SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
After the penultimate episode of Game of Thrones, a fair number of fans were upset with Daenerys's heel turn, after she laid waste to King's Landing.
My initial thought was, "I guess they could have done a little bit more to show her conversion". Perhaps after Rhaegal died they could have spent a minute showing her depression. Perhaps after Missandei's death there could have been a short seen between her and Grey Worm showing her sinking depression. But I didn't think the turn of events was that terrible.
Many fans were far more upset about it, and as I thought about it, I realized that Daenerys's heel turn was far more obvious than I originally thought. And the show did a great job at hiding it.
I want to concentrate on the following.
- Dany sacks Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen (S3 & 4)
- Dany had Drogon burn Kraznys alive (S3E3).
- Dany has the masters crucified (S4E4) (against the suggestion of Selmy).
- Dany feeds masters to her dragons (S5E5).
- Dany tells Tyrion she will lay waste to cities (S6E9) but Tyrion convinces her otherwise.
But the question is why did we not think Dany evil? Despite all of the above, why is she "good"? Why is Cersei "bad"?
Then it finally hits me, and I think it's wonderful storytelling in the end.
The reason is that all of the above are related to slave cities or slave masters. Subconsciously, we don't view mountains of these actions as "evil" or "bad". We subconsciously think of the actions as justified or "ok".
- Kraznys is a slave master and an asshole to boot, so we are happy to see him dead
- Crucifying the masters is A WAR CRIME. She has taken over Meereen, has
taken prisoners, and doesn't elect to imprison them, doesn't elect to
execute them quickly, but specifically chooses to crucify them. But we don't seem that upset because they were slave owners.
- If she wants to burn down cities to the ground, we're sort of ok with that b/c it's slave cities.
- Are all innocents spared in Astapor, Yunkai, and Meereen? I doubt it. We just don't see the sacking of the city, unlike the sacking of Kings Landing.
- Did we forget that Dany decides to go to Astapor in the first place? Apparently she had little qualms of even visiting such a city to inquire about purchasing slaves?
I suppose there's other subtleties as to why we consider Dany "good". The fact that Dany was "poor" and had to bring herself up on her own is part of the tale. The Game of Thrones tale naturally having our hearts and minds view her as "good", and somewhat ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. This is in contrast to Cersei, who is trying to maintain her power.
Here's a few other evil things Dany did that I could remember:
- Dany has burns Mirri Maz Duur (S1E10) by her own hand.
- Dany burns khals and others alive by her own hand (S6E4). This includes innocents.
- Dany locked up Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Doreah to die of starvation in a vault (S2E10).
- Dany executes Randyll & Dickon Tarly (S7E5).
How is locking up people in a vault that different than Cersei's imprisoning people in the dungeon? Or how is the burning of the Khals that different than the destruction of the Sept of Baelor? The execution of the Tarlys is again a war crime.
As I thought about the series further, I realized that Dany may have been equally evil to Cersei from the start. However, minor subtleties in the story made her look like "good" vs "bad." We can begin to look at some of her actions differently.
I actually began wondering, does she care about freeing slaves? Or is freeing slaves simply a means to an end to raise an army? If she really cared about the unsullied and their freedom, shouldn't she have them live a good remaining life? Instead of having them sail across the sea to die, she could have just had them keep the peace in Meereen and she could rule there.
Showing posts with label popculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label popculture. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Night Trap - The Movie
So not too long ago a friend of mine picked up the video game Night Trap for the PS4. For those who don't know the history, Night Trap was a terrible video
game made in the early 1990s for the Sega CD console. The game was made
using full motion video and was controversial at the time, leading to
it being brought up during congressional hearings.
Apparently when the game was re-made for the PS4, it also came with a way to view all of the scenes in the game so you could piece together the actual story. I guess some people have been piecing those clips together to make a movie:
The "movie" is so bad, it's actually good. Obviously some of it was b/c it was all filmed for a video game, (breaking the 4th wall, bad guys walking slow), but add in the cheesy B movie acting, a cheesy video game song, terrible sound effects (I think "dentist drill"), terrible special effects, a ridiculous plot, it's wonderful.
Some of the hilarious oddities I couldn't help but laugh about
12:02 - "Want to die Eddie?"
19:20 - two actresses remove their shirts, for no apparent reason
23:24 - racist accent, b/c apparently it was ok back then
26:30 - the infamous nightgown scene with a terribly hidden kidnapper
28:20 - character brushing his teeth for no reason
41:10 - uhhh .. dunno
42:45 - nonchalant lighting powers
48:28 - ... special effects?
Apparently when the game was re-made for the PS4, it also came with a way to view all of the scenes in the game so you could piece together the actual story. I guess some people have been piecing those clips together to make a movie:
The "movie" is so bad, it's actually good. Obviously some of it was b/c it was all filmed for a video game, (breaking the 4th wall, bad guys walking slow), but add in the cheesy B movie acting, a cheesy video game song, terrible sound effects (I think "dentist drill"), terrible special effects, a ridiculous plot, it's wonderful.
Some of the hilarious oddities I couldn't help but laugh about
12:02 - "Want to die Eddie?"
19:20 - two actresses remove their shirts, for no apparent reason
23:24 - racist accent, b/c apparently it was ok back then
26:30 - the infamous nightgown scene with a terribly hidden kidnapper
28:20 - character brushing his teeth for no reason
41:10 - uhhh .. dunno
42:45 - nonchalant lighting powers
48:28 - ... special effects?
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Justice League Movie - Why a disappointment?
I was finally able to watch the recent Justice League movie.
Based on a reviews online, the film was disappointing. After watching the film, while I agreed the film wasn't great, it wasn't horrible. I was trying to pinpoint exactly why it didn't live up to expectations, and I've come up with my thoughts below. I'm not going to nit-pick on issues such as Superman's mustache.
Needless to say:
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
1) Poor introduction of too many characters too late
So when you compare to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you immediately think, "I don't know these characters", so it has a disadvantage compared to the first Avengers film.
However, how is quick introduction of characters that different than the first Guardians of the Galaxy film? In that film, the story collects five relatively unknown characters. In Justice League, at least Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have been introduced in earlier movies. Characters like the Flash have had their own TV series and should be familiar to viewers.
