The Official Black Mirror Thread: Season 6 on Netflix Now

freeze said:
what was the ep with needing the likes on your ig pics to have swag. That ep was top 5. Plus it had ginger bae from jurassic world in it. and she got the bbc in the end. :smokin
Click to expand...

This was the episode that got me into the show. Very relatable. Can you imagine if IG and the like was that connected to your life?

toneagain said:
i can't recall a bad episode, all are great watches
Click to expand...

I wasn't a big fan of Men Against Fire or Fifteen Million Merits. I only didn't like FMM because of the pacing of the ep. It just seemed to take a while to get to the point/twist.
 
bware113 said:
This was the episode that got me into the show. Very relatable. Can you imagine if IG and the like was that connected to your life?



I wasn't a big fan of Men Against Fire or Fifteen Million Merits. I only didn't like FMM because of the pacing of the ep. It just seemed to take a while to get to the point/twist.
Click to expand...

I used to feel like that and then I think it took so long because they wanted to show how easily he gave it away to her then how hard it actually took to make that back to just get on stage.
 
bware113 said:
I wasn't a big fan of Men Against Fire or Fifteen Million Merits. I only didn't like FMM because of the pacing of the ep. It just seemed to take a while to get to the point/twist.
Click to expand...
dhart48 said:
I used to feel like that and then I think it took so long because they wanted to show how easily he gave it away to her then how hard it actually took to make that back to just get on stage.
Click to expand...
i agree, the pace was used to show the monotony of earning the merits
 
Yeah that sounds about right. NF hasn't released an official date but I would bet the 6 new eps will drop somewhere in October.

dhart48 said:
I used to feel like that and then I think it took so long because they wanted to show how easily he gave it away to her then how hard it actually took to make that back to just get on stage.
Click to expand...

toneagain said:
i agree, the pace was used to show the monotony of earning the merits
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. Showing that monotony of the 'Merit Grind' really slowed the shows pace down. They could've done an Eye of The Tiger style montage to help me out. >D

I also remember that episode having some unsolved loose ends. Like with the girl that originally liked him before he took a fancy to the new girl and maybe one other item. Don't get me wrong, it was still a good ep, just a tad slower than I would've wanted.
 
Last edited:
‘Black Mirror’ Season 4: Creator Predicts ‘USS Callister’ Is Next ‘San Junipero’
black-mirror-s4.png


https://www.thewrap.com/black-mirror-season-4-charlie-brooker-uss-callister-san-junipero/

“Black Mirror” creator Charlie Brooker has opened up about the upcoming fourth season of the Emmy winning series.

Shrouded in mystery, the dystopian show will release six new episodes come December and Brooker offered up some answers about what to expect.

“All the episodes are intrinsically ‘Black Mirror’ and also aren’t,” Brooker told EW. “If you imagine every season like an album … each is pretty different from every episode we’ve done before and it’s difficult to explain why until you’ve seen them.”

For starters, Brooker is boldly betting that new episode “USS Callister” will be this year’s “San Junipero” — a breakout from last season that proved to be a sci-fi masterpiece, an Emmy winner, and a groundbreaking queer love story for Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Mackenzie Davis.


“Last time when we first released some images it was ‘San Junipero’ that threw [fans], and that’s certainly the case with ‘Callister’ this time around. In a way, [the story] is what it appears to be… and also obviously this is also ‘Black Mirror.’ There’s certainly more to it than meets the eye,” Brooker said.

Other episodes include the Jodie Foster-directed “Arkangel,” as well as episodes titled “Crocodile” and “Hang the DJ.”

“Black Museum,” which is a U.K. term for a crime museum, is an anthology within the anthology — an episode Brooker compared to the annual Halloween episode of “The Simpsons,” titled “Treehouse of Horror.”

“I always wanted to do another one of those and that’s what this is. You’re getting several stories … There’s quite a lot going on there. We do little nods and winks to previous stories we’ve done,” Brooker said.

The creator elaborates more on the question of a shared universe in “Black Mirror,” over at EW.
Click to expand...

