Jump to content


@~thehung

Member Since 10 Sep 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:39 PM
***--

#1197091 Blade Runner 2049

Posted by @~thehung on 21 October 2017 - 01:04 AM

In '82, nobody had thought of a mobile 'phone.  They also hadn't thought of an internet for said mobile to hook into.


its worth noting though, that William Gibson had coined 'cyberspace' in 1982's Burning Chrome two years before expanding on it in Neuromancer: 

 

“The Matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games,' said the voice-over, 'in early graphics programs and military experimentation with cranial jacks.' On the Sony, a two-dimensional space war faded behind a forest of mathematically generated ferns, demonstrating the spatial possibilities of logarithmic spirals; cold blue military footage burned through, lab animals wired into test systems, helmets feeding into fire control circuits of tanks and war planes. 'Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding...”

 

interestingly, wiki says:

After viewing the first 20 minutes of landmark cyberpunk film Blade Runner (1982), which was released when Gibson had written a third of the novel, he "figured [Neuromancer] was sunk, done for. Everyone would assume I’d copied my visual texture from this astonishingly fine-looking film."




#1196963 What Did You Watch Lately ?

Posted by @~thehung on 16 October 2017 - 10:24 PM

you forgot to add "...and the whole thing is probably just an ad for her book" hilariously titled, "What Happened"

 

its weird, ive never been anti-Hillary, and at times even been impressed by her, but ever since the election i cant but feel somehow disgusted by her conduct.




#1196952 Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Posted by @~thehung on 16 October 2017 - 05:56 PM

i am fuzzy on the timelines re: Klingons in original ST vs TNG etc and not sure what problems that would pose

 

i think it matters, in that if allegory is intended, it should be done with subtlety or not at all. and regardless of that, because moral complication is far more interesting than not and kind of demanded by viewers ever since the dawn of the new golden age of TV.




#1196874 Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Posted by @~thehung on 13 October 2017 - 05:55 PM

so i got curious and acquired a couple of S:TDs

 

minor gripes:

Spoiler


major gripes:

Spoiler

 

positives:

- its nice to see a scifi show with some serious money behind it.  its pretty slick, and they have all the ingredients there to do something great.

- the chick from TWD is a quality actress, even though she looked a bit shaky.  as long as the character doesnt go full retard she will definitely shine. 

 

all things considered, so far:

6/10 as Star Trek
7/10 for potential as a scifi show with "Star Trek" branding.
 




#1196761 Blade Runner 2049

Posted by @~thehung on 10 October 2017 - 03:24 PM

 

but i think thats part of the reason its so overrated.  it entices one to read into it far more than was ever really there.


More than you think is there, that is :). Both Blade Runner movies are about what people we accept and those we think of as 'beneath us'. That attitude is as old as time, with my tribe being better than your tribe, white better than black or asylum seeker worth less than everybody else.

The story isn't new, but the time and place are. Even though the story isn't original, I don't think that means there is nothing to it.

 

 

or, maybe i read everything just fine, and youre reacting because you feel my critique insults your intelligence.  understandable, but theres no need to feel that way.  no matter how deep the movie is, its possible to overestimate that depth.  and whether or not you yourself have, it doesnt mean many others havent.  besides, its not like thematic depth is the ultimate measure of a film's worth.

i enjoy watching MMA, and i'd wager my interest is in it is far more cerebral than that of the rednecks who are so numerous they pretty much define the fanbase.  but these perspectives can coexist independently.  if Blade Runner is beloved by posturing psuedo-intellectuals of uncritical taste this neednt concern you.  if you profess a love for it, i dont automatically assume youre one of them.

yes, Blade Runner is deep.  its a deeply flawed masterpiece.  its dense in all the ways.  multi-layered, and hard to get through.  like a Shakespearean sonnet mindlessly padded out to a thousand words.  nothing happens in it that wouldnt fit inside a one hour window.  this is, in my subjective opinion, is an objective flaw.  but cult films sometimes garner such an inflated aura of importance that any discussion of flaws is branded as sacrilege.  which is why thousands suffer needlessly each year.  the people who have been putting it off, who maybe (probably) fell asleep last time.  its those innocents i care about.  this is for them.
 




#1196666 Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Posted by @~thehung on 05 October 2017 - 03:10 PM

i was always curious about Lexx.  but even back then its kitschy rough-edged production levels were very off-putting.

