Disney should have known to create an overall writer/producer for the sequels; they had done it Marvel and the thing that set Star Wars above other sci-fi was Lucas creating a deep universe for the stories to exist in.
Abrams was a shitty choice to control writing of VII; he basically made a Star Wars fan film and reset a lot of VI to keep the same kind of conflict as the original series. Johnson had some interesting ideas, but he broke a lot of previous world building for VIII, like the Resistance militia leaders keeping their plan a secret and the kamekaze ship. Then, somehow, Abrams returned.
It says something that, while the prequels aren't seen as good as the original series, they still resonate in a way that the sequels haven't. A lot of that can be attributed to why Lucas was a great producer.
It is a game based on playing with others to the point where you are supposed to create organizational structures to play the full content of the game.
To use WoW as an example shows that this is just a pricing issue instead of a supply issue for them.
The problem is that Rockstar is trying to make a new engine with modern graphics, when the industry has been moving away from the cutting edge because of costs.
The development of standards doesn't have to be seen as capitalist, though. There are benefits for non-capitalist economies to define standards as a way to achieve interoperability across different devices. For instance, I don't see why a communist country wouldn't standardize a power plug.
I look at the Suez Crisis more as a symbol of the shift in power. Maybe there is an example out there, but I can't think of a similar humiliation that the UK had to deal with regarding having to pull out of a diplomatic crisis by the threat of a single ally/power since the Concert of Europe was implemented.
There is a lot to talk about regarding imperial powers in the Middle East, but I'm focusing more on the idea where power shifted from the UK to the USA.
I feel like WoW is a bad example because the game's business model is the subscription. It is being sold as a service which Blizzard actively manages. I'd accept the argument for the Diablo series, since Diablo is designed for single player and small servers.
But as a counterargument, why aren't more games open source? What is it about gaming where open source gaming is so small compared closed source, while it isn't like that with other forms of software?
cementing the US as Israel's main backer, and destroying what good will remained for France and Britain in the Middle East.
I'm going to quibble with this line.
It isn't like the Suez Crisis made the USA Israel's main backer, but that Israel realized it needed the USA rather than the UK or France. Israel had to invest a lot in shaping American foreign policy to benefit it.
Second, it isn't like the UK and France had goodwill in the Middle East. Instead, this was the major rejection of the two imperial powers which diminished their role in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. From that point on, other nations and political groups in the Middle East knew that the USA had a credible veto on British and French imperial action in the area.
While everyone is talking about World War II, it is kind of important to discuss what led the USA to become capable of taking over.
First, the USA was a giant as a successor nation to American colonization. It had significant natural resources, a relatively easily navigable interior, and a budding industrial sector. Unlike Spanish colonies, the USA had pretty good national institutions where wealth could be created.
After the War of 1812, the UK had already shifted its strategic approach to the USA. The UK would allow the USA to be a local hegemon as long as the USA respected existing British colonial claims. This led to the Monroe Doctrine, partially enforced by the UK. There were also a lot of cases where the UK chose not to press claims to antagonize the USA. This included a peaceful solution to the Oregon Territory crisis and not participating in the French invasion of Mexico.
The USA was considered to be a rising great power by the end of the 19th century, including destroying the remnants of the Spanish Empire. Many nations recognized that the USA benefited from the same geographical features that the UK did, with the homeland being far removed from any other competing power.
The USA could have credibly become the leading great power after World War I had the USA not chosen to go into isolation after the war. By then, it was apparent that the USA had a military and economy to be a major international player, but the US Republican Party didn't want to agree to the international commitments.
So, by the end of World War II, the USA was already the preminent economic power for at least a generation. The USA was then able to build a military capable of fighting a two front war while supplying many of its allies in the war. Meanwhile, the UK was seeing its empire fall apart and knew it couldn't afford to be the international leader. Choosing between the USA and USSR, the UK chose the USA.
That might be true of you, but that likely isn't true for a lot of people. I can see a lot of people blanking out over the chemical that have everyone cancer in that movie.
They mentioned her because people probably remember what the chemical did and major settlement from the pollution as to why this chemical release is so important.
They would be if they were good.
Disney should have known to create an overall writer/producer for the sequels; they had done it Marvel and the thing that set Star Wars above other sci-fi was Lucas creating a deep universe for the stories to exist in.
Abrams was a shitty choice to control writing of VII; he basically made a Star Wars fan film and reset a lot of VI to keep the same kind of conflict as the original series. Johnson had some interesting ideas, but he broke a lot of previous world building for VIII, like the Resistance militia leaders keeping their plan a secret and the kamekaze ship. Then, somehow, Abrams returned.
It says something that, while the prequels aren't seen as good as the original series, they still resonate in a way that the sequels haven't. A lot of that can be attributed to why Lucas was a great producer.