#i can't even think of an example because its just what television in general has become | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

centrally-unplanned · 1 month

Text

I saw this slightly-old post making the rounds recently by former alt-right memelord Walt Bismark, on how the alt-right "won" in the late 2010's - positing that as the cause of why it generally vanished. I agree overall with the vanishing part, its not gone-gone ofc but it waned as a cohesive movement. But I saw a lot of people (and generally not alt-right figures) agreeing with its conclusion and I am a bit more skeptical of those.

Its largely a personal essay so I wont address most of it, but it has a summary of five main points that outline essentially "the agenda of the Alt Right at the beginning" to evaluate success upon. Bismark thinks they won on all five, but overall I think this is playing a trick of inventing an enemy to claim you defeated. Anyway, the points:

1: Shift the “Overton Window” of acceptable public discourse to make it politically viable to openly discuss the interests of white people in mainstream politics, in the same way black people or Jewish people discuss their collective interests.

This one I will grant a partial victory - there was a legitimate intensification of "white as identity" in politics, a making explicit what was implicit in the 2010's. Now ofc I consider this to be a classic horseshoe moment; the hard left at the time was also extremely interested in abandoning race neutrality and valorizing racial identity as an organizing principle, and did it in a very ham-fisted way that the right capitalized on, so it was an easy battle to win - but that is what it is, ofc the wider environment defined the goals & strategy. I mention it however because I do think this is only partial, and the gap between implicit and explicit isn't that relevant. He mentions as an example of this success:

Affirmative action was of course squashed by SCOTUS and the necessary legal infrastructure is being deployed to burn it down. Mainstream conservatives are mobilizing a lot of resources and energy to this end.

But conservatives have been fighting affirmative action for 20+ years, easily. Here is a 1999 article on precisely such a campaign, I literally just googled "conservatives affirmative action [year]" and I get results each time, 2003 had big cases (the Bollinger cases) on AA, etc. I remember "affirmative action bake sale" memes from like 2006 at my uni! What changed between Bollinger and 2023's Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is that conservatives had just had enough time to stack courts, and wait for Supreme Court justices to die. That just...takes time to do! The strategy hadn't changed between 2003 and 2023. And meanwhile, did they win? They won that court case, sure. What do you...think the ethic makeup of the next Harvard class is gonna be? Wanna take some bets?

His other listed victories are things like:

"Vivek defended the Great Replacement Theory on national television and remained a major Trump surrogate. The SPLC would have marginalized him for that 10 years ago. Today because of polarization and MAGA closing ranks they can’t do shit."

And like, the Southern Poverty Law Center would have successfully marginalized a Republican politician in idk 2003 are you completely high right now? Strom Fucking Thurmond was an active Senator in 2003! This is the repeated tactic here, the imagined enemies - there was never a time where liberal institutions could consistently force conservative politicians to kowtow, so you can't claim it as a change.

This is why I mention the social justice horseshoe, because he has this point here:

These days you can complain about quotas etc. being unfair to you as a white man and it’s not inflammatory or low status among centrists and conservatives. Even non-woke liberals won’t really hate you for it, just quietly think you’re a bit of a chud. This was not the case in 2015.

And this is partially correct, I agree there was some norm shift. But that is because in ~2010 there really weren't any quotas against white men, it wasn't a thing almost anywhere outside of university applications, so the complaint would make no sense. What happened was that starting in ~2012 a huge left cultural movement started that just openly supported active discrimination against whites, Asians and men. They were a small minority of course, and never had much power, but they got enough power in certain institutions like non-profits and universities that there was a string of just very obvious cases of clear racial discrimination against in particular whites & asians (both men and women, white women often got it very bad in this wave). And the large majority of people just saw that and went "uh yeah racism is still bad?" and so now you can say that because its actually relevant to say. From that lens, is this a successful cultural victory on the part of the alt-right? In some sense sure, but really its more a cultural failure of the hard left. The status quo just kept on chugging along.

Ugh that point went long, the others repeat so we will go through them quicker.

2: Elevate identity issues like anti-immigration and the promotion of traditional gender norms to the center of Republican politics.

A fake enemy here - anti-immigration was already a huge issue for Republicans in the 2000's. It had a huge wave under Obama actually, it goes in cycles like that. And it responds to material conditions; it's a big issue again right now because the immigration numbers spiked massively under Biden, its just way worse of a problem now (primarily due to the booming economy of course). Again a partial victory for the first part, I agree its more salient due to Trump platforming it, but I'm skeptical that it is a big shift - people are memory-holing the Tea Party movement really badly here for example.

And the second point is just obviously false, Republicans always cared about that, and they care about it less now, giving up the ghost on gay marriage for example. The Alt-Right coincided with a decline of the influence of the Religious Right, and it shows on this issue, 0 points.

3: Make it socially acceptable to discuss HBD and the resulting moral implications for leveling mechanisms like affirmative action.

Peak "log off" moment, it was always acceptable to discuss this outside of liberal/professional circles and there it still isn't acceptable to discuss it. Charles Murray wrote the Bell Curve in 1994 and his been an American Enterprise Institute Scholar for this entire span of time. This is confusing churn for change - the mid-2010's had a bunch of big, mainly online fights about HBD, and then everyone just sort of moved on with the status quo pretty much unchanged. Nothing like education policy, even in Republican circles, has shifted over this.

4: Convince conservatives to stop ceding moral authority to liberals and allowing them to determine who on the Right is verboten or beyond the pale. Make it unacceptable among conservatives to “punch Right” or purge people for wrongthink.

Sigh, again when have Republicans ever ceded moral authority to liberals? Harvard University could not condemn Newt Gingrich in ~2009 and make him change his mind about anything. And "Republicans don't self-criticize while Liberals eat themselves alive" has been a complaint for literally decades, you would hear that as far back as say Clinton and things like the 1999 WTO protests. Its both true and exaggerated - the Tea Party primaried Republican candidates for wrongthink in 2010, and Trump did the same thing! With disastrous results for the Republicans in 2022. I really, really don't think you can look at Trump's Republican party and say they solved the Wrongthink problem.

5: Expose and dismantle the hypocritical attitude that allows neocons to militantly support Israeli ethnonationalism while brutally repressing any white identity politics domestically.

This one is just a lolwut moment, "brutally repressing any white identity politics domestically", like what does that even mean? Name the concrete policy proposals George Bush implemented in 2007 than Donald Trump didn't in 2018 around this topic. Again a fake enemy, they were never repressed by the right, and ofc are still hated by liberal institutions like universities.

Moving on from any specific point, I think its very telling that very little about free trade vs protectionism or isolationism/support of autocracy abroad enters this list. Because beyond immigration those are the big shifts the Trump movement (which is the mechanism the alt-right has to claim for making its impact) has ushered into the party. They didn't change its stance on sexual politics or "race & IQ" or anything, those haven't changed, but meanwhile the party has completely flipped on things like tariffs or opposition to Russian military expansion. But of course those don't align neatly at all with the issues the Alt-Right fought about in 2015.

The reality the Alt-Right can't escape is that they used Trump as their mechanism for change, and Trump never really cared about any of their goals beyond immigration. He used them and then pursued either bog-standard Republican policy or his own mercurial, autocratic whims, eventually channeling all of this energy into election denialism. I really don't think if you pulled aside frikkin Ryan Faulk in 2014, asked him to put down his graphs about Raven's Progressive Matrices of black Caribbean students, and said "Hey 10 years from now all of this energy is being channeled into pretending that a failed real estate mogul didn't lose the 2020 presidential election", that he would look at that outcome and think Mission Accomplished.

I don't want to fully oversell, there are for example wins Bismark doesn't mention (School choice comes to mind, the biggest conservative win of the past decade besides the protectionist swing). The Alt Right was an influential movement, it earned its place in history. But I do not think it is an example of being a "victim of its own success". I think instead it should be understood as part of the "radical froth" of the 2010's, that bubbled over and then evaporated like its more intense leftwing peers did. It made some mark and then got left in the dust.

Net ranking of the 5 points: 0.5 for Point 1, 0.25 for Point 2, 0 for the rest, 1.25/5.

#Sociological History of the 2010's #Alt-right discourse

67 notes · View notes

thepalmofyourfreezinghand · 6 months

Note

I don't know enough about Taylor Swift's new boyfriend to judge him but there are few things I dislike about this situation. I read somewhere he participated in a reality show to find a girlfriend. Do I think someone like him, a famous football player, needed it to find himself a woman? Of course not. Women fall like flies for men with his dating profile. Do I suspect he did it for the media attention that participation would bring him? Of course yes. And people like him do not change. Taylor seems to be ok with it which is where the problem lies to me because it throws a doubt on everything she has been saying for years. Did she really mean it when she said she wanted to live her relationships in private? Did she really mean that deep feelings grow outside of the public eye? I do not believe for a second that she acted the way she did and said what she said because Joe made her. She's always held the power in their relationship, even at the beginning. So what's left? That she didn't really think/feel it and did something against her own nature because she wanted Joe so badly and she knew she would've never had him or the world would have interfered if she had acted differently? Or did she really mean it and is now acting like she's ok with someone wanting and living differently as the pathological in this case boyfriend pleaser some accuse her of being? Is it something that people like me have any right to know? Of course not but you can't stop people from asking themselves questions when you start "showing" so much to the them.