Black Mirror creator gives exclusive season 4 details
Upcoming Netflix episodes to include a “Treehouse of Horror”-style anthology, the show’s first black and white episode, and more…

upload_2017-10-31_21-3-14.png


http://ew.com/tv/2017/10/11/black-mirror-season-4/

Below EW interviews Black Mirror creator Charlie Brooker about the upcoming fourth season of his Emmy-winning Netflix series. Don’t worry, Brooker avoids anything resembling a spoiler about his ever-twisty and twisted anthology drama, but he does offer several tantalizing teases about the new season, which includes the show’s first black and white episode, a 74-minute epic and a “Treehouse of Horror”-style anthology (a’ la “White Christmas”).

But first, you might want to watch this Black Mirror season 4 teaser video, if you haven’t already, which we refer to during the interview:



ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Last season you described the episodes as a collection of outliers. At first glance from the teaser trailer, “U.S.S. Callister” aside, several of these seem like more traditional Black Mirror episodes?CHARLIES BROOKER: All the episodes are intrinsically Black Mirror and also aren’t. Like “Metalhead” [photo above] is very unlike any episode we’ve done before. It’s a deliberately paired down and brutal tale. If you imagine every season like an album, this is like a 2-minute punk single. Each is pretty different from every episode we’ve done before and it’s difficult to explain why until you’ve seen them.

The “Metalhead” teaser gave us a glimpse of one of those horrifying Boston Robotics-style robots and a woman running, which makes us suspect a bot has run amuck.
Your instincts are not entirely incorrect there. Weirdly, the inspiration for this episode was I was trying to set myself a challenge of how paired back can I get. What’s a literally black-and-white story we can tell?

In the teaser for “Arkangel,” we have a device and a child…
Tone wise, that’s almost within the world of an indie drama — and you could say that’s classic Black Mirror. It’s about a mother and a daughter and a technological opportunity that comes along that’s seized upon [and then Brooker laughs a bit wickedly].

How did you land Jodie Foster to direct? That’s a huge score.
Netflix had worked with her before and they suggested Jodie. We were like, “Really? You think she would?” We had a Skype conversation during which I managed to keep my cool and not freak out. She responded to the script and she had a lot of thoughts and suggestions on the characters so there were a lot of adjustments. She’s not just a gun for hire, she’s incredibly intelligent and comes in with some thoughts on the material. Which is what you want in a director because each story is a stand-alone [episode], so you want each to be idiosyncratic to that director. And she brought a lot of that.

“U.S.S. Callister” is the WTF of the clips…
It certainly sticks out. Last time when we first released some images it was “San Junipero” that threw [fans], and that’s certainly the case with “Callister” this time around. In a way, [the story] is what it appears to be… and also obviously this is also Black Mirror. There’s certainly more to it than meets the eye.

Are they are other inspirations for that one other than the obvious — Star Trek?
There definitely was but if I say what it is then it gives it away. I will say there have been questions about how is Black Mirror going to address Trump and Brexit and the way the world is now. I kept saying, “Well it isn’t, really.” We tried not to think about that. But if you look at “Callister” there are some stuff that leaked in from the outside world. There is stuff that has to do with regimes, you could say, that’s not there and also very much there.

The vibe I got from “Crocodile” is isolation and paranoia. How far off am I?
Not entirely off! No one has guessed what that one’s about yet, probably because it’s got the most opaque title of all of them. That title tells you nothing, in the way that Reservoir Dogs doesn’t tell you anything about Reservoir Dogs. It’s a title that was echoing around in my head for all sorts of reasons that have no relation what’s going on there. So I’m happy to keep it that way. It’s a fairly taut story; it’s kind of a thriller…

For “Hang the DJ” you got the great Tim Van Patten (Game of Thrones) on board to direct and my guess on that one is some sort of dating app twist.
That’s not a million miles away. There’s a hint of that. It’s probably more societal. We’ve gone for lots of different tones this season. There’s a couple more comedic. There’s some that are not nihilistically horrible from beginning to end and there are others that are. This is one that’s more enjoyable [yet once again laughs].

