'Coyote vs. Acme' Beats Ridley Scott's Newest Movie (cartoonbrew.com) 102
Inverse shares a movie success story from last weekend:
Coyote vs. Acme debuted to $15.9 million at the box office, beating out iconic director Ridley Scott's latest sci-fi adventure, The Dog Stars. This success has only continued since, and the worldwide box office currently sits above $22 million. Strong reviews and word-of-mouth are sure to keep viewers coming in, especially during the holiday weekend.
What's impressive is Coyote vs. Acme had a limited marketing campaign that includes viral stunts. They photographed the movie's world premiere with a vintage Tasmanian Devil polaroid camera, and launched a phone number for the law firm suing Acme. ("If you've been injured by an enormous rubber band, press 7. If you've been injured by a painted train tunnel that suddenly sprang to life, press 8...")
And Cartoon Brew reports that Wednesday "the famously silent Looney Tunes star participated in an AMA on Reddit's r/movies, answering questions about his career, his relationship with the Road Runner, and the Warner Bros. executive who nearly prevented audiences from seeing his latest movie." In keeping with tradition, Wile E. delivered his responses through images of himself holding signs. The format produced several interesting and occasionally thought-provoking exchanges, but one obvious highlight came when a user asked: "Rumor has it that David Zaslav was paid off by ACME to cancel your film; what is your opinion on this?" Wile E.'s response was an image of the coyote glaring at the camera while holding a sign that read, "It's a limited number of signs," pulled from a scene in the film when Mr. Coyote first meets his eventual attorney Kevin Avery, played by Will Forte.
Meanwhile, Boing Boing cites local news reports that a Southern California bird watcher Alexander DeBarros has actually captured a photo of a coyote holding a roadrunner bird in its mouth: In an incredible coincidence that is a movie publicist's dream, he snapped the rare, possibly unprecedented, photo on the opening weekend of the movie Acme vs. Coyote... In an even more incredible coincidence, DeBarros's father, Brian Mainolfi, is an animator whose first job in the field was working for Chuck Jones, the creator and director of the Roadrunner cartoon series.
Cartoon Brew notes a Reddit user specifically asked the Coyote for his reaction to the news. Wile E. responded with some unexpectedly healthy advice: "We cannot judge our worth on the work of others."
Aftermath calls the movie "a well made, deeply funny movie that pays a deep respect to the Looney Tunes in a way that Warner Brothers currently seems uninterested in doing."
What's impressive is Coyote vs. Acme had a limited marketing campaign that includes viral stunts. They photographed the movie's world premiere with a vintage Tasmanian Devil polaroid camera, and launched a phone number for the law firm suing Acme. ("If you've been injured by an enormous rubber band, press 7. If you've been injured by a painted train tunnel that suddenly sprang to life, press 8...")
And Cartoon Brew reports that Wednesday "the famously silent Looney Tunes star participated in an AMA on Reddit's r/movies, answering questions about his career, his relationship with the Road Runner, and the Warner Bros. executive who nearly prevented audiences from seeing his latest movie." In keeping with tradition, Wile E. delivered his responses through images of himself holding signs. The format produced several interesting and occasionally thought-provoking exchanges, but one obvious highlight came when a user asked: "Rumor has it that David Zaslav was paid off by ACME to cancel your film; what is your opinion on this?" Wile E.'s response was an image of the coyote glaring at the camera while holding a sign that read, "It's a limited number of signs," pulled from a scene in the film when Mr. Coyote first meets his eventual attorney Kevin Avery, played by Will Forte.
Meanwhile, Boing Boing cites local news reports that a Southern California bird watcher Alexander DeBarros has actually captured a photo of a coyote holding a roadrunner bird in its mouth: In an incredible coincidence that is a movie publicist's dream, he snapped the rare, possibly unprecedented, photo on the opening weekend of the movie Acme vs. Coyote... In an even more incredible coincidence, DeBarros's father, Brian Mainolfi, is an animator whose first job in the field was working for Chuck Jones, the creator and director of the Roadrunner cartoon series.
Cartoon Brew notes a Reddit user specifically asked the Coyote for his reaction to the news. Wile E. responded with some unexpectedly healthy advice: "We cannot judge our worth on the work of others."