So, I get your pov but I don't think I agree.

If I'm not mistaken, Travis said he did that dating show because he needed money. Now, would a televised dating show where one man gets to choose a woman be my first option to gain some income if I found myself struggling financially? Absolutely not, and those dating shows can be criticized in a thousand different ways (not Travis's one in particular, just in general). But it's something he did like seven years ago when he needed money, and he seems to laugh about the show and not take it too seriously now, which is actually very healthy.

I think people can change. This is true for Taylor and also for Travis.

Also, Taylor's relationship with Joe and its level of privacy wasn't the norm for her: her rs with CH and TH were much more "public". When she got together with Joe she was going through some rough stuff (to put it mildly), and it makes sense that she wanted to protect what she felt was the "one right thing" she'd made in her whole life (per her own words). Even so, her relationship with Joe became more public at times too (whenever Joe posted pics from Taylor's home or with the cats, for example, or when they attended award shows together), it wasn't always strictly private.

I think she meant every word she said while she was dating Joe, but that doesn't mean that she can't act differently now, now that she has different needs and she is in a different relationship with a different man who has a different personality. I just think we shouldn't hold what she's said years ago against her.

Finally, I think she's keeping her rs with Travis way more private than people seem to think. Yeah, we have the pap pics and she went to his games, but, beyond that, they haven't shared anything on social media and he's politely said a couple of words and then changed the subject whenever he got asked about her.

#taylor swift #travis kelce

21 notes · View notes

batsarebetterthanpeople · 4 months

Note

"racist show" ??? find me a less racist show right now. I can't even think of a tv show that isn't unintentionally racist in some way. new iwtv? no, it's good but it's definitely got some unfortunate bits. reservation dogs? nope there's a video on youtube calling it anti-black. black sails? doctor who? noughts and crosses?

what is this even about? Ed being "too violent" ? there is no way to avoid every possible racist interpretation someone might have.

Oh it's because the historical guy they stole the name and not much else from to give to OFMD's main character owned slaves irl. which I consider to be a valid argument when its brought up in discussion of the show by people who actually want to discuss the finer points of historical fiction and what goes and what doesn't and completely disingenuous when it comes from tumblr anons and in blorbo brackets and the like. Every single piece of historical fiction from that general time period is haunted by the specter of slavery. Ofmd is no exception, I feel like they handled it well and they handled it well specifically because they made sure to have the perspectives of the descendants of enslaved peoples in the writers room, which many many many pieces of historical fiction like Black Sails and doctor who have not done. I think it's very important to have characters like Oluwande and Frenchie and I think that while I sorta wish they'd changed the name they altered the story so much from reality that that's just a fucking original character with a name ripped from a historical guy.

Edit: the reason I consider it to be pretty disingenuous is because I don't like it when fucking genocide and racial trauma is used cynically to dunk on people you find annoying and no one is ever consistent about it. Like Black Sails is way worse at handling the Slavery thing and yet Stede was the one who had to beat the allegations in that Flint V Stede poll that broke containment for example, People will compair it to Hamilton despite the fact that they're only really comperable in the fact that they're both historical fiction (OFMD is about people you've never heard of, Hamilton is about fuckers who still effect legislation to this day. Hamilton sticks to history pretty closely OFMD says fuck history the pirates are kissing. Hamilton is a biographical broadway show and OFMD is a Television Romantic Comedy. It even takes place on opposite ends of the 1700s. there's no comparison unless you want to lump Bridgerton and Black Sails and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Six (the musical) and Dracula Untold and so on and so forth). Basically there's a ton of historical fiction for which the problems OFMD has are also criticisms that could be applied there and I tend to notice which ones people apply them to. Usually if there's a prominent person of color who's kind of a nerd attached to it, it draw tumblr's ire and if there isn't they get to skate by and Tumblr doesn't even notice it's existance. I don't know if that's because we're all self hating nerds and we hate to see another nerd winning because it invokes the self cringe or because of racism (tis definitely the racism) but it's true.

12 notes · View notes

bm-blog01 · 4 months

Note

As someone who understands the marketing of Bridgeton, why do you think it always comes up on Reddit where people don’t believe an endgame couple will happen just bc Julia Quinn said there isn’t a requirement that these couples need to stay together? Even if she doesn’t have it written in her contract, there must be a contract with the publishing company bc they can’t resell the books if there’s a different character on the cover

Hey, sorry for the delay in responding.

I will address the last point first.

I agree that even if it isn't in Julia Quinn's contract with Shondaland, it is likely that the publisher has it in their contract. I am not an expert on commercial law, specifically US/International commercial law, however, I have done some reading. The way I see it this is a little more complicated than the contracts between Julia Quinn and Shondaland, and between Shondaland and Netflix, because there will likely also be a contract between Netflix and the publisher otherwise the publisher would not be able to use the Netflix logo for the TV tie in books. So, keeping in mind that the publisher and Netflix will most likely have a contract separate to that of Shondaland and Julia Quinn in order for the TV tie in books to be advertising Netflix, I don't see how the show can have anything but the endgame couples.

So to address your question regarding the Reddit users. I think there are possibly a lot of reasons why some on Reddit don't believe - or rather don't want - an endgame couple.

I think that some have a belief that Bridgerton should cover all types of representation, they see representation in one area (people of colour) and believe that representation should be extended to disabled, or to LGBT. Essentially they are projecting what they want to see in television onto one show that has broken barriers for its genre. This isn't right or wrong, but it does to a degree forget that Bridgerton is not an original series and does have source material that doesn't always fit their idea of what a show should be.

Referencing the above, the idea of changing the endgame couples seems more prevalent in the show only people, and this could just come down to having no respect for the books, or those that love the books and wish to see their favourite couples from the books brought to life. As I said, I think they forget (or don't want to acknowledge) that Bridgerton is based on books, and there is source material for the show that has brought in a lot of viewers.

There are some that just like a pairing (eg: Eloise and Theo) and refuse to accept that one half of that pairing is nothing more than a plot device designed to drive the other half towards their story. With the example of Eloise and Theo some will hide behind the idea of an upstairs / downstairs type of romance, which not only dismisses Benedict's story, but also (from some) gives the impression that they hate rich people and want to see a rich girl humbled and having to live in poverty - which is ironic considering Bridgerton is about uber rich people having a Happy Ever After.

One thing you didn't mention, but I always find fascinating, when discussions of changing endgames is mentioned, the only characters that some of these users don't want to have the endgame changed for is Penelope and Colin. Make of that observation what you will.

I am not sure if I answered your question well enough, but in general I think a lot of it comes from those that want the show to represent their world view at the expense of abandoning the source material.

I do think though, that no matter what Julia Quinn says, Netflix won't allow the show to change the endgame couples because if I had to guess, they are being paid a lot of money from the TV tie in books, and if the endgame couples are changed and the covers can't be done then they are likely to lose money. It makes no business sense to change the endgames.

#bridgerton #asks #endgame couples #reddit

4 notes · View notes

bopinion · 2 years

Text

2022 / 18

Aperçu of the Week:

"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans."

(John Lennon)

Bad News of the Week:

We men will never understand how women manage to do several things at once. Clichéd, for example, ironing, telephoning and watching television. "Multi-tasking" is the name given to this enviable ability. A mystery to those of us who can barely manage to read the newspaper on the toilet. The decisive factor here seems to be retrieving stored routines, since even a female brain cannot manage to actually focus on more than one subject at a time. Especially when it comes to the intellectual processing of complex topics.

This brings us to media consumption. Where not only one headline chases the next, but also displaces them from the frontal lobe. Our society was just grasping the magnitude of climate change, species extinction, nature destruction, etc., when the next dominant crisis came around the corner with Covid and took over the entire public interest. Until Russia attacked Ukraine. Other crises - such as supply chain issues that call into question the entire system of the globalized economy or general price increases on a shocking scale that many of us can't bear any more - barely make it to page 1, which they would dominate "in normal times."

