• 2 Posts
  • 48 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • I watched this Saturday.

    There was so much good stuff artistically in this movie!

    The changes to the story worked really well, IMO, towards updating it for modern cynical sensibilities:

    I loved Zendaya’s portrayal of Chani and her girl friend calling out Paul and Jessica’s colonialist bullshit.

    Jessica’s “strange” behavior as a pregnant woman. I agree with others that having Jessica speak for Alia worked better than having a child actor like Lynch’s version.

    Stilgar’s parody of religious fanaticism was hilarious!

    Visually, making the worm riding look like some kind of extreme sport worked well

    The Giedi Prime black and white/infrared sequences were brilliant, although seeing the Baron and Feyd in regular flesh tones afterwards felt strange.

    The Atreides nuke missiles flying across the sky felt apocalyptic

    The Sardukar ranks were notably not as rigidly disciplined as we saw in the first film.

    Unlike others, I thought that Christopher Walken’s emperor was good. Age decrepit on the verge of doddering, but with dark intelligent thoughts behind his sullen face. The only problem with casting Walken was that he’s too recognizable.

    The one part I didn’t like was the climactic dagger fight. I would have liked to see the action better choreographed and coordinated with camera angles to make the sequence of thrusts and parries clearer. I also would have liked to see contrasting fighting styles between whatever Feyd does, and Paul’s classical Atreides training mixed with Fremen savagery. I’m still not sure how Paul’s knife wound up in Feyd at the end.

    I also noticed unlike other adaptations, they didn’t do the weirding modules, the Atreides-developed sonic weapons that give the Fremen some kind of combat advantage. But I didn’t miss them.

    Overall I was very happy with the movie.







  • zabadoh@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlI had a journey
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I disagree somewhat.

    A lot of high tech development comes with a greed motive, e.g. IPO, or getting bought out by a large company seeking to enter the space, e.g. Google buying Android, or Facebook buying Instagram and Oculus.

    And conversely, a lot of open source software are copies of commercially successful products, albeit they only become widely adopted after the originals have entered the enshittified phase of their life.

    Is there a Lemmy without Reddit? Is there a Mastodon without Twitter? Is there LibreOffice without Microsoft Office and decades of commercial word processors and spreadsheets before that? Or OpenOffice becoming enshittified for that matter? Is there qBittorrent without uTorrent enshittified? Is there postgreSQL without IBM’s DB2?

    The exception that I can see is social media and networked services that require active network and server resources, like Facebook YouTube, or even Dropbox and Evernote.

    Okay, The WELL is still around and is arguably the granddaddy of all online services, and has avoided enshittification, but it isn’t really open source.




  • It’s been that way for a loooong time.

    Movies became so expensive to produce that studios can’t finance them themselves.

    So they turned to the banks.

    Banks are by nature risk averse.

    So a production company has to submit an application to their bank’s movie financing department like you would when applying for a home loan.

    The bank decides whether to finance the movie based on the information submitted: Script, subject matter, director, which stars have committed to the project, etc.

    Now if you imagine, people from the banking industry are not artists and creatives and visionaries. They just look at raw investment potential, i.e. Is this proposed production going to pay off the loan with interest?

    If there’s any risk, e.g. this has never been done before, or there’s no recognizable franchise branding, or if something could be controversial in a meaningful way, the bank won’t approve the production loan.

    So sequels, brand name franchises, with writing committees, are easier to get approvals from the banks, therefore are more likely to make it into production.

    That’s why Hollywood doesn’t make daring, experimental, and controversial movies much anymore.






  • Was part of a team that was sent to Boston for a project. While we were there, the company announced they were changing the meal expense policy from reimbursement for submitted bills to a fixed stipend.

    But that policy change was a couple of days away, so the whole team went to this fancy expensive restaurant for dinner, and we ordered expensive food and wines as one last hurrah.

    I don’t even remember where or what I ate or drank.

    I just remember it was a good time.


  • Depends.

    Lemmy and reddit are definitely more media friendly.

    I think reddit managed to capture a certain generation of users for a lot of topics, and I think its recommendation algorithm helps keep the user experience more interesting by throwing exposing the user to new groups they may be interested in. Very similar to how YouTube works.

    But like other social media, the reddit algorithm also creates a very silo-ed, radicalized user base.

    Forum users tend to be older, and I have seen a few specialty forums die off due to attrition and a lack of new users.

    I think one huge benefit of forums is the good ones are tightly moderated, so bots and trolls are quickly dealt with.

    Forums whose topics where age is a lesser factor, or where non-commercialization benefits their userbase, are lasting longer, but generally they’re getting picked off.

    I think Discord is more like a media-friendly IRC, which was never my bag so I’ll let others opine on it.