This is a post about why I'm not going to go see The Force Awakens (TFA)
Why I'm not planning on seeing it at all.
Perhaps there are some things here you (the reader) may have thought of already.
Maybe you've thought of none of these (yet) but might think of sometime before, during, or after seeing it.
No, this isn't about the movie content itself. I don't know what that is, but of course anyone who's seen the past ones, has read any of the books that take place after the originals, or thinks through any of the plot lines or potentials or even any serials or drama already has a pretty good idea. (Perhaps the trailers tell the bulk of the story as they all seem to do these days.)
If there be spoilers about why somebody who's a fan doesn't want to see TFA, ideas that you've never considered and wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't read this, maybe you should think it's a big spoiler and skip it.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Sunday, November 1, 2015
A tale of two games - how to be customer hostile
This deals with The Microsoft Store website for the United States (EN-US) and so games on it would be ones with the ESRB rating system. The information here does not universally hold true for other countries, languages or rating systems.
If you were selling things, and part of your system was broken in some small but potentially impactful way, would you want to be told about it? Know about it? Fix it? Or would you not give anyone any easy way to tell you, and then ignore attempts to let you know about it?
How's your website working, seems like a question somebody would want to be aware of, and repair if at fault. Even if by and large it all works splendidly for huge volumes of customers and is a sort of technical marvel. Or not.
If you were selling things, and part of your system was broken in some small but potentially impactful way, would you want to be told about it? Know about it? Fix it? Or would you not give anyone any easy way to tell you, and then ignore attempts to let you know about it?
How's your website working, seems like a question somebody would want to be aware of, and repair if at fault. Even if by and large it all works splendidly for huge volumes of customers and is a sort of technical marvel. Or not.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
TLA and FLA, la la la la la
There are a number of industry watchdog groups or industry ratings boards or even government agencies whose job is to censor others or self-censor itself. Ostensibly, the FCC ensures that broadcasts are in the public interest, the MPAA and ESRB ensures movies and video games are labeled as to content.
In the case of entities like the FCC, how they are now is in many ways quite unlike why they were created originally, but times change. Plus they are created by Congressional Act (47 U.S.C. §151 for the FCC) and so would be expected to morph and shift as government entities do, in line with the politics in effect when changes are made. That and the inherent manners that bureaucracy feeds off itself in such things.
Certainly, three-year-olds playing at recess can say anything they want, but the public interest songs on the radio need to be heavily censored for such words even at two-thirty in the morning, in case somebody's child may be listening to some gangster rap station on the radio at that time and have their young mind ruined by uncensored material. That by the way is sarcasm.
The original stated role of the FCC however is quite a bit more lofty in theory.
The United States has a Bill of Rights, and firstmost within it is prohibition for the Federal Government to legislate religion, speech, press, assembly or petitioning of said Federal Government. The wording for the 1st is quite clear, although again in practice (further controlled by judicial interpretation of scope et al) just doesn't work as stated on the tin. Not any more and maybe never really. Still, let's go back to around 1790 and see the clarity and specificity without interference.
It's not just the words we have spelled out in the rules, the people that wrote all the material in the rules also wrote a very large amount of accompanying material. Far more exissts on the discussions and legal basis and later ramifications of having these things written just so. Purposely crafted as they ended up, rather than the many working copies that didn't make it out as written. The authors knew what they were trying to do and they wrote about it at length in general terms and to each other as they went along. They also were aware that many at the time and later would not know language well enough to get the nuances, but that they could only go so far as to make things work the way they should work even still. Modern people often seem to have this odd way of thinking of those from the past; either they were infallible super-geniuses to be held to higher standards than mere mortals, or they were idiots that had no idea of what the future might hold, possessing a severe lack of imagination. Neither of those is true. They just didn't have the same tech we do.
Be that as it all may, let's switch to now, or at least more recent.
The MPAA started out as a trade association in 1922 of the 8 most prominent studios (producing abou8t 3/4 of the movies at the time) for essentially economic purposes. Along the way, due to the hodgepodge of local laws affecting any violence or sexuality as existed in the US in the 1920s, and the often negative publicity the studios gathered from various place,the MPAA worked to standardize content. This was from the standpoint that if there was a certain standard (necessarily low) then localities wouldn't cut down films to the point where few moviegoers would to see the resulting work. The Production Code in the 30s was supported by the studios. Some stumbles followed (the Depression, World War II, various trends in the 40s and 50s and 60s) under the leadership of various men. Now, currently the self-censorship is more of a set of numbers/letters showing five grades (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) that lets people know what they can expect from a movie in case they are morally against something or don't want their children to see such things or don't want to see anything made for children. Only the last two ratings have an actual stated restriction on them; R is 'under 17 needs an adult along', NC-17 is 'nobody under 17'. The first three are more suggestions, although theaters are free to put more limits or less limits on this, and are also subject to a variety of reactions to such from either the MPAA or from consumers or activists. In the case of videos of these sold, retailers are free to set higher or lower limits as well. Either way, none of these ratings has any force of law behind them, but anyone releasing a public movie to be used under the MPAA in mainstream studio release in the US is economically and socially required to do so. Otherwise the film would be unrated, and many if not all corporate theaters would not show it. This (in the face of non-network broadcast and cable TV, and the Internet) has become less stringent and absolute as it was 5 to 20 years ago however. And as any such large group (a bureaucracy akin to a government organization in many ways, but with no force of law in and of itself) it has a life of its own.
Are film ratings by a single somewhat omni-powerful entity that is just an industry group a good thing? A bad thing? Does it not matter? If you're sitting in a theater watching interminable commercials for upcoming films, being in an R rated film and seeing previews themselves marked as all audiences, and hearing all about what the MPAA thinks is annoying to many. Yet it's what there is, and how it now works.
The ESRB is a largely different yet very similar sort of group. It never had to deal with the studio system or 1920s era morality and laws in a non-tech world, the threats to movies were never as large and widespread (recent) as the threats to games, and selling (games to individuals) isn't the same as showing (movies to the public). Otherwise, there's not too much different, in that some number of the seven full time raters in NYC sample a game from provided content forms, a render an opinion on the content of something, and so on. Thus the ESRB assigns ratings for a variety of purposes and reasons, mostly economic consumer-facing reasons. It's industry not government, self-regulatory and pervasive. The ESRB was created by the largest video game publishers (ESA) in 1994 in reaction to criticism and controversy over extreme violence (mostly) and sexual situations. Such as those things existed digitally in 1994 at least; which essentially pre-90s was in large part a non-issue, given how graphics and sound were on computers and the expense of such devices before the 90s. It wasn't until the fear of federal regulation arose in a large public noisy manner that the system went from here and there by some publishers to essentially everywhere by all of them.
The ratings start with the Rating Pending but as RP games aren't actually on sale, this doesn't really count. Then there are a bunch of letters/numbers that are essentially 'ages and up' appropriate content ; 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18 (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO)
Many stores (physical or on the Internet) won't sell certain rated games to certain people, and largely do not carry unrated (non-ESRB rated) games. This isn't surprising given that most publishers are the ESRB, and don't produce them to begin with. Mostly (near universally) no major physical or digital distributions, retail or on gaming consoles, even produce AO games. This effectively removes the highest age rating from actually being one that exists.
None of these ratings have any "must" wording like R and NC-17 movies do though. They are all recommendations, yet ones that are followed by almost all legitimate retail sources of sales. This doesn't often form a problem in implementation, since just about no one lets their games get an AO rating (and most nobody will sell the very few that are) andd most sales methods filter ages to at or above 17 anyway. Stores such as Wal-Mart or Gamestop will ask for ID even for cash sales of M games (and if they feel like it even T or E10+ of course) and can or do require purchasers to be over 18 or even 21. Methods online using credit cards require some sort of identification of the cardholder; financial institutions generally have issues with providing cards to those who can't enter into contracts to pay back credit or who can't legally be a single owner of a savings account with a debit card.
Perhaps most telling in how things work. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (564 US 08-1448 2011) the US Supreme Court found (7-2 no less) that video games are protected speech. Only about one out of twenty mainstream games are rated M (and most of the other nineteen from E10+ and T) yet M rated games are a third of the highest selling and critically acclaimed. Yet still when underaged test purchasers attempt to purchase M rated games (such as those appearing questionable without subterfuge such as fake identification) only a few (one out of six or one out of eight) is able to do so; usually simply because of an error by a customer-facing employee on a procedural matter of retailer policy. Online, the entire issue of payment method is a built-in age restriction mechanism. Even before that on the demand side, there is also that the marketing of games rated T are not glamorized as to the potentially disturbing elements (like smoking cigarettes or saying heck to one's elders), and those rated M are focused only on appropriate demographics to begin with (those who are typical adults, rather than to monks and grade-school children ).
