₦airaland Forum

Illusioneffect:
Let's see about that. I actually have two youtube accounts - One is very liberal and one is conservative - so i get to see the two sides of the stories; even 30% of the left are saying it was too much not to talk of conservatives that were deceived. It has a queer character - so it wont be showing in the Middle East - Indians are already leaving the theatres in droves - Don't even say anything about the Chinese - no one there cares about Barbie

You're mistaken. There are some people who care, but not many. The controversial nine dash line map was initially present in the film, which is why it was permitted to be screened in china. China uses the map to assert its sovereignty over a sizable portion of the south China sea, but other nations like Vietnam contest this claim. I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't say for sure, but if it's as dangerously woke as you claim and contains LGBTQ themes, then this symbolic gesture to demonstrate China's sovereignty allowed the film to avoid Chinese censorship.

Although, according to the movie's producers at Warner Bros, this was not their original intention and the map was just a crude crayon drawing. In my opinion, this merely shows one of the various ways in which one may elude Chinese censorship. The film has earned $182 million internationally as of this writing. Just 4.4% of the global gross is contributed by China. On average, 13–28% of the international box office gross for a successful Warner Bros. film is generated in China. In fact, it was recently reported that a sizable $17 million of each $100 million in international revenue their movies generate came from China.

You will discover that the movie is performing significantly worse than average if you compare those figures to what we currently have. Although they managed to get past the censorship, it appears that a considerable contingent of Chinese citizens are not particularly interested in what they have to offer, but let's hope for the best. In China, one out of every four theaters typically screens a Warner Bros. film, but this year, only about 10 percent are showing Barbie, representing a decline of about 15%. However it's noteworthy to remember that Barbie won't need to do well in China or Vietnam in order to meet its box office targets. It appears to be doing incredibly well with others, not having a monster budget sure helped.

forke:
Guys please help me with link to download sounds freedom movie 🙏

It hasn't been released on digital platforms yet.

I'm assuming they'll find a way to make Gal Gadot look absolutely horrifying, because I can't picture a movie where Gal is envious of Rachel.

Born2Freak:
Wow. See àsslicking on another level. The link is there for anyone to see. Even the following comments after that one showed that he actually wanted to see me.


So many clowns on Nairaland

The only thing I could find when I visited the link was you spouting off your stúpid viewpoints all over the place. He started to wonder who might be behind the keyboard because of your excessive display of buffoonery. The fact that you think this gives you some kind of relevance or influence three years later just proves that you are a bigger clown than I thought you were.

IngeniousLeez:
Lmao, is this the begging to meet you??
You can't even smell the sarcasm with my trademark laughing emoji.

This guy is a stupid CLOWN. 😂😂😂

Remind me to never take you seriously again. So that's me being a fanboy. Your megalomania is really unique.

When you think that guy can't possibly get any worse, he breaks new records to prove otherwise. He's idiocy is so prevalent now that it's unbelievable. What is going on inside his head is beyond my ability to understand.

Kaycee7:
I'm not ignoring budget analysis. If falls back to the whole "pushing an agenda" accusation. Most movies all have an agenda to push. Top Gun: Maverick with a $300m budget wasn't even allowed to play in China. While The Little Mermaid was allowed to play even if it ended up not doing well there.
Was Maverick more woke than TLM?
How come Black Panther with all its wokeness did very well in China?

Nobody's asking for large budgets to express their cultural differences. What does this even mean?

Again, yes, there are Hollywood movies that were banned in China because they were "woke". But then there are also "woke" Hollywood movies that aired and even did successfully in China. Meanwhile there's non-woke Hollywood movies that were also banned or flopped in China and the international market.

The "wokeness" allegations are never sticking, bruv. They'll just remain a YouTube/blog market until people eventually get tired of it.

First off, the production budget for Top Gun: Maverick was between $170 and $177 million, and information about its marketing budget is scattered all over the place. Some put the figure at $100 million, others at $125 million, and still others say more without providing any figures. I'd say this leaves its actual budget between $270 million and $302 million. This budget range does not correspond to or exceed the monster budget that I have previously mentioned in any of my posts. Due to the Taiwan flag patch on Tom Cruise's jacket in the film, Top Gun was outlawed in China.