In my opinion, the problem is that the team had very little time to bond.
In the Guardians of the Galaxy, the team came together somewhat quickly, although in a somewhat comedy of errors. They immediately interact and get to know each other in prison, escape prison, go meet the Collector, etc. etc.
In Justice League, that doesn't happen. A fair amount of the time is Batman trying to put the team together. Aquaman doesn't bother showing up until the end of the first battle. Superman only shows up at the very end. It just never felt like a team.
2) None of the heroes are known in the world
Exacerbating point #1 above is the fact that the heroes aren't "known" / "public" to the world as a whole and also aren't known to each other, with just a few exceptions. So now time is wasted having the characters find each other instead of them just knowing each other.
As a counter example, lets take the forming of the Justice League in the DC Animated Universe and the direct to video movie Justice League: War. In both of those animated tales, the heroes are relatively known to the world (with a few exceptions). An alien invasion requires all the super heroes to come together for a greater purpose. Generally speaking, they all know each other or know of each other (with a few exceptions), and so that immediately leads to the group working together.
(An aside, it's not entirely clear to me how Wonder Woman went from being in the shadows at the end of the Wonder Woman movie, but suddenly running around trying to fight terrorists in Justice League.)
3) Superman being brought back to life
Also compounding #1 and #2 above is the fact the team has to waste time bringing Superman back to life. As the one "known" or "public" superhero in this DC movie universe, it would have made far more sense for him to be involved in forming the team.
4) The danger never seemed real.
Lets compare to the Justice League forming in the DC Animated Universe and the direct to video Justice League: War. In those animated tales, the aliens have come to Earth and are wrecking havoc everywhere around the world. So all the heroes come out to defeat the bad guys.
In Justice League, the battle is largely in the middle of no where. The overall danger just doesn't seem as exciting.
On top of all that, Superman comes in the end to save the day. No real climactic danger. So forming the Justice League wasn't all that necessary, Superman could have handled it from the start if he were alive.
5) Steppenwolf sucked
My assumption is the movie studio is saving Darkseid for another day. As such, they sent one of Darkseid's cronies instead.
Boring.
The story in Justice League could have been much better served with a different random alien invasion. Say ... Martians.
Based on a reviews online, the film was disappointing. After watching the film, while I agreed the film wasn't great, it wasn't horrible. I was trying to pinpoint exactly why it didn't live up to expectations, and I've come up with my thoughts below. I'm not going to nit-pick on issues such as Superman's mustache.
Needless to say:
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
1) Poor introduction of too many characters too late
So when you compare to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you immediately think, "I don't know these characters", so it has a disadvantage compared to the first Avengers film.
However, how is quick introduction of characters that different than the first Guardians of the Galaxy film? In that film, the story collects five relatively unknown characters. In Justice League, at least Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have been introduced in earlier movies. Characters like the Flash have had their own TV series and should be familiar to viewers.
In my opinion, the problem is that the team had very little time to bond.
In the Guardians of the Galaxy, the team came together somewhat quickly, although in a somewhat comedy of errors. They immediately interact and get to know each other in prison, escape prison, go meet the Collector, etc. etc.
In Justice League, that doesn't happen. A fair amount of the time is Batman trying to put the team together. Aquaman doesn't bother showing up until the end of the first battle. Superman only shows up at the very end. It just never felt like a team.
2) None of the heroes are known in the world
Exacerbating point #1 above is the fact that the heroes aren't "known" / "public" to the world as a whole and also aren't known to each other, with just a few exceptions. So now time is wasted having the characters find each other instead of them just knowing each other.
As a counter example, lets take the forming of the Justice League in the DC Animated Universe and the direct to video movie Justice League: War. In both of those animated tales, the heroes are relatively known to the world (with a few exceptions). An alien invasion requires all the super heroes to come together for a greater purpose. Generally speaking, they all know each other or know of each other (with a few exceptions), and so that immediately leads to the group working together.
(An aside, it's not entirely clear to me how Wonder Woman went from being in the shadows at the end of the Wonder Woman movie, but suddenly running around trying to fight terrorists in Justice League.)
3) Superman being brought back to life
Also compounding #1 and #2 above is the fact the team has to waste time bringing Superman back to life. As the one "known" or "public" superhero in this DC movie universe, it would have made far more sense for him to be involved in forming the team.
4) The danger never seemed real.
Lets compare to the Justice League forming in the DC Animated Universe and the direct to video Justice League: War. In those animated tales, the aliens have come to Earth and are wrecking havoc everywhere around the world. So all the heroes come out to defeat the bad guys.
In Justice League, the battle is largely in the middle of no where. The overall danger just doesn't seem as exciting.
On top of all that, Superman comes in the end to save the day. No real climactic danger. So forming the Justice League wasn't all that necessary, Superman could have handled it from the start if he were alive.
5) Steppenwolf sucked
My assumption is the movie studio is saving Darkseid for another day. As such, they sent one of Darkseid's cronies instead.
Boring.
The story in Justice League could have been much better served with a different random alien invasion. Say ... Martians.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Top 50 Restaurants vs Michelin
Not too long ago I watched this video about Michelin starred restaurants and the sometimes inconceivable difference between restaurant reviewers and Michelin reviewers.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the greatest example is Chez Panisse. It's been heralded as one of the great American Restaurants for years. It held a Michelin star from (I think) 2006-2009, but lost it in 2010. Despite holding a 4/4 rating from the San Francisco Chronicle (one of only 9 in the Bay Area) and still getting great reviews (as of this writing #117 on Opinionated About Dining's top US restaurants), somehow it can't seem to get a single Michelin Star.
I wonder how Michelin maps to the famed Top 50 restaurants in the world list. How inconsistent are they to that list. I recall that Noma, the formerly #1 restaurant in the world didn't even get a 3 Michelin star rating.
Well, lets take a look. Here's a chart of the Top 50 restaurants in the world from The World's 50 Best Restaurants and the restaurant's Michelin stars. There are many locales that Michelin does not yet review, so those restaurants are simply listed as N/A.
While a large portion of the list is made up of 3 Michelin Star restaurants, I find it interesting that half (of those reviewed) aren't 3 stars (19/38). Even more amazingly, 7 are 1 Michelin starred, and 1 doesn't even have a single star!
