Level 12/9 Technomancer/Doomscroller

  • 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2023

help-circle


  • To be completely honest, many of these films took me a second viewing to really appreciate. Blade Runner 2049 is not a good sequel to the original, imo, but if you let it stand on it’s own a bit, it’s got some real interesting ideas at play, and of course, all of Denis’ movies are just visually beautiful. Similarly with his Dune, I’m a huge fan of the Lynch version, so it’s hard not to let that color my perception, but if you let it, it’s a visually stunning movie with amazing world design and it just nails the vibes I got reading the book.

    Tarantino, too, I would have mostly shared your opinion two years ago. The first time I watched Basterds, Django, and Eight, I was pretty unimpressed, but I think I was letting my love of his earlier works color my opinions too much. Then, I got a copy of “Taratino: A Retrospective” for xmas, and that got me to go back through his entire filmography: I’d watch a movie, then read up on it in the book afterward. Even absence the additional stories and details from the book, I found all of those films really hit much better for me the second time around: no, they’re not doing that same effortlessly cool “Tarantino” style from the earlier works, but it’s clear that the man was interested in building on his own writing tropes and slowly branching them into different stories, and I really loved watching that evolution.

    Fury Road: Fair enough, though at this point, Mel was probably a bit too old for the types of stunts they wanted to put Tom Hardy through.

    Peele, I’ll just have to disagree, but mostly because I don’t see them as horror movies, but dark comedies. They’re not scary, not really, but boy did I laugh my ass off watching them. Nope, especially, manages to tell a funny, dramatic story with real stakes, imagination, and literally inventing a new way to do night filming that’s probably going to be mimicked by the entire industry going forward.

    Jump Street: you’re not wrong about Jonah Hill, but in this case, the surprise is how funny Channing Tatum can be, and how expertly Lord and Miller bounce the two of them off each other. The standard Hill schtick just works in this screwball set of movies, and plays a perfect complement to Tatum. Oh, and that clip is amazing.

    The Apes trilogy is criminally overlooked, again, probably because of “CGI Monkeys” and cultural memory of the old films, but they’re really amazingly good. Well, the first is just regular good, but the second two are great. A lot of it comes down to just how great Serkis is at working within the CGI character space: he plays the lead ape, Ceasar, but also does a lot of the motion capture for the rest of the apes, and nails it in movement and manerisms. All in all, the movies are able to create an epic about the decline of one civilization and the rise of a replacement, not because “apes good humans bad”, but because at every point, every character makes choices displaying their innate “humanity”, and have to deal with the consequences of those choices, good or bad.

    Anyway, Dredd was awesome, Karl Urban is my husbando, and his DOOM movie is the best video game movie of all time. Thanks for coming to my TEDx talk!



  • That’s a pretty good list you’ve got, my friend; at least those I’ve seen from it. Allow me to make some suggestions from the last 11 years:

    • All three of Jordan Peele’s movies: Get Out (2017), Us (2019), but especially Nope (2022).
    • Denis Villaneuve’s work, specifically Siciario (2015), Arrival (2016, one of the best sci-fi book to screen adaptations I’ve ever seen), Blade Runner 2049 (2017), and Dune pt1 (2021).
    • Edgar Wright had both Baby Driver (2017) and Last Night in Soho (2021).
    • Rian Johnson did both Knives Out (2019) and Glass Onion (2022).
    • George Miller gave us Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), and the practical effects alone are worth a viewing.
    • Shane Black’s The Nice Guys (2016) was amazing.
    • Boots Riley’s Sorry to Bother You (2018) had me grinning from ear to ear all the way through.
    • Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse (2018) is not only the best looking animated movie of all time, but one of the best superhero movies ever made.
    • And while we’re on the subject of Lord and Miller projects, both 21 Jump Street (2012) and 22 Jump Street (2014) just squeeze in. Honestly, anything these two touch seems to be gold.
    • Both of the Matt Reeves directed Apes movies, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) are in the window, though honestly the whole trilogy is fantastic and Andy Serkis needs a fucking CGI Ape Oscar already.

    That’s off the top of my head, at least.

    Even Tarantino has dropped the ball IMO.

    Man, how you gonna do Django Unchained (2012), The Hateful Eight (2015), and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) dirty like that? Django is pure revenge fantasy good times, Eight is beautiful and tense with some amazing character acting, and Hollywood just revels in being part of a mythological time and place in movie history.










  • I ran Gentoo for years. I run Arch now.

    You’re not wrong, lol.