The problem is attention span. Our brains manage an average of 10 trillion arithmetic operations per second. And yet doesn't manage to sustainably and productively turn its attention to more than one topic. Sascha Lobo, a well-known columnist on media topics, calls it the "puppy problem." Because playing puppies - as we all know them from thousands of oh-so-cute clips on social media - always and immediately get distracted by something new: Oh, a ball! For a child, that means ignoring the geography presentation until the math test is written. And for government policy, that the real agenda (as our cabinet just admitted after a closed-door meeting) stays put as long as there's a crisis to deal with.

And that's what I think is a fundamental problem. Because humanity can't really afford that. There is no such thing as a big pause button, with which we could stop climate change, for example, until we have the time and energy to deal with it. No matter how busy we are today, we must not lose sight of tomorrow. Many problem complexes are also interwoven. Take Yemen, for example: In the country itself, the soil has dried out so much that practically nothing grows anymore = climate crisis. In the blocked ports of Ukraine, Yemen's main supplier, 25 million tons of grain cannot be loaded = supply chain crisis. But because of Iran's and Saudi Arabia's ongoing proxy war in the country, no distribution could take place anyway = war crisis. And that would have been possible anyway only to the extent financed by aid organizations, since Yemen is effectively broke = debt crisis. This will cost the lives of many = hunger crisis.

So as not to be misunderstood: I do not want to criticize the fact that the focus of foreign and security policy is currently on Ukraine and that many economic and financial factors are also taken into account. But this does not mean that the Ministry for the Environment and Nature Conservation or the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (aid) have to remain inactive. Spending on the Energy and climate fund, for example, has been more than tripled to 27 billion euros in 2021. However, this rather theoretical budget is being dispatched only hesitantly because the administration is standing on the brakes and redistributions are already planned, for example to - of all things! - to lower the price of gasoline. But a so-called "special fund" of 100 billion euros is being approved in a single weekend to upgrade the Bundeswehr. Just to clarify: this has nothing to do with the urgently needed military aid for Ukraine, but is a frightened (over)reaction to the Russian potential for aggression. As if, say, Grozny or Aleppo did never happen.

Yes, we need to take care of Ukraine's defense potential. And of its reconstruction. And about more energy autonomy. And about military emancipation. But it would be nice if we could do that on a planet that can sustain all of our lives. Otherwise, our children will find themselves in a crisis that can't be managed at all.

Good News of the Week:

The training of Ukrainian soldiers on Western weapons can apparently constitute war participation under international law. According to a report, the delivery of weapons itself does not constitute entry into war, "only if, in addition to the delivery of weapons, the instruction of the conflict party or training on such weapons were at issue, would one leave the safe area of non-warfare," the Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland quoted from an expert opinion of the Scientific Service of the Bundestag. An institution whose non-political opinion-forming could always be relied upon.

Now we learn that the Bundeswehr will not only hand over the modern self-propelled howitzer 2000 to the Ukrainian military, but will also provide training on the arguably complex weapon (the deviation of the weapon positioning system is only one minute of arc at a distance of 40 km - whatever that means). In the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. And not secretly, otherwise I would not have been able to read about it on several serious media. So Germany will be involved in the war? And what would that mean? In a way, a redefinition of normality.

I've already wrote about the fundamental changes in German positioning forced upon us by the Russian invasion. Including the admission of fundamental misjudgements - or blindness, if you will - towards a despot who follows what is actually a relatively obvious objective, namely the re-establishment of the Soviet Union including a "balance of terror." Principles of decades of policy have not only been questioned, but answered. As wrong.

Why is this good news? Because there is an European, even worldwide consensus on this. Germany is no longer expected to stand idly by in humility in the face of its historical guilt. On the contrary: Europe's strongest country is expected to show leadership. Not (anymore) only economically, but now also in terms of foreign and security policy. This is an opportunity. To prove that we have not only learned our lessons. But to turn them into action. History can be written, in all meanings of "as well as". For the benefit of all. The signs are good. All we need now is the confidence to recognize them as they are. And the courage to understand them as a mission.

Personal happy moment of the week:

It was only two or three months ago that I was worried about my son's school career because of French. Even if the goal - a stable E - seemed manageable. So I wasn't surprised when he said it didn't go well when he was quizzed on the day of his geography presentation, of all things, and therefore completely unprepared. Then he starts grinning, "...but very well!" He actually got an A after all. Miracles do happen.

I couldn't care less...

...that Macron renamed his party from "En marche" to "Renaissance". I didn't care that Google became Alphabet, Fiat & Peugeot became Stellantis, or Facebook became Meta. Old wine in new wineskins - a phrase I never really understood. "En marche" is still best translated as "Let's go!". Why not, when you are out to make many things better and a few things new. "Renaissance", on the other hand, linguistically means "rebirth" - before which one must actually have been dead. And in terms of cultural history, it means turning away from the dark Middle Ages toward humanistic values - which seems a little strange against the backdrop of having been in authoritative government for the last five years. I'm just getting a little envious, because probably some supposed rebranding expert charged a heavy bill for this bullshit.

As I write this...

...I am sitting on the train on another Sunday. This time on my way to Cologne for a trade show preparation. The first time since the beginning of the Corona pandemic. Therefore with mixed feelings. For business reasons I hope for a lively attendance. For infection control reasons I am unsettled. Thank goodness I am a strict mask wearer.

Post Scriptum:

Tomorrow in Russia there will be the big celebration of "victory day", the anniversary of the triumph over Nazi Germany. Originally, it was assumed that the ominous "major offensive" in eastern Ukraine would also serve to give the Kremlin despot the opportunity to announce at least some kind of victory on this very important day in Russia. In the absence of such a victory - not even Mariupol has been completely taken - fears are growing that Putin might declare a general mobilization and swear the Russian people to blood, sweat and tears. Rarely have I wished so much for a free press and unrestricted media access for a population to be able to counter this inconceivable propaganda with something real...

2 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 8 months

Text

Bewitched (2005)

While I didn't enjoy this film, that doesn't mean you won't. No matter what I say, the people involved in this project did it: they actually made a movie. That's something to be applauded. With that established...

During the Mid ‘00s, there was a brief trend of taking popular television series from the ‘60s and onwards and re-imagining/comedically interpreting them as films. Bewitched must be one of the worst examples. It’s unfunny, wastes the talents of its stars and squanders its potential.

After a series of box-office flops, Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) agrees to play the role of Darrin in a remake of the 1960s sitcom Bewitched. He insists on being the show's star, which means the producers must cast a nobody in the role of his witch wife, Samantha. Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), an actual witch, sees the role as an opportunity to step away from the world of sorcery she’s grown tired of but soon becomes displeased with her narcissistic co-star.

When in a leading role, Will Ferrell and his comedic style tends to be polarizing. Either audiences think he's a riot, or they can't stand him. In this case, neither camp will have any fun. It isn’t that he’s everdoing his schtick. Actually, the only laughs you get come when director Nora Ephron allows him to let loose. Even then, she lets him go on for too long half the time but he actually succeeds in generating chuckles, unlike the script Nora co-wrote with her sister, Delia Ephron. Steve Carell has a brief role and he’s annoying. Michael Caine as Isabel’s father is slightly amusing but nothing he does goes anywhere and the smiles you get when he's on-screen come from the actor’s charisma, not his lines. Isabel’s newfound friends (Kristin Chenoweth and Heather Burns) are useless, Jack’s sycophant producer Ritchie (Jason Schwarztman) is irritating. You don’t even get a funny talking puppet cat. If the movie had been funny, the gag where Isabel literally rewinds time would’ve been amusing. It isn’t, so all you can do is think about how stupid she must be for forgetting about this spell every other time.

I saved my complaints about the magic for now, because it’s what ultimately sinks the ship. Overall, the fact that Isabel can cast spells means NOTHING. While on TV, the production crew use special effects to make her “mother” Endora (Shirley MacLain) appear. Jack’s lack of charisma makes everyone hate him and love Isabel. She didn’t really have to audition for the role - she just gets the part because she can wiggle her nose. She doesn’t even want to use magic so she doesn’t except in a few scenes you could edit out or turn into fantasy/dream sequences. You could’ve made this movie as just two people on the set of a TV series but that would've forced Bewitched to ditch many of its favourite “gag”. See, Isabel was raised by witches and warlocks, so she has no idea what the Muggle world is like. In fact, she barely understands English. She’s so dumb she depends on her spellcasting to get through the day when she isn’t trapped in a standard, boring rom-com.

Bewitched throws enough darts toward its target to score a couple of hits. For viewers, they come at a steep price. On top of the poorly written and conceived story, the lousy direction, and the non-sensical or confusing aspects (I still can’t figure out if Carole Shelley’s character is Isabel’s real aunt coincidentally called Clara or a character from the show somehow brought to life), this is a romantic comedy that’s never the least bit romantic. Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman have charm as individuals but there are no sparks between them. Bewitched deserves to be burned at the stake. (October 26, 2020)

1 note · View note

safflowerseason · 3 years

Note

Just watched the Veep podcast trailer and I'm confused by TS's line about how the show forecasting things to come. I don't remember Veep predicting everything, rather it seemed to react to things (in some instances very well, so its nothing to be ashamed of). I worry they're either going to say Selina forecasted Trump or Kamala Harris and both those suggestions seem just ridiculous.

