Yeah, this is a free-to-play arena game by Zynga. No thanks.

This article was fascinating.

I was just talking to a couple of software engineer friends the other day about how engineering research like this doesn’t really happen anymore outside of the massive companies, and even within those it’s greatly reduced.

Now it’s all about applied engineering (app development using established technologies and techniques), with research limited to incremental gains with new technologies, augmented by published research. But it wasn’t always like this; there was a gradual erosion. Just prior to this latest era, a company could at least plausibly start a project to use published research with no public implementation and build an implementation. Our careers started in the 2000s and we remember a better time…

Two of us work in a large company currently and were recently closely involved with some of the most “speculative” research at the company, and it was almost entirely incremental. The third person is a literal research engineer at an engineering research firm who says real research described in articles like these is dead.

I can’t imagine having two years to produce something so ex nihilo these days, and the fact that they were able to achieve so much in such a short amount of time is truly incredible, and a testament to the quality of the engineers.

Got it. For what it’s worth, I also think it was overhyped, although I don’t really blame the movie for that. That said, I don’t think any Oscar winners that come to mind have necessarily been particularly deep.

In terms of recent winners, quality-wise I think this was about on-par with Birdman, which I also enjoyed. I think Parasite was superior, but I have loved Bong Joon-ho since I saw Memories of Murder, which I also think is superior, so I’m biased.

I’m very familiar with the best picture winners. The only qualification is that the members voted for it. And the members are creatives in the film industry who either have already won an Oscar for something like best actor or best director or who have been sponsored by multiple other members for membership.

So those members clearly recognized or connected to something in the movie that has merit to vote for it for best picture. I think it was the fact that it was both unique and surreal but also accessible with an emotional core. Personally, I’d rather see more films that take chances like that than traditional “Oscar bait” (most of which I also enjoy).

Here’s the thing. There are a lot of people who are unhappy with the way their lives turned out. Or they have relationships that they wish were different. Regret is a universal theme. And this movie explores what might have been for characters in those circumstances with the possibility of changing those things in their past that they regret, while at the same the movie maintains a surreality and sense of humor that’s memorable and endearing.

I think it might resonate more with people who have lived long enough to experience that feeling of “is this all there is?”—and I don’t mean younger people whose lives are still mostly ahead of them. I mean those people who are divorced or contemplating divorce, parents with disappointing relationships with their adult children, those caring for an older family member who feel trapped. There’s a reason most actors in the film are in their 50s and 60s, as well as 40s.

If you didn’t like it, maybe that’s why. I finally reread The Great Gatsby when I was approaching middle age and it resonated with me in a way that it didn’t when I was in high school, to the point where it became one of my favorite novels. You are literally and figuratively a different person when you experience something at a later age.

I’m not suggesting everyone of a certain age or experience should like this movie. I’m just saying it might be why some didn’t connect with it.

What kind of movie do you think should win best picture?

I’ve watched that clip probably a dozen times and laughed every time. They have an entire row of fake mannequin people in the middle of the shot surrounded by lots of real actors and extras. Utterly bizarre.

This is why I don’t use the word “content” to describe this stuff. That’s the word execs use, and it’s because they see this kind of thing as fine. It’s just mass-produced product to them.

Someone who’s 50 today would’ve been 12 in 1985 when the NES was released in North America. Basically the target audience.

You’re thinking of their parents (Boomers).

OK, so in 2023 dollars that’s $2.33 to $16.48. Most digital rentals also allow unlimited watches within 24-48 hours.

Things haven’t changed much.

How much do you think people paid in the '90s to rent a movie?

Red Letter Media recently put up a good discussion of the first five movies (so far) in one video and it’s pretty good. I think they largely echo your opinions about the first movie.

https://youtu.be/GpBerLYqT78

“Making this change gives us more space and opportunity to bring customers new and innovative tech for them to explore, discover and enjoy.”

Yeah, because that’s what I think when I go into a Best Buy: “they could really use more space.”

Muppet Babies Z

Sounds like they were trying to apply a film process to a TV production and learning the hard way that TV works differently for a reason.

I don’t know what the contract says, of course, but the Paramount that produced the series is a different corporate entity from Paramount+. The former Paramount almost certainly still owns the home video release rights despite the tax write-off from Paramount+.

The former Paramount did a good job of releasing all of season one across two sets, and are typically very good about home video releases for Star Trek generally, so I wouldn’t be too worried about a physical release.

Also, Netflix used to do physical releases. I have the first two seasons of Stranger Things on 4K. Would be nice if they ever released the rest. Hulu did the same thing with Handmaid’s Tale; I have the first three or four seasons (whatever they released), and then they stopped.

Big-budget blockbusters: often no. I love movies, but the audience is often just too inconsiderate. Some genres more than others. Super-early matinees are how I see these movies now (no Alamo nearby anymore), and I’ll just get lunch afterward.

Small-budget movies, 70mm rereleases, classic films still unreleased on disc: yes. These audiences are film fans and they are well-behaved for the most part. Theaters like Nitehawk in Brooklyn (for example) are wonderful for this, but there are many good ones in larger cities.

I agree. I think both should be completely redesigned from the ground up, but they’re not interested in doing that in 6E.

• Wizards should be boosted in early levels and nerfed in later ones, and should be split into multiple classes focused around illusion, commanding undead, AoE damage, control, buff/debuff, etc. (but not all of them simultaneously).
• Fighters should get maneuvers and cleave damage focusing on one or few targets.
• Rogues can continue occupying their niche of single target, high risk / high reward critical damage (but note key phase: high risk). Etc.

Everyone should have a clear specialization with a little overlap. A class should be the best at a thing and adequate at something else.

Same thing happened when my grandpa took me to go see Transformers: The Movie in the theater. It wasn’t my first movie, but I think it was my first with him, and I was beyond excited for it. I was a little disappointed to look over and see him sleeping five minutes in, but I didn’t really mind that much. I think even back then I was like, “Yeah, I understand.”

I’m sure the movie was completely incoherent to him. Robot toys fighting a planet-sized robot toy… yeah, time for a nap.

Yes, OK, two sessions, maybe three since wizards level slower. In AD&D your GM should be awarding for good ideas, role play, encouragement of other players, etc. though, as well as enemies slain. And it’s common to be a little generous with XP in those first sessions.

There was a reason wizards carried daggers and slings as well in early levels.

I just get tired of magic users complaining that they need to do equal damage to fighters from the beginning at range and also be able to warp reality in higher levels.

Exactly, the single session where wizards are level 1 in an inaugural battle that likely lasts 2-3 rounds