I had a job once where I offered to get someone’s lunch..:” and then before long, my entire lunch break consisted of getting other people’s lunch abd then getting back to work without eating lunch. It legally counted as my lunch break, so I had to suck it up. This also meant I was “lazy” for leaving the premises first lunch instead of staying at my desk - which they only did because I got their lunch for them.
Oh look the 2 biggest nutlickers in the history of the country. Both of you guys are some pathetic clowns. 😂😂😂. My invitation is still open to the both of you
Question about those exclusives. Why does, for example, Walmart keep asking for exclusive Transformers sublines, a lot of which never sell? To the point the exclusives clog the aisle? A lot of the 'doesn't sell bit' is character selection (not in most of the fiction) & color choices, from mostly unwanted repaints (some may get a different head). Some years, an exclusive line does actually have characters fans want & kids like, but, often (especially in the last 6-ish years), they just clog shelves, sometimes for years. Both WfC Kingdom's & Legacy's exclusives just didn't appear to move. I saw Kingdom's wave 1 exclusives on pegs for years, seemingly taking space from the mainline, probably because it was all never in the show repaints, with uninteresting colors. So, why would they want the gaudy, neon colored, Toxitron Collection (themed around Toxitron & glowing toxic waste -smart-, using the already failed G2 colors -not so smart), a few years later? Same problem, same result (though, the Toxitron line did get main & secondary characters, just in unwanted colors, & Toxitron, himself, was kind of desired, but was already the 3rd unchanged, except colors, use of that G2 Optimus mold). The Speedia 500 Collection (Speed Planet/ race themed), between the 2, had better color & character choices, & a few molds & main characters, not available on shelves otherwise (Cosmos was also short-packed), & actually sold, for the most part (though, it still had its share of shelfwarmers).
hi Scott. Love your content. Just to check, ,Did you change your recording setup? The volume level seems to be quite low.. even with my audio maxed out.. audio is ok on other channels..
I still don't understand how it's easier for you to apply a blur, in a specific area and for a specific amount of time (which doesn't cover the first shot of the Mr. Freeze btw) than to just remove the picture from the 'video'. Literally just delete it from the timeline dude, it looks like shit & it's an admission/reminder of the infringement situation, which I imagine you want to avoid atm
(not to speak for Scott) 1st, Scott is not technical. Like, at all. It may have just been a best effort. 2nd, how much obfuscation is enough? (don’t answer this). There is a point at which the end result or message becomes more important to society than the individual components. Like how many notes of a piece can you use before it becomes the main focus of a presented work.
@@machineman6498 You really don't need to be tech savvy to drag a box off a line. I can write off the timing as incompetence, a mistake, whatever, but leaving it in at all is so... weird? It's not that I don't think it's sufficiently obscured, it's that he chose to use an objectively more complex/difficult editing technique when he could have like... not done that.
I have a theory that Scott might not keep his old videos in that format. I think he might export them to mp4 or whatever and just keep that version. So it's easier for him to just dump the video back into whatever programme he uses and put up the (yeah it is pretty rubbish) blurring. Of course it could just be a little 'up yours' to The Figure in Question...
@@dwitefry4157 I 100% buy that theory, but there's probably more to your 'up yours' one. Pretty much every modern video editor has a 'separate audio' tool which is fewer clicks than the blurring. He's also been so weirdly non-discerning about WHAT he's blurring that it just like... Even if it's a dig at Ethan, it makes Scott look like he doesn't know how to source pictures, won't google how, and managed to steal 80+ of one guy's pictures without cluing in on the fact they're all out of packaging. The only thing he retained was 'white background means I stole this one'? And since he deleted the community posts about it, it just seems completely random to anyone that wasn't already aware of the circumstances. I can't wrap my head around it. It's lazy, sure, but he's also making way more work for himself.
@@lycaonpictus77 Oh don't get me started - Scott's whole explanation was basically 'how was I to know which ones were which?' about a series of photos that all have consistantly similar elements that if he got them from Google Image Search (and let's face it, he did) would have shown him the site of origin. It either makes him look lazy, incompetent or like he's lying and whichever you choose he looks bad - and this editing isn't helping. It's sensible to edit the videos, Scott, if you read this, it's how you're doing it that looks weird and bad. Follow Ly's advice and split the audio and video then edit the video half. If you don't want to do that, then just place new images over the TFIQ ones instead of blurring them out badly. Unless you are giving the two fingers to TFIQ of course, in which case stop than first then do what Ly or I advised
...as someone who used to sit next to the CEO of UPS! Id be glad to get your lunch Scott!
I had a job once where I offered to get someone’s lunch..:” and then before long, my entire lunch break consisted of getting other people’s lunch abd then getting back to work without eating lunch. It legally counted as my lunch break, so I had to suck it up. This also meant I was “lazy” for leaving the premises first lunch instead of staying at my desk - which they only did because I got their lunch for them.
@@johnmorey720 thats why they fired Retroblaster....lazy!
Oh look the 2 biggest nutlickers in the history of the country. Both of you guys are some pathetic clowns. 😂😂😂. My invitation is still open to the both of you
Question about those exclusives. Why does, for example, Walmart keep asking for exclusive Transformers sublines, a lot of which never sell? To the point the exclusives clog the aisle?
A lot of the 'doesn't sell bit' is character selection (not in most of the fiction) & color choices, from mostly unwanted repaints (some may get a different head). Some years, an exclusive line does actually have characters fans want & kids like, but, often (especially in the last 6-ish years), they just clog shelves, sometimes for years.
Both WfC Kingdom's & Legacy's exclusives just didn't appear to move. I saw Kingdom's wave 1 exclusives on pegs for years, seemingly taking space from the mainline, probably because it was all never in the show repaints, with uninteresting colors. So, why would they want the gaudy, neon colored, Toxitron Collection (themed around Toxitron & glowing toxic waste -smart-, using the already failed G2 colors -not so smart), a few years later? Same problem, same result (though, the Toxitron line did get main & secondary characters, just in unwanted colors, & Toxitron, himself, was kind of desired, but was already the 3rd unchanged, except colors, use of that G2 Optimus mold).
The Speedia 500 Collection (Speed Planet/ race themed), between the 2, had better color & character choices, & a few molds & main characters, not available on shelves otherwise (Cosmos was also short-packed), & actually sold, for the most part (though, it still had its share of shelfwarmers).
hi Scott. Love your content. Just to check, ,Did you change your recording setup? The volume level seems to be quite low.. even with my audio maxed out.. audio is ok on other channels..
👍
Thanks buddy your insight is so amazing and helpful!
Good morning everyone!
☕ 👍
Thank you Scott.
Hello Scott. 🌳
I still don't understand how it's easier for you to apply a blur, in a specific area and for a specific amount of time (which doesn't cover the first shot of the Mr. Freeze btw) than to just remove the picture from the 'video'. Literally just delete it from the timeline dude, it looks like shit & it's an admission/reminder of the infringement situation, which I imagine you want to avoid atm
(not to speak for Scott)
1st, Scott is not technical. Like, at all. It may have just been a best effort.
2nd, how much obfuscation is enough? (don’t answer this). There is a point at which the end result or message becomes more important to society than the individual components. Like how many notes of a piece can you use before it becomes the main focus of a presented work.
@@machineman6498 You really don't need to be tech savvy to drag a box off a line. I can write off the timing as incompetence, a mistake, whatever, but leaving it in at all is so... weird? It's not that I don't think it's sufficiently obscured, it's that he chose to use an objectively more complex/difficult editing technique when he could have like... not done that.
I have a theory that Scott might not keep his old videos in that format. I think he might export them to mp4 or whatever and just keep that version. So it's easier for him to just dump the video back into whatever programme he uses and put up the (yeah it is pretty rubbish) blurring. Of course it could just be a little 'up yours' to The Figure in Question...
@@dwitefry4157 I 100% buy that theory, but there's probably more to your 'up yours' one. Pretty much every modern video editor has a 'separate audio' tool which is fewer clicks than the blurring. He's also been so weirdly non-discerning about WHAT he's blurring that it just like... Even if it's a dig at Ethan, it makes Scott look like he doesn't know how to source pictures, won't google how, and managed to steal 80+ of one guy's pictures without cluing in on the fact they're all out of packaging. The only thing he retained was 'white background means I stole this one'? And since he deleted the community posts about it, it just seems completely random to anyone that wasn't already aware of the circumstances. I can't wrap my head around it. It's lazy, sure, but he's also making way more work for himself.
@@lycaonpictus77 Oh don't get me started - Scott's whole explanation was basically 'how was I to know which ones were which?' about a series of photos that all have consistantly similar elements that if he got them from Google Image Search (and let's face it, he did) would have shown him the site of origin. It either makes him look lazy, incompetent or like he's lying and whichever you choose he looks bad - and this editing isn't helping. It's sensible to edit the videos, Scott, if you read this, it's how you're doing it that looks weird and bad. Follow Ly's advice and split the audio and video then edit the video half. If you don't want to do that, then just place new images over the TFIQ ones instead of blurring them out badly. Unless you are giving the two fingers to TFIQ of course, in which case stop than first then do what Ly or I advised