Yeah, I wasn't really sure about that line either...it could have just been a "dummy phrase" written for him by Kast Media as part of the fluffy promotional ad copy he and Matt Walsh were clearly reciting. Of course you are right, Anon, that Veep wasn't a predictive show in any way - Selina and her staff's particular brand of incompetence wasn't really anything like Trump's administration, and other similarities either mirrored things that were currently happening or happened in the past - but I can't say I have any faith in Kast Media's ability to dissect the political nuances of a show like Veep. There were a few very specific instances in the Mandel years where a joke on Veep did end up playing out in real life...the main one I remember is that Ted Cruz went on a weird rant about daylight savings time à la Jonah in S6, and there were a few others, but they were all one-off jokes that had nothing really to do with the overarching plot and anyway hardly constitute as "proof" that Veep forecasted things to come.

But this is also one of the risks with having a rewatch podcast led by cast members - sometimes the team who creates a television show get locked into one or two ideas about what their show is doing or what it's known for, and then those ideas are the only way they know how to talk about the show in public. For example, in the Mandel years, in every reunion fundraiser or joint interview, all Mandel et al could really talk about is creative insults for Jonah and how Veep was crazy and full of terrible people but couldn't out-crazy or out-terrible Trump. I do worry that Matt Walsh and Timony Simons will just kind automatically parrot that line of inquiry for the whole podcast, even though that kind of framing just really isn't relevant to what's going on or what the show is trying to explore during the Iannucci years.

I'm also suspicious of the podcast promising to bring on politicians/political strategists to talk about Veep, if only because The OC podcast promised us culture writers and sociologists to talk about that show's impact on pop culture, and as far as I am aware, nobody like that has come on the show. Although fwiw I think it would be much easier to book political strategists for this podcast because Veep was a genuinely popular show among that professional community...David Mandel did an interview with Pod Save America, for example, and I'm pretty sure multiple other strategists are on the record mentioning that they watched the show. I think even President Obama mentioned it once? (not that they will get Obama on this podcast, although that would be pretty incredible if they did.)

I do wonder about who they will have on guests more generally...I imagine they will try and get all the cast members on, from the main cast to supporting to guest stars. Of course I'm especially eager to hear from Reid Scott and Anna Chlumsky, if only because both of them are virtually silent on social media now and I am genuinely wondering how they are doing (all of RS's recent tweets were clearly posted by a social media manager, and he hasn't tweeted or Instagrammed anything promotional for the second Venom movie, which seems...weird.) I'd like to see the Veep costume designer come on, and of course writers and directors. If they can get Iannucci, that'd be huge, and I'd love for that to happen.

But I wonder if Kast Media's relentless obsession with interviews mean we'll get other random comedians and actors who've worked with the hosts and/or just love Veep. That's clearly what happened on The OC podcast...which was obviously hampered by the fact that its 3/4 of its core four don't seem interested in coming on (for now). But after they went through the parents and supporting cast, the guest list seems to have been reduced to "previous colleagues of Melinda Clarke and Rachel Bilson and anyone vaguely famous who loves The OC." Like, Tim Simons recently worked with Josh Schwartz on Looking for Alaska...are we going to have to listen to Josh Schwartz on the Veep pod? Ugh. They should just let Tim Simons and Matt Walsh talk to one another for some episodes. That's a huge problem with The OC podcast for me, that there hasn't been any space for the hosts to just breathe and talk without having to interview guests and do dumb trivia bits. Simons and Walsh actually know each other and worked together quite recently for nearly a decade, so Kast Media should get out of the way and not "over-produce" the show the way they are clearly doing on The OC pod (although that's possibly because Rachel Bilson is such a dud as a host).

#veep rewatch pod #second in command #timothy simons #matt walsh #anna chlumsky #reid scott #kast media #welcome to the oc bitches

3 notes · View notes

picturejasper20 · 4 years

Text

I'm going to make a response to a SU video made a few years ago by @robobuddies, who goes by "Red Van Buskirk" the video is called "The Steven universe rant." The video was uploaded in 8 Sep in 2017.

Keep the date in mind because is going to become important later.

I going to refer to Red Van Buskirk as "they/them" since they prefer these pronouns and "Red Van" for short.

And don't harass this person in social media! This is supossed to be a response. Nothing else. I'm saying this because i know how things work. So, don't bully them. OK?

I'm not going to make a rebuttal of every single tiny detail because the video is 40 minutes long and the creator of the video sometimes jumps from one point to another and loses focus on what they are talking about:

First they start the video with a Disclaimer: "I'm going to be harsh and hyperbolic for the sake of entertainment".

Now here's my problem: i get sometimes youtube critics want to play a "persona" but sometimes comes off more as an lazy excuse to avoid criticism. This has happened before with Cinema Sins many times. It's not exactly a very good way of starting your video, specially if you want to be considered a profesional or be taken seriously.

Like if i'm going to give my opinion about something, i do it, i don't say "It's just my persona", i want to honest with my mutuals and people who like my content.

They also mention how the SU fandom can't take criticism and sometimes consider everything a personal attack. While i agree this fandom can be a living nightmare, the reason of why we sometimes get so mad is because people who sometimes do these types of rants don't do their research about the show, the video gets millions of views and well..

Which goes to my next point:

-Red Van, you need to do your research.

A huge part of the video they talk about the animation behind the show and mention "Motorcity" as a good example of composition.

Here's the thing: They barely mention which programs the creators use to create these shows or the animation studios which is quite a problem if you are going to talk about animation for half of your video.

"Motorcity is animated with a combination of Flash, Maya and After Effects – with backgrounds and other elements created in Photoshop."

"Created by Chris Prynoski, Motorcity is produced by Robin Red Breast, Inc. (a subsidiary of Titmouse, Inc.) and Disney Television Animation."

Link (X)

Steven universe was animated by two korean studios: Summin and Rough Draft

Link (X)

The programs the crewniverse used to animate Steven universe Link: (X)

They mention how the animators of Steven universe were "lazy" for not making the scene of "Mr.Greg"- Is over, isn't it? More interesting..

Here's the thing.. they wanted to:

This was the original concept but they didn't have time to animate it into the show. They were time restraints to animate it.

Link that talks about the episode Mr.Greg and the animatic: (X)

Now this episode "Mr.Greg" came out in 2016, and Red Van's SU video rant was uploaded in September 2017. That's like an year to find that post.. so why didn't they search for it?

They complain about the writers forgeting about the powers of the characters.. So, i'm just going to leave this right here from a SU reddit AMA:

The writers kinda came up with some powers but they also had a list of what powers they could do.

Now to be fair to Red Van, this AMA was made in way after their video, so i can't blame them for not knowing this detail.

They also mention how the gems don't use their powers to catch Peridot: The issue with this argument is that the gems had no idea how Gem Homeworld technology had changed and Peridot had tons of tricks to get the upper hand. And the gems only fight Peridot two times in season 2 before they catch her in "Catch and Release". That's why they catch her quickly in "Catch and Release" they already know her tricks and catch her by surprise.

"Peridot is coming.And we don't know who or what she'll be coming with. She's a modern gem with modern gem technology that's bound to overpower us." -Garnet Political Power

They also complain about Amethyst not using her shapeshifting powers to catch Peridot.. but later in "Message received" Amethyst shapeshifts into a helicopter to stop Peridot and her robot.. why they don't mention this?

Amethyst also used her shapeshifting powers in other battles (Ocean gem, Steven vs Amethyst).. they brieftly mention this for a second but don't go into much detail in their video.

In one part of their video they talk about the writing..they fail to mention how the process works.

Here's is how it works:

"As some of you know, Steven Universe is a storyboard driven show, meaning a team of storyboard artists are given an outline off of which they write all of the dialogue and storyboard the episode. The job of the outline, and my job, is to give them the basic framework for the episode - the story."

Link to Ben Levin post (X).

Here's is another one about Ian talking about the writing process: (X)

Now the Ben Levin post about writing is from 11 sep 2015. I think with 10-15 minutes you can find the post. And if i remember correctly it was even in the SU subreddit. And is from the episode "Lion 3"

They also mention Adventure time several times in their rant to compare it to Steven universe.

Now wasn't Adventure Time a storyboard driven show like Steven universe?

Well, yes.

