking and that resulted in some minor and major inaccuracies. The biggest two I read are the YMCA and fried chicken scenes being fictitious, both of which were pretty big scenes in regards to the narrative.

I don't agree it's a "white savior" film though, which some critics seem to be labeling it as.

Discussion in D&N has me relistening to the Corabi Crue album:

CDPR confirmed they will be attending E3 and it's heavily rumored (or confirmed? can't tell) they will be presenting something. No question it's CP2077, possibly with a release date/timeframe. I'm also going to predict they will announce/tease their new IP, that they've been working on alongside Cyberpunk.

11 hours ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

I always go grass starter, so I’m going Grookey Gang

This game looks spectacular. It’s the Breath of the Wild of Pokémon titles.

Fire, always!

I don't have Switch, but hopefully a Switch Emu is being worked on, as I'd really like to play this and Let's Go. For now, I'm just stuck replaying HeartGold on my iOS DS emu.

9 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

That would be a kick in the balls.  The more I play Anthem, the less I like it.

Shit, man everyone has one of these things now.  I fucking subscribe to like 3 services already.  It's getting out of hand.

Yeah Anthem was very impressive for the first 5 hours or so, but after that...

3 services? I have 5 launchers! Origin, Uplay, Bethesda, Epic, and Steam. If only I was an adept programmer/UI designer, I'd make a single piece of software that amalgamates all games across launchers. It would require local login access, but I think that's the heaviest lift.

@Gibson_Guy87 Here's your startup idea. 

16 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

I've played some Anthem, I noticed that with the MTX also, kind of odd and unique as far as my experience is.  My main takeaway from Anthem is that it is always fucking loading something.  I mean ffs, there is perpetually something to fucking load. 2 minutes to load into a mission, 5 minutes for the mission, 2 min to load out of the fucking mission.  I spend more time fucking loading shit than playing!

 

As good as it looks, the reveal trailer makes the final product look like garbage...

 

Yeah the whole game design makes for a jarring and limiting experience. Not having For Tarsis rendered in the open world was a bad decision. I assume it's due to technical limitations, but it feels really stupid to load into Fort Tarsis, grab your quest, do one 5-7 minute quest, load back into Ft. Tarsis, grab another quest, load the open world, do another 7 minute quest, load the Forge, load back in to Fort Tarsis, etc.. With a SSD the loading times aren't that bad, 20-25 seconds max, but the frequency of loading screens is ridiculous. And even main story missions are not much longer than 15 minutes (so far, I'd say I'm 40% through the narrative). And if you spend 20+ minutes on a quest, it usually means there was either a damage sponge like a Titan or you were replaying the same 3 Strongholds (I only have one unlocked so far) just mowing down wave after wave of the same enemy.

Freeplay is usually a bore because the appeal of flying through the world and looking at the scenery simmers down after you've done it for ~10 hours. World Events aren't marked on the map and after you play 2 or 3 of them you realize there are basically 2 or 3 unique types of quests in the entire game. And even those differences are minor, as the whole impetus of the game seems to be: shoot, loot (and customize here and there). For the first time, last night I played a few quests and thought to myself "didn't I do this exact task in this exact area for a quest already?" I'm about 18 hours into the game.

I get that this is a genre, but this is my first experience with it and being a BioWare game, I expected certain things. Like the narrative being more cohesive instead of being limited to the game design and more depth than shoot/loot. Perhaps my expectations were erroneous.

I'm still having fun with it and I'm glad I got it, but wtf was BioWare working on for 6+ years?! There is just no depth to the game. Obviously a lot of resources went into crafting the world and getting flying feeling good. But are those two items enough for the game to stand on its own? I don't think so, and neither do most reviews. Some of the NPC writing is very good and funny, but some of it's pretty cliche and bad too.

I hope BioWare turns this into something a bit deeper, otherwise I can't see myself habitually playing past the main story. Still think it's worth it from a value standpoint since it will be at least 40 hours of content, but there's a lot of potential here that's squandered. And I can't help but feel it's due to the "live service" shenanigans. A basic rule of creating media that has story telling is create the story first, then design the mechanics. BioWare has done the opposite, they designed a game and then shoved a story into it.

And yeah, I saw that 8 minute video the other day. What a shame.

10 hours ago, Dazey said:

I’ve got iPlayer working on Nord VPN by deleting cookies, cache etc and restarting (Chrome) browser. Can be temperamental but does seem to work. 

Aren't you in the UK? 

Odd, I do have Nord VPN and the BBC's site was wise to it. Will try a few more things.