Obviously, review criteria can be different for the Top 50 list and Michelin. But it is quite interesting to see this disparity.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the greatest example is Chez Panisse. It's been heralded as one of the great American Restaurants for years. It held a Michelin star from (I think) 2006-2009, but lost it in 2010. Despite holding a 4/4 rating from the San Francisco Chronicle (one of only 9 in the Bay Area) and still getting great reviews (as of this writing #117 on Opinionated About Dining's top US restaurants), somehow it can't seem to get a single Michelin Star.
I wonder how Michelin maps to the famed Top 50 restaurants in the world list. How inconsistent are they to that list. I recall that Noma, the formerly #1 restaurant in the world didn't even get a 3 Michelin star rating.
Well, lets take a look. Here's a chart of the Top 50 restaurants in the world from The World's 50 Best Restaurants and the restaurant's Michelin stars. There are many locales that Michelin does not yet review, so those restaurants are simply listed as N/A.
| Rank | Restuarant | Stars |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eleven Madison Park | 3 |
| 2 | Osteria Francescana | 3 |
| 3 | El Celler De Can Roca | 3 |
| 4 | Mirazur | 2 |
| 5 | Central | N/A |
| 6 | Asador Etxebarri | 1 |
| 7 | Gaggan | N/A |
| 8 | Maido | N/A |
| 9 | Mugaritz | 2 |
| 10 | Steirereck | 2 |
| 11 | Blue Hill at Stone Barns | 1 |
| 12 | Arpege | 3 |
| 13 | Alain Ducasse Au Plaza Athenee | 3 |
| 14 | Restaurant Andre | 2 |
| 15 | Piazza Duomo | 3 |
| 16 | D.O.M. | 2 |
| 17 | Le Bernardin | 3 |
| 18 | Narisawa | 2 |
| 19 | Geranium | 3 |
| 20 | Pujol | N/A |
| 21 | Alinea | 3 |
| 22 | Quintonil | N/A |
| 23 | White Rabbit | N/A |
| 24 | Amber | 2 |
| 25 | Tickets | 1 |
| 26 | Clove Club | 1 |
| 27 | The Ledbury | 2 |
| 28 | Nahm | N/A |
| 29 | Le Calandre | 3 |
| 30 | Arzak | 3 |
| 31 | Alleno Paris Au Pavillon Ledoyen | 3 |
| 32 | Attica | N/A |
| 33 | Astrid Y Gaston | N/A |
| 34 | De Librije | 3 |
| 35 | Septime | 1 |
| 36 | Dinner by Heston Blumenthal | 2 |
| 37 | Saison | 3 |
| 38 | Azurmendi | 3 |
| 39 | Relae | 1 |
| 40 | Cosme | 0 |
| 41 | Ultraviolet by Paul Pairet | 2 |
| 42 | Borago | N/A |
| 43 | Reale | 3 |
| 44 | Brae | N/A |
| 45 | Den | 1 |
| 46 | L'Astrance | 3 |
| 47 | Vendome | 3 |
| 48 | Restaurant Tim Raue | 2 |
| 49 | Tegui | N/A |
| 50 | Hof Van Cleve | 3 |
While a large portion of the list is made up of 3 Michelin Star restaurants, I find it interesting that half (of those reviewed) aren't 3 stars (19/38). Even more amazingly, 7 are 1 Michelin starred, and 1 doesn't even have a single star!
Obviously, review criteria can be different for the Top 50 list and Michelin. But it is quite interesting to see this disparity.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Italian Street Sign Art by Clet Abraham
While touring Florence, Italy, I learned that an artist named Clet Abraham had become somewhat well known for modifying street signs to make them more interesting / comical.
I know other travelers will go out there looking for the signs as well. To help out other travelers who may be looking for signs, here are the ones I found in June 2017. Instead of posting each one and ruining things for you, it's a collage of a collage of the 54 I found while in Florence (I found one more in Rome, which is not on here). Ignore all the strange filters I used, as I just tried to make sure they were easy to see (bad lighting etc. in some areas, found some at night, etc.).
Some are hard to spot, so hopefully it'll give you hints on what to look for. I'm sure there are many more that I missed. Good luck hunting for them.
I know other travelers will go out there looking for the signs as well. To help out other travelers who may be looking for signs, here are the ones I found in June 2017. Instead of posting each one and ruining things for you, it's a collage of a collage of the 54 I found while in Florence (I found one more in Rome, which is not on here). Ignore all the strange filters I used, as I just tried to make sure they were easy to see (bad lighting etc. in some areas, found some at night, etc.).
Some are hard to spot, so hopefully it'll give you hints on what to look for. I'm sure there are many more that I missed. Good luck hunting for them.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Mass Effect: Andromeda - Criticisms
I just finished up Mass Effect: Andromeda. The game has gotten notably bad press over some aspects of the game. For a series that got stellar reviews on the prior generation of platforms (on gamerankings across all platforms, about 90% for Mass Effect, 94% for Mass Effect 2, and about 90% for Mass Effect 3) the reviews on newer platforms for Mass Effect: Andromeda have been quite bad (74% on Xbox, 69% on PS4).
Here are some things I think were bad about the game. Some simple changes could have made the experience far better. Needless to say ...
SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS
1) Unable to skip cutscenes
Perhaps my biggest irritation was the inability to skip pre-generated cutscenes and the general horrible "flow" of completing quests. For example, lets say you've just completed a mission and need to fly back to the Nexus to talk to someone to complete the quest. You have to
A) somehow get to the Tempest (via extraction via Nomad or going to ship, whatever)
B) watch an unskippable pre-generated cutscene flying off planet
C) goto planetary controls
D) zoom out from your current planet
E) select the solar system the Nexus is on
F) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the solar system
G) select the planet the Nexus is near
H) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the planet
I) select that you want to dock at the Nexus
J) watch a pre-generated cutscene fying into the Nexus
K) do whatever you wanted to do on the Nexus
L) When you leave, watch another pre-generated cutscene leaving
The 5 unskippable cutscenes just makes the entire process tedious and horrible.
Why could you just fast travel to the Nexus or any number of planets with a single selection? It would have helped the "flow" a lot better. It would have easily made the game a lot better.