Is all this a good, bad, or indifferent thing? Why not all of them.
Some have suggested that the system is rather lopsided and confused with itself, given that a game like Halo 3 has the same rating as a game like Saint's Row 3. Then there's the entire genre of music/music edutainment/simulation rhythm games (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, DJ Hero, Band Fuse, Just Dance) that are all T, where any number of songs are either radio edits to begin with or have any the objectionable parts just not there. This is true for some lyrics even if they normally are on the radio every time they're played and the changes are a choice of the game producer or publisher and not required to receive a T rating. For illustrations of the latter, songs like Killing in the Name of are missing the end of the song in lieu of extensive editing because it would be M otherwise. On the other hand American Pie has the "good ole boys drinking and rye" and Number of the Beast is blank in the phrases of how nuclear war would affect even the most innocent. Both of the last songs are broadcast allowed, or at least they used to be. So when it comes to these games, if you are an adult and want uncensored songs there, forget it, even for the downloadable ones. That is, there is no M or nearly so material. Although in multiplayer, other players might be swearing as much as they want to, as the disclaimer notes. Just like when you were in kindergarten or college, or last night at the casino or concert. The song in the software, that is vastly different, at least before the fact. (And indeed online controls allow blocking anyone from interacting online, just in case such ruffians are about.)
Maybe this is just a case of people forgetting we all know all these words and concepts just as soon as we start realizing everything else, or maybe it's the idea that morality can be legislated and that hearing and seeing things warps ones minds. Although it's certain that learned behaviors are learned, and that humans are social animals. While likely nobody should be letting children into movies like Clockwork Orange or into events like the Republican National Convention or playing games like Grand Theft Auto IV there are ways to control such things, most of which currently work pretty well even if they are so far away from their original intent to be unrecognizable. Even if the benefit derived is inconsequential (to life on Earth) or only serves to make those overseeing such things feel as if they're doing something or to keep them out of trouble. Both perhaps.
Just remember though the next time you see some rating or another, that these things are somebody's opinion, but that they serve a purpose. Not that that purpose is always worthwhile, or that the mechanisms are always properly implemented.
In the case of entities like the FCC, how they are now is in many ways quite unlike why they were created originally, but times change. Plus they are created by Congressional Act (47 U.S.C. §151 for the FCC) and so would be expected to morph and shift as government entities do, in line with the politics in effect when changes are made. That and the inherent manners that bureaucracy feeds off itself in such things.
Certainly, three-year-olds playing at recess can say anything they want, but the public interest songs on the radio need to be heavily censored for such words even at two-thirty in the morning, in case somebody's child may be listening to some gangster rap station on the radio at that time and have their young mind ruined by uncensored material. That by the way is sarcasm.
The original stated role of the FCC however is quite a bit more lofty in theory.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.That's all well and good, but that's just a TLA and governmentally created and operated. How about industry self-censors? Specifically, we'll focus on motion pictures and computer software.
The United States has a Bill of Rights, and firstmost within it is prohibition for the Federal Government to legislate religion, speech, press, assembly or petitioning of said Federal Government. The wording for the 1st is quite clear, although again in practice (further controlled by judicial interpretation of scope et al) just doesn't work as stated on the tin. Not any more and maybe never really. Still, let's go back to around 1790 and see the clarity and specificity without interference.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Now one may argue that neither motion pictures or computer software is speech - and perhaps that's true. One may also argue that the people in 1790ish didn't mean anything by speech except at church pulpits, in the town square, and in written text, handbills, and newspapers; that if they had known about movies and computer games they certainly wouldn't have written anything protecting them. This second argument is of course bogus and nonsense, there's a reason the wording in the rules (Constitution and Bill of Rights) is both clear and non-specific (or if you wish vague and specific) so what they said would mean something then and also not wear out later. That it would set a precedent that could later be applied to similar concepts, much like chisel on stone is ink on paper is sound waves in grooves is spots in patterns on an LCD display is moving images is music. (Which of course music has been around for quite a while too and often has words with it.)
It's not just the words we have spelled out in the rules, the people that wrote all the material in the rules also wrote a very large amount of accompanying material. Far more exissts on the discussions and legal basis and later ramifications of having these things written just so. Purposely crafted as they ended up, rather than the many working copies that didn't make it out as written. The authors knew what they were trying to do and they wrote about it at length in general terms and to each other as they went along. They also were aware that many at the time and later would not know language well enough to get the nuances, but that they could only go so far as to make things work the way they should work even still. Modern people often seem to have this odd way of thinking of those from the past; either they were infallible super-geniuses to be held to higher standards than mere mortals, or they were idiots that had no idea of what the future might hold, possessing a severe lack of imagination. Neither of those is true. They just didn't have the same tech we do.
Be that as it all may, let's switch to now, or at least more recent.
The MPAA started out as a trade association in 1922 of the 8 most prominent studios (producing abou8t 3/4 of the movies at the time) for essentially economic purposes. Along the way, due to the hodgepodge of local laws affecting any violence or sexuality as existed in the US in the 1920s, and the often negative publicity the studios gathered from various place,the MPAA worked to standardize content. This was from the standpoint that if there was a certain standard (necessarily low) then localities wouldn't cut down films to the point where few moviegoers would to see the resulting work. The Production Code in the 30s was supported by the studios. Some stumbles followed (the Depression, World War II, various trends in the 40s and 50s and 60s) under the leadership of various men. Now, currently the self-censorship is more of a set of numbers/letters showing five grades (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) that lets people know what they can expect from a movie in case they are morally against something or don't want their children to see such things or don't want to see anything made for children. Only the last two ratings have an actual stated restriction on them; R is 'under 17 needs an adult along', NC-17 is 'nobody under 17'. The first three are more suggestions, although theaters are free to put more limits or less limits on this, and are also subject to a variety of reactions to such from either the MPAA or from consumers or activists. In the case of videos of these sold, retailers are free to set higher or lower limits as well. Either way, none of these ratings has any force of law behind them, but anyone releasing a public movie to be used under the MPAA in mainstream studio release in the US is economically and socially required to do so. Otherwise the film would be unrated, and many if not all corporate theaters would not show it. This (in the face of non-network broadcast and cable TV, and the Internet) has become less stringent and absolute as it was 5 to 20 years ago however. And as any such large group (a bureaucracy akin to a government organization in many ways, but with no force of law in and of itself) it has a life of its own.
Are film ratings by a single somewhat omni-powerful entity that is just an industry group a good thing? A bad thing? Does it not matter? If you're sitting in a theater watching interminable commercials for upcoming films, being in an R rated film and seeing previews themselves marked as all audiences, and hearing all about what the MPAA thinks is annoying to many. Yet it's what there is, and how it now works.
The ESRB is a largely different yet very similar sort of group. It never had to deal with the studio system or 1920s era morality and laws in a non-tech world, the threats to movies were never as large and widespread (recent) as the threats to games, and selling (games to individuals) isn't the same as showing (movies to the public). Otherwise, there's not too much different, in that some number of the seven full time raters in NYC sample a game from provided content forms, a render an opinion on the content of something, and so on. Thus the ESRB assigns ratings for a variety of purposes and reasons, mostly economic consumer-facing reasons. It's industry not government, self-regulatory and pervasive. The ESRB was created by the largest video game publishers (ESA) in 1994 in reaction to criticism and controversy over extreme violence (mostly) and sexual situations. Such as those things existed digitally in 1994 at least; which essentially pre-90s was in large part a non-issue, given how graphics and sound were on computers and the expense of such devices before the 90s. It wasn't until the fear of federal regulation arose in a large public noisy manner that the system went from here and there by some publishers to essentially everywhere by all of them.
The ratings start with the Rating Pending but as RP games aren't actually on sale, this doesn't really count. Then there are a bunch of letters/numbers that are essentially 'ages and up' appropriate content ; 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18 (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO)
Many stores (physical or on the Internet) won't sell certain rated games to certain people, and largely do not carry unrated (non-ESRB rated) games. This isn't surprising given that most publishers are the ESRB, and don't produce them to begin with. Mostly (near universally) no major physical or digital distributions, retail or on gaming consoles, even produce AO games. This effectively removes the highest age rating from actually being one that exists.
None of these ratings have any "must" wording like R and NC-17 movies do though. They are all recommendations, yet ones that are followed by almost all legitimate retail sources of sales. This doesn't often form a problem in implementation, since just about no one lets their games get an AO rating (and most nobody will sell the very few that are) andd most sales methods filter ages to at or above 17 anyway. Stores such as Wal-Mart or Gamestop will ask for ID even for cash sales of M games (and if they feel like it even T or E10+ of course) and can or do require purchasers to be over 18 or even 21. Methods online using credit cards require some sort of identification of the cardholder; financial institutions generally have issues with providing cards to those who can't enter into contracts to pay back credit or who can't legally be a single owner of a savings account with a debit card.
