maegul

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 23 hours ago

Yea, also it was an established show and from what I could tell they kept a lot of the production staff at least at the high levels. All they had to do was keep things as they were as it was clearly working well.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Whether you like them or not, I’ve gotten a pretty clear impression that Amazon is a bit of a hack of a studio. There’s always a clear sense of something essential missing.

 

Jinjer knocked it out of the park with this track (off of their latest album)! Love it!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

That looks fantastic my friend!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 day ago

Aahh … the good shit comments sections were made for! Thank you!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Surprising twists there about the tomb having been vacated by Egyptians due to flooding with the second tomb yet to be discovered.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Really no idea personally. My hunch would be that it’s technically a fuzzy problem (what’s the system being measured here exactly?) but also one around which we have some experience and wisdom established by now. Otherwise, the probability has changed like twice or three times, so any statistical inference would likely be close to meaningless with that little data.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Yep! Embracing boredom is likely the path back. Because it’s not a dead space. It’s a canvas.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 days ago (5 children)

From the article

In a new update, the space agency has increased the chances of asteroid 2024 YR4 colliding with Earth, with the probability of impact rising to 3.1 per cent or one-in-32 odds of impact — the highest probability of a collision yet.

IE - 3%.

3% events happen all of the time!

The article stresses that this probability has been going up over the past year or so, which is likely neither here nor there, but I can totally understand how it’s alarming in a post-COVID world.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

I’ve been starting to think that it’s something us older millennials can actually do for our younger friends … remind, demo and teach what a less tech ruled life can look like, how tech can be treated as more humane and not a necessity.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 30 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Not to claim equivalence or anything, but smartphone and the internet (ironic saying so here I know).

I’m a xennial … old enough to remember living without all this and the middle time where computers were either games or just useful tools.

For me, and I’m pretty sure many others, I’m pretty convinced it’s better that way.

I’d really like to get away from these things, at least just to relearn older habits.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Thank you!

I’ve only watched the first minute or two, but I think I get the idea. Clickbaity generalisations etc … yea that makes sense and are obviously shitty (I guess I just expect that more from YouTubers who are otherwise reasonable people).

The whole “most research is BS” claim isinteresting though. I’ll be interested to see how the video addresses it. If we’re talking about >50%, and that it’s substantially imperfect in its constitution due to systemic issues, I dunno, I’d be interested in an actual investigation TBH.

Thanks again though!

 

Oooff. That’s had me stressed!

Season 2 had me kinda down. I adored season 1 but it seemed like season 2 didn’t quite know what it was doing. Too slow and underdeveloped.

As it ramped up at the end though I’m really happy with it. And I appreciate the pacing having finished it. Really nice season of TV and I’m totally ready for season 3.

I’ve not read the books, so I don’t know where it’s going.

The whole algorithm thing (that’s apparently what some subtitles have named the voice) … I’m in the fence about the idea of having an AI/algo angle on that … but I guess we still deserve to confront that sort of stuff. I very much appreciated though the structure of there being another level of manipulation. And of course, Bernard refers to them as “who” bit “it” so either he’s naive or there is another organisational element. The additional silo in the “actually there were 51” line also points in that direction. As does the fact that there’s a tunnel at the bottom of the silo … what/who is that for?!

Generally though, having a microcosm of society under duress and oppression is turning out to be a fantastic premise for a TV show willing to be patient with its development! I’m not watching that much TV but Silo and Andor are definitely my favs of the past few years!

 

Of Eggers' works, I've only seen The Northman and this, Nosferatu.

I can confidently say that I like very much what these films are and where they are coming from. I'm almost guaranteed to see Eggers' next film. And, without wanting to see Nosferatu again, I have a general longing to see a film like Nosferatu over the next few days just to dig into the vibe more (I should probably see his earlier films now).

All to say that this film basically delivers on what you'd hope, with probably some surprises and compelling parts.