 

Farscape, was far glossier production-wise but never made good on its continual threats to not suck.  some good character development and the occasional compelling scene.  and points for a non-humanoid alien protagonist -- but a muppet is a muppet.  it tried, but rarely rose above the level of sci-fi for tweens.  

 

Firefly was straight up shiny.  brilliant characters, but the best thing about it was that Whedon never let his penchant for silliness override solid storytelling.

 

Babylon 5 is the big one i havent seen and know i must one day.  wasnt the kind of show you could just drop in on.  but too many people have recommended the sophistication of its narrative arc.




#1196643 What's on your mind?

Posted by @~thehung on 04 October 2017 - 01:22 AM

this just in,

VEGAS Creative Software, developers of popular video editing software Vegas Pro forced to rethink the slogan of their upcoming edition. "Vegas — As fast as you can shoot" now officially off the table.

 

too soon?

maybe, but its hard to have any sympathy left for a country that did NOTHING after Sandy Hook.




#1196588 Same-sex postal survey is a go

Posted by @~thehung on 01 October 2017 - 04:20 PM

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg on the song choice:

"It's certainly not a political statement"

 

not political?  is it "not political" like that time Rosa Parks wouldnt give up her seat — because it was so comfy?

 

LOL if this is what the NRL really sees as sending a totally non-political message, then all i can say is PHEW!  we definitely lucked out with the Macklemore song then!!!! :D

imagine if they had chosen to shoehorn in some other totally non-political positive message into this entertainment event.  instead of this,

 

 

 

we mightve ended up with this:
 

 

 

FTR:

 

although i find the heavy-handedness of the tactic a bit on the nose, i acknowledge its end justifies the means value.  i mean, its already led to gold like this:

 

"...this decision, mate, it's tantamount to seeping sewage into the debutante ball." — Bob Katter

 

yeah thats the stuff Bob, snappy on-point analogies like that'll really win the undecideds over!




#1196541 What are your favourite audio player visualisations?

Posted by @~thehung on 29 September 2017 - 06:27 PM

haha i remember milkdrop, R4, monkey etc

 

yeah, i dig em.  but its like they died.

 

theres a wealth of possibilities on the horizon, including interactive stuff pioneered by games like Audiosurf, but it seems like just when desktop PC visuals were starting to get really impressive music went ultra-portable and hence not enough people care to even sustain a niche.




#1196485 Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Posted by @~thehung on 28 September 2017 - 04:06 PM

IMO Patrick Stewart almost solely kept TNG afloat during the dud eps on the first 2 years, though the attribution there is probably way more towards acting quality than character development.


when that show started, i wasnt ready to accept him as the captain of the Enterprise.  i was like, "who the fuck is this stodgy old bald cunt?" this guy is the new Shatman? 
 
but yeah, he quickly destroyed that impression, and carried the show for a long time.

 

Trekkies will stand for an awful lot of bullshit if there's just the rare flower, though, which is why it [ST:Ent] lasted as long as it did (4 years?). IMHO, what killed it stone dead was Scott Dracula Bakula. That plank of wood would lose an acting contest to Keanu Reeves - he has not been in anything that lasted since Quantum Leap, and that one was kept in spite of him by interesting stories.

 

so true.  count Bakula sucked the life out of what little it had going for it.

 

that show was like an aberration that transpired on an alternate time line of television history.  it never happened, did it?  no, it didnt.




#1196440 Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Posted by @~thehung on 27 September 2017 - 06:17 PM

spoilers for something like Star Trek?    i guess ive never associated it with plot twists and big reveals that could be spoiled.  well, i suppose there were some killer TNG and Voyager eps that couldve been ruined.  but the joy of those shows was in seeing how the team approached a problem — ie. it was mostly in the process itself, which is largely unspoilerable.

 

 

i dunno, the whole franchise seems old hat to me now.   it always verged on the intolerably twee, and lacked any balls.  i do want something with a large dose of idealism, but i dont know if i can go back to that.  and whilst the JJ Abrams shit has more verve, its flashy and trashy, and lacking in brains.  so i am finding it hard to muster any enthusiasm for this.




#1196425 Same-sex postal survey is a go

Posted by @~thehung on 27 September 2017 - 12:52 AM

while we're on the topic of radical pie-in-the-sky reform, i think there should only be civil unions

 

that is, we should follow through properly with the constitutional 'separation of church and state'.  allowing religious ceremonies to have legally binding significance in the first place was always a glaring contradiction to the egalitarian notions underpinning the desire for such a separation.  we have just never been able to acknowledge this fact from under the vestigial cultural trappings of our primarily judeo-christian european history. 