    'Course, I was running Gentoo when hardware was slow enough that you could see the real-time performance improvement from tailored compiles. Now shit’s so fast that any gains are imperceptible by a human for day-to-day desktop usage. Arch can also be a bit of a time sink, I get it, especially setting it up takes time and thought. That’s also why I like it, and always come back to it: I can set it up exactly how I want it, and it’s really good at that. There’s always weird shit that seems to happen to me when I try to remove Gnome in Ubuntu or other crazy shit that, yeah, everyone would tell you not to do, but Arch doesn’t care. If I want combination of things, I can hunt for a distro that has it, or I can likely just set it up on Arch.

    After setup, though, it’s not any more effort to maintain than any other distro. shrug



  • I largely agree with this. It’s a shame that S2 ended on a cliffhanger where they were finally getting into the sci-fi questions.

    Light Spoilers, though they may make the show more interesting if you’re on the fence:

    spoiler

    The main character discovers he was murdered when someone hacked the self-driving cab he was riding in and forced it to crash. When he was uploaded into the corporate-controlled post-death community, he had memories removed: prior to his death, he was working on a free alternative afterlife system, so it seems likely he was murdered to keep him from competing with the big players in the industry.

    Additionally, while there are laws about the uploaded/deceased no longer being allowed to work or otherwise be involved in business with the living, they find proof not only that the founder (?) of the current afterlife megacompany is still running things despite being dead, but that they’re working on technology to grow clone bodies and upload the deceased back into them, all for insane prices, of course. It’s illegal tech that could further shift the balance of power between the rich and the poor.

    That’s all from memory, so I may have mucked up a detail or two, but by the end I was really interested to see where it was all going. The show could be really smart when it wanted to, which is why it’s a shame that it mostly wants to meander through a slow-paced will-they-won’t-they for two seasons instead of getting into the meat of things. Maybe they felt they had to make it more “accessible” and sneak the cyberpunk in?

    I dunno.

    It was greenlit for a third season, and recent news reports indicate it was still coming (all prior to the current strikes), so maybe we’ll get a conclusion? I’ll certainly watch it when it drops.


  • People have been arguing about the definition of “Cyberpunk” pretty much from the moment the term was coined. I think, for the vast majority of people, it seems they focus on the aesthetic more than anything else: neon lights, megatowers, rain, tech, crime, etc.

    Personally, I like to see some hints of the “punk” half of the phrase shining through. Rebels and misfits, either by choice or by circumstance, using technology to fight oppressive systems enabled by technology. Neuromancer remains the measuring stick that I’ve always used, but I’m not going to turn my nose up on a good story if it’s only “cyberpunk adjacent”.

    High tech, low life, as Bruce Sterling put it (apocryphally). And, that works well enough most of the time.

    So, given the above, as an example, no, I wouldn’t call The Fifth Element cyberpunk. It has lots of aesthetic similarities, but very little “punk”: the heroes are working with the governments to preserve the status quo after all, but I still love it, as it’s a damn great film.



  • Form and function are inextricably linked: one will inform the other. A lot of the ergo-split community focuses on the use case where you move your hands as little as possible, and the designs tend to revolve around maximizing that ideal. And they are damn good at it. The drawback, as you note, is that it’s a design that expects you not to move your hands around: it encourages keyboard navigation and shortcuts in place of using the mouse as much as possible.

    That said, you can get around it. You can use layers to move common shortcuts to the left hand, so you don’t have to do the whole “Stretch my hand across two units” dance. Or, you can look into something like a macro pad.

    Me, I just deal. The comfort when typing is well worth the tradeoff, to me. I’ll favor avoiding the mouse when possible, and just dance my one hand across both halves when needed. It’s not a huge deal to me, but the whole point is personalization: find what works best for you!


  • I mean, I’m definitely being nicer to it because I have a soft spot for the film, for sure. I tend to give it the benefit of the doubt in that, if the first movie showed us what it might look like when normal users interact with a computer in normal ways, and write programs based on what they want them to do/output, then the second movie is showing us what it might look like if programs were created for the sake of them existing, and they don’t necessarily “do” anything for a user on the outside. Like, if I code up program to be a calculator on the terminal, it might look at behave a certain way on the grid. But, if I go into the grid, and create a program that’s good at math, would it still be a calculator on the terminal? Or would it more likely do nothing when called, because it wasn’t written to take input and produce output on the terminal?

    It’s an interesting question, and I think it can go a long way to excusing the breakdown of the computer metaphors in Legacy, but again, this is mostly my interpretation, it’s not explicitly confirmed by the text itself.

    Sadly, I doubt we’ll get any more movies exploring these concepts any time soon. Legacy was supposed to be the start of a trilogy, but it didn’t make enough money, so the rest of it was canned by Disney. I think it’d me more likely to see some animated/live action Disney+ exclusive series in a few years, when they get tired of churning out Star Wars everything.

    In any event, to bring this back around to the original question, I’ve added Tron 2.0 to my steam wishlist for the next sale, lol.