(Update: After a patch update you can skip the cutscene in 'H' ... but that's only 1 cutscene you can skip).
1-A) Bad "flow" in the game
Related to the above. There were many "flow" parts of the game that were just annoying. The tiniest things could have made it better. Kadara is a great example of horrible flow.
Lets say you want to complete a mission that's somewhere on the Kadara wasteland. Take all of the above (replacing Nexus with Kadara), but ...
K-2) select from the terminal you want to travel down to the slums
K-3) walk outside of the slums
K-4) fast travel wherever you need OR call in the Nomad
Why can't you just go to the outside immediately? Why isn't the Nomad just there already?
These are all "flow" issues that make the game more irritating. Some of it always exists, but there was just a little too much of it.
2) Too many "dumb" quests or "fillers"
Every RPG out there has what I typically call "dumb quests". These are quests like fetch quests ("can you fetch me this item") or finding quests ("if you come across these items can you please bring it to me"). Some are typically fine, as it forces/gets the user to explore a bit more than they otherwise might.
However, Andromeda just seemed to be awash in these quests. As an example is the "movie night" quests. Throughout the game your crew wants to throw a movie night. You have to get movies from the Nexus, a bootleg movie from Kadara (BTW, why two movies?), some snacks from somewhere, some booze from somewhere else. Maybe more that I can't remember. Just so everyone can have a movie night. Ugh ...
In Aya, I remember atleast 3 tasks in which a Turian asks you "I can't get into the city, can you buy some stuff for me"? This happens THREE times with the same Turian. Ugh ...
In addition is there was a ton of "dumb exploration". As an example, out of the maybe 30 galaxies in Mass Effect Andromeda, I think only about 10 had missions on them. The vast majority of them are just filler solar systems that you can't explore or do anything except scan for anomalies or minerals. Near the end of the game they introduce about 6 new solar systems to explore. You get a mission in exactly zero of them.
The game could have been much better by limiting this aspect. There was no need to add so much "filler". I'm wondering if DLC is planned down the line to add things todo in all this "filler".
As an example of how much filler there was, the website how long to beat lists the following times to complete everything in the game:
Mass Effect - 44 hours
Mass Effect 2 - 50 hours
Mass Effect 3 - 49 hours
Mass Effect: Andromeda - 93 hours
Yeah ...
3) Bugs
In any major RPG nowadays there will be bugs. I recall a healthy chunk in Fallout 4. However, the bugs in Mass Effect: Andromeda just seemed more annoying or just crossed a threshold of annoying. I generally consider animation bugs tolerable (I recall onetime I walked into a room in the Tempest and simply died by falling into space b/c the floor hadn't been generated).
However, there seemed to be a nice chunk of quest bugs where waypoints weren't set correctly. So I wandered aimlessly for awhile or eventually had to look online for tips.
I also had to restart/reload the game a number of occasions (I recall once the game hanging, I reloaded, and the Nomad had somehow ended up being inside a Vault). A few times is tolerable, but it was more than the normal acceptable level. At some point, you are doing quests and can't complete it, so you just accept "I guess it's just bugged".
4) Constant scanning
I enjoyed the scanning aspect of the game, but there was just too much "look around in this area for the thing you need to look for." At some point you scan all around you hoping for things to go faster.
5) Disappointing end battle
I was disappointed in the end battle. Instead of fighting the archon, you just end up fighting tons of remnant (like you have been doing the entire game) and an architect, which I had already fought 4 times in the game. What about an epic battle with the Archon? IIRC, at some point he says something like "I control all the remnant" ... so perhaps the end battle could have been remnant and him versus your team?
6) Suspension of disbelief
There was a tiny suspension of disbelief problem I had in some elements of the story. I'm completely ignoring the fact that the Angaran learn English nearly instantaneously after initially speaking to you in their native tongue (you just accept it for the game to continue).
At some point while playing I thought to myself, "I'm killing a lot of people." Given that the game was supposed to be about humans and the other Milky Way races escaping the Milky Way to try and make a new home for themselves, it seems odd that I would be killing so many people. I can accept there were "exiles" that left the Nexus, and perhaps I might kill a few here and there. But I'm just killing tons of outcasts, collective, scavengers, traitors, exiles, etc.
The settlement on Elaaden made no sense to me either. If there is no water on the planet, why would anyone even settle there? My bet is that the Mass Effect team thought "We have a planet that's initially too cold to settle, so we also need a planet that's initially too hot to settle."
In addition, why is everyone so violent and willing to steal, kill, and destroy each other? Weren't certain criminal elements vetted properly before traveling to another galaxy? One tiny quest in the game attempts to address this, but it was a bit hard to suspend disbelief.
Conclusion:
Online there are criticisms of the animations, lack of character depth, and story. While maybe not as great a game as some of the earlier Mass Effect games (notably the wonderful Mass Effect 2), I would not pan the game on this alone. Some story elements could have been better (such as the whole "SAM memory triggers" ... what a let down at the finish). It could have been stronger, but it wasn't that big of a deal.
It's all of the little things above that just made the game not as good. Some tiny subtleties in the game flow could have made it much more enjoyable. Making the game a little "smaller" probably would have helped alot by getting rid of a lot of the filler and suspension of disbelief. Add in a little bit better QA and a better boss battle at the end, and it could have easily been a game reviewed in the 80% range instead of 70% range.
Here are some things I think were bad about the game. Some simple changes could have made the experience far better. Needless to say ...
SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS
1) Unable to skip cutscenes
Perhaps my biggest irritation was the inability to skip pre-generated cutscenes and the general horrible "flow" of completing quests. For example, lets say you've just completed a mission and need to fly back to the Nexus to talk to someone to complete the quest. You have to
A) somehow get to the Tempest (via extraction via Nomad or going to ship, whatever)
B) watch an unskippable pre-generated cutscene flying off planet
C) goto planetary controls
D) zoom out from your current planet
E) select the solar system the Nexus is on
F) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the solar system
G) select the planet the Nexus is near
H) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the planet
I) select that you want to dock at the Nexus
J) watch a pre-generated cutscene fying into the Nexus
K) do whatever you wanted to do on the Nexus
L) When you leave, watch another pre-generated cutscene leaving
The 5 unskippable cutscenes just makes the entire process tedious and horrible.