Perhaps most telling in how things work. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (564 US 08-1448 2011) the US Supreme Court found (7-2 no less) that video games are protected speech. Only about one out of twenty mainstream games are rated M (and most of the other nineteen from E10+ and T) yet M rated games are a third of the highest selling and critically acclaimed. Yet still when underaged test purchasers attempt to purchase M rated games (such as those appearing questionable without subterfuge such as fake identification) only a few (one out of six or one out of eight) is able to do so; usually simply because of an error by a customer-facing employee on a procedural matter of retailer policy. Online, the entire issue of payment method is a built-in age restriction mechanism. Even before that on the demand side, there is also that the marketing of games rated T are not glamorized as to the potentially disturbing elements (like smoking cigarettes or saying heck to one's elders), and those rated M are focused only on appropriate demographics to begin with (those who are typical adults, rather than to monks and grade-school children ).
Is all this a good, bad, or indifferent thing? Why not all of them.
Some have suggested that the system is rather lopsided and confused with itself, given that a game like Halo 3 has the same rating as a game like Saint's Row 3. Then there's the entire genre of music/music edutainment/simulation rhythm games (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, DJ Hero, Band Fuse, Just Dance) that are all T, where any number of songs are either radio edits to begin with or have any the objectionable parts just not there. This is true for some lyrics even if they normally are on the radio every time they're played and the changes are a choice of the game producer or publisher and not required to receive a T rating. For illustrations of the latter, songs like Killing in the Name of are missing the end of the song in lieu of extensive editing because it would be M otherwise. On the other hand American Pie has the "good ole boys drinking and rye" and Number of the Beast is blank in the phrases of how nuclear war would affect even the most innocent. Both of the last songs are broadcast allowed, or at least they used to be. So when it comes to these games, if you are an adult and want uncensored songs there, forget it, even for the downloadable ones. That is, there is no M or nearly so material. Although in multiplayer, other players might be swearing as much as they want to, as the disclaimer notes. Just like when you were in kindergarten or college, or last night at the casino or concert. The song in the software, that is vastly different, at least before the fact. (And indeed online controls allow blocking anyone from interacting online, just in case such ruffians are about.)
Maybe this is just a case of people forgetting we all know all these words and concepts just as soon as we start realizing everything else, or maybe it's the idea that morality can be legislated and that hearing and seeing things warps ones minds. Although it's certain that learned behaviors are learned, and that humans are social animals. While likely nobody should be letting children into movies like Clockwork Orange or into events like the Republican National Convention or playing games like Grand Theft Auto IV there are ways to control such things, most of which currently work pretty well even if they are so far away from their original intent to be unrecognizable. Even if the benefit derived is inconsequential (to life on Earth) or only serves to make those overseeing such things feel as if they're doing something or to keep them out of trouble. Both perhaps.
Just remember though the next time you see some rating or another, that these things are somebody's opinion, but that they serve a purpose. Not that that purpose is always worthwhile, or that the mechanisms are always properly implemented.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Quentin Tarantino Movies
I've commented on one of his movies so far at length, but what about the entire body of work?
Well, let's see. I think this is mostly it.
Love Birds in Bondage
Never heard of it before I saw it in the CV.
My Best Friend's Birthday
Also never heard of it before looking up the list.
Reservoir Dogs
I've seen this one. I just remember that it wasn't particularly interesting. I couldn't tell you anything except I guess some guy in a chair gets his ear cut or something.
Pulp Fiction
A lot of this I do remember, the only thing that stands out is that they killed poor Phil Lamar. Now, Tarantino is pretty good as the car cleaner murder guy I must say. Maybe that's sad it's the bright point. There was a shiny suitcase too. And some stupid dancing with Uma. Well, that's about it.
Four Rooms
Another unknown to me.
Jackie Brown
I heard this way okay, but haven't seen it. So I don't know.
Kill Bill 1
Saw it. Has Uma ever done anything good to great or above. As far as the lack of noteworthiness of The Bride... I guess it she was alright in it. Maybe it's rather pitful that I think she was good in some chick flick, as far as romantic comedies go. Wait, this is about KB1. It had David Caradine in it too. I think. Bad guy gangster, pluck the stone from the hand and such. Anyway. Rather forgettable. Given that I've forgotten it. Was an entire movie needed for setup? I don't know, probably not. Maybe QT was experimenting for later with Basterds. Maybe that's all he knows how to do, and how many times can you do it before you get tired and lazy and sloppy?
Kill Bill 2
Heard it was way better than the first one, but if it takes an entire movie to set up the action, maybe it's better I haven't seen it. I still remember that other overly long setup with too little in the way of results he did later in Basterds, so whatever about this one, maybe it's as aggravating.
Sin City
Dunno. Haven't seen it. Dark comic or something, everyone dies or something. Great idea? I guess. It isn't really all his movie right? Well if it's anything like Pulp Fiction, no big loss.
Grindhouse / Death Proof
His part of this was pretty good at, but rather senseless and meandering overall much of the time. I don't know what to say about the first part (slow than surprising maybe?) of it but the second part is... Odd. Rather like the Jackson/Travolta parts of Pulp Fiction in the way it felt. I don't know that entire movie (the other half not by him too) is just strange. Nothing I'd want to watch again though. Death Proof is probably entirely saved by Kurt Russell, that might be the answer to the question of how good or bad it is.
Inglourious Basterds
As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the worst movies ever made. You can read the first blog post if you want more.
Django Unchained
I heard this was pretty good, but so far nothing's made me get out and chance it. It has Jamie Foxx in it, and as good as he was in Ray, maybe that saves it (if the rest is anything like Inglrious Basterds.) Or maybe it's just an excuse to say nigger a lot in context about how fucked up slavery was and is. Either way, I'm rather partial to Dave Chappelle's version with the time-traveling pimp exacting revenge. No, I have no idea why I'm mixing a movie I haven't seen with a short sketch on a comedy show either.
The Hateful Eight
Will this break the pattern? I don't know. Will I see it? Maybe some day. Will it be like the rest of his movies so far? God, I hope not, or will hope not if I see it. Well, if it opens with a 45 minute scene about a gay psycho Nazi that already knows he's going to shoot everyone but one under the floorboards, it won't be a long watching I tell you what.
Now to some movies not by him or whatever.
Natural Born Killers
I don't know if I've heard anything, but it feels as though it really can't be much good. Maybe I'm wrong. Harrelson was good in Cheers sometimes.
From Dusk to Dawn
I liked this movie, and he plays a good psycho. Maybe he should stick to acting.
Of all the ones I've seen, this is the best film. Perhaps the only good one on the list. Given how I felt about Grindhouse itself, I can't really given credit all to Rodriguez, but maybe that one was an off day. Or maybe zombies and chicks with machinegun legs don't do anything for me. But kudos to the both of them (and of course Clooney and Chong and Keitel and Lewis)
True Romance
If only all his standoff scenes could be as good as this. Maybe I'm just misremembering it, or maybe I'm just somewhat of a fan of Christian Slater. I think QT also wrote the parts with Brad Pitt, but I don't remember anything much about the scene but that it was rather underwhelming even as a cameo or whatever it was supposed to be.
There you go.
If you like all these and more and any I've missed, that's fine. There are certain things some people like, no doubt of that. I just happen to feel the opposite way, and that's just as fine too.
Well, let's see. I think this is mostly it.
Love Birds in Bondage
Never heard of it before I saw it in the CV.
My Best Friend's Birthday
Also never heard of it before looking up the list.
Reservoir Dogs
I've seen this one. I just remember that it wasn't particularly interesting. I couldn't tell you anything except I guess some guy in a chair gets his ear cut or something.
Pulp Fiction
A lot of this I do remember, the only thing that stands out is that they killed poor Phil Lamar. Now, Tarantino is pretty good as the car cleaner murder guy I must say. Maybe that's sad it's the bright point. There was a shiny suitcase too. And some stupid dancing with Uma. Well, that's about it.
Four Rooms
Another unknown to me.
Jackie Brown
I heard this way okay, but haven't seen it. So I don't know.
Kill Bill 1
Saw it. Has Uma ever done anything good to great or above. As far as the lack of noteworthiness of The Bride... I guess it she was alright in it. Maybe it's rather pitful that I think she was good in some chick flick, as far as romantic comedies go. Wait, this is about KB1. It had David Caradine in it too. I think. Bad guy gangster, pluck the stone from the hand and such. Anyway. Rather forgettable. Given that I've forgotten it. Was an entire movie needed for setup? I don't know, probably not. Maybe QT was experimenting for later with Basterds. Maybe that's all he knows how to do, and how many times can you do it before you get tired and lazy and sloppy?