Aftermath calls the movie "a well made, deeply funny movie that pays a deep respect to the Looney Tunes in a way that Warner Brothers currently seems uninterested in doing."
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me eadon.com is yours
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile The Odyssey just crossed the $1 billion mark. https://deadline.com/2026/09/b... [deadline.com]
Re:So? DEI Feminst Woke Movies Are Boring (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile The Odyssey just crossed the $1 billion mark.
Seen it, the "woke" claims are vastly exaggerated. For example teenage boys are recruited for the Troy military campaign. The often referred to tans-male actor seems to be one of these, or some other small non-gym rate male. I didn't see anything overtly work if one just payed attention to the character and not fixated on who the actor was. There wasn't any onscreen "message",
It was a great movie. Fair criticisms revolve around deviations from the book, but I don't recall any "woke" messaging.
Re:So? DEI Feminst Woke Movies Are Boring (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So? DEI Feminst Woke Movies Are Boring (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was "freedom stems from valor"? Or, less officially, "come back with your shield or on it".
Re: (Score:2)
Men having sex with boys was normal in Greece.
Perhaps, it might have varied with city, but the movie was not portraying any such thing.
Re: (Score:1)
There wasn't any onscreen "message",
welcome to example 14,732 of Republicans Can't Stop Thinking About Girl Cock
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that black Helen was added to qualify for Best Picture while the other thing was between Nolan and Ellen for old times sake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So? DEI Feminst Woke Movies Are Boring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You scored -1 Insightful. Must have forgotten to put a trigger warning on your post
Re: (Score:1)
stick to the porno comics.
Coyote is a nostalgia thing initially ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Boomers will have nostalgia for it, kids will have a genuine current interest, and everyone in between is at least familiar with the IP.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for making the joke memes about GenXers being ignored an actual truth.
Many of us grew up with the same cartoons and are more than familiar with the Looney Tunes and Wile E Coyote.
In fact, my wife (who is a millennial) and I were laughing about news we saw recently about a picture taken of a coyote with a roadrunner in its mouth.
Re: And then they got an advertorial on Slashdot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At least, probably.
Well, it was false advertising (Score:4, Funny)
The dog is not in fact, the star of the Ridley Scott film.
Re:Well, it was false advertising (Score:4, Funny)
The dog is not in fact, the star of the Ridley Scott film.
So this is not a remake or reimagining of "A Boy and His Dog". :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Dog Stars (Score:2)
I kind of want to see this movie after reading a summary https://www.inverse.com/entert... [inverse.com]
Turns Out, the Coyote Had Better Taste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Turns Out, the Coyote Had Better Taste (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah I can't imagine why the general public prefers a Looney Toons movie over a slow burn post apocalypse drama with a poor title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How's the oil price? Is it falling yet? Those DoW people really ought to get their fingers out and end their war already. It's not professional.
Around $95, lower than Trump's all time high of around $110, both of which are lower than Biden's all time high of around $115. Trump is doing better during a literal persian gulf war than Biden did in peace time.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil spike in 2022 was due to Russia invading Ukraine ... so *not* peacetime.
And as you know, the current spike is entirely and directly Trump's fault.
Re: (Score:1)
The oil spike in 2022 was due to Russia invading Ukraine ... so *not* peacetime.
Biden's attacks on US oil and gas drilling added greatly to that. It not only decreased supply and raised prices, decreased future expectations of production, it made Europeans continue to buy from Russia, to essentially fund the war against Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
You should add that information to this chronology about factors that contributed to oil prices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For some reason, it primarily mentions Biden in relation to the SPR and doesn't have any discussion about "attacks" on oil production.
It's almost like your claim is unsubstantiated bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't have any discussion about "attacks" on oil production.
He used leasing and pipeline approvals to shut down projects, among other bureaucratic tricks. Lots of paperwork needs processing to drill and pump.
By the way, that war is still going on. Still elevating prices. And things are still lower under Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's still going on, I'm sure you can find a decent (not a fucking podcast) citation that demonstrates that extra paperwork in the US is somehow having a measurable effect on world oil prices.
Also:
"US diesel prices hit an all-time-high"
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you were unable to find a citation to support your point. Again.