Why could you just fast travel to the Nexus or any number of planets with a single selection? It would have helped the "flow" a lot better. It would have easily made the game a lot better.
(Update: After a patch update you can skip the cutscene in 'H' ... but that's only 1 cutscene you can skip).
1-A) Bad "flow" in the game
Related to the above. There were many "flow" parts of the game that were just annoying. The tiniest things could have made it better. Kadara is a great example of horrible flow.
Lets say you want to complete a mission that's somewhere on the Kadara wasteland. Take all of the above (replacing Nexus with Kadara), but ...
K-2) select from the terminal you want to travel down to the slums
K-3) walk outside of the slums
K-4) fast travel wherever you need OR call in the Nomad
Why can't you just go to the outside immediately? Why isn't the Nomad just there already?
These are all "flow" issues that make the game more irritating. Some of it always exists, but there was just a little too much of it.
2) Too many "dumb" quests or "fillers"
Every RPG out there has what I typically call "dumb quests". These are quests like fetch quests ("can you fetch me this item") or finding quests ("if you come across these items can you please bring it to me"). Some are typically fine, as it forces/gets the user to explore a bit more than they otherwise might.
However, Andromeda just seemed to be awash in these quests. As an example is the "movie night" quests. Throughout the game your crew wants to throw a movie night. You have to get movies from the Nexus, a bootleg movie from Kadara (BTW, why two movies?), some snacks from somewhere, some booze from somewhere else. Maybe more that I can't remember. Just so everyone can have a movie night. Ugh ...
In Aya, I remember atleast 3 tasks in which a Turian asks you "I can't get into the city, can you buy some stuff for me"? This happens THREE times with the same Turian. Ugh ...
In addition is there was a ton of "dumb exploration". As an example, out of the maybe 30 galaxies in Mass Effect Andromeda, I think only about 10 had missions on them. The vast majority of them are just filler solar systems that you can't explore or do anything except scan for anomalies or minerals. Near the end of the game they introduce about 6 new solar systems to explore. You get a mission in exactly zero of them.
The game could have been much better by limiting this aspect. There was no need to add so much "filler". I'm wondering if DLC is planned down the line to add things todo in all this "filler".
As an example of how much filler there was, the website how long to beat lists the following times to complete everything in the game:
Mass Effect - 44 hours
Mass Effect 2 - 50 hours
Mass Effect 3 - 49 hours
Mass Effect: Andromeda - 93 hours
Yeah ...
3) Bugs
In any major RPG nowadays there will be bugs. I recall a healthy chunk in Fallout 4. However, the bugs in Mass Effect: Andromeda just seemed more annoying or just crossed a threshold of annoying. I generally consider animation bugs tolerable (I recall onetime I walked into a room in the Tempest and simply died by falling into space b/c the floor hadn't been generated).
However, there seemed to be a nice chunk of quest bugs where waypoints weren't set correctly. So I wandered aimlessly for awhile or eventually had to look online for tips.
I also had to restart/reload the game a number of occasions (I recall once the game hanging, I reloaded, and the Nomad had somehow ended up being inside a Vault). A few times is tolerable, but it was more than the normal acceptable level. At some point, you are doing quests and can't complete it, so you just accept "I guess it's just bugged".
4) Constant scanning
I enjoyed the scanning aspect of the game, but there was just too much "look around in this area for the thing you need to look for." At some point you scan all around you hoping for things to go faster.
5) Disappointing end battle
I was disappointed in the end battle. Instead of fighting the archon, you just end up fighting tons of remnant (like you have been doing the entire game) and an architect, which I had already fought 4 times in the game. What about an epic battle with the Archon? IIRC, at some point he says something like "I control all the remnant" ... so perhaps the end battle could have been remnant and him versus your team?
6) Suspension of disbelief
There was a tiny suspension of disbelief problem I had in some elements of the story. I'm completely ignoring the fact that the Angaran learn English nearly instantaneously after initially speaking to you in their native tongue (you just accept it for the game to continue).
At some point while playing I thought to myself, "I'm killing a lot of people." Given that the game was supposed to be about humans and the other Milky Way races escaping the Milky Way to try and make a new home for themselves, it seems odd that I would be killing so many people. I can accept there were "exiles" that left the Nexus, and perhaps I might kill a few here and there. But I'm just killing tons of outcasts, collective, scavengers, traitors, exiles, etc.
The settlement on Elaaden made no sense to me either. If there is no water on the planet, why would anyone even settle there? My bet is that the Mass Effect team thought "We have a planet that's initially too cold to settle, so we also need a planet that's initially too hot to settle."
In addition, why is everyone so violent and willing to steal, kill, and destroy each other? Weren't certain criminal elements vetted properly before traveling to another galaxy? One tiny quest in the game attempts to address this, but it was a bit hard to suspend disbelief.
Conclusion:
Online there are criticisms of the animations, lack of character depth, and story. While maybe not as great a game as some of the earlier Mass Effect games (notably the wonderful Mass Effect 2), I would not pan the game on this alone. Some story elements could have been better (such as the whole "SAM memory triggers" ... what a let down at the finish). It could have been stronger, but it wasn't that big of a deal.
It's all of the little things above that just made the game not as good. Some tiny subtleties in the game flow could have made it much more enjoyable. Making the game a little "smaller" probably would have helped alot by getting rid of a lot of the filler and suspension of disbelief. Add in a little bit better QA and a better boss battle at the end, and it could have easily been a game reviewed in the 80% range instead of 70% range.
Friday, December 30, 2016
What's wrong with Final Fantasy XV
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
I just finished up Final Fantasy XV to the level I wish to complete it (gave up on Costlemark postgame dungeon, not even going to bother with Pitioss). While I enjoyed the game a lot, there was something subtle about the game I disliked.
As many reviews have stated, the story and characters were on the weak side compared to many Final Fantasy games. There were just too many story elements that were either cut, skipped, or not fleshed out. Perhaps some of these will be fleshed out in DLC, some may have been covered in the movie "Kingsglavie", but it just made the game not feel quite that fulfilling. Here's some examples.
1) Who are the main characters?
This is obvious, but the game threw your entire team together at the very beginning of the story without much backstory. This isn't a bad idea by itself, but it felt like the background of the characters was never fleshed out. You get a few conversations in hotels/campsites, but it's not much.