Kill Bill 2
Heard it was way better than the first one, but if it takes an entire movie to set up the action, maybe it's better I haven't seen it. I still remember that other overly long setup with too little in the way of results he did later in Basterds, so whatever about this one, maybe it's as aggravating.
Sin City
Dunno. Haven't seen it. Dark comic or something, everyone dies or something. Great idea? I guess. It isn't really all his movie right? Well if it's anything like Pulp Fiction, no big loss.
Grindhouse / Death Proof
His part of this was pretty good at, but rather senseless and meandering overall much of the time. I don't know what to say about the first part (slow than surprising maybe?) of it but the second part is... Odd. Rather like the Jackson/Travolta parts of Pulp Fiction in the way it felt. I don't know that entire movie (the other half not by him too) is just strange. Nothing I'd want to watch again though. Death Proof is probably entirely saved by Kurt Russell, that might be the answer to the question of how good or bad it is.
Inglourious Basterds
As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the worst movies ever made. You can read the first blog post if you want more.
Django Unchained
I heard this was pretty good, but so far nothing's made me get out and chance it. It has Jamie Foxx in it, and as good as he was in Ray, maybe that saves it (if the rest is anything like Inglrious Basterds.) Or maybe it's just an excuse to say nigger a lot in context about how fucked up slavery was and is. Either way, I'm rather partial to Dave Chappelle's version with the time-traveling pimp exacting revenge. No, I have no idea why I'm mixing a movie I haven't seen with a short sketch on a comedy show either.
The Hateful Eight
Will this break the pattern? I don't know. Will I see it? Maybe some day. Will it be like the rest of his movies so far? God, I hope not, or will hope not if I see it. Well, if it opens with a 45 minute scene about a gay psycho Nazi that already knows he's going to shoot everyone but one under the floorboards, it won't be a long watching I tell you what.
Now to some movies not by him or whatever.
Natural Born Killers
I don't know if I've heard anything, but it feels as though it really can't be much good. Maybe I'm wrong. Harrelson was good in Cheers sometimes.
From Dusk to Dawn
I liked this movie, and he plays a good psycho. Maybe he should stick to acting.
Of all the ones I've seen, this is the best film. Perhaps the only good one on the list. Given how I felt about Grindhouse itself, I can't really given credit all to Rodriguez, but maybe that one was an off day. Or maybe zombies and chicks with machinegun legs don't do anything for me. But kudos to the both of them (and of course Clooney and Chong and Keitel and Lewis)
True Romance
If only all his standoff scenes could be as good as this. Maybe I'm just misremembering it, or maybe I'm just somewhat of a fan of Christian Slater. I think QT also wrote the parts with Brad Pitt, but I don't remember anything much about the scene but that it was rather underwhelming even as a cameo or whatever it was supposed to be.
There you go.
If you like all these and more and any I've missed, that's fine. There are certain things some people like, no doubt of that. I just happen to feel the opposite way, and that's just as fine too.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
It feels like five years ago all over again, again
October 26, 2010
There are a lot of things that feel the same now as they did five years ago when Rock Band 3 released. Especially when it comes to Rock Band 4 for 'current gen' consoles. There's lots of self-created hype, with a lot of things just missing... Or this time, to some extent in some ways shown as wrong already. This time, we do have last time to compare it to. It might not be all that wonderful a feeling to anyone involved. Although in the world at large, and for new players in this sub-world, most people likely don't have any idea about any of this in the slightest. Perhaps it doesn't matter then except to a few.
I myself would like to see Harmonix succeed here, but they seem to be their own worst enemy sometimes. Plus no one person or any group of wishes is going to sell a large number of copies of anything, especially in the face of all the game and life competition. RB4 isn't even out yet, and they've already started talking about what great things they'll add with their first update in December. If the game was really ready to release we ponder, one might think these sorts of things with any high demand would already be present. They've also created a "street team" of 500 players (who host parties to play, and otherwise do a lot of things no casual player does, and certainly no non-gamer does) by bribing them with a free "band in a box" set to promote the game... promote it to people who already play it? Maybe that's a good demographic to target, to get sales and preorders going. Or maybe it just makes them look desperate a month before release.
We've already talked about their initial failure to provide a game-only preorder out of the gate, which reasons seem obvious already. Your old instruments won't work if they're not wireless. If certain information is correct, many users don't have wireless instruments at all, and those that do have some, they don't work because wireless instruments aren't as hardy or just don't have the longevity wired ones do. If you do have wireless instruments, you likely got them for RB3 one imagines, maybe those work.
On the other hand, there's a 'last-gen' console sitting here, and some total of 20 or so ish games that go with it. They all work with all the instruments. So if you want to fire up some tracks and watch the game highways, all those songs can be played right now. Nothing to buy, nothing to worry about for compatibility. Just older, sure. Not as much broadcast yourself on the old consoles as the new (at least not without specific extra external hardware) or a number of other things. But it all works, and it works now.
Last time, five years ago, we gave Harmonix the benefit of the doubt at what appeared to be a rather hit-or-miss marketing style, a lack of solid information, failures to answer most things about "later" and a half-hearted or lack of promotion of the most enticing and exciting features. All coupled with a shortage of peripherals. Not that we should blame anyone for not wanting to produce a large number of peripherals that might not sell. Yet when you produce them anyway even after the buzz fails to materialize, and you've cut the price of the game to $20, and MIDI guitars (Fender Strat guitar and controller or yourock or the mustang semi-guitar) are often essentially nowhere to be seen, and many people are only interested because they can hook up their edrums / vdrums / acoustic drums with MIDI triggers. I wonder how much Fender and Mad Catz and the parent companies ate on these peripherals anyway (mini wireless keyboard, standard plastic instruments).
Whatever actually happened last time? Last time, many of us chalked this all up to being sold by Viacom / MTV games, and the general stagnation of the game genre, and forces beyond game creator control. The market. The peripheral makers. The game publisher. The churn, and supposed publisher demands to release a game that pretty clearly wasn't itself fully ready (much less the peripherals), and a lack of demand such as show by Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock sales. That must be the reason for the situation, we said, cut them slack we justified.
And yet here five years later, there's a lot of the same, when it seems all choices are in the hands of Harmonix. Which very much makes it seem like they are their own problem. Although many of the constraints on what can be done are in the consoles, true, but inconsistencies between the Xbox 360 and One and PS 3 and 4 have been known (internally and externally in various ways) for quite a while. If you know the wired instruments (including the MIDI Pro Adapter) won't work, and you don't think they can or you don't plan to try or you'll look into it in a few months or years? Whose fault is that then.
So let's see what we have. Your old instruments have to be wireless (and if you have a One you need an adapter, which they've discounted even though you can't get one yet). None of your wired items will work, except the mic (but they've got a way better one now of course). There is no support for any of the "Pro Instruments" (guitars and keyboards). There's no support for any advanced drum kits without the MPA or if the set is compatible with the One or PS4 and how many of them that are compatible are there? Nobody much is saying. Maybe there's none to talk about.
There's other news all on Harmonix. The availability of whatever other hardware may or may not be available, that's next year. Support for whatever might be supported, that might get worked on later. Next year sometime maybe. They have little solid information, except we do have what happened last time.
It's almost sad, it's at least a little infuriating, it's seemingly business as usual. If most everyone that knows anything about it is doing what we are, it's a failure. When will anyone know? Maybe everyone knows already, but in a month, and in the three or so months after, the proof will out. By next year we'll know.
Wait 'till next year, it'll all be okay. Whichever way that is.
There are a lot of things that feel the same now as they did five years ago when Rock Band 3 released. Especially when it comes to Rock Band 4 for 'current gen' consoles. There's lots of self-created hype, with a lot of things just missing... Or this time, to some extent in some ways shown as wrong already. This time, we do have last time to compare it to. It might not be all that wonderful a feeling to anyone involved. Although in the world at large, and for new players in this sub-world, most people likely don't have any idea about any of this in the slightest. Perhaps it doesn't matter then except to a few.
I myself would like to see Harmonix succeed here, but they seem to be their own worst enemy sometimes. Plus no one person or any group of wishes is going to sell a large number of copies of anything, especially in the face of all the game and life competition. RB4 isn't even out yet, and they've already started talking about what great things they'll add with their first update in December. If the game was really ready to release we ponder, one might think these sorts of things with any high demand would already be present. They've also created a "street team" of 500 players (who host parties to play, and otherwise do a lot of things no casual player does, and certainly no non-gamer does) by bribing them with a free "band in a box" set to promote the game... promote it to people who already play it? Maybe that's a good demographic to target, to get sales and preorders going. Or maybe it just makes them look desperate a month before release.