“Black Museum.” Um, something to do with race relations?
No, a black museum in the U.K. is a crime museum. It’s a phrase I didn’t realize wasn’t a universal phrase. That’s a “Treehouse of Horror.” We did “White Christmas” before. The show itself is an anthology and that was an anthology within an anthology. I always wanted to do another one of those and that’s what this is. You’re getting several stories. “Tales from the Black Museum” we could have called it. There’s quite a lot going on there. We do little nods and winks to previous stories we’ve done.

Which is not something you normally ever do, right?
Right. My position on this has changed. I used to say “they’re all individual stories.” Emotionally, they are. Sometimes I’d make suggestions for something in a news ticker or a Facebook feed that eludes to other stories. Certainly, by the time I got to “Hated in the Nation” I could have them refer to the case that’s central to “White Bear,” because why not? With “Black Museum” I realized we can build upon previous episodes. The basic rule with Black Mirror is you never have to see another episode of Black Mirror, so it doesn’t matter if “Black Museum” is the first episode you see. But if you have seen the rest you’ll see quite explicit nods — literal plots and devices and references to things we’ve done before.

Wouldn’t it be too horrible if all these things in your show were happening in the same world though?
Well, they are and they’re not. It’s weird. It’s interesting that I’ve now become convinced this is a shared universe and was once convinced it wasn’t. I think I’m right in saying in “Black Museum” we have a reference to every episode we’ve ever done but I’m not sure if they’ll all end up on screen.

Have you started anguishing over the order of the episodes yet?
Yes. We’re pretty sure what opens and closes the season, but we’re still working out the order of what’s in between. We’ve got a real variety of tone again this season. We run the gambit between the most broadly accessible mainstream commercial story we’ve ever done and the most gritty and hard-nosed. In that respect, we’re gonna piss off everyone. Last time we felt opening with “Nosedive” was a good gambit because not only was it a very good episode but it was also accessible and we could ease you into the anthology. This time around we think [viewers have] a little more knowledge about the basic concept so we’re going to open with a bit of an epic. I think also in 2017 people need a bit of f—ing cheering up. Black Mirror might not be the obvious show to call for that — and don’t get me wrong, this is not a series you want to watch like The Waltons — but we’re just looking at the balance of the order. We’ve also got very different lengths — “Callister” is 74 minutes long and some of the other episodes that are below 40 minutes.

I always wrestle over which episode to tell people who have never seen Black Mirror to watch first. Which do you tell people to watch?
I used to say, “Just start at the beginning.” But I recognize that “The National Anthem” is very divisive.

Which is why I don’t tell anyone to start at the beginning.
“National Anthem” is perceived slightly differently in the UK where I’m known for comedy writing background. Going into it cold it’s quite a spoonful. There is no right episode. I would suggest jump into the episode list, scroll up and down, and pick one that appeals to you based on the photo and description. Or pick whichever episode your friends recommended. It’s like a little movie festival, you don’t have to watch all of them. That’s a long way of saying that I don’t know. “Nosedive” is a good place to start for a lot of people.

If you weren’t already assured of an another season beyond this I assume after the Emmy win you’re most definitely assured of another season.
I’m not allowed to say anything about that! Obviously, it’s pretty good to get an Emmy. There will be an update on that soon…

Speaking of that: What was your reaction when your show’s title was calledtwice at the Emmys for “San Junipero”?
Terror. Because beforehand when we flew out, we saw various websites had the odds of winning and we thought we maybe had a chance in the TV movie category. You never think these things are a done deal — that would be psychotic — but we thought there’s enough of a chance to think about what we would say if we won. But for the writing category I genuinely never entertained the prospect. As soon as they announce you won, there’s a nice warm spike of surprise and joy immediately followed by a massive wave of fear because you hadn’t thought of anything to say. But it was a very pleasant surprise. To win both was flabbergasting.