A good counter example is Dragon Quest VIII, one of my favorite RPGs of all time. The characters are relatively nameless at the beginning of the game, but little side adventures give you more information about them as the story advances. I think of the Mass Effect games are another a good example. You get character side missions to help you learn more about the backstories of the characters and why they are there. Final Fantasy XV could have had similar stories, helping your characters deal with "personal issues" in the story. Perhaps these "side stories" will be in DLC later.
2) Aranea and Ravus, no boss battle
In many games, you meet a tough boss early in the game but get out of the fight due to some story element. Perhaps the boss was simply distracting you for some other purpose. You suspect you'll battle the boss later on as the boss was clearly too tough for you earlier in the game.
This is what I suspected when I first fought Aranea and encountered Ravus. Aranea sort of becomes an ally (kinda?). Ravus only appears in a disappointing zombie form later on. It felt unfulfilling.
3) Ravus switches sides
For no reason at all, Ravus appears to switch sides at some point, which seemed out of place, and with little explanation in the story.
4) Prompto being an MT
Late in the game it's revealed that Prompto was a MT. This wasn't really discussed further.
5) What about all the enemy generals?
At several points in the game enemy generals appear. There's Verstael, the main general, which you never really see outside of a cameo. There's the general you capture for a bit in Chapter 6 when you get back the Regalia. He "escapes" at some point. It could have been a good side quest to track him down and get him back and interrogate him. Perhaps leading to another side quest, lets say a secret base you get to take out. Nope, none of that happens. Basically all those enemy generals you see in the beginning disappear and are never seen again.
6) What about the bad emperor?
Similarly, after having a cameo early on, he doesn't appear again. Only in daemon form (which I learned online after defeating the daemon).
7) Universe history
The game could have fleshed out some of the world's history a bit better, for example the history of "the six". The main characters could have had a side quest to some random memorial/place to learn about history in the universe at any point in time to flesh out the universe (Ignis could have pushed the matter, as he's the intellectual one). It's there they learn about some mysterious history and .... tada Ardyn is the person in the story. If such a quest would have foreshadowed the ending too much, fine. They could have had random quests to just learn general history of the world.
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
I just finished up Final Fantasy XV to the level I wish to complete it (gave up on Costlemark postgame dungeon, not even going to bother with Pitioss). While I enjoyed the game a lot, there was something subtle about the game I disliked.
As many reviews have stated, the story and characters were on the weak side compared to many Final Fantasy games. There were just too many story elements that were either cut, skipped, or not fleshed out. Perhaps some of these will be fleshed out in DLC, some may have been covered in the movie "Kingsglavie", but it just made the game not feel quite that fulfilling. Here's some examples.
1) Who are the main characters?
This is obvious, but the game threw your entire team together at the very beginning of the story without much backstory. This isn't a bad idea by itself, but it felt like the background of the characters was never fleshed out. You get a few conversations in hotels/campsites, but it's not much.
A good counter example is Dragon Quest VIII, one of my favorite RPGs of all time. The characters are relatively nameless at the beginning of the game, but little side adventures give you more information about them as the story advances. I think of the Mass Effect games are another a good example. You get character side missions to help you learn more about the backstories of the characters and why they are there. Final Fantasy XV could have had similar stories, helping your characters deal with "personal issues" in the story. Perhaps these "side stories" will be in DLC later.
2) Aranea and Ravus, no boss battle
In many games, you meet a tough boss early in the game but get out of the fight due to some story element. Perhaps the boss was simply distracting you for some other purpose. You suspect you'll battle the boss later on as the boss was clearly too tough for you earlier in the game.
This is what I suspected when I first fought Aranea and encountered Ravus. Aranea sort of becomes an ally (kinda?). Ravus only appears in a disappointing zombie form later on. It felt unfulfilling.
3) Ravus switches sides
For no reason at all, Ravus appears to switch sides at some point, which seemed out of place, and with little explanation in the story.
4) Prompto being an MT
Late in the game it's revealed that Prompto was a MT. This wasn't really discussed further.
5) What about all the enemy generals?
At several points in the game enemy generals appear. There's Verstael, the main general, which you never really see outside of a cameo. There's the general you capture for a bit in Chapter 6 when you get back the Regalia. He "escapes" at some point. It could have been a good side quest to track him down and get him back and interrogate him. Perhaps leading to another side quest, lets say a secret base you get to take out. Nope, none of that happens. Basically all those enemy generals you see in the beginning disappear and are never seen again.
6) What about the bad emperor?
Similarly, after having a cameo early on, he doesn't appear again. Only in daemon form (which I learned online after defeating the daemon).
7) Universe history
The game could have fleshed out some of the world's history a bit better, for example the history of "the six". The main characters could have had a side quest to some random memorial/place to learn about history in the universe at any point in time to flesh out the universe (Ignis could have pushed the matter, as he's the intellectual one). It's there they learn about some mysterious history and .... tada Ardyn is the person in the story. If such a quest would have foreshadowed the ending too much, fine. They could have had random quests to just learn general history of the world.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Suicide Squad - Why it was worse than Batman v Superman
Ugh, I just saw Suicide Squad and it was awful. Far worse than Batman v Superman.
Why was it so bad? There are reasons that I'm sure most people are going to bring up. The introduction of so many fringe characters into a movie at the same time, not enough back story, not enough character depth/motiviation.
But there was something deeper. These are the reasons I could come up with.
Needless to say ...
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
1) Worthless Characters Added
Not only were there too many character introductions, but some are so unfleshed that I'm not even sure why they were included in the movie. Katana was introduced about a third of the way into the movie. It felt like they added her into the middle of the script after it was completed.
Why was she added? My assumption is it was add a bit more diversity into the team (an additional female and Asian character) and to add a "sword" person amongst a bunch of people with guns.
Because other than hacking a bunch of people with a sword a few times, she appears to have no appreciable purpose in the entire film. During the "what do you dream of that would make you happy" sequence before the final battle, she's not even included.
Reading a bit online to get other fans opinions, I realized I had completely forgotten about Slipknot. The guy they barely introduced and just killed off right away. So sort of like Katana but even worse so.
2) Too much for Suicide Squad to handle?