Can you even specifically identify even one of the Biden policies that are supposedly having such a major impact on oil prices?
Re: (Score:2)
So you were unable to find a citation to support your point. Again.
With respect to reducing or expanding supply I would only need to cite an economics 101 textbook.
The energy policy differences of the two administrations were widely recognized by the financial press at the time, and their respective effects noted.
Re: (Score:2)
"So easy to find" yet you still couldn't find one...
I don't need to find one, I observed it as it happened. Watched the discussions on news and financial shows.
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article linked a few posts above has 143 citations for its descriptions of what affected the oil market.
You were not able to find even one to support your claim.
The reality:
- Some supposed regulations you cannot name did not have a significant or lasting effect on oil prices.
- OTOH, Trump's war had an obvious and direct effect.
- The thing keeping oil prices from all-time peaks is renewables:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2 [un.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For example. There were permitted drilling operations that were intentionally shut down by secondary permits for local pipelines (multiple drills in a field connecting to a local collection point). These and other methods were used to impair US production, and this doubt/change in supply absolutely increased oil futures. Soubt, uncertainty, drives oil prices up.
Re: (Score:2)
Making yourself look really stupid is an interesting trolling strategy.
To reiterate:
- Donald Trump's actions caused significant and lasting increases in oil prices.
- Joe Biden's actions did not cause anything like that.
Your attempts to deflect responsibility from Trump are getting comical.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you can't understand how Biden blocking the local pipelines that a permitted drill site needs, onsite pipelinesbetween drills in a field and the shared collection point for that field, we you might want to reconsider who is being comical in this conversation. One administration was hos
Re: (Score:2)
The war in Ukraine did not change
Still laughing at this. When did Putin invade Ukraine?
One of the things I learned studying economics is that large markets are really only affected by large events. So something that impacts a fifth of the world energy market, like a large energy supplier launching an invasion or an idiot starting a poorly-planned war next to a delivery chokepoint is going have a significant effect.
But a policy that only affects a tiny fraction of a fraction of the world energy supply is not
Re: (Score:1)
The war in Ukraine did not change
Still laughing at this. When did Putin invade Ukraine?
Weren't you arguing that the war in the Ukraine was one of the factors elevating oil prices under Biden?
One of the things I learned studying economics is that large markets are really only affected by large events.
The US cutting back on oil and gas production is a large event.
So something that impacts a fifth of the world energy market, like a large energy supplier launching an invasion or an idiot starting a poorly-planned war next to a delivery chokepoint
LOL - You seem confused at my point. Which is that despite the Iran war prices are lower under Trump than Biden. That as bad is this event is, the overall Trump policies are doing less harm that the overall Biden policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of your posts:
a) Good stuff is because of Trump.
b) Bad stuff is because of someone else.
c) Hand-wavey made-up facts to support a) and b)
The reason prices haven't reached the same peak under Trump is because of worldwide adoption of renewals. There's a link describing this above.
And if Biden's policies had such large effect, why can't you find a single citation to support your point? Are you really that bad at searching the internet?
To reiterate:
- Trump's acti
Re: (Score:1)
Every one of your posts: a) Good stuff is because of Trump
Nope. I don't debate the actual bad things that he does. Just where the accusation are more political fiction than reality. I democrats want to be more successful against him they should stick closer to reality, not so much to the BS stuff the party invents.
The reason prices haven't reached the same peak under Trump is because of worldwide adoption of renewals.
Not really. Coal exports are still elevated because renewables are not filling the oil/gas gap.
Also there was the reversing of Biden policies that shut down efforts to export more LNG to Europe
And expectation of new production coming out of Venezue
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is doing better during a literal persian gulf war
Sorry? "War"? I thought the terminology was now: "I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us. It’s not a big thing.". Also, the "all time high" metric for oil prices isn't a very useful measure. You're talking about a spike. In terms of sustained high prices they're much worse under Trump than Biden. Also, as others have pointed out, the spikes under Biden are clearly not so directly attributable to Biden. Trump, on the other hand, very clearly did start the current war wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious if you would support the statement that the Trump administration are outrageous liars, including about whether this is a war or not? I also note that you completely avoided responding to the two points I mentioned: A. the fact that a brief spike is different than a sustained plateau, and B. the fact that the high prices during Trump's administration are directly attributable to a war Trump started, whereas the spike during Biden's administration had much less, if anything, to do with the ac
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious if you would support the statement that the Trump administration are outrageous liars, ...