"Each episode of Adventure Time takes about nine months to produce and begins in a writer’s room with series creator Ward, producers Adam Muto and Kent Osborne, and staff writer Jack Pendarvis. From that meeting, they generate a barebones, two-page outline. Those outlines are handed over to one of four storyboard teams who have two weeks to visually outline the episode. “They’re basically directing,” says Osborne. “They’re writing all the jokes, editing the outline, picking all the camera shots… what the episode is going to look like.”

Link

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-how-an-episode-of-cartoon-networks-adventure-time-is-made#:~:text=Each%20episode%20of%20Adventure%20Time,barebones%2C%20two-page%20outline.&text=“They're%20basically%20directing%2C”%20says%20Osborne.

It's also worth of mentioning that Rebecca Sugar worked previously on Adventure time.. i think Red Van doesn't mention this detail in their video.

Rebecca Sugar was nominated for the episodes : "It Came from the Nightosphere" and "Simon and Marcy". She storyboarded " I Remember you" which has one of the most iconic moments in modern western animation. ( People who complain about Steven universe but like Adventure time rarely seem to mention this detail).

Link (X) (Episodes she storyboarded in Adventure time)

There is also one point they just start nitpicking and tearing down the show, which reminds me of Cinema sins, except is not as funny.

Red Van, what you are doing here in this part can be done with any other show and is a very easy thing to do. I could also make a 30 minute rant of MotorCity or tmnt 2012 nitpicking every tiny detail but it's not exactly good criticism.

They later complain about the Steven universe perspective..

I leave this here,is from that same SU AMA reddit i mentioned earlier in the post which explains the Steven's perspective.

Now, i didn't have a problem with the Steven only perspective. In many ways its what makes the story of SU work. We learn about the world as Steven learns. The more Steven grows, the more we learn things aren't as simple as they seemed to be.

Characters sometimes will hold information about X person from Steven, so he's forced to ask other characters about it.

It seems to be suggestive since i only actually started paying attention to it when people brought it up. Like, it wasn't such a big deal for me.

Now i could go on and on with this response but i would like to leave it here.

What do i think of this video? If i was a teacher and a student tried to show me a video like this for my class, i would probably ask the student to make it again. Not because it complains about Steven universe, is just is poorly organized in some parts and lacks proper research.

As someone who likes analyzing media is quite difficult for me to take this rant seriously. It has issues and is like those Cinema sins videos but isn't that funny.

And there's one more thing:

I found this youtube comment in which Red Van admitted that they should have done more research into the show production and animation. At least is good to know they are honest and say they made some mistakes in their video.

The problem is that.. well.. since their Steven universe rant many others have cited their work and their video has 1 million of views... even though it contain a few errors that the creator admitted.

I wouldn't call Red Van a bad person, they actually are nice. However.. Their SU video is a bit misguided and somewhat problematic. But is not the worst thing ever.

#steven universe #animation #rebecca sugar #crewniverse #bad takes #SU youtube #media analysis #western animation #response #long long post

9 notes · View notes

ducklingdraws · 5 years

Text

My Idea for a Scooby-Doo! Reboot

So a while back, after noticing that Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated was on Spectrum On Demand, I decided, "Hey, I'm gonna rewatch this show." I don't know why I did it, because I rarely ever rewatch shows. I'll watch reruns, but never have I actually decided to rewatch a television series. But, I did it for Scooby-Doo.

And frankly, I had forgotten how good the show was. It's honestly really dark, while also being absolutely hilarious; and in its humor, the show actually does really unique things with the Scooby-Doo gang, with the biggest example being this show's version of Fred Jones. It's wild. But in my opinion, the thing that really makes this show what it is...

...is its story. I feel like the story and characters are fuel for this show in a way that feels different from other shows, somehow. I don't really get it, but that's the way I see it.

So, seeing as there's all these serialized cartoon series nowadays, and Scooby-Doo is always getting rebooted in one way or another, I figured... what if I rebooted Scooby? If I had the opportunity to reboot Scooby-Doo and the only Warner Bros requirement was "just make it," what would I do with it?

Without further ado, this is To the Future, Scooby-Doo!

First up: The Premise

To kick things off, I'll discuss how the show is set up. This version of Scooby-Doo is set in the future. Technology has become more holographic and stuff like in the movies, but fashion hasn't evolved to be nothing but latex bodysuits yet. Flying cars are real but not very widely used, and clothes can tell the time.

On the biological side of things, prosthetics are holographic as well, and incredibly easy to attach. It's almost like having your original limb. Food is healthier while also being more environmentally friendly, and animals have been genetically modified for a very long time. They have been allowed to mate, which has eventually lead to many domesticated animals being able to speak!

The main setting is a large port town known as Port Intrigue, where all sorts of goods are traded, and many people lead peaceful lives. It's a nice place, and a lot of the economy is structured around it. There are other important trade cities like it, but Port Intrigue may be the most powerful.

It's also probably the weirdest, because in true Scooby-Doo fashion, no one can just "be a criminal." Heck no! Where's the fun in that?? If you're gonna try and get money through illegal fear tactics, you've gotta do it in style!!

And for some reason or another, the police get a little help with solving a lot of the more, uh... colorful mysteries. Help from a group of kids attending Intrigue High...

Next up: The Scooby Gang!

So here's the big part! All of my redesigns of the classic gang! Let's kick it off with:

FRED JONES

So this version of Fred is definitely toned back from various recent versions of Scooby-Doo, particularly the DVD movies and Mystery Incorporated. He's a lot more laid back, and has a sort of "cool guy" persona.

One day a long time ago, his parents, 2 great scientists, didn't pick him up from school, and apparently they mysteriously disappeared. So since then he's been living with Shaggy. At Intrigue High, he is in the theater program as a Tech, so he's good with pulleys and ropes and other various behind-the-scenes theater things, which makes him really good at making weird Rube Goldbergs - and traps, whenever the need arises. But when would Fred ever need to build a trap?

NORVILLE "SHAGGY" ROGERS

...Y'all can excuse the scribbles in the lower corner, right?

Anyway, this version of Shaggy is just as uptight as he always is, but instead of that only being attributed to mystery solving and creepy ghoulies, it's evolved into some much, much greater!!!

He's the mom friend now.

Y'know, telling everyone to watch their eating habits and be careful of opening soda cans because so help me if you scratch yourself...!

Long time ago he lost his arm so now he has one of those cool prosthetics. The trauma of losing it though has made him extra cautious, and a bit of a scaredy cat. Of course, he's willing to do whatever it takes for his friends, just like the Shaggy we all know!

He still likes to eat and is a bit of an amateur chef, participating in the culinary club at Intrigue High.

VELMA DINKLEY

This is my rendition of Velma Dinkley. She's still the smartest one of the group, and good at technology, but is also a boxer! She's not just strong, but also strong willed!

The Dinkley's have a long, long history of scientific endeavors, and Velma's father is a great scientist as well! Though really, it's more of a hobby for him.

Velma lives with her younger sister Madelyn (who some of you might remember from Abracadabra-Doo) and her father, Victor.

This Velma is snarky, yet quirky. She's got a real go-getter mentality, which everyone can't help but to respect.

DAPHNE BLAKE

Daphne Blake is a bit of a softie. She was never very forward with making friends, but developed a clique of her own with Fred, Shaggy, Scooby and Velma.

Her house used to be the gang's main hang out spot, but after the kids moved on to high school, they haven't been over to her house at all.

Daphne likes to draw, and really wants to be a fashion designer. In fact, she's a part of Intrigue High's costume design team for the theater program!

SCOOBY-DOO

Scooby-Doo has been part of the Rogers family ever since he was a puppy, and Shaggy was a little kid. The two have been basically inseparable their whole lives, with Scooby even attending school with everyone else.

He likes belly rubs, scratches behind the ear, and food. So in other words, he's the same Scooby we all know and love! Still fearful, but dedicated to his friends, including...

MEASLES

Shaggy and Scooby may have been buds since they were little kids, but before Shaggy, Scooby had Measles.

Since they're both GMO animals, they both have the ability to speak human language, which they would use to try and get food. Eventually, Measles was able to get Scooby into a good home with the Rogers family. Unfortunately, Mr and Mrs Rogers couldn't afford to take care of Shaggy, Fred, a dog, and a cat, but Measles promised to visit Scooby whenever she could, or that they'd at least see each other around. And she's kept that promise! Even to this day, the gang will sometimes find her in random locations, like... the Theater Program's costume box?

Measles has a lackadaisical, yet somewhat snarky personality, but definitely cares for her friends. It just may take a while to show it.

Last up: Everything Else

Uh, hm. I guess this is the generalization of the show.

Well, it's a giant celebration of Scooby-Doo. The gang wears different outfits, rarely wearing the same one in consecutive episodes. And each outfit would be pulled from a previous Scooby series (yes, including *shivers*... Get a Clue).