It’s the most uplifting and optimistic and, therefore, the most incongruent episode of Black Mirror that got the most acclaim. So how does that sit with you given the show’s usual darker tendencies? Does it make you want to explore the lighter side more?
I like to think the reason it’s had a warm reaction is less to do with the optimism and more to do with the characters. I was lucky that the scenario one I thought up was an evocative one. And originally it was a heterosexual couple, so it meant there was a different resonance that came in when that changed, and it forced me to think about the characters in a more three-dimensional way. Certainly, I was more acutely aware of not wanting to f— it up. Obviously, [the wins are] a bit daunting, it’s now a higher bar to clear, you can only fail from here — my characteristically optimistic view on things.

For more on Black Mirror season 4, check out our recap of the show’s recent PaleyFest panel that screened “U.S.S. Callister.”

To see an exclusive new photo from Black Mirror season 4, pick up the new issue of Entertainment Weekly on stands Friday. You can buy the whole set of Supernatural covers now, or purchase the individual covers of the group shot,Jensen Ackles, Jared Padalecki, or Misha Collins. Don’t forget to subscribe for more exclusive interviews and photos, only in EW.

Black Mirror season 4 will premiere later this year.
Click to expand...
 
Charlie sounds like a very intelligent dude.

Hoping this new season keeps up the quality.
 
tego calderon el abayarde said:
:smh:
When I start talking about how we're depending too much on robots/computers and we're making them too smart my friends and fam look at me like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...

I saw that yesterday on /r/blackmirror. Does BM have a Japanese dub? I think we need to get that to Dr. Eijiro Miyako ASAP
 
Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens

landscape

The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

On June 14, 2014, the State Council of China published an ominous-sounding document called "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System". In the way of Chinese policy documents, it was a lengthy and rather dry affair, but it contained a radical idea. What if there was a national trust score that rated the kind of citizen you were?

Imagine a world where many of your daily activities were constantly monitored and evaluated: what you buy at the shops and online; where you are at any given time; who your friends are and how you interact with them; how many hours you spend watching content or playing video games; and what bills and taxes you pay (or not). It's not hard to picture, because most of that already happens, thanks to all those data-collecting behemoths like Google, Facebook and Instagram or health-tracking apps such as Fitbit. But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date.

A futuristic vision of Big Brother out of control? No, it's already getting underway in China, where the government is developing the Social Credit System (SCS) to rate the trustworthiness of its 1.3 billion citizens. The Chinese government is pitching the system as a desirable way to measure and enhance "trust" nationwide and to build a culture of "sincerity". As the policy states, "It will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility."

Others are less sanguine about its wider purpose. "It is very ambitious in both depth and scope, including scrutinising individual behaviour and what books people are reading. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist," is how Johan Lagerkvist, a Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, described the social credit system. Rogier Creemers, a post-doctoral scholar specialising in Chinese law and governance at the Van Vollenhoven Institute at Leiden University, who published a comprehensive translation of the plan, compared it to "Yelp reviews with the nanny state watching over your shoulder".

For now, technically, participating in China's Citizen Scores is voluntary. But by 2020 it will be mandatory. The behaviour of every single citizen and legal person (which includes every company or other entity)in China will be rated and ranked, whether they like it or not.

405

Credit: Kevin Hong

Prior to its national roll-out in 2020, the Chinese government is taking a watch-and-learn approach. In this marriage between communist oversight and capitalist can-do, the government has given a license to eight private companies to come up with systems and algorithms for social credit scores. Predictably, data giants currently run two of the best-known projects.

Sesame Credit has also teamed up with other data-generating platforms, such as Didi Chuxing, the ride-hailing company that was Uber's main competitor in China before it acquired the American company's Chinese operations in 2016, and Baihe, the country's largest online matchmaking service. It's not hard to see how that all adds up to gargantuan amounts of big data that Sesame Credit can tap into to assess how people behave and rate them accordingly.

So just how are people rated? Individuals on Sesame Credit are measured by a score ranging between 350 and 950 points. Alibaba does not divulge the "complex algorithm" it uses to calculate the number but they do reveal the five factors taken into account. The first is credit history. For example, does the citizen pay their electricity or phone bill on time? Next is fulfilment capacity, which it defines in its guidelines as "a user's ability to fulfil his/her contract obligations". The third factor is personal characteristics, verifying personal information such as someone's mobile phone number and address. But the fourth category, behaviour and preference, is where it gets interesting.