Trump often speaks of things where is knowledge and understanding is limited. And when he does have some understanding he can completely mangle explanations.
... including about whether this is a war or not?
As I mentioned previously. Military action is often formerly labeled as something other than a war, but for casual and practical conversation the label war is often used.
I also note that you completely avoided responding to the two points I mentioned: A. the fact that a brief spike is different than a sustained plateau
That charting of oil prices shows a sharp prolonged increase under Biden and a slow prolonged decrease under Trump's second term. Trump wins on that metric too.
\the fact that the high prices during Trump's administration are directly attributable to a war Trump started
Actually Iran started by
Re: (Score:2)
The actual two main factors that cause oil prices to be high are the war with Iran, and the simple fact that we're nearing the end of oil as the dominant power source. Technically, we're already past traditional "peak oil" as it was originally defined. Because of advancing technology the peak oil target has moved, of course, so there's plenty of accessible oil, but the actual average difficulty of both extracting the oil and processing it to be useful has increased. We're at the point where new wells in the
Dept or War vs Dept of Defense ... (Score:2)
0 for 0 does not mean batting a thousand
please tell us about the win record
The Department of War was created in 1789. Department of defense 1949. That various wars:
DoW: War of 1812, US Civil War, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, World War 1, World War 2.
DoD: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Global War on Terror
Re: (Score:2)
The original Department of War was just the Army, so you really cannot put wars that heavily involved the Navy in their column. That rules out the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.
The Army had major roles in all of those.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The DoD ensured that MAD remained Mutual and then won the Cold War. It's pretty big fucking deal that hasn't (yet) been unwound by Trump's dream of surrendering to Russia.
Today we have idiots buying into Hegseth's performative bullshit, where everything is based on fiction and appearances and personal loyalty. Hegseth seems to think that what works in video games is what works in real life. He's the most insecure and incompetent defense secretary ever, and there's quite a bit of competition for the bottom
Both renaming, from and to, Dept of War perform... (Score:2)
The DoD ensured that MAD remained Mutual and then won the Cold War. It's pretty big fucking deal that hasn't (yet) been unwound by Trump's dream of surrendering to Russia.
Today we have idiots buying into Hegseth's performative ...
Renaming Dept of War to Dept of Defense in 1949 was performative.
Renaming Dept of Defense to Dept of War in 2026 was both performative and historical, a nod to the WW2 and Civil War legacies. The Dept of War was original created in 1789. That various wars:
DoW: War of 1812, US Civil War, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, World War 1, World War 2.
DoD: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Global War on Terror
Re: (Score:1)
Renaming Dept of War to Dept of Defense in 1949 was performative.
"Renaming" is not an accurate description - the changes in the 1947 act included creating the Air Force and changing the Navy from a cabinet-level department. The "War" name was originally set up when the plan was for to not have a standing army - i.e., the DoW would essentially only exist during a war.
In a world where the Strategic Air Command going to "War" will be a complete disaster for humanity, having that organization in a group charged
Re: (Score:2)
Renaming Dept of War to Dept of Defense in 1949 was performative.
"Renaming" is not an accurate description - the changes in the 1947 ....
Irrelevant. I was referring only to the renaming.
the DoW would essentially only exist during a war.
No, it was a permanent organization going back to 1789. It was responsible for the maintenance and training of the military during peacetime. It is essentially the civilian agency by which the executive branch controls the military.
all about appearances
Which was also exactly the point of renaming Dept or War to Dept of Defense in 1949. It was an attempt to frame this new massive and global military presense and capability. And the renaming back is to frame the focus of the dept o
Re: (Score:3)
The Dept of Defense was a 1949 PR renaming of the Dept of War.
Not so much a PR thing. It was more about establishing a unified command structure and it wasn't as direct as that. What actually happened is that the department of War was abolished and replaced with a department of the Army and a department of the Air force. An organization called the national military establishment was created to run the department of the Army, the department of the Air force, and the department of the Navy, which had not been under the department of War. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard was m
Re: (Score:2)
"The Dept of Defense was a 1949 PR renaming of the Dept of War."