We've already talked about their initial failure to provide a game-only preorder out of the gate, which reasons seem obvious already. Your old instruments won't work if they're not wireless. If certain information is correct, many users don't have wireless instruments at all, and those that do have some, they don't work because wireless instruments aren't as hardy or just don't have the longevity wired ones do. If you do have wireless instruments, you likely got them for RB3 one imagines, maybe those work.
On the other hand, there's a 'last-gen' console sitting here, and some total of 20 or so ish games that go with it. They all work with all the instruments. So if you want to fire up some tracks and watch the game highways, all those songs can be played right now. Nothing to buy, nothing to worry about for compatibility. Just older, sure. Not as much broadcast yourself on the old consoles as the new (at least not without specific extra external hardware) or a number of other things. But it all works, and it works now.
Last time, five years ago, we gave Harmonix the benefit of the doubt at what appeared to be a rather hit-or-miss marketing style, a lack of solid information, failures to answer most things about "later" and a half-hearted or lack of promotion of the most enticing and exciting features. All coupled with a shortage of peripherals. Not that we should blame anyone for not wanting to produce a large number of peripherals that might not sell. Yet when you produce them anyway even after the buzz fails to materialize, and you've cut the price of the game to $20, and MIDI guitars (Fender Strat guitar and controller or yourock or the mustang semi-guitar) are often essentially nowhere to be seen, and many people are only interested because they can hook up their edrums / vdrums / acoustic drums with MIDI triggers. I wonder how much Fender and Mad Catz and the parent companies ate on these peripherals anyway (mini wireless keyboard, standard plastic instruments).
Whatever actually happened last time? Last time, many of us chalked this all up to being sold by Viacom / MTV games, and the general stagnation of the game genre, and forces beyond game creator control. The market. The peripheral makers. The game publisher. The churn, and supposed publisher demands to release a game that pretty clearly wasn't itself fully ready (much less the peripherals), and a lack of demand such as show by Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock sales. That must be the reason for the situation, we said, cut them slack we justified.
And yet here five years later, there's a lot of the same, when it seems all choices are in the hands of Harmonix. Which very much makes it seem like they are their own problem. Although many of the constraints on what can be done are in the consoles, true, but inconsistencies between the Xbox 360 and One and PS 3 and 4 have been known (internally and externally in various ways) for quite a while. If you know the wired instruments (including the MIDI Pro Adapter) won't work, and you don't think they can or you don't plan to try or you'll look into it in a few months or years? Whose fault is that then.
So let's see what we have. Your old instruments have to be wireless (and if you have a One you need an adapter, which they've discounted even though you can't get one yet). None of your wired items will work, except the mic (but they've got a way better one now of course). There is no support for any of the "Pro Instruments" (guitars and keyboards). There's no support for any advanced drum kits without the MPA or if the set is compatible with the One or PS4 and how many of them that are compatible are there? Nobody much is saying. Maybe there's none to talk about.
There's other news all on Harmonix. The availability of whatever other hardware may or may not be available, that's next year. Support for whatever might be supported, that might get worked on later. Next year sometime maybe. They have little solid information, except we do have what happened last time.
It's almost sad, it's at least a little infuriating, it's seemingly business as usual. If most everyone that knows anything about it is doing what we are, it's a failure. When will anyone know? Maybe everyone knows already, but in a month, and in the three or so months after, the proof will out. By next year we'll know.
Wait 'till next year, it'll all be okay. Whichever way that is.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Misc.
I hadn't decided what to write about next, so I figured why not a few paragraphs about some things that might not need an entire post each. I don't know if this needs to be done, but I felt like it. So about like usual.
----
There's a recent bunch of stories about a clerk pushing back at the law you might have seen a bit of here and there. Not too surprising, just as a couple of Supreme Court justices said or suggested in Obergefell v. Hodges (PDF of actual decision) That there would be people that "fought back" in both legal and illegal ways, in some form of what might be refereed to as civil disobedience. See, The Court realizes that just because they decide something, not everyone is going to agree, not everyone is going to follow, and that they don't suddenly change social opinions developed over time in an instant. That even SCOTUS can't determine how people think or react, especially when they judicially change the definition of a social term. (As they also mention in the arguments and decision)
This is all rife with heavy strong honest opinion about what is right and what is fair and what is equal. It's unknown if anyone is in the wrong here, but there are plenty of things wrong with a lot of their methods. Strong opinions on personal matters that are nobody's business but the participants, but also have an impact of some sort on society. Social rules that societies make for themselves, ach, it gives me a headache..
The story is in general quite boring -- unless you yourself are on one of the two sides or are otherwise emotionally attached to the story and on which side. Or have taken the time to go to the place and demonstrate one way or another. However, one of the interesting things is watching "the sides" react to each other, where the intolerance and hyperbole and frenetic actions go both directions and none of those smack dab in the middle see it in themselves, probably. Good old American anger at what other people think and do when the ugly unfair idiots don't agree with the way somebody else sees it.
Of course, one thing that is true is that even with the decision by SCOTUS, the laws themselves in the various states and localities haven't yet been rewritten to take into account what was decided. The Court has spoken, the legislatures haven't yet reacted. It's going to take a while until nobody can fail to follow what was held: That the States must "...license a marriage between two people of the same sex and .... recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State." The fact is that the laws themselves don't yet by and large (well, universally nation-wide) reflect this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Wait a few generations, it'll be fine.
----
There's a person (some people) on YouTube making a lot of videos about (against? I can't quite decide) the game Destiny. I find it rather odd that they (the videos) exist as they do, with the content that they have. After all, if you are watching the vids, you likely have the game and have been playing it, which also likely means you'll continue playing and buying things for it, or you've decided on your own it's too much work and you're not going to continue. Too much work, as in grinding for materials, leveling up, improving weapons and armor. As in finding raid teams, strike teams, and so on. Or maybe you just play it and don't worry about such things, who's to say.
On the flip side of that, if you don't play Destiny or aren't a gamer, you likely have never seen the vids or didn't bother watching them because they were of no interest to you. The crux of the vids is something like that the content being sold (the DLC, DownLoadable Conent, extra material) costs money, and that the material has been on the disc already, or that all that's being added is fluff. Character dances, emotes, shading, capes, and so on. Certainly cosmetic things aren't important (stat-wise) , but are important in that people buy them. Important to seller and buyer even if not to those that are neither. Clever marketing might infinitely help sell but doesn't force the purchase of, things are worth what a willing buyer will pay, and so on. But for those familiar with the game, they know these things. For those not as familiar, they play and don't care enough to look into it or don't care enough to think about it, or just don't play to begin with.
The shorter version of the cause behind the effects is, as I understand it, a great number of the creative team (including key people and/or visionaries) left or were fired before the game came out. Before it was finished. And so much of what was supposed to be extra great about the game went away too. Or they simply overreached their capacities, regardless if that was due to the structure of Bungie or the demands of Activision or the timing of when the game needed to be released for economic purposes. One probably can't argue the commercials are awesome even if the gameplay itself isn't so much.
The vids are (to me) even more rambling than my own writing is, pretty similar between the vids and their content and context, and mostly don't have much of a point. They're set almost always against a backdrop of the game being played in Multiplayer, but without the gameplay being linked to what's being said, just a backdrop. I don't even know if they're stock or a montage of the best sessions, or if the gameplay is actual player against low level bots, or if somebody's purposely letting others dominate them along with flairful editing. Plus I've never been able to finish watching any of them, it just loses purpose and interest and I have played the game. I wouldn't imagine non-gamers would even bother glancing at them.
Anyway, if you haven't seen them and want to, just search on Bing or Yahoo or Google or whatever for something like youtube don't buy destiny or youtube destiny ripoff That will also find you text articles on the subject on the first page of results along with a smattering of these types of vids. Odds are though you've watched them or you don't care to. Still, the vids explain it all in ways nobody can, just if you look at them, be aware of what you are seeing is usually pretty slanted one way or the other. (There's some sort of agenda there.)
---
Speaking of games, the rest of this year and next, depending on what schedules might get moved or not, is looking busy. Here's a short list (not necessarily in order though; and certainly not everying or equally as awaited). They represent a lot of material. Halo Guardians (Halo 5), Fallout 4, Quantum Break, Crackdown 3, Star Wars Battlefront, Fable Legends, Call of Duty Black Ops 3, The Division, Doom, Dishonored 2, Gears of War 4, Uncharted 4, Final Fantasy XV, Mirrors Edge Catalyst.
No, I'm not planning on playing all of them nor on release.
----
A game I didn't mention is Rockband 4. This is the first redone "plastic instruments" game for this generation of consoles.