Also, other characters from previous series and Scooby media are not only in the show, but play decently sized rolls. For example, I already mentioned Madelyn Dinkley, but there's also Red Herring from A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, or Mayor Nettles and Sherriff Bronson Stone from Mystery Incorporated (they're married from the start this time!). Even the dreaded Scrappy Doo makes his return at (what I imagine to be) the start of Season 2, hopefully to redeem himself and not be relegated to a tired joke about "lol Scrappee sux XD"

Flim-Flam is back too, but is rebranded as Frida McScam, the fast talking troublemaking free spirited girl who takes everybody's crap and spins it in her favor (and also might be psychic).

Scooby's family tree is mentioned, and his parents even have a major role in Season 1.

Just a whole lot of Scooby-Doo trivia and stuff. Stuff that I imagine the people working on the show would be way, way better at remembering and putting to use than I am!

As for the overarching plot?

Well, what futuristic setting would be complete without aliens? I imagine the aliens would be a race of owl creatures known as the Willawaw (another Scooby reference because I hope this show is FULL OF THEM). Basically, these aliens are the bad guys, both in the show proper, and in a lot of the show's backstory. They're like myth villains, or greater scope villains, or something.

I was even thinking like, when the gang ends up running, rather than using a recyclable run cycle from a side view, everyone could have brand new running animations, like to distinguish them all as unique. Although I guess that's what the running cycles were... but the chase scenes are a lot like Mystery Inc, where they were a lot more action packed. It could be great! And of course, everyone would use the classic running style at some point throughout the show, because that seems to be tradition for Scooby-Doo.

This was a really big post! But if you read all of it, thanks a million! I hope you liked the small amount of art within, or just the idea in general! Maybe I'll even draw my reimagined takes on the other characters some day. But for now, I'll leave at this.

25 notes · View notes

iforcedabot-blog · 5 years

Text

I Forced a Bot To Watch Every TNG and DS9 Episode and Write One of Its Own

You may have seen “I forced a bot to watch” posts where someone claims to have “forced a bot” to read or watch hours of video and written it’s own script. Those weren’t real but in recent history it has become possible to do it for real in a pretty convincing way with OpenAI’s GPT-2 system. This is an unbroken, unedited sample of GPT-2 ‘fine-tuned’ on all the TNG and DS9 scripts. Note that television scripts have have distinct formatting and style and all of that is copied perfectly by the bot. It even *almost* gets understands page numbers (in the first example – 28, 28, 28A).

28 EXT. PLAZA/SURFACE - DAY (OPTICAL) Data and Worf as before. DATA (puzzled) You left him there? He left him there? WORF Yes. He had been there for hours... then decided that I was going to kill him. Data frowns, he can't figure out how to phrase what he did... DATA I do not understand. WORF You knew? DATA I was afraid. They exchange a look... Data thinking quickly, is back to the source... DATA (continuing) I could have programmed some medical bank monitors to monitor you for a pulse response when you could enter Klingon memory. WORF We would have -- STAR TREK: "The House... " - REV. 08/10/94 - ACT FOUR 45. 28 CONTINUED: DATA But I was afraid that it would disrupt my memory. PICARD I'll tell you what I have to do. They look at him and then Picard EXITS. Data sits in command. CUT TO: 28A INT. WORF'S QUARTERS The room is DARK and distant. Worf is struggling to regain his senses as Picard ENTERS. WORF Captain... everything I saw is gone... everything. Worf regards him for a moment... then he starts to fight it off... he stops in surprise... he doesn't know how all this is going to impact his relationship with him... he's uncertain what to do... he glances at the wall panel and frowns, surprised at the way he sees Worf... he glances around the room and tries to find a way to fight it off-kilter... it's pretty night... Worf hits the wall panel and it OFF. WORF I was... heading somewhere. PICARD Worf... what's the matter? Worf decides to break for a moment... he EXITS.

That was one the first scenes I generated that impressed me, though it cheats a bit with by being mysterious enough that it’s hard to rate how coherent it is. But you could almost see as one of the more moody and experimental character-focused episodes in Season 7 TNG. Earlier networks could copy the formatting of a TV script but they totally fell apart when you tried to actually understand the content. Even which characters were present in a scene did not stay consistent from line to line. GPT-2 handles this amazingly keeping track of not just characters but subject of conversation in a scene.

Here are some more samples chosen mostly for the humor:

DAX I think we're lucky this was just a bad batch of equipment. KIRA I'm glad you think that. DAX I'm glad we're lucky. KIRA Okay. I'm going to let you use the Bajoran storage bin to backup your data on this trip. And with that, Kira heads off down the Corridor. We HOLD on a thoughtful Dax. 19 INT. OPS Kira and Dax EXIT the turbolift, followed by Sisko, who goes to the Transporter Room in frustration. DEEP SPACE: "The Wire" - 03/01/94 - ACT ONE 12. 19 CONTINUED: KIRA It's not working. DAX I'm having trouble retuning the transceiver. The adaptors won't work. KIRA Maybe they should replace us by rentals. DAX With what? KIRA With your arms. DAX With your hands. KIRA Your arms. DAX You're lifting your arms. KIRA My arms. DAX (the hurtiest) Your arms. They're my hands. Kira takes a beat, looks down at her arms for a moment. KIRA They're your hands. (a beat) You know what I see when I get this... DAX (laughing and crying) Kira, you never told anyone about your arms. DEEP SPACE: "The Wire" - 03/01/94 - ACT ONE 13. 19 CONTINUED: (2) KIRA When you get to the wormhole, you should see them grow into shape- shifters. And you'd be right... because their arms are like that... closer than you can get. They grip off your arm. Bad dreams. DAX I thought you weren't going to talk about me. KIRA I told myself I was not. But when the time comes... I want to figure out what we're doing and what we are. I always figure it out. Dax looks at her own hands. Kira's too fast for her good measure. KIRA I'm holding all the cards. I'm playing them all. I'm a prisoner in here. I can't be happier. DAX You seem like you've got a lot. KIRA You have me all. Kira takes one last look at her hands. Kira can't help her enthusiasm. Her hand. Kira takes another step toward the desk. KIRA You're not going to hurt me. DAX You're not. And that's a good thing.

This is from a later batch where I stripped out some of the very repetitive content in the scripts before training — mostly headers and footers that repeat the exact same information every page. Another sample that was weirdly hands and arms themed:

42 INT. ENGINEERING Geordi and Data at their respective consoles. GEORDI We're ready when you are, Data. DATA I will prepare enough data for your desire, Commander. GEORDI Good. Data, what was the vessel in which the shuttle was launched? DATA The vessel was slightly more complex than the starship I estimate, sir. It chose a specific set of coordinates to target the specific nodes on the Enterprise-D. GEORDI And it didn't work. That's your fault, Data. DATA I fault is very fault, sir. I should have realized that. GEORDI If you had, the Enterprise-C could have taken out a few more nodes... DATA I do not believe we could have survived the attempt on the shuttle, sir. STAR TREK: "The Loss" - REV. 10/10/90 - ACT FOUR 51. 42 CONTINUED: GEORDI I know Data, it would have been difficult for you to break into hands and legs and grab a few nodes... I've never run into a shuttle in my life that didn't get that lucky. Geordi looks down at his hands and arms, frowning. GEORDI What are you so angry about? DATA My heart... and possibly my entire psychology. GEORDI That's not good. DATA I am angry that Starfleet has let you down, Commander. GEORDI I know... but I was relieved that no one tried to destroy my shuttle.

INT. DATA'S QUARTERS Data, still in his Starfleet uniform, is sitting at a desk working at the computer. The door CHIMES. DATA Enter. The door OPENS and Geordi ENTERS. GEORDI Data, what are you doing here? DATA (stands) This is my quarters. He looks at the desk for a beat, then EXITS. DATA (continuing) You are here to examine my computer. GEORDI Computer, is there anything I can do about your... computer? DATA Computer, are you aware of what I have just said? GEORDI (nods) In case you're wondering... I've told you something before... DATA I have never spoken to my computer before. GEORDI That can't possibly be the case... Data shakes his head. DATA I have been trying, but I have been unable. GEORDI Why? DATA I have been trying for over three, four nights. GEORDI It must be a pretty long night. DATA As long as it is not. GEORDI And what does it feel like? DATA I have been experiencing a sustained, transient, and unsteady increase in the emotional neurotransmitter-like activity in my cerebral cortex. The same as if I were completely offered a cup of tea, or a coffee, or an air horn. GEORDI That sounds like someone who has been through a lot. Data nods.