An often-repeated falsehood. The Department of War was renamed the Department of *the Army.*. The Department of Defense was a new creation to unify supervision of the US armed forces, named that because calling it the Department of War would have given the impression that the Navy was being placed under the control of the Army, which would have gone down very badly with the Navy.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Dept of Defense was a 1949 PR renaming of the Dept of War." An often-repeated falsehood ...
Nope, it was never that simple. Originallty the Dept of War was in charge of both the Army and the Navy. Later the Navy was given its own department. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was originally part of the DoW. The Freedman's Bureau was originally part the the DoW. The US Marine Corps also originally reported to the DoW.
The Department of War was renamed the Department of *the Army.*
For a brief 2 year window, 1947-49. The US Navy and US Marine Corps were part of the DoW for longer periods of time.
The Department of Defense was a new creation to unify supervision of the US armed forces, named that because calling it the Department of War would have given the impression that the Navy was being placed under the control of the Army, which would have gone down very badly with the Navy.
The 1949 reorganization named the department "Defense" rather than "War" P
Re: (Score:2)
The Department of War "ran the Navy" for four whole years, 1794 to 1798. During which time, *there was no Navy*, as the bankruptcy of the federal government had forced the disbanding of the old Continental Navy. By the 1940s this was all irrelevant ancient history.
Re: (Score:2)
The Department of War "ran the Navy" for four whole years
And the Dept of War was replaced by Dept of the Army by only two who years. Technically, in reality the 1947 and 1949 changes were part of the same reorganization.
And none of this changes the fact that in 1949 "Defense" was chosen over "War" for PR reasons. The Navy goes to war too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Department of the Army still exists. It was removed from the Cabinet in 1949 but it didn't go anywhere. There was a recent kerfuffle about the Secretary of the Army leaving his position. You may have seen it in the news. The simple fact is that the Department of Defense was an all-new creation and not a renaming of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Department of the Army still exists.
Where did I say otherwise? The '47-49 changes created the Dept of the Air Force and moved the Army Air Corps / Air Force to that dept.
The simple fact is that the Department of Defense was an all-new creation and not a renaming of anything.
Actually I think something was created in '47, then renamed in '49. While technically correct, The Dept of the War was the defacto bucket for joint services and Bureaus until 1947. Navy, Marine Corps, Indian Affairs, Freedman's Bureau, etc were all under Dept of the War at various times. Very analogous to what was created in '47 and renamed "Defense" in '49.
But the importa
Re: (Score:2)
No. The Department of the Army didn 't "replace" the Department of War,, it *was* the Deparrtment of War. Same secretary (Kenneth Royale), same personnel, same everything. Only the name changed. It can trace its unbroken existence back to its founding in 1794 to the present day. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, got the Secretary of the *Navy* (James Forrestal) as its secretary, all new personnel, and was a totally new organization (with John Sullivan as Forrestal's replacement at Navy).
Re: (Score:2)
No. The Department of the Army didn 't "replace" the Department of War,
No one claimed it did. We've been discussing the Department of War and Department of Defense.
Re: (Score:2)
The Department of War "ran the Navy" for four whole years,
And the Marine Corps for 30-something or 40-something years.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, the Department of the Army most assuredly still exists to this very day. It's not part of the Cabinet any more, but it surely exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, the Department of the Army most assuredly still exists to this very day. It's not part of the Cabinet any more, but it surely exists.
Absolutely. We just added Dept of the Air Force in '47. And formally recognized the necessity of joint operations in '49, after practicing it on a rather large scale during WW2.
Terrible take. (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes more money != better.
It's like saying that junk food is better than proper restaurant food. People consume low quality shit all the time.
It's also insane to suggest "Hollywood" doesn't like producing easy money makers, given the number of nostalgia baiting movies, reboots, and spinoffs we've seen in recent years.
Re: (Score:3)
I really enjoyed Coyote, it was funny and actually quite biting towards corporations at times.
Maybe next time they try to get a tax write off the taxman can challenge it on the basis that the movie actually would make more money than it cost to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
The industry heard "Everyone wants to watch X for the thousandth time" and came up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Hopefully we don't get a dozen new Wile E. movies in the next 10 years.
