The Incredibles 2

[csyphrett]

14 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Actually, I'm not actually sure who the first "supervillain" that Superman had to face, after he got tired of throwing KKK members off of buildings. I personally approve of that old Supes... sigh.

 

The Ultra Humanite before he became a woman

CES

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

The mention of the Ultra-Humanite reminds me of the Justice League episode he was in (the Timm-Dini animated series, which may be the best media portrayal of the group). He was a member of an "evil superteam" Lex Luthor had assembled (the Joker was on the team too, but his cruelty eventually disgusted even Luthor). He was init stricly for the money, which was quite good. But this meant that Batman could buy him off. When we see him at the end of the episode, he is in prison watching a concert on Public TV -- which he had sponsored. He used Bruce Wayne's money to become a patron of the arts (which is something both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor probably did in their "non-super" identities). And the people he was sponsoring had no problem with being financed by a confessed supervillain who didn't even bother with a pseudonym.

 

 

[Iuz the Evil]

On 7/7/2018 at 7:57 AM, Michael Hopcroft said:

The mention of the Ultra-Humanite reminds me of the Justice League episode he was in (the Timm-Dini animated series, which may be the best media portrayal of the group). He was a member of an "evil superteam" Lex Luthor had assembled (the Joker was on the team too, but his cruelty eventually disgusted even Luthor). He was init stricly for the money, which was quite good. But this meant that Batman could buy him off. When we see him at the end of the episode, he is in prison watching a concert on Public TV -- which he had sponsored. He used Bruce Wayne's money to become a patron of the arts (which is something both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor probably did in their "non-super" identities). And the people he was sponsoring had no problem with being financed by a confessed supervillain who didn't even bother with a pseudonym.

 

 

Well, yeah. As someone who worked extensively in that sector "nonprofit" only means they are a 501c3 tax exempt organization. Just another word for business.

 

I've seen "charities" in healthcare take money from Philip Morris. Just depends on the size of the check and you'll see a lot of moral negotiation.

[Michael Hopcroft]

36 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I've seen "charities" in healthcare take money from Philip Morris. Just depends on the size of the check and you'll see a lot of moral negotiation.

My understanding is that PM is required to donate to such charities by the conditions of a legal settlement with the Federal Government. That is why they are mandated to fund so many anti-smoking initiatives which goes against the very core of their business.

 

It seems those initiatives (and the other limitations imposed on them, including the restrictions on advertising) have made a dent in their business, but not seriously impacted their still-formidable profitability.

[Iuz the Evil]

7 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

My understanding is that PM is required to donate to such charities by the conditions of a legal settlement with the Federal Government. That is why they are mandated to fund so many anti-smoking initiatives which goes against the very core of their business.

 

It seems those initiatives (and the other limitations imposed on them, including the restrictions on advertising) have made a dent in their business, but not seriously impacted their still-formidable profitability.

Was only an example. I've seen anonymous donations that are equivalent and anonymous, my point is that nonprofit is still a business and are fully driven by revenue motivation to a large extent. Mission matters, but so does sustainability. Predatory lenders, slum lords, and the like are well represented among the donor set.

 

Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit (in part, they've got a sophisticated melding of for profit and nonprofit optimized for best effect). That isn't to say they don't do good work. They also have been sued and fined, particularly on the behavioral health side, for bad behavior.

 

Sorry, it's a tangent. I just know too much about the sector not to be triggered. When folks wrap themselves in a cloak of righteousness in the community then secretly engage in shady practices it triggers me.

 

And yes, I know some very good nonprofits that aren't like that. But they also aren't financially successful beyond a certain scale ($2M or so annual budget). Seems like I can count on one hand the ones bigger than $5M that I have faith in, and none over $20M.

 

YMMV. I'll back out of the thread now, sorry for the derail.

[csyphrett]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Was only an example. I've seen anonymous donations that are equivalent and anonymous, my point is that nonprofit is still a business and are fully driven by revenue motivation to a large extent. Mission matters, but so does sustainability. Predatory lenders, slum lords, and the like are well represented among the donor set.

 

Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit (in part, they've got a sophisticated melding of for profit and nonprofit optimized for best effect). That isn't to say they don't do good work. They also have been sued and fined, particularly on the behavioral health side, for bad behavior.

 

Sorry, it's a tangent. I just know too much about the sector not to be triggered. When folks wrap themselves in a cloak of righteousness in the community then secretly engage in shady practices it triggers me.