I experimented with mixing other TV show scripts, the complete set of Frasier in this case. GPT-2 learns very quickly never to mix characters and language from the shows — too well, I wish it would mix them! But I swear the samples trained with some Frasier feel more like a sitcom:

ANGLE ON MAIN VIEWER (OPTICAL)

ANGLE ON MAIN VIEWER (OPTICAL) Riker's face... RIKER Captain, I am detecting a Class-M planet with high radiation unaffected by the sun. PICARD Which planet did you detect? RIKER Class-M. (beat) I'm sure it looked like a Class- M planet... (beat) What is it? PICARD A small planet with low surface radiation. RIKER (laughs) Not class-M.

Here’s another one that feels more like a sitcom, in particular, the repeated dialog lines are something I see a lot in the post-Frasier samples.

======== SAMPLE 15 ======== KIRA (to Dax, explaining) Dax, we were just talking about you. I realize you're upset about me, but I've always looked good in a tuxedo. DAX I don't look good in a tuxedo. I've always looked good in a clutch, Benjamin. And I'm glad to say, I haven't seen you since I left the homeworld. KIRA (smiles) I know you're upset, but I've always looked good in a chiffo uniform. DAX And I'm glad to see you've never worn it anymore. KIRA I've never looked good in a chiffo uniform. DAX Well, I've seen you look good in it all... when you're wearing anyone else's tux. KIRA (smiles) I never look good in a chiffo uniform. DAX (smiles) I'm glad you said you were going to be happy at the Bajoran wedding. KIRA (smiles) I'm glad you said that. Dax smiles and they walk off. DAX (re: the wedding) I suppose I'll have to mention it to someone. KIRA I'm not planning to. DAX Who's next? KIRA My husband. (a beat) I guess he'll be staying with us this year. DAX He'll probably be staying with us this year. KIRA I know. I just got here last night. DAX I mean it's just a question of... who? KIRA (beat) I'm still not sure. I've got a surprise planned for the next few weeks. Besides, it sounds like somebody's going to need a place to keep me warm. DAX I'm sure they will. KIRA I'm sure they will. DAX Now what about you... are you sure you don't want to stay with me for a while? KIRA (re: the wedding) I have a job to do... I'm a pretty gal... DAX (reacts) I hear you're married... KIRA That's right. DAX And what about Jake? KIRA He's leaving Starfleet. DAX A few weeks ago he was sent back to the Institute. KIRA (reacts) He's gone? DAX He's been living on the station all his life... KIRA (beat) ======== SAMPLE 16 ========

This sample is as long as you can get right now the limit on the output is about 1000 words in the tiny version of GPT-2 that OpenAI let’s us play with. It would still be possible to create an entire script by taking the output from one sample and using it a ‘prompt’ to generate the next sample, over and over until you have a complete script. Since the scripts do clear structure like page and act numbers it should eventually get to ACT 5 or stick an ending on there. Maybe a project for the future.

#gpt-2 #tng #text generator

5 notes · View notes

aishnidoh · 3 years

Text

1. Andrew Carnegie (goal setter)

Andrew Carnegie was an American entrepreneur who actually immigrated from Scotland. Born into the lower class, Carnegie and his family immigrated to Pennsylvania, where they lived a better lifestyle. Carnegie later founded the Carnegie Steel Company, growing it to become one of the largest companies in U.S. history.

In addition to the success of his company, Carnegie became a very successful angel investor. Using the money made through his steel company, he invested in various car companies, messenger services, and land that contained oil reserves. Upon his death in 1919, Carnegie had an estimated net worth of $350 million, which, in 2021 dollars, would be worth nearly $5.5 billion.

Interview

Creative vision is the first of three principles Carnegie raises. What exactly does creative vision mean? Carnegie breaks it down into ten fundamental attitudes, which in aggregate form the basis for creative vision.

“The organized thinker never gives up anything he undertakes until he has exhausted every effort to finish it.”

Controlled attention is the final principle. Controlled attention is in some ways an offshoot of the other two. According to Carnegie, if you orient your mind in a specific way, all your attention starts to siphon in a specific direction. “Controlled attention magnetized the brain with the nature of one’s dominating thoughts, aims, and purposes, thus causing one to be always in search of every necessary thing that is related to one’s dominating thoughts.”

“A man will always be more effective when engaged in the sort of work he likes best. That is why one’s major purpose in life should be of his own choice. People who drift through life performing work they do not like, merely because they must have an income as a means of living, seldom get more than a living from their labor. You see, this sort of labor does not inspire one to perform service in an obsessional desire to work. It is one of the tragedies of civilization that we have not found a way to give every man the sort of work he likes best to do.”

2. Henry Ford (efficient)

Unlike Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford was a natural-born citizen who grew up in Michigan. Born into a family that originated from England and Ireland, he was well off, though not wealthy. Ford was a hard-working man and eventually completed an apprenticeship with the Detroit Dry Dock Company. In 1891, he met with Thomas Edison and told him about his concept of the automobile. Edison liked the idea and let Ford use his warehouse to develop and manufacture two prototypes.

Using the prototypes, Ford soon founded the Detroit Automobile Company. The company was short-lived, however, since the product did not meet Ford's standards. He went on to found the Cadillac Motor Car Company, which also failed, before starting the Ford Motor Company for which he is famous. His third attempt at a car company made him very successful, and the company remains a going concern with annual sales of over $155.9 billion.

Interview

Like many another he had entertained his mind with ideas of having lived before. The thing that really mattered, he said, was what experience we got from a former life and what we gathered in this to pass on to help other people for their next life. It is the sum of what we carry on from one generation to another that makes the essence of experience the thing, he said.

As we passed on to lighter themes I asked him if in a future incarnation he would leave old-fashioned things like motor-cars and concentrate on a small aeroplane with, say, a gyroscope. He replied that he did not know anything about that or what he would like in another life.

'The only thing is,' said Henry Ford, 'I should like to be sure of having the same wife.' 'That's the difference between you and me, Mr. Ford,' his interviewer ventured to say, 'I hope that my own wife will have better luck in the next world.' 'There you are, Henry,' said Mrs. Ford, who was sitting near, 'you only think of yourself, but your friend thinks of his wife.' 'It means the same thing,' said Henry Ford, delighted with the turn the talk had taken, and he put out his hand and we shook hands, and the conversation grew in warmth.

3. Ophra Winfrey (persistent)

Oprah Winfrey is a shining example of an American success story. While she did not reveal her past until 1986, Winfrey was a victim of sexual assault at the age of nine and became pregnant at the age of 14 before losing the child during childbirth.

These early trials and tribulations gave her the perspective and confidence that helped her land her first TV show in 1983. From there, Winfrey steadily grew her brand and her empire, founding Harpo Studios, a multimedia company, in 1988.The company, through ad revenue and other revenue streams, has steadily grown to over 12,500 employees.

Winfrey co-founded Oxygen Media, another media company that attracts millions of annual television viewers.Winfrey, a TV personality turned entrepreneur, has a net worth of $2.6 billion as of Jan. 13, 2021

Interview

“It’s another situation I’ve got myself in,” she laughs, “but I care about injustice and if I get the opportunity to flag it, I will, every time. I’ll stand up there.” Ironically, the charismatic icon is more grounded than ever. Oprah recognises she cannot do everything alone, as she once thought she could, and accepts that when it comes to real change, we all have a long way to go, and a lot to contribute. "It's a significant moment in time for all of us. Society will never revert to how it was. It can't and it won't"“It’s a significant moment in history for all of us,” she utters in her famously rich tones. “Society as an entity will never be the same again, and will never revert to how it was. It can’t, and it won’t.”The truth is, Oprah is already a leader who empowers and emboldens her supporters, so it’s understandable that she isn’t willing to risk it all for a spin of the Washington wheel. If the media is the natural successor to the power of politics, then Oprah, who owns her own cable channel, OWN, and is a special correspondent for current affairs show 60 Minutes, is already an unrivalled leader. Perhaps part of that is because—unlike the current US President and so many others at the top table—Oprah was not born into wealth; she has worked tirelessly over the past four decades to build her formidable empire.

4. Bill Gates (risk taker)

Bill Gates, one of the most well-known American technology entrepreneurs, is the second-richest person in the world with a net worth of over $133 billion as of Jan. 13, 2021.Gates grew up in Seattle, Wash., and began tinkering with personal computers at an early age with friends such as Paul Allen. Showing a ton of aptitude and promise, Gates enrolled in Harvard, where he met Steve Ballmer before dropping out to start Microsoft.