This was edited out of the film's trailers during it's marketing campaign but they failed to remove it in the final cut of the film. Putting Top Gun side by side with The Little Mermaid won't help you in this case because Top Gun received overwhelmingly positive domestic reception whereas The Little Mermaid had a lackluster domestic theatrical run. In addition, only 1% of Chinese theaters played The Little Mermaid during its opening weekend. If not for the fact that the first Black Panther movie wasn't exactly woke to begin with, your example with that movie would have been valid.

Due to the film's predominately African setting, the majority of its cast members were black. The portrayal of a powerful black, male African leader in the movie did not pose a threat to the Chinese leadership. Additionally, its message of black male empowerment adhered to the regulations set forth by the Chinese government. A strong black female lead, more female cast members, and even a brief LGBTQ propaganda scene were all present in the sequel, which was the textbook definition of woke. It was consequently banned in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and China.

Just be aware that you haven't provided any instances of woke films or LGBTQ-themed films that have triumphed despite all odds and gained popularity in places like China or other middle eastern countries that adhere to heavy censorships. Anyways, it appears that we have reached a consensus where we can both choose to disagree. I won't lie; this conversation has given me some new insights.

abduleez1:
I don't really think The Little Mermaid would have appealed to China woke or not.
Barbie is premium flopping over there also, but the Pink Doll Princess doesn't need the Middle Kingdom's money. 🌚

Right, you get my point. China and Vietnam can go kick rocks, although more income wouldn't be a bad idea. Also, we can't know for sure what might have happened with The Little Mermaid, but I believe it might have done better there if they hadn't changed the plot and toned down their political messages.

Kaycee7:
China has also disallowed movies that were not woke from being shown at all in the country so can't also attribute that to wokeness. Cultural differences will always clash in filmmaking. Studios will always pander to the home market first. Chinese films pander to the Chinese first. Can't expect American films to not be created with an American audience in mind first.

One of the first major things creators are taught is to create for a singular audience or a single person cos if you try to create a story for everyone, you usually end up creating a story for no one.

The Chinese will never like all Hollywood movies and there's really nothing Hollywood can do about that. They can't really be expected to change themselves for China

How audacious of you to ignore budget analysis in your post about expressing cultural preferences. Well, if you're going to make movies with only domestic audiences in mind, you better make money while you're at it because without money, you won't be able to express your cultural preferences. You obviously missed the part where I mentioned making a movie with an approximate $350 million total budget or more, but allow me to clarify things for you now.

Everything falls within a range. When working with a moderate budget, it may be safe to produce films with specific social or political messages but not with a huge one. This is because you stand to lose if the domestic financial contribution and weak international revenue are insufficient to turn a profit. Your investors will pull the plug if you consistently ask for large budgets to express your cultural preferences and those films consistently turn a loss.

No matter how imaginative or culturally appealing your ideas may be, they will be thrown in the trash because no one has any money to throw into a wormhole. Consider the Sound of Freedom for example. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this movie. It had a strong domestic theatrical run, and only made about $1 internationally but the movie is still regarded as a success due to its very modest budget. You should probably research about how Hollywood movie censorship in Asian nations has impacted the diversity of Hollywood films and the freedom of expression in the film industry by making various creators to adopt self censorship.

It's a major issue, and I am not surprised by it given the fact that everyone wants to succeed financially. It all comes down to editing your work to improve your chances of engagement from a larger audience and thereby increase your potential financial gain. The majority of comic book movies and other movies in general are known to undergo multiple edits to lessen the gore in their movies so that viewers between the ages of 13 and 17 can also watch them. The likelihood of making more money is increased by this. The number of major Hollywood films that were either banned or received little to no box office receipts in nations like China and other Asian nations because they were "woke" or contained LGBTQ scenes is reportedly quite high, but I really can't tell you the exact percentage.

Kaycee7:
Alright. Fair enough.