Yes, there is also Guitar Hero Live, but it uses a fully new controller and method of playing (a new thing to learn how to do) and has another way of getting new songs that's interesting looking. It's not vocals or drums or even as far as I know bass guitar. So not really so much a continuation but a new style.
As far as "RB4" though, when RB3 came out for the last generation of consoles, there were a lot of mistakes that I chalked up to the impending selling of everything by Viacom/MTV games and all that churn. For example the lack of promotion and availability of the pro instruments. Followed by the rapid price drop of the game itself
Well things started out badly for the new version too -- and Harmonix owns itself now. It feels much the same way it did before though. The word was the oldinstruments controllers would work, but the initial preorders were only for packages that included new controllers, you couldn't just preorder the game. You had to get a "guitar" or "drums/mic/guitar" with it. Well, okay, it's more like "sort of" or "pretty much" drums because you actually have to play them, but that's not the point, it's that you couldn't get just the game.
Well that's changed, you can get the game alone via preorder. With the PS4 that's it, but with the XB One, it costs more ($80 versus $60) because you need an adapter to use the old controllers. Which isn't exactly quite true, because what they mean (and which explains no game-only preorder) is wireless controllers.
That's great, not, because of all the things I have (including the MIDI adapter for the drums/guitar/keyboard) are wired. Except okay, there are two Guitar Hero wireless guitars (GH Aerosmith and World Tour) but of course they don't fully work. (The detachable necks don't last very long.) There's also the wireless GHWT drums, which I suppose is okay for those willing to settle for it, assuming that works. Even though it's not a mainstream more like a real set of drums set of drums. (Three pads and two cymbals in close proximity, and support for two bass pedals). For everyone with edrums/vdrums that use the MIDI adapter, and for those with IONS, and everyone with wired guitars, the word is that they're not supporting them at release. In general, that appears to be not quite true, as it doesn't seem "at release" is going to be changed to ever. No news is bad news. That is, if something's not happening, it's more likely it will never happen. Even if that's not the case, the odds are, especially if things go like they did last time. The only thing that might change that is that if any interest in the game is from those with real instruments (essentially drums only) and perhaps that's why there was the addition of game-only preorders and some other actions to generate some buzz. I'm imaging though the numbers aren't very good, but also wonder if the other numbers are enough to force anything to happen. That's all exceptionally vague. And if you don't play probably not understandable on an deep level.
Anyway, if you want to sing you're golden though, because all the existing wired mics (which are of course not controllers at all) are supported as is. Allegedly. Of course, the old mics don't have the new features (the new features that make the process smooth and more like singing I could suppose) just like the new guitar controller automatically adjusts the lag and is more reliable for launching double points.
All in all then, this is something to watch, because lots of people just aren't going to get the game if they can't use their still working existing controllers or if they can't use their drums. Will that matter? I don't think anyone knows, but I think Harmonix is quite worried they've focused on the wrong demographic and worried people will think they've been trying to hide that customer aspect.
-----
One of my earlier posts was quite a bit a lot about vaping. I failed to mention that I have "eliquid" available. Cheap. These are 20 ml bottles, so double the size of the more commonly found 10 ml. They predominantly vegetable glycerin, so they're pretty thick; some prefer this, some don't. There's a choice of six water-based (no sugar, no oil, etc) flavors. Some of the flavors are more intense than others. The flavors are apple, menthol, cherry, vanilla, cocoa and champagne. Which is also pretty much the order of "how strong". The menthol is kind of more like minty and the champagne more like a tuity-fruity. But these are the flavors I use so they're the ones I have.
The ones with 0 are essentially 100% VG (the flavoring is absorbed, but you could say 90 VG 10 Flavor/water) and are $2.50 each.
The ones with 10 are essentially 80% VG and 20% PG (or 70VG/10FW/20PG) and are $3.00 each.
-----
What else is there. The start of some kind of election seems to be winding up I guess, but everying that's talking is pretty boring when they're not being annoying. I can't see voting for any of them, but I supposed someone will.
----
There's a recent bunch of stories about a clerk pushing back at the law you might have seen a bit of here and there. Not too surprising, just as a couple of Supreme Court justices said or suggested in Obergefell v. Hodges (PDF of actual decision) That there would be people that "fought back" in both legal and illegal ways, in some form of what might be refereed to as civil disobedience. See, The Court realizes that just because they decide something, not everyone is going to agree, not everyone is going to follow, and that they don't suddenly change social opinions developed over time in an instant. That even SCOTUS can't determine how people think or react, especially when they judicially change the definition of a social term. (As they also mention in the arguments and decision)
This is all rife with heavy strong honest opinion about what is right and what is fair and what is equal. It's unknown if anyone is in the wrong here, but there are plenty of things wrong with a lot of their methods. Strong opinions on personal matters that are nobody's business but the participants, but also have an impact of some sort on society. Social rules that societies make for themselves, ach, it gives me a headache..
The story is in general quite boring -- unless you yourself are on one of the two sides or are otherwise emotionally attached to the story and on which side. Or have taken the time to go to the place and demonstrate one way or another. However, one of the interesting things is watching "the sides" react to each other, where the intolerance and hyperbole and frenetic actions go both directions and none of those smack dab in the middle see it in themselves, probably. Good old American anger at what other people think and do when the ugly unfair idiots don't agree with the way somebody else sees it.
Of course, one thing that is true is that even with the decision by SCOTUS, the laws themselves in the various states and localities haven't yet been rewritten to take into account what was decided. The Court has spoken, the legislatures haven't yet reacted. It's going to take a while until nobody can fail to follow what was held: That the States must "...license a marriage between two people of the same sex and .... recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State." The fact is that the laws themselves don't yet by and large (well, universally nation-wide) reflect this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Wait a few generations, it'll be fine.
----
There's a person (some people) on YouTube making a lot of videos about (against? I can't quite decide) the game Destiny. I find it rather odd that they (the videos) exist as they do, with the content that they have. After all, if you are watching the vids, you likely have the game and have been playing it, which also likely means you'll continue playing and buying things for it, or you've decided on your own it's too much work and you're not going to continue. Too much work, as in grinding for materials, leveling up, improving weapons and armor. As in finding raid teams, strike teams, and so on. Or maybe you just play it and don't worry about such things, who's to say.
On the flip side of that, if you don't play Destiny or aren't a gamer, you likely have never seen the vids or didn't bother watching them because they were of no interest to you. The crux of the vids is something like that the content being sold (the DLC, DownLoadable Conent, extra material) costs money, and that the material has been on the disc already, or that all that's being added is fluff. Character dances, emotes, shading, capes, and so on. Certainly cosmetic things aren't important (stat-wise) , but are important in that people buy them. Important to seller and buyer even if not to those that are neither. Clever marketing might infinitely help sell but doesn't force the purchase of, things are worth what a willing buyer will pay, and so on. But for those familiar with the game, they know these things. For those not as familiar, they play and don't care enough to look into it or don't care enough to think about it, or just don't play to begin with.
The shorter version of the cause behind the effects is, as I understand it, a great number of the creative team (including key people and/or visionaries) left or were fired before the game came out. Before it was finished. And so much of what was supposed to be extra great about the game went away too. Or they simply overreached their capacities, regardless if that was due to the structure of Bungie or the demands of Activision or the timing of when the game needed to be released for economic purposes. One probably can't argue the commercials are awesome even if the gameplay itself isn't so much.
The vids are (to me) even more rambling than my own writing is, pretty similar between the vids and their content and context, and mostly don't have much of a point. They're set almost always against a backdrop of the game being played in Multiplayer, but without the gameplay being linked to what's being said, just a backdrop. I don't even know if they're stock or a montage of the best sessions, or if the gameplay is actual player against low level bots, or if somebody's purposely letting others dominate them along with flairful editing. Plus I've never been able to finish watching any of them, it just loses purpose and interest and I have played the game. I wouldn't imagine non-gamers would even bother glancing at them.
Anyway, if you haven't seen them and want to, just search on Bing or Yahoo or Google or whatever for something like youtube don't buy destiny or youtube destiny ripoff That will also find you text articles on the subject on the first page of results along with a smattering of these types of vids. Odds are though you've watched them or you don't care to. Still, the vids explain it all in ways nobody can, just if you look at them, be aware of what you are seeing is usually pretty slanted one way or the other. (There's some sort of agenda there.)
---
Speaking of games, the rest of this year and next, depending on what schedules might get moved or not, is looking busy. Here's a short list (not necessarily in order though; and certainly not everying or equally as awaited). They represent a lot of material. Halo Guardians (Halo 5), Fallout 4, Quantum Break, Crackdown 3, Star Wars Battlefront, Fable Legends, Call of Duty Black Ops 3, The Division, Doom, Dishonored 2, Gears of War 4, Uncharted 4, Final Fantasy XV, Mirrors Edge Catalyst.