 

And yes, I know some very good nonprofits that aren't like that. But they also aren't financially successful beyond a certain scale ($2M or so annual budget). Seems like I can count on one hand the ones bigger than $5M that I have faith in, and none over $20M.

 

YMMV. I'll back out of the thread now, sorry for the derail.

It's okay. When I found out mcdonald's was keeping most of the money donated for their ronald mcdonald houses, I quit giving them my change

CES

[RDU Neil]

14 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit

 

Wasn't this founded by the younger brother of Soze? I mean... what do you expect.

 

 

running away now

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is pretty far off topic, but if you look closely, most of the big "charity" organizations are keeping most of the money for "expenses" like their CEO's third vacation house.  Red Cross, for instance is terrible at this.  Some of them like the Clinton Foundation keep more than 80% of the money for themselves.  All non profits have costs and have to spend money to do their charity work but some are much better than others.

[Dr.Device]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

This is pretty far off topic, but if you look closely, most of the big "charity" organizations are keeping most of the money for "expenses" like their CEO's third vacation house.  Red Cross, for instance is terrible at this.  Some of them like the Clinton Foundation keep more than 80% of the money for themselves.  All non profits have costs and have to spend money to do their charity work but some are much better than others.

 

That general statement is true, especially for the Red Cross, but that's not accurate on the Clinton Foundation. 86.9% of its funds go to program expenses, that is, the actual programs and services it exists to deliver. That's pretty dang high as non-profits go.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Program Expenses = costs and non-charity related events (as in 'paying salaries, building offices, publicity, etc)

[BoloOfEarth]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Program Expenses = costs and non-charity related events (as in 'paying salaries, building offices, publicity, etc)

 

Actually, what you're talking about are Administrative Expenses.  And possibly Fundraising Expenses - I'm not sure where publicity falls.

 

Program Expenses are the percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers.

 

 

 

[Ranxerox]

20 hours ago, csyphrett said:

It's okay. When I found out mcdonald's was keeping most of the money donated for their ronald mcdonald houses, I quit giving them my change

CES

 

 

A quick internet check shows that isn't true.  Eighty-seven percent of donations to Ronald McDonald Houses, goes to the charitable work, 3% goes to administration and 10% goes to fundraising.  Now, 87% to the actual charitable work is not good enough to make them an A-rated charity, but it is still most of the money collected.

[Dr.Device]

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Program Expenses = costs and non-charity related events (as in 'paying salaries, building offices, publicity, etc)

No, as I wrote above, program expenses consist of the money spent on the actual programs and services the charity exists to deliver. As BolofOfEarth pointed out, those other expenses are administrative expenses. Administrative expenses for the Clinton Foundation are 9.5%. You can get the data on just about any (maybe even all) U.S. charities from Charity Navigator. Here's the link for the Clinton Foundation's data. The idea that the Clinton Foundation was a scam was entirely campaign propaganda. It's a serious charity that does serious work.

 

If you want to continue this discussion, we should probably take it to the politics thread, or its own thread.

[Old Man]

Isn't the Underminer still at large?

[csyphrett]

6 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

 

A quick internet check shows that isn't true.  Eighty-seven percent of donations to Ronald McDonald Houses, goes to the charitable work, 3% goes to administration and 10% goes to fundraising.  Now, 87% to the actual charitable work is not good enough to make them an A-rated charity, but it is still most of the money collected.

At one point years ago McDonald's got in trouble because they had raked in so much for their charity but the charity only got 1% of the money. This might have been a local thing, but we're talking decades ago. I wasn't even married then.

 

Also the local branch of the United Way was paying their officers more than they were handing out back then. Both of these stories was on the news back to back.

CES

[Starlord]

10 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't the Underminer still at large?

 

Yes, clearly he's undermining this thread's ability to remain on topic.  

[csyphrett]

this came out in 2013 so it has been an ongoing problem

 

Globally, Ronald McDonald House Charities gets less than one-quarter of its revenue from McDonald', the report says. And at the local level, the regional chapters and local Ronald McDonald Houses often get as little as one-tenth of their revenue from McDonald's.Even McDonald's customers, the report charges, contribute as much as 1.5 times more to the charity than does McDonald's itself."Most people think that McDonald's funds Ronald McDonald House Charities 100%," says Simon. "This is a disconnect between what most people think and reality."On its website, for example, The Los Angeles Ronald McDonald House, which is one of the nation's largest with 75 rooms, notes, "although our House shares a brand name with McDonald's Corporation, less than 10% of our annual $2 million budget comes as a result of financial contributions from the company's local owner / operators."