Failure can never be attributed to wokeness. If it could, there'd be no successful woke movies like Little Women, Enola Holmes or Call Me by Your Name and woke series like The Sandman and Wednesday.

The anti-woke crowd just jumps on badly written movies and claims it failed because of woke agenda. That's like claiming Black Adam flopped because it was pushing toxic masculinity agenda.

Perhaps you're right, and I'll reconsider some of the woke movies I've previously skipped. However, if you approach it from a financial perspective, you'll see why I take wokeness into account when estimating box office revenue for high-budget woke remakes. A glaring example that supports the thesis is China's decision to forgo financial support for The Little Mermaid due to political reasons, as they have with a few other woke remakes. As is well known, China is a significant source of revenue for the global box office.

The average box office revenue of comic book movies today demonstrates their influence. The Little Mermaid is now left to make due with the remaining contributors, some of whom will still decline to partake due to politics. It only makes sense to play all of your cards when entering the market with a total budget of $350 million or more to increase your chances of earning a profit at the box office.

Kaycee7:
You pointed out the Collider. I've now provided a post where the Collider said the movie broke even.
But because it doesn't suit your agenda, you now want me to dig deep until I discover crude oil.
Every report puts The Little Mermaid's break even point between $500m to 600m. At $600m, they have $44m left that they can easily get and surpass from the digital release.

Funny how when The Little Mermaid struggled at the box office, you claimed it was because of wokeness. But when Mission Impossible 7 failed to meet opening weekend projections, you suddenly realized that the box office has been volatile this year.

Everybody go dey alright las las sha.

Anyways until you can provide proof for your claims, desist from yarning okoto about TLM

Okay, I see it now. The reports you are reading, including this one below, anticipate that the movie will also bring in hundreds of millions of dollars from other sources of revenue in addition to the projected $500–$600 million. This merely supports my earlier assertion that the film must gross $780 million in order for Disney to consider turning a profit. They simply hope to accomplish that through other methods of generating income because their theatrical run was unsuccessful.

The argument I'm attempting to make is that the film is a box office dud because it failed to bring in enough revenue to actually break even or make a profit. It is not my intention for you to find crude oil when I ask you to conduct additional research. The crude oil is already visible to anyone who has a basic understanding of how these things work. You obviously don't know anything about these topics, which is why I asked you to do some research before speaking.

Additionally, I already earned my L for Mission Impossible, so why are you bringing up its box office earnings now? When predicting the box office revenue for a remake, taking wokeness or progression into account is nothing new. Many individuals appear to be doing that at the moment with the new Snow White movie they are working on. I know I can't always get it right but some of their previous box office failures can definitely be attributed to their wokeness.

Kaycee7:
Peep the lînk

That is why I advised you to conduct research into the statistics and numbers, and make your own calculations. I have previously addressed the woke clowns in the mainstream media who are trying to portray a false picture of its success. How in the world can a movie with a $250 million production budget and a projected $140 million marketing budget need $500 million to not only break even but be deemed a success?

That's like saying they get to keep all of the movie's theatrical earnings, so cinemas all over the world now show Disney movies for free. You should learn more about how these things operate and dig deep into them before talking.

Kaycee7:
You know how we do here bruh. Let's see some valid references for this. Otherwise na okoto you dey yarn

I'm unable to post links here; I use @Collider, @Boxofficemojo, and @TheHollywoodReporter to get statistics. Make the calculations yourself to determine what the results indicate.

abduleez1:
Calm your tits bruh... I'm quite aware it would need $750mn to get into profit territory and around over $600mn break even point.

The point is, y'all said it would flop. Instead, this ain't a flop if it gets into $600mn worldwide.
It's more or less a disappointment and nothing close to an outright flop.


And trust me, if that film earns a little above $600mn at the box office, it's definitely turning a profit with the secondary market with digital, DVD sales, syndication and merchandise.
This is the way Hollywood theatrical release makes their money and not wholly on Box office.
It just needs to break even or get very close to at the box office now.