Gates, with the help of Allen, Ballmer, and others, built Microsoft to become one of the world's largest and most influential tech companies. In 2020, Gates only recently stepped down from the board of Microsoft, which is valued at over a trillion dollars based on its market capitalization. He is decided to refocus his personal efforts on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Interview

Pretty quickly we decided that we ought to get out there and really help these guys get their act together. I never became an employee. Paul was their Vice President of Software. But I moved out and whatever I did from the inside, I did on behalf of Microsoft. I got out there and alot of what I started doing at first was actually enhancing the BASIC. 537

DA: Let me ask this Bill. You mentioned that, even before this, you and Paul had had many discussions about the future. How did this work affect what you thought the future was going to hold?

BG: Well, Paul had talked about the microprocessor and where that would go and so we had formulated this idea that everybody would have kind of a computer as a tool somehow. Not just for business, but also for something they would play around with as a home device. We knew that however it got started, that there would be certain standards built-up around it, about how you programmed things. We wanted to be part of that excitement. And so we saw this machine as just the beginning of an era. And this company was a wild company. I mean they were actually bankrupt before they did this because they had gotten screwed up doing Kit Calculators which had been their thing they had done after model rocketry.

MITS actually stands for "Micro Instrumentation Telemetry Systems", funny little things you stick on top of the rocket that tells you what the temperature is at the top of the flight or eventually, they had ones that would take pictures. So, they had done okay in that and then got into Kit Calculators. But was wiped out by Bomar and TI. And then just as a desperate thing, they did Kit Computers. When these computers came out at $360, the price of the 8080 chip was $360. So people kept saying, "They must be broken chips, it must be fake." And, of course, when they put these kits together, they didn't preassemble them, so if you miss one part -- a lot of people had a hard time putting these things together. But, a lot of people got it done and eventually went on to buy the Teletype and BASIC, and actually get a running system. So we thought, "Hey, are we really on to something here? We think so." And MITS was just great because it was just a center of activity for those first few years. We went around the country in this big van, big blue van, they had, with these machines starting up user groups and demonstrating things. Actually, before we even shipped BASIC, somebody stole the demo copy out of the van and started copying it around and sending it to different computer clubs. There was a real phenomenon taking place there, right around this Altair computer. In fact, the MITS guys were kind of upset when people would imitate this computer, same plug-in bus for peripherals -- things like that. They really weren't sure what to do about it.

5.Larry Page (committed)

Larry Page is the co-founder of Google, the world's number one search engine. Google was started by Page and his co-founder Sergey Brin while they were doctorate students at Stanford University.12 With an initial investment of just $100,000, the two partners quickly grew Google into a multinational conglomerate.In 2015, Google was restructured to form the parent company Alphabet Inc., with Page serving as CEO.Page has a net worth of $82.0 billion as of Jan 13, 2021.

Interview

Looking forward 100 years from now at the possibilities that are opening up, he says: “We could probably solve a lot of the issues we have as humans.”It is a decade on from the first flush of idealism that accompanied its stock market listing, and all Google’s talk of “don’t be evil” and “making the world a better place” has come to sound somewhat quaint. Its power and wealth have stirred resentment and brought a backlash, in Europe in particular, where it is under investigation for how it wields its monopoly power in internet search.

Page, however, is not shrinking an inch from the altruistic principles or the outsized ambitions that he and co-founder Sergey Brin laid down in seemingly more innocent times. “The societal goal is our primary goal,” he says. “We’ve always tried to say that with Google. I think we’ve not succeeded as much as we’d like.”

Even Google’s famously far-reaching mission statement, to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”, is not big enough for what he now has in mind. The aim: to use the money that is spouting from its search advertising business to stake out positions in boom industries of the future, from biotech to robotics.

Asked whether this means Google needs a new mission statement, he says: “I think we do, probably.” As to what it should be: “We’re still trying to work that out.”

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092315/top-5-most-successful-american-entrepreneurs.asp

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/entrepreneur-traits

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2018/07/30/andrew-carnegie-on-achieving-wealth-and-prosperity/amp/

https://www.theguardian.com/century/1940-1949/Story/0,,127365,00.html

https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/celebrities/interview-oprah-winfrey

https://americanhistory.si.edu/comphist/gates.htm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/3173f19e-5fbc-11e4-8c27-00144feabdc0

0 notes

northelypark · 7 years

Note

Ohh, I've a list for you, friend. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 22 and 25 for the writer ask. I know you're busy so don't worry if you can't answer them all =)

Never too busy to talk about writing ;D

5) character you were most surprised to end up writing

I guess I never expected I'd end up writing a novel-length fanfic from the perspective of an obscure secondary character from a movie based on an equally obscure video game franchise. Life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

9) what, if anything, do you do for inspiration?

Going for walks while listening to music, I’ve found, has helped me to generate a lot of ideas. Just listening to music in general allows me to imagine scenes and pivotal moments in my head so much easier than simply thinking through them. I have certain soundtracks I listen to for Lamplight Letters that give me the atmosphere I strive for in each chapter. Also, because it’s a PL fanfic and I want to capture the feel of that world, playing Professor Layton is another source I go to.

10) write in silence or with background noise? with people or alone?

As much as music helps with the brainstorming process, I have to have silence when I write, and I have to be alone, in my room. The internet provides enough distractions without adding people or blaring televisions or whatever else to the mix.

12) your weaknesses as an author

I’m too lenient in my editing and I let a lot of extraneous details slide when they should be cut. I cringe at the length of some of my chapters, but when I try to shorten them I find myself far too attached to this little scene and that little dialogue exchange. Actions scenes have always been difficult for me, as well. Probably because my eyes always tend to glaze when I read them in books. I find it hard to be invested in them even if they are well-written. Pacing is another issue I struggle with. Is the chapter too slow, too fast, just right? It can be so difficult to gauge after reading it over and over again.

13) your strengths as an author

While I have troubles with pacing, I think I know how to make a chapter flow pretty well, making paragraphs blend seamlessly one to the next and creating transitions that aren’t jarring. I also feel I’ve grown a lot in the last few years in my ability to weave concrete details together to create the right ambiance and set a scene.

16) are there any characters who haunt you?

Not sure if this question is referring to my own characters or those from other works, so I’ll answer for both.

After finishing Unwound Future, I thought about Clive’s character a lot (and still do). It’s hard to say if I was “haunted” by him, but I was a bit disturbed and he rattled me to a degree, I think because I became so deeply invested in his story and the game as a whole. There’s just something that strikes me as so frighteningly genuine about his character and motives that even though the concept of a giant fortress emerging from the ground to destroy London is more than a little ridiculous, he makes it believable.

As for my own characters, I can’t really answer without getting into spoilers. I suppose there’s one character I surprised myself with how dark and raw I wanted their motives to be. Is it a good thing when your own story passes that threshold of discomfort and starts to scare you a bit? Like what shadowy crevice of my mind came up with this and why?

18) were there any works you read that affected you so much that it influenced your writing style? what were they?

I feel like everything I’ve ever read has influenced my style to some degree in some way, shape, or form. There are so many authors I admire and could gush on and on about. There are also a number of works that influenced Lamplight Letters specifically and the style I chose for it. To name a few: To Kill a Mockingbird, with its autobiographical style where the narrator remembers and interprets her childhood through the lens of an adult. Jane Eyre, really a groundbreaking novel, one of the first to sink deep into the psychology, the inner workings, of its narrator and how that affects the telling of the story. Finally, The Mysterious Benedict Society. Amazing, amazing Laytonesque kid lit that inspired my interest in the “band of four unlikely friends” trope and dysfunctional boarding schools.

22) are there any subjects that make you uncomfortable to write?

Intense emotion, physical injuries, violence, characters being seriously hurt or even killed by others characters, to name a few. Mostly it’s because of a lack of experience, though I suppose you could argue that lack of experience stems from my discomfort writing on such topics so we’re back to square one. Chapter 18 of the Lamplight Letters (where Clive and Amelia finally confront the Statue) is a good example of a chapter that was considerably uncomfortable for me to write. Really anything where my characters have to suffer intensely is difficult, though I realize the necessity of characters enduring great hardship. And as a writer I know I have to push myself into uncomfortable territory or else I’ll stagnate. Something to work on.

25) copy/paste a few sentences or a short paragraph that you’re particularly proud of

One of my favorite descriptive passages to write:

The ceilings were lost in shadow, lending the feel of unimaginable height. To one side the portraits that lined the walls stared out with cold, impassive expressions, each vanishing into gloom as soon as we passed. Why did they look a shade grotesque, brows too white, lips too red, clothing too rank with ribbons and lace? On the other side, the row of windows reflected back our candlelight like flickering wisps. Faint, teasing lights to lead wayward children astray. With each step, I felt further and further from the comfortably mundane Dreycott I knew during its daylight hours, and closer to the twilit Dreycott of the past, murky and medieval, the roots of a dark fairytale.

#writing #ask #thanks this was a needed break #ignebrisfox

3 notes · View notes