Even without the Amazon political concerns (white orks incoming), I still have concerns about how faithful they can really stay to the look of 40k power armor. It was stylized and distinct and I feel like it would translate to screen as well as superhero outfits tend to, needing some serious reworking to look viable.
It isn't that they hate money per se. Selecting to exclusively hire politically correct creatives allows the laundering of the funds through production and patronage.
Even if the corporation doesn't turn a profit, they move the culture by keeping the useful idiots solvent through subsidization. As long as a percentage of the money comes back, and the product isn't a complete failure, the losses can be written-down as part of an ESG-based front-loading of the culture.
I hate the fact that you can say this with a straight face in the current year, I hate the fact that I could understand it all, and I *really *hate the fact that you stand a good chance of being spot on.
Ideally, the losses are large enough and obvious enough that the shareholders, who are only interested in profit, sue the ever living shit out of the ESG-tainted boards, shutting this grift down.
I believe Disney faces just such a suit. Ideally, the large stakeholders will sue over the use of their investment/capital to subsidize ESG's ends. As long as they can prove damages/money lost, godspeed.
Even without the Amazon political concerns (white orks incoming), I still have concerns about how faithful they can really stay to the look of 40k power armor. It was stylized and distinct and I feel like it would translate to screen as well as superhero outfits tend to, needing some serious reworking to look viable.
In a perfect world, they'd just give the entire thing to the guy who did the Astartes fan video and call it a fucking day.
But, because GW and Amazon hate money, I'm sure they'll find people whom absolutely loathe Warhammer 40K and run it into the ground.
It isn't that they hate money per se. Selecting to exclusively hire politically correct creatives allows the laundering of the funds through production and patronage.
Even if the corporation doesn't turn a profit, they move the culture by keeping the useful idiots solvent through subsidization. As long as a percentage of the money comes back, and the product isn't a complete failure, the losses can be written-down as part of an ESG-based front-loading of the culture.
I hate the fact that you can say this with a straight face in the current year, I hate the fact that I could understand it all, and I *really *hate the fact that you stand a good chance of being spot on.
This fucking timeline, I swear.
Ideally, the losses are large enough and obvious enough that the shareholders, who are only interested in profit, sue the ever living shit out of the ESG-tainted boards, shutting this grift down.
I believe Disney faces just such a suit. Ideally, the large stakeholders will sue over the use of their investment/capital to subsidize ESG's ends. As long as they can prove damages/money lost, godspeed.
Turns out Uwe Boll making bad video game movies with nazi gold and german tax write offs was the least of our worries.