First of all, stop moving the goalposts. You know, whenever we talk about movies flopping and such, we always refer to their box office revenue. Attempting to manipulate the situation by including merchandise sales and other factors is not a good idea at this point. The little mermaid has earned $555 million worldwide as of this writing. Internationally, it has made $260 million, and domestically, $295 million.

I took into account the companies' negotiations in my earlier post because they typically keep about 52 percent of the domestic gross and 42 percent of the international box office revenue. 52 percent of 295 is 153, while 42 percent of 260 is 109. There are approximately $127 million in losses when you add the two and take the sum out of the estimated total budget (for production and marketing). If you think that isn't looking like a flop, then explain to me what you consider to be a flop.

Not to mention, it will be available for purchase starting on July 25—just three days from now—on digital platforms like Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu, and Google Play, among others. I don't know why we are still stressing this; just take your L quietly, and let's end this discussion right here.

Kaycee7:
He no post again because agenda no agend. If to say the movie bomb, e for no gree anybody hear word. Na daily screenshots we for dey see

Baddestguyp:
àsslicker don come do his work as usual

Kaycee7 is actually a clown for diving right in to deliver a stûpid take without pausing to look up the numbers we're using here, all because he wants to pick on someone. Disney may have lost between $100 and 113 million on the project. It flopped, end of story.

Baddestguyp:
I don't care about the movie lol
Let it make a billion, I couldn't care any less

It will be accessible for streaming starting on July 25th, so it's not even getting close to a billion. Without a doubt, Disney receives a failing grade here. From the beginning, the little mermaid was destined to fail.

abduleez1:


Copium....

Throwing tantrums before even claiming the victory is such an "abduleez" thing to do. Remember that the Little Mermaid cost $250 million to make. Even if you were to disregard its estimated $140 million marketing budget and multiply the production budget by 2.5 or 3, you would still have a break-even point of $625 million or $750 million. Depending on how they negotiate, the little mermaid must reach $780–$800 million in order to turn a profit. It will never be successful because of this.

Disney is the only company capable of the level of sheer stupidity displayed by spending an estimated $390–400 million on a woke remake when a sizable portion of box office contributors are conservatives or leaning in that direction. Anyone who is familiar with the figures utilized in the production of this film is aware that it is a poor business decision. If they don't spend reasonably on that new off white and the seven diversity hires they are making, the same thing will happen to them once more.

luminouz:
Deleting her number showed he reacted and that means she won. Just ignore... If only you know how it drives them mad ehn... Women thrive on attention. It's their oxygen. Just deprive them of it and they lose their power

Well said, my man. It appears that this is the first test he's facing in the relationship. How he is treated moving forward will depend on the outcome of this test.

abduleez1:
Don't be a fool bro.... The only place you people have mouth competing with DC are in "Technical Awards".

I'd like to see you peeps come up with major categories in Oscars or Emmy's..... I'm waiting.

It's good that you're bringing up the Oscars and Emmys once more. Are they no longer biased towards DC in those cases? This is the obvious expression of stupidity I was talking about earlier: claiming that the awards are biased because the MCU wins in a particular category while DC wins in other categories. Sit this one out and stop making noise; the MCU takes the cake here.

MJBOLT:

The only thing I see here is cope sprinkled with cap.

All of a sudden,The Oscars are now biased because the argument doesn't favor you.
Man of Steel CGI was so good that it couldn't get a nomination ,let's compare Aquaman CGI to GOTG V1,2&3,Dr Strange,Thor Ragnarok,it's a shame you could only mention three DC movies meanwhile there's over 11 MCU movies in my screenshot.

Outside of the MCU

Spiderman 2 won best visual effects at the Oscars,Saturn awards and 3 awards at the visual effects society awards.


X men:DOFP got nominated for best visual effects at the Oscars, British academy awards,AACTA awards and won 2 awards at the visual effects society awards.

Into the Spider verse won 4 Visual effects society awards.

You've got this, bro. I was about to contribute, but I'll step aside and let you roast the fóol in peace. He's making a lot of claims and inferences right now without any supporting data or evidence what so ever, which is a glaring example of how irrational DC retàrds can be.