 

the quasi-religious/quasi-legal term "marriage", should be formally divested of all legal significance in its own right, remaining only a culturally defined proxy for the legal status of civil union.  anyone empowered to "marry", whether they be a priest or a rabbi or a non-religious person, should by necessity be the holder of the very same secular legal power as the celebrant of a civil union.  this way, if you are "married" then you must be in a civil union, and there is no person or group with any peculiar claim to ownership of that word.  official legal forms then ask "Are you in a civil union? YES/NO" and nothing more, without undue presumptive interest in sniffing out ancillary details about the circumstances under which you attained this status — like whether or not youre a raging homosexual or have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour etc.  and all the while, all religious persons remain 100% free to continue enjoying their legal rights to dress up the event of a civil union with whatever pageantry they deem appropriate.  problem solved!

 

okay, back to reality.   one of the main reasons i am pro-SSM, apart from being bored by the whole topic, is there are compelling reasons for why civil unions are not enough

 

unfortunately, the sheer weight of prevailing (or lingering) cultural attitudes can sometimes subvert the letter of the law.  if this were not the case, i would be tempted to dismiss this whole debate as a frivolous semantic one over 'just a word'.  but it seems as though, in practise, the general public isnt sufficiently aware of or respectful of civil unions — and a law that makes a special category for a tiny minority of people that deviate from 'normal' as an afterthought to quietly dispense with the housekeeping of their rights, by its nature, does not exert positive social pressure to change this predicament.  imagine youve been "civil unioned" to your same sex partner for a decade, and everything is going fine until they have a horrible accident and have hours left to live — but as precious minutes tick by you are running around barred from their bedside because everybody in authority at the hospital thinks your legal rights of visitation are as mythical as the easter bunny.  that'd suck!




#1196418 What's on your mind?

Posted by @~thehung on 26 September 2017 - 07:59 PM

okay, this is coming at ya from my own personal "things that you have always been vaguely annoyed by but curious about but CBF looking up for the longest time" files.

 

 

Why is it called the "Super Bowl"?

 

 

- The Yale Bowl is a bowl-shaped university-owned football stadium, built in 1913-14 — the largest and oldest stadium in the USA.

- The Rose Bowl stadium, built in 1922, was inspired by the design and name of the Yale Bowl.

- Eventually, "bowl games" came to refer to college football post-season games (the series of playoffs leading to a championship) since the first site for these was the Rose Bowl stadium.

 

- Enter the Super Ball — a toy bouncing ball based on a type of synthetic rubber invented in 1964.

Glitter_Super_Ball.jpg

 

- Enter Lamar Hunt, founder of the American Football League, who in 1966, after watching his kids play with a super ball wrote thusly to the NFL commissioner: "I have kiddingly called it the 'Super Bowl,' which obviously can be improved upon."

 

- Ergo, the name "Super Bowl" is the twisted mutant bastard child of 'bowl games' and 'super ball'.
 




#1196341 Recommend me a VR headset

Posted by @~thehung on 23 September 2017 - 08:25 PM

maybe read my comments in this thread: http://forums.atomic...30-oculus-rift/

 

re oculus vs rift:

 

on the platform side of things, in terms of the whole interplay between different pieces of hardware, the portability of SDKs, approaches to DRM and online stores, the question of the relative "openness" of each going forward, and the ramifications for developers and consumers, is more nuanced than what i wrote there (and kinda annoyingly complicated).  nevertheless, as it stands now, you play oculus or steam games on the oculus, and although you may never be able to buy oculus 'exclusives' (their only substantial trump card in my view) through Steam, you can play many (most?) of them on the vive through Revive.

 

on the purely hardware side, it is no contest in my view.  even more so now that htc/vive recently brought out the head strap thing with integrated audio, thereby nerfing most of the very slight ergonomic advantages of the oculus.  but its really all down to the Lighthouse system.  read up on how works under the hood.  more elegant, efficient, robust, modular, and future-proof by its very nature.


Steam PC games mainly probably

 

if he is already familiar with steam, then one unified interface makes it easy.  theres also a lot of free-to-play content of all quality levels (and suitability for kids) that would keep him going for hours. 

 

btw, this steam machine is a beast with a GTX 980 or better video card, right?




#1196308 Same-sex postal survey is a go

Posted by @~thehung on 22 September 2017 - 02:45 PM

you laugh aliali, but its not half as funny as you might be tempted to think at first. 

 

in countries that allow pineapple on pizza parents have lost their right to choose.