No, I'm not planning on playing all of them nor on release.
----
A game I didn't mention is Rockband 4. This is the first redone "plastic instruments" game for this generation of consoles.
Yes, there is also Guitar Hero Live, but it uses a fully new controller and method of playing (a new thing to learn how to do) and has another way of getting new songs that's interesting looking. It's not vocals or drums or even as far as I know bass guitar. So not really so much a continuation but a new style.
As far as "RB4" though, when RB3 came out for the last generation of consoles, there were a lot of mistakes that I chalked up to the impending selling of everything by Viacom/MTV games and all that churn. For example the lack of promotion and availability of the pro instruments. Followed by the rapid price drop of the game itself
Well things started out badly for the new version too -- and Harmonix owns itself now. It feels much the same way it did before though. The word was the old
Well that's changed, you can get the game alone via preorder. With the PS4 that's it, but with the XB One, it costs more ($80 versus $60) because you need an adapter to use the old controllers. Which isn't exactly quite true, because what they mean (and which explains no game-only preorder) is wireless controllers.
That's great, not, because of all the things I have (including the MIDI adapter for the drums/guitar/keyboard) are wired. Except okay, there are two Guitar Hero wireless guitars (GH Aerosmith and World Tour) but of course they don't fully work. (The detachable necks don't last very long.) There's also the wireless GHWT drums, which I suppose is okay for those willing to settle for it, assuming that works. Even though it's not a mainstream more like a real set of drums set of drums. (Three pads and two cymbals in close proximity, and support for two bass pedals). For everyone with edrums/vdrums that use the MIDI adapter, and for those with IONS, and everyone with wired guitars, the word is that they're not supporting them at release. In general, that appears to be not quite true, as it doesn't seem "at release" is going to be changed to ever. No news is bad news. That is, if something's not happening, it's more likely it will never happen. Even if that's not the case, the odds are, especially if things go like they did last time. The only thing that might change that is that if any interest in the game is from those with real instruments (essentially drums only) and perhaps that's why there was the addition of game-only preorders and some other actions to generate some buzz. I'm imaging though the numbers aren't very good, but also wonder if the other numbers are enough to force anything to happen. That's all exceptionally vague. And if you don't play probably not understandable on an deep level.
Anyway, if you want to sing you're golden though, because all the existing wired mics (which are of course not controllers at all) are supported as is. Allegedly. Of course, the old mics don't have the new features (the new features that make the process smooth and more like singing I could suppose) just like the new guitar controller automatically adjusts the lag and is more reliable for launching double points.
All in all then, this is something to watch, because lots of people just aren't going to get the game if they can't use their still working existing controllers or if they can't use their drums. Will that matter? I don't think anyone knows, but I think Harmonix is quite worried they've focused on the wrong demographic and worried people will think they've been trying to hide that customer aspect.
-----
One of my earlier posts was quite a bit a lot about vaping. I failed to mention that I have "eliquid" available. Cheap. These are 20 ml bottles, so double the size of the more commonly found 10 ml. They predominantly vegetable glycerin, so they're pretty thick; some prefer this, some don't. There's a choice of six water-based (no sugar, no oil, etc) flavors. Some of the flavors are more intense than others. The flavors are apple, menthol, cherry, vanilla, cocoa and champagne. Which is also pretty much the order of "how strong". The menthol is kind of more like minty and the champagne more like a tuity-fruity. But these are the flavors I use so they're the ones I have.
The ones with 0 are essentially 100% VG (the flavoring is absorbed, but you could say 90 VG 10 Flavor/water) and are $2.50 each.
The ones with 10 are essentially 80% VG and 20% PG (or 70VG/10FW/20PG) and are $3.00 each.
-----
What else is there. The start of some kind of election seems to be winding up I guess, but everying that's talking is pretty boring when they're not being annoying. I can't see voting for any of them, but I supposed someone will.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
No, I like them
Some might have gotten the impression that I don't like Episodes I to III - that is not the case. I like them just fine. Usually when I watch all six of them, I start in numerical order I to VI, true. After all, why not watch them chronologically, and why not save the best for last.
The first three (in numerical order), the second set of three (in when they were made and released), the prequel trilogy, Anakin's story, the not as good ones; however you want to put it. The thing about Ep. I II III is that they are Star Wars. That's reason enough to at least like them, they've got that something about them.
Sure, for I-III a lot of people really despise some of the characters, or hate some of the fully CGI aspects, or wonder how everyone could have been so naive, or whatever. They are said to be too too long, there's not enough plot development, the first one was far too done on purpose as a B-Movie, they waited too long to make them, they just weren't like the original trilogy. All true to some extent - but they're Star Wars! I certainly share the opinion I-III told a story we didn't necessarily need to know the details of, that Vader was way cooler as a villain we knew little or nothing about, and that the whole story could have been rather random and whatever in that the details didn't actually mean anything because they were all essentially unknowns.
Although on the other hand, knowing how this and that happened, and how these and those tied into other things, that's kinda cool. I don't mind Jar-Jar and at times thought it rather funny, although they really messed him over as it went on... Well of course Palpatine messed over everyone really badly (manipulating everyone with the dark side and instituting an evil empire). And as far as doing bad things, you don't get much worse than eliminating a number of younglings and force-choking out your spouse. (Well except until you help blow up an entire planet that is.) And really, when it comes to the real villain Sidious, if you're cloaking yourself from such as Yoda and Mace, they all worked pretty well given they didn't know who or what the threat was. It's difficult to be calm and to try and make decisions when nothing is clear. That all could be argued about for hours though, as I'm sure many pro and con websites and blogs and magazines have.
For that and other things, a lot of it comes down to how much slack somebody will or won't cut. Christensen and Portman had something impossible to try and live up to for example . I'm sure they did their best in the many constraints, but they simply are not Ford and Fisher. Beyond that, these weren't the same writers working in the same way, not the same creators working in a certain time and being a certain age. This just isn't the world of or the technology of the late '70s and early 80s. These weren't movies made that put science fiction back on the map, they were products of the movie-making and competition of the late '90s and early '00s They can only be what they are, and if one doesn't take allowances for it, there's only one real outcome we should expect. If you hope for more, it's easy to be more disappointed about what you get, and that makes some people bitter and angry. (And not in the way a Miss Manners review of tESB just doesn't get it at all to begin with.)
All in all though, when it comes to EPI-III, I thought the prequel was fine. There was a lot of great stuff in it. If we compare it to the originals, of course it comes up short. Whatever it was, there is a lot to like about this last set of movies, and then add onto it that it was Star Wars. That allows us to ignore a lot of things, as we have to do anyway with fiction set in another place and time. Do they have an aspect of nostalgia to them, a bit, but as we've gone on at length about, they can only have so much of it. Given what we know can't be there, it makes it a lot easier to accept it however little it can be. Because.
The first three (in numerical order), the second set of three (in when they were made and released), the prequel trilogy, Anakin's story, the not as good ones; however you want to put it. The thing about Ep. I II III is that they are Star Wars. That's reason enough to at least like them, they've got that something about them.
Sure, for I-III a lot of people really despise some of the characters, or hate some of the fully CGI aspects, or wonder how everyone could have been so naive, or whatever. They are said to be too too long, there's not enough plot development, the first one was far too done on purpose as a B-Movie, they waited too long to make them, they just weren't like the original trilogy. All true to some extent - but they're Star Wars! I certainly share the opinion I-III told a story we didn't necessarily need to know the details of, that Vader was way cooler as a villain we knew little or nothing about, and that the whole story could have been rather random and whatever in that the details didn't actually mean anything because they were all essentially unknowns.
Although on the other hand, knowing how this and that happened, and how these and those tied into other things, that's kinda cool. I don't mind Jar-Jar and at times thought it rather funny, although they really messed him over as it went on... Well of course Palpatine messed over everyone really badly (manipulating everyone with the dark side and instituting an evil empire). And as far as doing bad things, you don't get much worse than eliminating a number of younglings and force-choking out your spouse. (Well except until you help blow up an entire planet that is.) And really, when it comes to the real villain Sidious, if you're cloaking yourself from such as Yoda and Mace, they all worked pretty well given they didn't know who or what the threat was. It's difficult to be calm and to try and make decisions when nothing is clear. That all could be argued about for hours though, as I'm sure many pro and con websites and blogs and magazines have.