So I'm not the biggest Suicide Squad knowledgeable person in the world. But one of the subtleties is that I felt that Suicide Squad teams were supposed to go on more "black ops" missions.
Instead, they go after and battle a supernatural demon? This makes no sense. Black ops missions make way more sense. That's why you would put together a team of criminals that are assassins (Deadshot) and thieves (Slipknot, Boomerang)? You throw in Killer Croc for some muscle and maybe Harley Quinn because she's good in hand to hand combat. This is the team that is supposed to go after the next Superman?
Looking on wikipedia, it appears this is some of the history of Suicide Squad in the comics. They go kidnap people or steal things. Ugh ... stealing the weapons book from Tehran would have made a bunch better film instead.
3) Everyone becomes friends and "good"
So maybe it's just me, but I hate the typical "bad guys become good" storyline. These are supposed to be the worst criminals out there. Yeah, certain characters will try to be team players and work together (Deadshot), but it's mostly for self-service to meet some personal self interest.
It would have been better if the team was constantly trying to figure out how to escape or take Flag's detonation tablet and reverse engineer it to remove the neck-bombs. Nope, they are just good guys eventually.
4) Captain Boomerang is a bit cheapened
Before the movie came out, I wondered how they would portray Captain Boomerang. In the comics and DC animated world, I think he's wonderful. After all, he's a badass assassin that throws boomerangs for a living. It's tongue and cheek silliness that makes the animated versions of him so awesome.
While Captain Boomerang plays the comic relief in the team real well, he feels really cheapened while fighting. I just can't recall a moment when he was really that badass in the movie.
5) What was the purpose of the Joker in this film?
Why was the Joker even in this film? His entire goal is to rescue Harley Quinn, which seems so unlike the Joker and a waste of his character. The Joker is supposed to be some psychopath.
Here's a much better idea for the movie. The Joker is going to do something crazy and Amanda Waller needs a black ops team to stop him.
Oh, and why would they add an equally psychotic Harley Quinn to the team? Only because she understands the Joker and can help. Otherwise why bring her along?
6) Too much jumping around
I felt the film "jumped around" too much, especially as they give back stories or flashbacks to prior events. During 1 or 2 scenes my girlfriend was like "What's going on?" which I had to explain only b/c I have some knowledge of the comics universe. One particular case was the flashback when Harley Quinn jumps into the vat of chemicals to become like the Joker. It seemed to segue to that out of nowhere.
Conclusion:
Watch Batman: Assault on Arkham. It features Suicide Squad, is wonderful, and everything I said above is not the case in that animated film. Katana is replaced by Killer Frost in the film and has a strong role in it, so you can't even say they didn't diversify the cast.
Why was it so bad? There are reasons that I'm sure most people are going to bring up. The introduction of so many fringe characters into a movie at the same time, not enough back story, not enough character depth/motiviation.
But there was something deeper. These are the reasons I could come up with.
Needless to say ...
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
1) Worthless Characters Added
Not only were there too many character introductions, but some are so unfleshed that I'm not even sure why they were included in the movie. Katana was introduced about a third of the way into the movie. It felt like they added her into the middle of the script after it was completed.
Why was she added? My assumption is it was add a bit more diversity into the team (an additional female and Asian character) and to add a "sword" person amongst a bunch of people with guns.
Because other than hacking a bunch of people with a sword a few times, she appears to have no appreciable purpose in the entire film. During the "what do you dream of that would make you happy" sequence before the final battle, she's not even included.
Reading a bit online to get other fans opinions, I realized I had completely forgotten about Slipknot. The guy they barely introduced and just killed off right away. So sort of like Katana but even worse so.
2) Too much for Suicide Squad to handle?
So I'm not the biggest Suicide Squad knowledgeable person in the world. But one of the subtleties is that I felt that Suicide Squad teams were supposed to go on more "black ops" missions.
Instead, they go after and battle a supernatural demon? This makes no sense. Black ops missions make way more sense. That's why you would put together a team of criminals that are assassins (Deadshot) and thieves (Slipknot, Boomerang)? You throw in Killer Croc for some muscle and maybe Harley Quinn because she's good in hand to hand combat. This is the team that is supposed to go after the next Superman?
Looking on wikipedia, it appears this is some of the history of Suicide Squad in the comics. They go kidnap people or steal things. Ugh ... stealing the weapons book from Tehran would have made a bunch better film instead.
3) Everyone becomes friends and "good"
So maybe it's just me, but I hate the typical "bad guys become good" storyline. These are supposed to be the worst criminals out there. Yeah, certain characters will try to be team players and work together (Deadshot), but it's mostly for self-service to meet some personal self interest.
It would have been better if the team was constantly trying to figure out how to escape or take Flag's detonation tablet and reverse engineer it to remove the neck-bombs. Nope, they are just good guys eventually.
4) Captain Boomerang is a bit cheapened
Before the movie came out, I wondered how they would portray Captain Boomerang. In the comics and DC animated world, I think he's wonderful. After all, he's a badass assassin that throws boomerangs for a living. It's tongue and cheek silliness that makes the animated versions of him so awesome.
While Captain Boomerang plays the comic relief in the team real well, he feels really cheapened while fighting. I just can't recall a moment when he was really that badass in the movie.
5) What was the purpose of the Joker in this film?
Why was the Joker even in this film? His entire goal is to rescue Harley Quinn, which seems so unlike the Joker and a waste of his character. The Joker is supposed to be some psychopath.
Here's a much better idea for the movie. The Joker is going to do something crazy and Amanda Waller needs a black ops team to stop him.
Oh, and why would they add an equally psychotic Harley Quinn to the team? Only because she understands the Joker and can help. Otherwise why bring her along?
6) Too much jumping around
I felt the film "jumped around" too much, especially as they give back stories or flashbacks to prior events. During 1 or 2 scenes my girlfriend was like "What's going on?" which I had to explain only b/c I have some knowledge of the comics universe. One particular case was the flashback when Harley Quinn jumps into the vat of chemicals to become like the Joker. It seemed to segue to that out of nowhere.
Conclusion:
Watch Batman: Assault on Arkham. It features Suicide Squad, is wonderful, and everything I said above is not the case in that animated film. Katana is replaced by Killer Frost in the film and has a strong role in it, so you can't even say they didn't diversify the cast.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Batman v Superman & Justice League Trailer - Why so disappointing?