I'm really not liking Anthem's MTX scheme/store. While the items are genuinely cosmetic only, they only put 3-4 things in the store at a time and rotate them in and out. Apparently it's a marketing technique. But what's actually a bit annoying is how the MTX store is presented in game. There are two fully voiced NPCs about 10 feet from each other whose sole purpose is to draw up enthusiasm for the MTX store via their dialogue, and of course let the player access the store through them. BioWare has literally turned the MTX store into a character. These NPCs hand out no quests - one of them just likes to talk about "looking good and bringing the thunder," but the other is a pretty fleshed out character that tells you stories, makes jokes, and (not so) subtly plugs the MTX store at the end of every dialogue with them. But neither hand out quests and neither forward main or side narratives in any manner, they're solely digital salespeople.

Identifying common ground with your customer and establishing a warm relationship/entertaining them before you bring up the sale is marketing 101, and while I have no qualms about that strategy in real life, it feels pretty scummy to be put into a game in such a fleshed out manner, especially for a AAA game that has literally nothing for you to do except shoot, loot, rinse/repeat.

Is this a common method? I've never encountered something like this before, with this level of detail dedicated to the MTX store in game.

EDIT: I remember AC: Odyssey had something a bit similar in game. That game had an awful MTX scheme that was not cosmetic only. To be fair to Anthem, you can acquire the MTX currency at a decent rate compared to AC:OD. But since Anthem is so one dimensional (not that AC:OD was terribly deep, but it's basically Skyrim compared to Anthem) this really feels over the top.

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

First episodes on iplayer, just a heads up.

UK only and a VPN won't work. :/

I'll have to sail the treacherous seas of the web, will just need to avoid the British Navy!

Izzy wants to be a partner, or at least compensated to roughly the same degree as Slash/Duff. But Richard reliably has his spot, so GNR feels no need to meet Izzy's demands. From a business standpoint, it makes total sense. From a human and fan standpoint, it's a major disappointment.

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

About Slash, I wasn't too keen on Living the Dream but love World On Fire. World On Fire has Slash going into different areas and there is a genuine feeling of the band finding their own identity. And this Duff song might not be much but it is a bloody masterpiece if you go and listen to the new Crue song. If you want a laugh have a listen to the new Crue number on youtube. My ears! 

The new Crue song would be a lot better with a singer on it. Instead, they used Vince Neil. I think it's OK. Although, I generally don't include lyrical content in my appraisal of music, so I can understand finding this song to be pretty terrible if you do pay attention to lyrics.

18 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

@OmarBradley here is the quote from Axl about the other album being done:

"We recorded a lot of things before Chinese was out. We’ve worked more on some of those things and we’ve written a few new things. But basically, we have what I call kind of the second half of Chinese. That’s already recorded. And then we have a remix album made of the songs from Chinese. That’s been done for a while, too."

I know he only says "That's already recorded" but he says the remix album is "done too" which I assume means the CD2 album is basically "done" (mixed/mastered/etc). And that was in 2014.

 

As far as The General there's a terrible quality cellphone recording of it being played at an after-party, and there's a fan-made 'remix' based on that. But we've never really heard the actual song.

I remember that The General clip, just sounded like a noisy crowd to me.

Regarding that quote, it is not terribly inspiring that there is completed material just sitting in a vault and ready to hit the shelves. Remixes of CD are nice, but that doesn't count as a new album and I don't see why the fact that a remix album is "done" leads you to believe the "what I call kind of the second half of Chinese" is also done. A remix album generally requires very little re-recording work, if any. It's basically a sound engineer or two sitting at a computer and control desk moving knobs and clicking buttons, maybe a producer/Axl checks in every now and then. The process of compiling a new record of new material is not as streamlined and requires a lot more work, even after initial recording is done - which Axl implies is the stage it was at in ~2014, at least that's how I interpret what he's saying.

On 2/22/2019 at 6:33 PM, Silent Jay said:

Who wants Newnew ?

Living the Dream was the worst album Slash ever done and Duff just released a song so terrible it makes me wonder if I appreciate So Fine.

The Slash album was a surprise. He went several steps backwards and I agree it's probably his worst post-GNR release. And yeah that Duff song made me lol a bit. But Slash is capable of writing interesting things recently(ish). Only after the GNR tour and the massive paycheck has his material diminished in quality. Are the two related? Hard to say. We just don't know enough about what these individual actors' motives are to do anything more than speculate. I suppose that's what forums are for, but if GNR wasn't so damn cryptic and quiet the fans wouldn't resort to circular discussions about the same several topics.

On 2/22/2019 at 7:29 PM, Gibson_Guy87 said:

Soul Monster

Thyme (Tyme?)

Seven

Checkmate/Jackie Chan

The General

Atlas Shrugged

That'd be a pretty killer track list, plus whatever Axl has that we don't know about

Aside from a 15 second clip of Jackie Chan (which I actually liked a lot!), have we actually heard any of this stuff? Why would this be a killer track list?

8 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Fair enough lol. But, we know there's at least one finished album of material sitting in the vault - throw Slash and Duff on it and there's 1 new album without a ton of work. It's not impossible to think they'd keep 3-4 CD songs, work on some new songs and record a few covers for a final NITL record (AKA, not CD 2).