For that and other things, a lot of it comes down to how much slack somebody will or won't cut. Christensen and Portman had something impossible to try and live up to for example . I'm sure they did their best in the many constraints, but they simply are not Ford and Fisher. Beyond that, these weren't the same writers working in the same way, not the same creators working in a certain time and being a certain age. This just isn't the world of or the technology of the late '70s and early 80s. These weren't movies made that put science fiction back on the map, they were products of the movie-making and competition of the late '90s and early '00s They can only be what they are, and if one doesn't take allowances for it, there's only one real outcome we should expect. If you hope for more, it's easy to be more disappointed about what you get, and that makes some people bitter and angry. (And not in the way a Miss Manners review of tESB just doesn't get it at all to begin with.)
All in all though, when it comes to EPI-III, I thought the prequel was fine. There was a lot of great stuff in it. If we compare it to the originals, of course it comes up short. Whatever it was, there is a lot to like about this last set of movies, and then add onto it that it was Star Wars. That allows us to ignore a lot of things, as we have to do anyway with fiction set in another place and time. Do they have an aspect of nostalgia to them, a bit, but as we've gone on at length about, they can only have so much of it. Given what we know can't be there, it makes it a lot easier to accept it however little it can be. Because.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Why Star Wars Episode VII can't be even as good as Episode V
There was some chatter recently at some point about how the next Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens is going to be not just as good as The Empire Strikes Back was. No, not just as good as - better than. That's essentially impossible.
Complicating this claim is who it might be it's being made about. Somebody who saw the original Star Wars in a theater on release year when they were ten? (Twenty? Forty?) The people that made the first movies IV-VI? (The people that made the last three I-III? Are making these three VII to IX?) Perhaps a twelve-year-old who first watched Episodes I-VI in order, numerical story-chronological order, just last year for the first time. Maybe an eighty-year-old who first watched IV-VI then I-III in release-chronological order just today for the first time. Somebody who started in on Episode I as an eighteen-year-old, saw I-III and who has never gone back and watched IV-VI. Somebody who hasn't ever seen any. Somebody who watched a random one, hated it, and didn't watch any more.
Instead is the claim not about who will think the newest one is better - but that on some sort of imagined objective basis, VII will just simply be a better movie than V was. Not how much it makes, as that isn't necessarily (and often isn't) a particularly good gauge of the quality, or what the fans think of it, or anything else. Such as that out of the existing six movies, Episode I is (in an absolute-dollars in-theaters box-office-take sense) the highest-grossing domestically - likely VII will take that over, no matter what, it being the first movie in a number of years. It's pretty certain this movie will indeed draw huge numbers of people for a while everywhere it's released, and make a lot of money. So, no, not what it earns. Better as in on some notional trusted qualified film expert opinion of movie quality, or what officially-sanctioned top-tier fans say about it, or using the sliding scale of motion picture merit system they secretly use at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Better in an absolute objective measurable sense that doesn't exist.
As far as better in the actual world to somebody or another though, to and for whom would it be better? That's a question. To be better, as in be superior in general overall on most any scale, and regardless of how that superiority is measured. (Say, gets the most votes on a majority of variables in random phone sampling of some number of questions of this movie compared to the the other one. However that would be done.) Let's say then that the claim is VII is better to those who also saw IV when it came out. Who has watched all six so far as they were released. Who has been a fan of (or even disliked or hated one or more of) the six movies that currently exist in public. Regardless if that person today forty-four (6 in 1977) or one-hundred-fifteen (78 in 1977).
A person that's seen all six movies so far in the order in which they were released around release, they will think Episode VII is better than Episode V.
Not likely.
Sure, always in motion is the future. How good or bad this new movie is "in everyone's opinion" and what it's better or worse than on some enjoyment meter, not a fact. If this newest Star Wars movie is better, after some comparative analysis or another of opinions, that's not a done deal yet at all. Since the movie isn't even out yet, it's not been established that it is fully without doubt impossible that it can or will be better. Better, to whatever extent something subjective can be superior or inferior to something else subjective, to somebody somewhere be that from one person to everyone currently in existence on this planet of ours in this galaxy so very near. Even to somebody that doesn't particularly enjoy science fiction or action or anything but nonfiction.
Here though are some of the reasons that at least highly suggest this claimed improvement can't be accomplished. Reasons to consider in examining the contentions that VII FA will be better or can't even be as good as V ESB was.
Complicating this claim is who it might be it's being made about. Somebody who saw the original Star Wars in a theater on release year when they were ten? (Twenty? Forty?) The people that made the first movies IV-VI? (The people that made the last three I-III? Are making these three VII to IX?) Perhaps a twelve-year-old who first watched Episodes I-VI in order, numerical story-chronological order, just last year for the first time. Maybe an eighty-year-old who first watched IV-VI then I-III in release-chronological order just today for the first time. Somebody who started in on Episode I as an eighteen-year-old, saw I-III and who has never gone back and watched IV-VI. Somebody who hasn't ever seen any. Somebody who watched a random one, hated it, and didn't watch any more.
Instead is the claim not about who will think the newest one is better - but that on some sort of imagined objective basis, VII will just simply be a better movie than V was. Not how much it makes, as that isn't necessarily (and often isn't) a particularly good gauge of the quality, or what the fans think of it, or anything else. Such as that out of the existing six movies, Episode I is (in an absolute-dollars in-theaters box-office-take sense) the highest-grossing domestically - likely VII will take that over, no matter what, it being the first movie in a number of years. It's pretty certain this movie will indeed draw huge numbers of people for a while everywhere it's released, and make a lot of money. So, no, not what it earns. Better as in on some notional trusted qualified film expert opinion of movie quality, or what officially-sanctioned top-tier fans say about it, or using the sliding scale of motion picture merit system they secretly use at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Better in an absolute objective measurable sense that doesn't exist.
As far as better in the actual world to somebody or another though, to and for whom would it be better? That's a question. To be better, as in be superior in general overall on most any scale, and regardless of how that superiority is measured. (Say, gets the most votes on a majority of variables in random phone sampling of some number of questions of this movie compared to the the other one. However that would be done.) Let's say then that the claim is VII is better to those who also saw IV when it came out. Who has watched all six so far as they were released. Who has been a fan of (or even disliked or hated one or more of) the six movies that currently exist in public. Regardless if that person today forty-four (6 in 1977) or one-hundred-fifteen (78 in 1977).
A person that's seen all six movies so far in the order in which they were released around release, they will think Episode VII is better than Episode V.
Not likely.
Sure, always in motion is the future. How good or bad this new movie is "in everyone's opinion" and what it's better or worse than on some enjoyment meter, not a fact. If this newest Star Wars movie is better, after some comparative analysis or another of opinions, that's not a done deal yet at all. Since the movie isn't even out yet, it's not been established that it is fully without doubt impossible that it can or will be better. Better, to whatever extent something subjective can be superior or inferior to something else subjective, to somebody somewhere be that from one person to everyone currently in existence on this planet of ours in this galaxy so very near. Even to somebody that doesn't particularly enjoy science fiction or action or anything but nonfiction.
Here though are some of the reasons that at least highly suggest this claimed improvement can't be accomplished. Reasons to consider in examining the contentions that VII FA will be better or can't even be as good as V ESB was.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Pyramids
There are pyramids of all shapes and sizes all over the world. We're going to write about some of them here, the most famous of them (we in the West might say).
In a country currently known as Egypt (Ararb Republic of Egypt, Gomhoreyyet Maṣr el-ʿArabeyya) there are a number of pyramids, depending on how you count them, some hundred and fifty of them. The oldest (as far as we know) are in Saqqara, with the Pyramid of Djoser estimated as currently being about 4,600 years old. We'll focus on the pyramids in Giza though.
The three largest pyramids (The Great Pyramids) in the Giza Necropolis are Khufu's (Great Pyramid of Giza) Khafre's (sometimes Sphinx Temple) and Menkaure's (the smallest of the three).
Why, well "Cheops Pyramid on Egypt's Giza Plateau" is the last remaining of the Seven Wonders of the World, after all, and the three making up The Great Pyramids rather go together.
In a country currently known as Egypt (Ararb Republic of Egypt, Gomhoreyyet Maṣr el-ʿArabeyya) there are a number of pyramids, depending on how you count them, some hundred and fifty of them. The oldest (as far as we know) are in Saqqara, with the Pyramid of Djoser estimated as currently being about 4,600 years old. We'll focus on the pyramids in Giza though.
The three largest pyramids (The Great Pyramids) in the Giza Necropolis are Khufu's (Great Pyramid of Giza) Khafre's (sometimes Sphinx Temple) and Menkaure's (the smallest of the three).
Why, well "Cheops Pyramid on Egypt's Giza Plateau" is the last remaining of the Seven Wonders of the World, after all, and the three making up The Great Pyramids rather go together.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Miley Cyrus??
Just recently, well recently enough, Miley Cyrus has been creating quite a stir with her racy and outrageous behavior, some might say. Really. Is that right. Is that so. Ha! Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)