But what compelled me to write this was that I walked away from Nosferatu with almost exactly the same feeling I had after The Northman ... that I really wanted to see the better version of that film, that there was something missing, something perhaps slight and subtle but also essential for making the films truly great or to at least wash away an itch that there are annoying flaws.

I'm by no means qualified to describe what these things are or to work if they're just me-problems, but I'm struck by having exactly the same feeling after both films and that Eggers is the sole writer of both films. Because what I think I struggle with probably comes down to writing choices.

Watching both films, I thought to myself that Eggers struggles to stitch the dramatic aspects of his films with their atmospheric parts, which in his hands are vital to his style. Sometimes I wondered if a scene really needed to be there or as long, or needed to interrupt the flow of what was cut from before, or couldn't have better dialogue or more focused acting. It just feels like the moment he decides to have a straight dramatic sequence, with dialogue etc, he kind of doesn't know what he's doing nearly as much, let alone how to bind those components into a cohesive whole along with the more intense and supernatural components.

I'm curious now to watch The Lighthouse, which Eggers wrote along with his brother, to see if I can pick on a difference.



Thinking more broadly, as much as I liked an enjoyed Nosferatu, and will probably watch it again at some point, I do feel it is flawed. I could imagine a directors cut being interesting.

But generally, for me, it was downhill from about the middle onwards (basically after "Orlok's Castle" sequence (which was brilliant I thought, and along with the film's opening, easily the highlights I'd look forward to on rewatch).

Thinking about it along with "The Northman", I wonder if Eggers struggled to adapt pre-existing stories. With Nosferatu, for me personally, it certainly took away from the strength of the film that I new the basic structure of the story ahead of time, which for a vibey horror film becomes a serious distraction at some point. And I don't think Eggers really had too much to bring to the final act of the story TBH (apart from that shot/frame, I guess, which if you've seen the film you can probably guess). I certainly would find it interesting if the story told were only loosly inspired by Stoker's and Murnau's prior works.



Anyone else get where I'm coming from? Anyone with a better take on it than me?

 

I’d almost forgotten about this album, rediscovered it today, and fuck I love the vibe and energy.

 

How are people feeling about it? I was disappointed by season 1, but happy to keep watching as I'm a die hard fan from childhood.

Season 2 had me excited at first ...

spoilers (and ranting)The first two-three episodes at least had me even a little pumped.

The dark wizard in the east very much signals to me that the stranger could be a blue wizard, along with the dark wizard, which is honestly very cool and a nice way to split the difference around Tolkien's "speculation" on what happened to them.

Getting more complex Sauron manipulation and moving the plot along too seemed nice.

But after episode 4, I don't know. I came away from it thinking it might have been the worst tv episode I've watched since Picard S2, which was very strange given how much interesting shit they did. Ents, Bombadil, Wizards, Hobbit origins (actually I don't care for the amount of hobbit stuff in the show at all).

But there was something just boring about it all for me.

The only way I can explain what I think I'm seeing, and why it's fundamentally flawed, is that the writers/directors want to take Tolkien seriously and even feel rather pressured to do so ... and so in many ways they're actually writing/filming that sense of seriousness rather than a well thought out adaptation style.

The clue for me is how the whole show is at once strangely grounded and somehow "elevated" at the same time. The elves, such as Galadriel and Elrond, are kinda normal people doing normal things a lot of the time (compare LoTR trilogy Galadriel basically being mind-crushing and haunting most of the time) ... but talk as though they're reading directly from the bible or Silmarillion. Same for Halbrand/Annatar/Sauron. The construction of the rings is a clue into this I think, where they've attempted to portray it as powerful and important, but there's absolutely no sense of how in the world they're magical, no indication that there's some special elven craft behind them. Just "add mithril and get powerful rings".

Bombadil's dialogue seemed the same to me. Talking about being the eldest as though he's talking about what happened last week. Now in that character this sort of approach makes the most sense. But even so, there didn't seem to be any joy, jolly or aloofness about the character to signal how old he must be to be casual about witnessing the beginning of time. And there's always the concern the show should have for making us the viewer feel what's happening on screen ... and I don't think we felt Bombadil's mysteriousness much at all. Compare with, in the LoTR books, Tolkien using a wonderful way of showing that ... the one ring had no affect no him whatsoever to the point that he could see Frodo while he was wearing it.

The only breath of fresh air so far has been the dark wizard, which clearly takes cues from Saruman. It's probably been the only sense stylistically I've gotten that we're in a lost age of a fantasy world.

One take I had from season 1 was that RoP's biggest problem might be that it's being made after Game of Thrones not before it. That GoTs is absolutely the wrong influence for a show like this and yet is likely to have one due to its pervasive success. And I feel like I may have been right about that. The Tolkien world and GoT "politics and intrigue" are not compatible. Moreover, I suspect the GoT style may have run its course somewhat. A show like RoP was a chance to try something interestingly mystical and I don't think the creators were up to the challenge, perhaps not at all.

 

While territorial claims are and will likely be heated, what struck me is that the area is right near the Drake Passage, in the Weddell Sea (which is fundamental to the world's ocean currents AFAIU).

I don't know how oil drilling in the antarctic could affect the passage, but still, I'm not sure I would trust human oil hunger with a 10ft pole on that one.

Also interestingly, the discovery was made by Russia, which is a somewhat ominous clue about where the current "multi-polar" world and climate change are heading. Antarctica, being an actual continent that thrived with life up until only about 10-30 M yrs ago, is almost certainly full of resources.

 

It's funny, at time of posting, many of the YT comments are very nostalgic about how much has happened in this 8 year period ... and I can't lie, I feel it too god damn it.

 

Seems like fertile ground for coming up with something fun and interesting ... a whole shadow universe that barely touches ours ... but I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

Rant …

spoilerI’m talking about Ash/Rook, obviously.

Just saw the film recently, and while it’s a bit of a love it or hate it film I think, the Rook character is I think objectively egregious.

The idea is good, IMO, in a number of ways, and I can understand that the film makers felt like it was all done with love and affection for Holm and the character. As a viewer, not necessarily onboard with how many cues the film was taking from the franchise, I noticed the silhouette of Rook pretty quickly and was quite happy/hyped to see where it would go.

But OMG the execution is unforgivable! And I feel like this is just so much of what’s wrong with Hollywood and VFX, and also indicates that some execs were definitely intervening in this film. Somewhat fortunately for the film, it had a low budget (AFAICT, by Wikipedia) and is making a profit.

But it’s no excuse to slap some bad CGI onto shots that were not designed for bad CGI. Close ups on the uncanny valley! Come on! AFAICT, bad CGI is often the result of a complete disconnect between the director and the VFX crew, in part because the VFX industry is kept at arms length from the film industry, despite (it because of) its massive importance.

That CGI is not something you do a close up on. No remotely decent director would have done that knowing the CGI looked like that. This is likely bad studio management creating an unworkable situation.

What could have worked much better IMO is don’t have the synth functioning well. Have its facial expressions and movements completely artificial and mechanical. Rely on the likeness of Holm and the AI voice (which did and generally do work well). Could have been done just with a well directed animatronic coupled with some basic CGI to enrich some textures and details. Instead we got a dumb “we’ll do it in post” and tortured some poor editor into cutting those shots together.

For many the film was a mixed bag. For me too. But this somehow prevents me from embracing it because I just don’t trust the people who made it.

… End rant.

 

A nice and fair comparison I thought. The main difference, it seems, was the styles of the two films, where a bunch of stylistic choices rather disparate from whether CGI was used or not separate the two.

My take after seeing furiosa was that it's biggest flaw was that its makers struggled with the expectations of Fury Road and I think these stylistic differences kinda support that, where I'd guess they felt like they had to go with a different look and not simply repeat Fury Road's aesthetic when in the end there may not have been much of a coherent artistic purpose behind those changes.

 

New genre just dropped!

I've liked some of the other things this guy has done, but didn't get into this track at first. As I kept watching though, I got more and more into it and am certain I'd be down for an album of this stuff.

view more: next ›