The Oscars and other accolades should no longer be used as a point of comparison because they do not support DC in this situation. In one of our previous arguments, when he brought up the Oscars and Emmys, I chose to walk away rather than try to condense so much fôolishness into one post.

MJBOLT:

On today's episode of "Don't be a simp"

She's clearly tired of being the man in the relationship. Women will never be happy in the long run with a sad excuse for a man, no matter how hard they try to market this idiocy. Feminists are free to come out and say whatever they want, but there is a reason why we constantly urge men to keep women on their toes and to make it clear that they are capable of losing them at any moment.

What a shame this guy turned out to be, considering he had money and royalty at his disposal. You can't keep a woman by caving to her whims, biology is designed to work the other way around—she is meant to be in the man's frame. A million years of wokeness won't alter biology.

IngeniousLeez:
$550-650mn?? Chaiii... On top $290mn budget. This one dey fight to break even from day one. 😢
The L go touch everybody....

Me too I was premium shocked with what I saw... I guess the writing was on the wall already but ppl wan dey lie to themselves. I've always wondered few weeks before it released why was it around $90mn for a 5-day opening weekend and Barbie was initially $90+mn for 3-day opening weekend then.

Where the problem comes for this movie isn't this gross now sef, it's legs that's the Koko. It's the history of the franchise having great legs that's still giving some analysts hope. With stats I've seen, this might not hold up especially after I saw IMAX and PLF screens having 37% of the domestic gross. That's huge man, and Chris Nolan is coming for those screens this week.


Yes, what this 2023 erratic BO has told us is that audience are not that enthusiastic as before to go out enmasse and watch movies. You must bring something different and enticing to push them out.
The economy and global inflation isn't even helping matters at all.

The Flash thought me serious lesson, cos even if that movie was to flop, I didn't see it struggling for $450mn. I saw the worst Flash can do despite Ezra Miller was $500-600mn. But na premium L I chop.



Either way, the theatre owners and the audience are the ones winning big this year. This cinema owners, some might be eating their last supper cos what is coming to hit them next year if this ongoing impasse between WGA & SAG-AFRA vs Studios keeps on going, it's over for some.
The delays and release date push back could likely match COVID induced shutdown. And this time no government support will be received.

I'd say everyone should keep a close eye on their budget moving forward. Anyone with a movie production budget of more than $150 million should pray for their film. I wish the best for others who have finished filming or have nearly wrapped up. I was truly surprised by Barbie's success. That might end up being the biggest L I receive this year.

Opening up to over $90 million in North America is no joke, I was taken aback to learn that Cinemark and AMC Entertainment added 3500 new screens to meet demand. I don't believe there is anything preventing it from being a success with that production budget. I'm not frightened of the families who might be turned off by the film. The movie doesn't have to adopt Super Mario's style, there is already enough nostalgia to satisfy every true fan.

I wish I could simply refute your assertion that some movie theater owners might be having their last meals; after all, the movie business has shown itself to be a very resilient one. Unfortunately, I don't believe they've ever had to deal with a three-way challenge like this. It's not just about the strike because those people can settle at any time. I'm not sure if they can come up with a solution to the issue of the recent economic downturn and the apathy from general audience.

Not to mention, streaming services are starting to gain ground. If the cost of streaming were to drop, the economy might cause a large portion of the general audience to switch. I'm not surprised that some films that didn't do well at the box office went on to set, break, or equal streaming records. The cinema industry is currently dealing with a number of difficulties, but in the past it has shown itself to be resilient. Just let's hope that the sector will keep thriving in the years to come by continuing to adapt to new challenges. The future is very uncertain.

IngeniousLeez:
Lol, don't get ahead of yourself....

This is never getting close to $1bn or even $900mn sef. It's safest bet is around $700-750mn.
It has mad competition this summer with Barbie and Oppenheimer. And Barbie is overperforming that theatres can't keep up with demand and adding more screens to it.

It had great opening overseas but it's US domestic opening is an underperformance. Hitting just $80mn in a 5-day opening weekend is weak. Especially when you consider all the IMAX and PLF screens it's hoarding. Industry projected $90mn.