Under this system, something as innocuous as a person's shopping habits become a measure of character. Alibaba admits it judges people by the types of products they buy. "Someone who plays video games for ten hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person," says Li Yingyun, Sesame's Technology Director. "Someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility." So the system not only investigates behaviour - it shapes it. It "nudges" citizens away from purchases and behaviours the government does not like.

Friends matter, too. The fifth category is interpersonal relationships. What does their choice of online friends and their interactions say about the person being assessed? Sharing what Sesame Credit refers to as "positive energy" online, nice messages about the government or how well the country's economy is doing, will make your score go up.

Alibaba is adamant that, currently, anything negative posted on social media does not affect scores (we don't know if this is true or not because the algorithm is secret). But you can see how this might play out when the government's own citizen score system officially launches in 2020. Even though there is no suggestion yet that any of the eight private companies involved in the ongoing pilot scheme will be ultimately responsible for running the government's own system, it's hard to believe that the government will not want to extract the maximum amount of data for its SCS, from the pilots. If that happens, and continues as the new normal under the government's own SCS it will result in private platforms acting essentially as spy agencies for the government. They may have no choice.

Posting dissenting political opinions or links mentioning Tiananmen Square has never been wise in China, but now it could directly hurt a citizen's rating. But here's the real kicker: a person's own score will also be affected by what their online friends say and do, beyond their own contact with them. If someone they are connected to online posts a negative comment, their own score will also be dragged down.

So why have millions of people already signed up to what amounts to a trial run for a publicly endorsed government surveillance system? There may be darker, unstated reasons - fear of reprisals, for instance, for those who don't put their hand up - but there is also a lure, in the form of rewards and "special privileges" for those citizens who prove themselves to be "trustworthy" on Sesame Credit.

If their score reaches 600, they can take out a Just Spend loan of up to 5,000 yuan (around £565) to use to shop online, as long as it's on an Alibaba site. Reach 650 points, they may rent a car without leaving a deposit. They are also entitled to faster check-in at hotels and use of the VIP check-in at Beijing Capital International Airport. Those with more than 666 points can get a cash loan of up to 50,000 yuan (£5,700), obviously from Ant Financial Services. Get above 700 and they can apply for Singapore travel without supporting documents such as an employee letter. And at 750, they get fast-tracked application to a coveted pan-European Schengen visa. "I think the best way to understand the system is as a sort of bastard love child of a loyalty scheme," says Creemers.

Higher scores have already become a status symbol, with almost 100,000 people bragging about their scores on Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) within months of launch. A citizen's score can even affect their odds of getting a date, or a marriage partner, because the higher their Sesame rating, the more prominent their dating profile is on Baihe.

Sesame Credit already offers tips to help individuals improve their ranking, including warning about the downsides of friending someone who has a low score. This might lead to the rise of score advisers, who will share tips on how to gain points, or reputation consultants willing to offer expert advice on how to strategically improve a ranking or get off the trust-breaking blacklist.

Indeed, Sesame Credit is basically a big data gamified version of the Communist Party's surveillance methods; the disquietingdang'an. The regime kept a dossier on every individual that tracked political and personal transgressions. A citizen'sdang'an followed them for life, from schools to jobs. People started reporting on friends and even family members, raising suspicion and lowering social trust in China. The same thing will happen with digital dossiers. People will have an incentive to say to their friends and family, "Don't post that. I don't want you to hurt your score but I also don't want you to hurt mine."

We're also bound to see the birth of reputation black markets selling under-the-counter ways to boost trustworthiness. In the same way that Facebook Likes and Twitter followers can be bought, individuals will pay to manipulate their score. What about keeping the system secure? Hackers (some even state-backed) could change or steal the digitally stored information.

The new system reflects a cunning paradigm shift. As we've noted, instead of trying to enforce stability or conformity with a big stick and a good dose of top-down fear, the government is attempting to make obedience feel like gaming. It is a method of social control dressed up in some points-reward system. It's gamified obedience.