Is the book boring? (Score:2)
Relevant photo (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]
Awright, Spoiler Alert (Score:4, Informative)
Don't read if its important to you, but Dog Stars sucked.
They lost me early on when they rationalized the shooting, long-range sniper-style, of 2 kids most probably out hunting for food with guns. OK, post-apocalyptic earth could be a really ugly place, but don't try to entertain me with it. Then, there's this apocalypse, but years later there's still gasoline? Tell me another one. And, a plane zero's it's oil pressure, lands in the mountains, just happens to be where it might be able to take off again, but magically there's tools and enough spare oil from somewhere to fix the oil leak, replenish what's needed, and, oh yeah, do enough work to the mountainside to be able to roll sufficiently for a takeoff, clearing out some 1000+ feet of runway of brush, rocks, etc. Then there's the cannibals at the only remaining airport with a radio, and they somehow escape them. Oh, and then again there's gasoline, not having gone bad from years of storage. Really?
The "science" in the scifi is a bridge too far for me, as well as being morally bankrupt. The only thing really believable is the guns and endless supply of ammo since yes, America does have about 500 million guns in private hands and literally trillions of rounds of ammo. There would always be guns and ammo. But otherwise, gimmie a break. Box office is often greatly enhanced by people going back multiple times, but this flick needent hold it's breath, I'm not even watching it on streaming or recommending it to friends.
Re: Awright, Spoiler Alert (Score:2)
It's a wish fulfillment film for a very narrow demographic. Much in the way Red Dawn was. And for the people who completely missed the message of the B side of the plot, Falling Down.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a wish fulfillment film for a very narrow demographic. Much in the way Red Dawn was.
Nope, not at all. More of a 'be prepared' thing, prepared for things you absolutely do NOT want to happen. Its a bit like city folk buying face masks and hand sanitizer, they aren't wishing to revisit covid days.
Fear the man buying a case of break free ... (Score:2)
Ammo is only as good as it is stored.
So most of those US stats are purely very short term.
Fear the man buying a case of break free as the apocalypse approaches, not the man buying a case of ammo.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that does seem problematic. For gasoline, it can keep for a while if perfectly sealed, but the problem is mostly with the ethanol content that provides most of the octane rating in modern gasoline mixes. That basically degrades through various processes (especially combining with moisture) and separates and leaves the gasoline very low octane. I will note though, that one exception is AVgas. This is specifically for planes and is what you would find at an airport and it doesn't have ethanol. Also th
Nation Lampoon magazine did this story in 1982 (Score:5, Informative)
It was called “Cliff-Hanger Justice.” It was a satirical legal story written by Joey Green for National Lampoon magazine.
The multi-part story ran sequentially in the August, September, and October 1982 issues.
Google AI:
> "The piece is written entirely as a formal courtroom transcript and legal filings. In it, Wile E. Coyote sues the Acme Corporation for product liability. He seeks damages for the severe physical and psychological trauma caused by their chronically defective merchandise—including faulty giant rubber bands, explosive jet skates, malfunctioning catapults, and defective dehydrated boulders."
Ian Frazier wrote a highly similar, famously anthologized essay titled "Coyote v. Acme" for The New Yorker in 1990.
Just thought I'd mention it.
Shouldn't be disappointed (Score:2)
I had a thin hope that Dog Stars might be worth actually going to a theater to watch, so I'm a little disappointed to hear otherwise. After already wasting my time on the "turd of the year" that was Disclosure Day, and then choking down whatever The Odyssey was supposed to be... I think I'm done with Hollywood movies for the foreseeable future. Might check out Coyote though.
When everything is a crisis, we need fun (Score:2)
Dog Stars seems to lean into the "everything is miserable and we should bask in it" messaging that is all around us all the time now. Coyote vs. ACME is just fun, fun, nostalgia, fun, a minor heart-string tug, and a little more fun. When all day every day is filled with bile, hate, degeneracy and aggravating levels of hypocrisy, maybe people would rather dip out for a brief moment to have some fun, rather than get fully immersed in more of the same thing life is handing us constantly.
I went to Coyote vs. AC