Good worldwide gross tho.... It'd have great legs I presume, as is normal for the MI franchise.

On Mission Impossible 7, everyone, including myself, is taking an L. I just double-checked and discovered that one of my sources has revised their estimates for the film's theatrical run to a range of $550 million to $650 million. These were the same people who had estimated that it would gross at least $800 million. I don't know what's going on because the movie seemed to be succeeding in every way. My sole conclusion is that people are not going to the movies as frequently as they once did and that the box office is very erratic this year.

pryme:
If you are the type that likes watching or listening to long Podcast you can watch this interview from Tim Pool with the man himself (Tim Ballard) and the Producer of the movie, hearing the story from him himself was just as good as it's gets, one of the interesting Part was they had to go to filming location with 30 ex Navy Seals because Jim Caveizel's wife will not allow her husband go near Colombia because of safety concerns, THEN SOME OF THE NAVY SEALS LEFT THE FILMING LOCATION TO BUST A TRAFFICKING RING.

I really recommend you watch this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/live/UK3NWozQXdY?feature=share

It's a little over 2hrs long

Thanks for the recommendation, will watch this later.

Illusioneffect:
No plot holes whatsoever, yo the movie even has a 100% audience approval rating in rotten tomatoes after 10,000 ratings. They just called it a Qnon conspiracy - a movie about child sex trafficking 🤦🏽‍♂️, it was the same Rolling Stones that called the Netflix movie 'Cuties' a misunderstood movie, movie were 7 year old girls were touching themselves sexually 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

I've always known I can't depend on some major mainstream media outlets to report the truth when it comes to certain topics. Similar to how most critic's movie reviews can't always be trusted. When advancing an agenda, they ditch credibility. I've read enough reviews on Facebook and observed audience feedback to conclude that this is a quality film.

When I read the comments under that CNN video, I simply thought that everything seemed a little strange. The speaker in attendance makes the claim that the film uses excessively exaggerated statistics and feeds conspiracy theories. He explains to the anchor that they attempt to make child sex trafficking appear more widespread than it actually is. Isn't one child already too many, one might then ask.

Let's then explore the QAnon hoax. What do its adherents claim that is so absurd and unbelievable? It's just a theory that there is a sizable underground child trafficking ring, many elites are involved in it and that children are used for all sorts of things. Why won't so many people believe it after what happened with Jeffery Epstein? Remember they told us that Epstein was part of a larger child trafficking ring and many of his associates have not been apprehended.

I'm just happy that people are showing up to support the project; the box office results are fantastic. The protection of children is the issue here, not left wing or right wing. Parents with kids who aspire to be famous in Hollywood should keep a close eye on those kids. Promises are what pedophiles in high places use to lure kids.

Illusioneffect:
Rolling Stones and leftist magazines helped promote the movie by calling it a movie for dad with brain worms.
I think America is beginning to wake up and watch what really matters

I didn't read Rolling Stone's review because they frequently include spoilers in their articles. But I'm just curious, did they at least manage to point out a few plot holes or a problem with the script? I ask because trying to discredit a film that examines the issue of child trafficking and is based on real events is not a good look for anyone.

Wait, so there is an ultimate edition of Batman VS Superman that I was unaware of, and it has a higher audience rating than the theatrical release. I don't blame myself, though, because I did give up after watching the movie in theaters. Let me watch this extended 3-hour version; I have a hunch that it will end up being a similar case like ZSLJ.

pryme:
Where you able to see this movie?

Illusioneffect:
You've watched it👀??

abduleez1:
This movie is one over performer at the box office.

Where you see this one watch? Cos I know say e no Fit dey Naija Cinema.

While browsing YouTube reels, I came across a video of a CNN anchor and a guest criticizing the movie, but I haven't seen it yet. I was unable to locate it under showtime, I'll have to wait till this one hits the high seas. I have since read about
QAnon and related topics. The left wing has worked very hard to connect the movie to conspiracies and discredit its message; some of those people have seriously lost it.

exotique1fy:
The bomb was not necessary. The people targeted were not at the war front, they were civilians far away from the field of action. It was utterly wicked to use not one but two atomic bombs on a civilian population. Pearl Harbour was a military installation and fair game, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not.

You're quite mistaken, though. First of all, regardless of the end result, there were always going to be casualties. I do not condone those casualties, but we still need to understand that war is purely a "kill or be killed" situation. The purpose of using those bombs was to force a surrender and put an end to the war once and for all because the Japanese were planning to invade, which would have prolonged it and resulted in more bloodshed on their own side.

Second, contrary to what some claim, using those bombs wasn't just a show of force. Complex military, strategic, and political factors all played a role in the decision. Now let me clarify as to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically targeted:
Both cities served as crucial military and industrial hubs for Japan's war effort.

Hiroshima was chosen because it was home to military command centers, communication networks, and significant factories that produced war materials like aircraft parts and military hardware. It served as the Japanese military's logistical center and had a sizable port.

Although Nagasaki was not the intended target, it was selected as a fallback after the intended target, Kokura, was obscured by clouds. Nagasaki was a heavily industrialized city with shipyards, steel mills, and munitions factories. It was a vital transportation hub for military supplies because it also had a sizable seaport.

In order to weaken Japan's overall war effort and cripple its industrial and military infrastructure, these cities were targeted. As I stated at the outset, there were always going to be casualties, and I do not discount the tragic human toll of the bombings and the long-lasting effects from radiation exposure the preceding generation suffered. However, the intention was to shock the Japanese leadership, ultimately pressuring them to surrender.

@Miracood2. Although it's a little difficult for me to understand what you want from this girl, it appears that you are at the top of your game here. Not everyone will agree, but that's okay. Sometimes it's more interesting to simply play their game than to give up, though you'll need to be careful if you choose the former in order to avoid being played.

Personally, I used to be that guy who would only accept a yes response, which led to me ignoring a lot of the girls I met. Then I realized two things: first, "let's be friends" and "let's be friends first" are not the same sentence; and second, being friends with someone does not automatically preclude being involved sexually or romantically with another person (at least if you approach it from a moral perspective).

If she says let's be friends first, I'm fine with that but I'll be pursuing other girls while we are friends and I won't even try to hide it from her. I'll explain, quoting her, that we are still just friends if she tries to start a fight. You need to be aware that some women might like you but choose to wait before getting involved to avoid coming across as cheap.

You should give those women some time, but don't let them become your sole focus. You will also benefit from that side when they are finished and ready, just watch your resources while you're at it. The point here is to follow "friendship" accordingly. However, if she insists she only wants to be friends and there isn't even a hint of attraction on her part, you must carefully weigh the advantages of being friends with her before you take the next step.

I'm still friends with some girls who want to be friends first, I don't really think it's that deep. The issue arises when she starts acting foolishly after she explicitly requested friendship. In that case, I will remind her of our agreement. You should also keep in mind that if a girl notices that you've shown interest in another girl or that you seem to be slipping away, she may regret her choice and speed up the process. The game has several layers that I don't want to get into right now. It's fine if some guys don't want to play; sometimes all I want to do is have fun.

pu7pl3:
You're way too aggressive for someone soo sure of himself on this topic...
Relax

Beorn:
It's so annoying. I don't know why some peeps find it hard to banter without insults. From the get-go, the guy has been raining abuses on DC supporters instead of keeping it clean. Sometimes I wonder if these fan wars progenitors own a stake in these film organizations that makes them too easily riled up. Funnily enough, he has more weapons to win the banter but he's busy being emotional.

I didn't know you two were capable of putting down the use of unwarranted hostility or insults during banter on this thread. Your contributions would have impressed me if they hadn't been so reeked of disgusting hypocrisy. Your opinions are really worthless because you pick and choose which "similar cases" to encourage and which to disapprove of.

I'm quite surprised you didn't easily join the conversation, yelling "vawulence", "vawulence" to stoke the flames. Could it be that this scenario is not one of those cases where you enjoy the same display of aggression and use of jibe? Go sit down and shove your opinion down your butthole because I see through your bullshit.