In a trendy neighbourhood in downtown Beijing, the BBC news services hit the streets in October 2015 to ask people about their Sesame Credit ratings. Most spoke about the upsides. But then, who would publicly criticise the system? Ding, your score might go down. Alarmingly, few people understood that a bad score could hurt them in the future. Even more concerning was how many people had no idea that they were being rated.

Currently, Sesame Credit does not directly penalise people for being "untrustworthy" - it's more effective to lock people in with treats for good behaviour. But Hu Tao, Sesame Credit's chief manager, warns people that the system is designed so that "untrustworthy people can't rent a car, can't borrow money or even can't find a job". She has even disclosed that Sesame Credit has approached China's Education Bureau about sharing a list of its students who cheated on national examinations, in order to make them pay into the future for their dishonesty.

Penalties are set to change dramatically when the government system becomes mandatory in 2020. Indeed, on September 25, 2016, the State Council General Office updated its policy entitled "Warning and Punishment Mechanisms for Persons Subject to Enforcement for Trust-Breaking". The overriding principle is simple: "If trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere," the policy document states.

For instance, people with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants, nightclubs or golf courses; and the removal of the right to travel freely abroad with, I quote, "restrictive control on consumption within holiday areas or travel businesses". Scores will influence a person's rental applications, their ability to get insurance or a loan and even social-security benefits. Citizens with low scores will not be hired by certain employers and will be forbidden from obtaining some jobs, including in the civil service, journalism and legal fields, where of course you must be deemed trustworthy. Low-rating citizens will also be restricted when it comes to enrolling themselves or their children in high-paying private schools. I am not fabricating this list of punishments. It's the reality Chinese citizens will face. As the government document states, the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step".

According to Luciano Floridi, a professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford and the director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute, there have been three critical "de-centering shifts" that have altered our view in self-understanding: Copernicus's model of the Earth orbiting the Sun; Darwin's theory of natural selection; and Freud's claim that our daily actions are controlled by the unconscious mind.

Floridi believes we are now entering the fourth shift, as what we do online and offline merge into an onlife. He asserts that, as our society increasingly becomes an infosphere, a mixture of physical and virtual experiences, we are acquiring an onlife personality - different from who we innately are in the "real world" alone. We see this writ large on Facebook, where people present an edited or idealised portrait of their lives. Think about your Uber experiences. Are you just a little bit nicer to the driver because you know you will be rated? But Uber ratings are nothing compared to Peeple, an app launched in March 2016, which is like a Yelp for humans. It allows you to assign ratings and reviews to everyone you know - your spouse, neighbour, boss and even your ex. A profile displays a "Peeple Number", a score based on all the feedback and recommendations you receive. Worryingly, once your name is in the Peeple system, it's there for good. You can't opt out.

Peeple has forbidden certain bad behaviours including mentioning private health conditions, making profanities or being sexist (however you objectively assess that). But there are few rules on how people are graded or standards about transparency.

China's trust system might be voluntary as yet, but it's already having consequences. In February 2017, the country's Supreme People's Court announced that 6.15 million of its citizens had been banned from taking flights over the past four years for social misdeeds. The ban is being pointed to as a step toward blacklisting in the SCS. "We have signed a memorandum… [with over] 44 government departments in order to limit 'discredited' people on multiple levels," says Meng Xiang, head of the executive department of the Supreme Court. Another 1.65 million blacklisted people cannot take trains.

Where these systems really descend into nightmarish territory is that the trust algorithms used are unfairly reductive. They don't take into account context. For instance, one person might miss paying a bill or a fine because they were in hospital; another may simply be a freeloader. And therein lies the challenge facing all of us in the digital world, and not just the Chinese. If life-determining algorithms are here to stay, we need to figure out how they can embrace the nuances, inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in human beings and how they can reflect real life.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

feeninlikejodeci
Have You Ever Seen A Dermatologist?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
cs02132
cs02132

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom