heydude93

Scheduling your check-in a day earlier would be less expensive, no?

Looks watchable enough based on that, though after the previous two my expectations are about as high as the Permian sedimentary layer. 

Stoked to watch this, especially now that they've officially teamed up w/ the TSTD crew. ^_^

Show looks great and the IP has such rich lore/backstory. It'll be disappointing if it does its own thing without pulling stuff from the early games and novels.

If you try Ethiopian food you cant go wrong with a veggie platter for a first taste (served w/ yebeg tips, if you want meat).  ^_^

Hasan Piker, entertaining as he is, can be hit-or-miss when it comes to insightful political takes, but this tweet remains increasingly relevant ^_^

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's easy. Everyone thinks there's time to get in on the grift before the floor falls out. For game publishers it makes easy sense. The current grifters are making lofty promises about what NFT can do as far as portability goes. That means the publishers don't have to make any such ridiculous promises, themselves. They can just offer the NFTs up knowing that 99.9% of gamers are hoarders and aren't going to sell off their NFTs. Once a game's servers are cut and those items no longer have value as an ingame item, what why would the publisher care about the after market resale value? Hell, they could crash it by reintroducing some of those "one of a kind" items and maybe even make a few thousand dollars on the way down.

 

There is no downside because gamers are incapable of saying no once the thing they've railed against in out and in their hands.

Of course it's understandable why there's a demand to sell NFTs. It's the consumer demand side of things that's mystifying. Grifts make sense when it seems like there's a benefit for the grifted. Cults often gain followers by promising folks something they need or want, be it sex, power, health, vindication, financial stability, etc. 

Even with other fad collectables in the past, the allure is evident.  Were beanie babies hilariously overpriced? Absolutely, but like pokemon, the well-crafted cuteness factor was there, and you're still obtaining rare, physical collectables you can only get from the company making them. 

Such a widespread demand for NFTs is baffling because there's an obvious, completely arbitrary market value being willed into existence that never needed to happen in the first place.  IE: a fuckton of people are choosing to pay a fuckton of money for imaginary licenses/proof of ownership of JPEGs, instead of opting to live in a world where nobody has to lol.  

I had to lose a few gig connections recently because all they want are fuckin NFTs lol. I still have no idea why this so appealing to so many people. It's the most obvious scam ever, to the point where it almost feels inaccurate to call it a scam, yet so many are buying into it. It's honestly surprising there's any pushback at all in the games industry considering how many gamers are fucking idjiots with no critical thinking skills who are addicted to collecting for the sake of collecting to get that quick instant gratification dopamine rush.  

On 1/23/2022 at 10:09 PM, Keyser_Soze said:

Red Cliff

 

Do Director's cuts count? Kingdom of Heaven DC is the only way to watch the movie.

And after watching the International cut, the 3 hour version of Red Cliff feels too short if anything

8 minutes of PS4 Pro footage

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Rockstar is entirely owned by Take-Two Interactive who have a market capitalization of $18.3 billion and are frequently rumored as an EA takeover target.

 

Epic is 40% owned by Tencent, the world's largest videogame company.

How likely do you think a MS acquisition of Take-Two and EA will be?

And who's to say it'll stop here?  I bet Team Ninja are next, and after that, maybe struggling companies that are capable of delivering hits, like Crytek and CDPR.  if CoD can become a console exclusive, there aren't many companies outside of Rockstar and maybe Epic that are safe from acquisition. 

This is why I seriously wonder if/when we'll get to a point where consoles become more like smart bluray players and the three major companies will be more like streaming platforms, eschewing console-manufacturing completely. Sony and MS already both put their first-party exclusives on PC and you also have access to nintendo games via emulation. If you're a PC-owner you're already a leap forward in that direction. If current gen consoles remain hard to find, MS keeps buying third party studios and Sony and MS keep releasing their first party games on PC, it seems absurd for most consumers to not simply buy gaming PCs instead of consoles from here on out.

I wouldn't know what to do with a free drawing from rusty cage lmao .  Fuck that weirdo.

23 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I have really come to hate “deconstruction” talk within the narrative arts. It reminds me of the early 00’s when everybody started cutting in FCP and Premiere (or do you remember Vegas? I kinda liked that one) and people started slapping letterboxes on everything because “widescreen is cinematic”. They did this without composing the shots for the wider aspect ratio. Sometimes it worked perfectly, but often it just doesn’t quite fit.

 

Deconstruction talk feels similar to me.

 

Well the interview with the Wachowskis I linked took place around the mid 00’s about a movie from the early 00’s, so maybe that checks out.

But also what an artist communicates to a broad audience isn't always accurate to what they think and say during the actual process, so that's a possibility as well.

 imo this is why even though it's fun to debate about and speculate why a movie is what it is, I prefer taking everything reported to the public with a grain of salt, sometimes even if it's from the artist themselves.  The amount of stuff w/ the filmmaking process that goes on behind the scenes is often different and more complicated than what the public can know or assume and this becomes more apparent over time.  

On 12/25/2021 at 7:56 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

I take a lot of those interviews with a grain of salt... if that's what thru were going for, that's not what we got. There was nothing "deconstructed" about Neo in those films. What they tried to do was elevate Smith to be his opposite number for reasons.  That's Oysters next to treat the sequels as fan films and just enjoy the first. 

You're autocorrect seems to be freaking out lol, i'm not sure, but I get what you mean.

Anywho yeah even though the Wachowski's were straightforward enough in explaining what they were trying to accomplish, I agree the quality of the result is up for interpretation and a good argument that both films could've been made better definitley exists.

But my guess is they still didn't get to make all three of them exactly as they envisioned at the time. Their filmography's inconsistent so whether or not The Matrix IP would've been more beloved or disliked, who knows. In any event I cant remember most of what happens in the sequels so I don't have much of an opinion until I rewatch em again  ^_^ 

33 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

How were the sequels a deconstruction? Neo is so powerful in the song movie the only thing they could do with him was to keep him out of the movie for large parts of it. The first movie was about as complete a movie as you could have. They tried to build on that rich the sequels but whatever.

In an old interview Lana said it's definitely what they were going for. Not sure where to find it anymore, but there's an excerpt here

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not saying they didn't have the ideas for a larger world to explore. Clearly they did given all of the media they put out. I'm saying that at the end of the first movie, Neo's journey is pretty complete. The guy has become pretty much a god at the end of that movie and there wasn't much for him to do in the sequels within The Matrix. He spends much of Reloaded flying around stopping bullets and isn't even part of the big final action scene on the highway. I don't think the Wachowskis had a trilogy planned really. Once the film became a hit and sequels were going to be made with or withour them, they just came up with more stories. The second and third movies are really just one long movie broken into two. I'm not even sure what was foresahadowed in the first movie that payed off in the second and third. You could really just watch the first Matrix movie and stop there to be honest. Nothing about those three movies, and now the fourth, feels cohesive are part of one story. At least not to me.

Yeah, the first is the superhero journey, the next is a deconstruction of that, etc. I like the sequels more than most tbph, but always wondered how much of the trilogy is what they envisioned vs only what the time they were living in allowed.  Years later we learned there's stuff they wanted to do in the original but couldn't, which opens up questions about the sequels. 

I know almost nothing about how they were made and haven't seen them since the theater release.  I have no doubt a lot went over my head when I did, but even at the time you couldn't help but feel like the production might've been troubled and the choice to tell essential parts of the already convoluted story in the anime and videogame was probably not a good one for the sake of the films. 

I'm sure part four has a decent amount of continuity from there, and I'm hyped to see it now that I have low expectations for the action scenes (which is unfortunate since so much of what made the IP a classic is how much reinventing and raising of stakes there was as far as what movie stuntwork, fight choreography and visual effects - both cg and practical - could be).

On 12/23/2021 at 8:49 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

No they didn't.  

Now THAT's interesting.  I always assumed they had some continuation in mind with all the forshadowing in the original. From what you know how likely is it the sequels we got were not entirely what they wanted to story to be once they signed on to make them?

On 12/23/2021 at 7:17 PM, Anathema- said:

 

Any creative person is constantly wondering "what's next" even if it isn't their property. That doesn't mean that they're obligated to want to follow through, though. 

Oh no doubt. I didn't know about the studio wanting to move forward with sequels with or without them until now, pretty interesting. I guess that confirms they definitely wanted to make them at some point. Did they want to helm them at the time though or were they pressured by WB to deliver a trilogy asap? 

Just Cause 4.

Could the open world design be better? Absolutely. That said how many other games let you hijack a tank and blow shit up before grappling onto a helicopter that you just tethered an enemy soldier to which you then hijack and use to dogfight other aircrafts for ten minutes before jumping out, parachuting and hijacking one of those same aircrafts in mid air? 

Anywho it's boring tbh, 6.5/10

Star Wars Trilogy Theatrical Cut

18 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

It was the original sequels that were getting made with or without them. 

Did they not have sequels in mind when making the first movie!?