[BoloOfEarth]

So, will it be another dozen or so years until Incredibles 3? 

[Michael Hopcroft]

13 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't the Underminer still at large?

Presumably. Although if Mr. Incredible had caught him and turned him into the police, he would have been arrested too. Although the Underminer mission was a muck-up job almost from the start and catching him may not have helped all that much. 

[Michael Hopcroft]

18 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

So, will it be another dozen or so years until Incredibles 3? 

Craig T. Nelson is already in his seventies, and Samuel L. Jackson is in his early sixties. One of the reason Brad Bird delayed starting Incredible 2 for so long was that he didn't have "the right story" for a very long time.

 

The movie also ended at a good point, so I don't know if I see a gaping creative need for another movie.

 

Of course, this is Disney we're talking about, where no potential cash cow goes unmilked for long.

[Ranxerox]

8 hours ago, csyphrett said:

this came out in 2013 so it has been an ongoing problem

 

Globally, Ronald McDonald House Charities gets less than one-quarter of its revenue from McDonald', the report says. And at the local level, the regional chapters and local Ronald McDonald Houses often get as little as one-tenth of their revenue from McDonald's.Even McDonald's customers, the report charges, contribute as much as 1.5 times more to the charity than does McDonald's itself."Most people think that McDonald's funds Ronald McDonald House Charities 100%," says Simon. "This is a disconnect between what most people think and reality."On its website, for example, The Los Angeles Ronald McDonald House, which is one of the nation's largest with 75 rooms, notes, "although our House shares a brand name with McDonald's Corporation, less than 10% of our annual $2 million budget comes as a result of financial contributions from the company's local owner / operators."

 

Oh, McDonald's donates hardly any of their own money to the Ronald McDonald House.  However, that is different than saying that they steal the money from the donation boxes.  The money you put in the donation box will go to the cause, just don't expect any corporate matching funds for your donation.  Neither the corporate office or the franchises give a bleep about the charity.

[slikmar]

10 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

One of the reason Brad Bird delayed starting Incredible 2 for so long was that he didn't have "the right story" for a very long time. 

 

I also wonder if it is a coincidence that this movie is coming out just as Disney/Marvel are getting the rights to the FF back. Could this be an early shot at hoping they will give him a shot at doing a live action version? I would be all for it.

 

[Grailknight]

14 hours ago, csyphrett said:

this came out in 2013 so it has been an ongoing problem

 

Globally, Ronald McDonald House Charities gets less than one-quarter of its revenue from McDonald', the report says. And at the local level, the regional chapters and local Ronald McDonald Houses often get as little as one-tenth of their revenue from McDonald's.Even McDonald's customers, the report charges, contribute as much as 1.5 times more to the charity than does McDonald's itself."Most people think that McDonald's funds Ronald McDonald House Charities 100%," says Simon. "This is a disconnect between what most people think and reality."On its website, for example, The Los Angeles Ronald McDonald House, which is one of the nation's largest with 75 rooms, notes, "although our House shares a brand name with McDonald's Corporation, less than 10% of our annual $2 million budget comes as a result of financial contributions from the company's local owner / operators."

 

That article doesn't say that the funds are mismanaged. It says that McDonald's corporation doesn't contribute a large percentage of the funds by comparison to other contributors(between 2 and 10 percent depending on the chapter) and that they get free publicity by association.

[csyphrett]

7 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Oh, McDonald's donates hardly any of their own money to the Ronald McDonald House.  However, that is different than saying that they steal the money from the donation boxes.  The money you put in the donation box will go to the cause, just don't expect any corporate matching funds for your donation.  Neither the corporate office or the franchises give a bleep about the charity.

And that's not what I said is it. What I said was even in the eighties, McDonald's has been claiming one thing and doing another and when getting reported their fall back that's a lie. It's not a lie. Taco Bell gives more money to RMHC than McDonald's and they get none of the publicity.

 

Think about that. The competition gives more to your charity than you do.

CES   

[Pariah]

The Incredibles is my favorite superhero movie and my favourite animated movie, bar none.

 

Having said that, The Incredibles 2 is a worthy successor.

 

?