Do we? I've heard rumors, is there evidence of this? I remember Bach said something about three albums, but I don't recall anything else. It's quite possible I missed this as I didn't follow the CD saga too closely. But if he has a finished album sitting in the vault, why isn't it released?

I'm not a professional musician, but I've been involved in some semi professional things and I know people in the industry (not rockstars, just regular musicians). It's just not common to record and compile finished albums without releasing them, to then just sit on them for a decade(s). Axl may have 50 demo WAVs sitting in his studio, but that doesn't = a finished album. We don't know how many songs are finished, how many Axl feels are ready, how many a producer feels are ready, how many are actual full arrangements vs. how many are an amalgamation of parts, how many are stylistically appropriate for Slash/Duff, etc. We don't even really know what kind of record Axl wants to make. He did CD and maybe he got that out of his system? Or maybe he didn't? We have no idea. Those among us expecting CD 2.0 may be disappointed. Like all people, Axl has changed over time. 

That being said, GNR is often an anomaly, so for all I know there are literally 3 sealed records sitting in his closet that sound exactly like CD.

But personally, I think there is far less completed and organized material in Axl's studio than the fanbase has been led to believe. And if there were genuinely 3 albums worth of songs to choose from for CD, that's not terribly reassuring that the material that didn't make CD is that great. Because while a lot of CD is very good, a lot of it is just fine too. Hardcore fans may love the album and every note on it, but that sentiment is not reflected outside of these communities. I'd also be concerned if the reason for CD omitting the majority of what Axl worked on was "the material isn't ready yet." That attitude is so counter-productive to writing. That is the attitude that leads to overproduction, long gaps between releases, and releases that are lackluster. Not saying CD is bad, but is it the masterpiece Axl wanted it to be? No, not to anyone aside from a handful of people on GNR forums.

Another major point to consider: the audience for a GNR album has shifted with the reunion. Releasing something CDesque right now would likely be met with criticism, aside from hardcore and/or staunchly pro-NuGNR communities. In 2008, hardcore fans cared about CD, but there wasn't significant public interest in the album. But now, Slash is back, Duff is back, and they just completed one of the longest and most profitable tours in history. GNR has a lot more attention on it in 2019 that it did in 2008.

50 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

This.

+ with only having seen working titles, we'll have no idea if they were new or old songs.

++ If you don't want "big guns" like "The General" finished with Duff and Slash, how are you even a fan?  Why in the world would you want to deprive yourself or the world from that?

+++ It wouldn't be all that different from Don't Cry, or November Rain "leftovers" from the AFD days did that make them garbage?

++++ Axl wrote Estranged and then Had Slash the guitar part, kind of EXACTLY what would happen with the "Big guns" from CDII.  Was Estranged garbage?

+++++ The pre-release bitching is that an album "will blow because they aren't young and will sing about raising kids and milk of magnesia. ... But also we fucking hate it if it was written a few years ago when they were still fucking." 

Fuck me.  Just fucking be happy, crazy ass GnR fans.

Have we heard The General? All I remember about that song is it's supposedly about Tommy Stinson? I don't even know if that's correct. 

I think this old songs vs. new songs debate here is missing one major item: Izzy. I don't think GNR will ever sound like classic GNR without Izzy. Slash's and Duff's presence will help, and while you can hear traces of GNR on Slash's records, it was the combination of these guys that made that sound in the late 80s/early 90s. 

And we talked a bit about this in another thread, but Axl songs (NR, Estranged, Catcher, Prostitute, TIL) are almost always going to sound like Axl songs. It's the non-ballads and the rockers that significantly differ between AFD/UYI and CD. And while those Axl songs are good, the meat of GNR (to me at least) are the quick rockers and the lengthier guitar-based tracks like Locomotive, Breakdown, Don't Damn Me, Back off Bitch, etc..

I'd be interested in hearing Slash's take on the CD stuff, but I'd prefer Axl wipe the slate clean and write carte blanche.

_____

I have a specific question. To what degree is Axl involved in the writing of music? We know he has some basic proficiency on guitar and he's a solid pianist. But did he come up with the guitar/bass parts and leading melodies on CD? Did he tell Bucket, "Hey, play something that sounds like <insert something here>"? Does he just show up with a set of lyrics and give the musicians a general direction? 

There's a lot of talk about "Axl's working on things" and "Axl has material that needs work," but what is he literally doing? Is he setting up SM57s and ribbon mics and recording demo guitar parts? Is he playing with graphic EQ VST plugins? Is he cutting audio files to move Verse B before the Bridge and then doubling the length of Chorus C? 

Do we know what the writing process is for him/Guns circa 1996 - 2015?

42 minutes ago, Download said:

.. but i was at the 5/12 show. I didn’t make it to the 5/17 show.

We missed each other by just 5 days then... what odds.