So last weekend I finally sat down and watched Batman v Superman.
While I didn't dislike the movie as much as the horrible reviews suggest (27% on Rottentomatoes), I didn't love it. I maybe would have given it around a 50%-ish rating.
After watching it, I was trying to think up why I didn't like it that much. There are some obvious reasons that I think most people have. The introduction of Wonder Woman, Batman, Lex Luthor, and Doomsday was just too much for one movie. (Blah blah, should have done it like Marvel by having Wonder Woman and Batman Movie first, blah blah).
But eventually, I realized it was something more subtle ....
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
The portrayal of the characters in the movie don't meet my impression of the characters in the comics.
Batman to me is supposed to be the world's greatest detective. Getting "tricked" by Lex Luthor into fighting Superman just doesn't seem like what would happen to Batman. In fact, wouldn't Batman have figured out Superman's identity by now? After all, if Lex Luthor could, couldn't he?
After the bombing in Washington D.C., wouldn't Batman investigate further to see what actually happened so he knows Superman didn't cause anything? Going out of his way to just want to fight Superman just because seems very unlike Batman.
Another thing that bothered me was Bruce Wayne's somewhat "friendliness" and "sense of humor" in the movie. In the comics and DC animated universe, I always considered Bruce Wayne/Batman to be an untrusting loner who is somewhat distant compared to other members of the Justice League. In the Justice League Animated series, he bluntly says he's "not a people person" when the Justice League is being formed. There are other indications in the comics and other animated films where this seems to be the case (The Dark Knight comic comes to mind, as does the Justice League: War animated film, and the recent Dark Knight Rises, and probably many others).
However, in Batman v Superman, Bruce Wayne wants to go out of his way to form the Justice League after Superman dies (and furthers shows it in the Justice League trailer). He also cracks some jokes here and there (and in the trailer too!) that just seem out of character for Batman. When Wonder Woman arrives to fight Doomsday, Batman knows exactly who this is and why she is there. Saying, "I thought she was with you" seems very out of character. A much better line would have been something like "Clark Kent, meet Wonder Woman", in which Batman has clearly already figured out Superman's identity. Superman would act a bit surprised that Batman already figured it out, which is a totally befitting Batman.
Now that I've seen how they decided to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in this film, it makes sense to me why they would cast Ben Affleck as Batman. He actually plays the part pretty well. It's the portrayal that IMO doesn't map to Batman. A completely different Batman portrayal would have led to a different casting choice.
As a complete aside, there's one moment in the Doomsday fight I love where Batman leaps onto a building of some sort but escapes a punch/attack from Doomsday by leaping away quickly. That is wonderful and gives a "super human agility" kind of feel to Batman that he can even fight Doomsday to some extent. They could have done more of that.
Jeremy Iron's portrayal of Alfred also didn't seem quite right either, compared to Alfred in the comics, animated shows, or even in movies (such as Michael Caine's portrayal). He almost seemed to portray a sidekick of sorts to Bruce Wayne, helping him in the Batcave and taking on a Barabara Gordon/Oracle like role. It just seemed out of place for him.
I will say that the portrayals of Lex Luthor (minus the hair) and Wonder Woman (albeit limited) were pretty good.
While I didn't dislike the movie as much as the horrible reviews suggest (27% on Rottentomatoes), I didn't love it. I maybe would have given it around a 50%-ish rating.
After watching it, I was trying to think up why I didn't like it that much. There are some obvious reasons that I think most people have. The introduction of Wonder Woman, Batman, Lex Luthor, and Doomsday was just too much for one movie. (Blah blah, should have done it like Marvel by having Wonder Woman and Batman Movie first, blah blah).
But eventually, I realized it was something more subtle ....
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
The portrayal of the characters in the movie don't meet my impression of the characters in the comics.
Batman to me is supposed to be the world's greatest detective. Getting "tricked" by Lex Luthor into fighting Superman just doesn't seem like what would happen to Batman. In fact, wouldn't Batman have figured out Superman's identity by now? After all, if Lex Luthor could, couldn't he?
After the bombing in Washington D.C., wouldn't Batman investigate further to see what actually happened so he knows Superman didn't cause anything? Going out of his way to just want to fight Superman just because seems very unlike Batman.
Another thing that bothered me was Bruce Wayne's somewhat "friendliness" and "sense of humor" in the movie. In the comics and DC animated universe, I always considered Bruce Wayne/Batman to be an untrusting loner who is somewhat distant compared to other members of the Justice League. In the Justice League Animated series, he bluntly says he's "not a people person" when the Justice League is being formed. There are other indications in the comics and other animated films where this seems to be the case (The Dark Knight comic comes to mind, as does the Justice League: War animated film, and the recent Dark Knight Rises, and probably many others).
However, in Batman v Superman, Bruce Wayne wants to go out of his way to form the Justice League after Superman dies (and furthers shows it in the Justice League trailer). He also cracks some jokes here and there (and in the trailer too!) that just seem out of character for Batman. When Wonder Woman arrives to fight Doomsday, Batman knows exactly who this is and why she is there. Saying, "I thought she was with you" seems very out of character. A much better line would have been something like "Clark Kent, meet Wonder Woman", in which Batman has clearly already figured out Superman's identity. Superman would act a bit surprised that Batman already figured it out, which is a totally befitting Batman.
Now that I've seen how they decided to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in this film, it makes sense to me why they would cast Ben Affleck as Batman. He actually plays the part pretty well. It's the portrayal that IMO doesn't map to Batman. A completely different Batman portrayal would have led to a different casting choice.
As a complete aside, there's one moment in the Doomsday fight I love where Batman leaps onto a building of some sort but escapes a punch/attack from Doomsday by leaping away quickly. That is wonderful and gives a "super human agility" kind of feel to Batman that he can even fight Doomsday to some extent. They could have done more of that.
Jeremy Iron's portrayal of Alfred also didn't seem quite right either, compared to Alfred in the comics, animated shows, or even in movies (such as Michael Caine's portrayal). He almost seemed to portray a sidekick of sorts to Bruce Wayne, helping him in the Batcave and taking on a Barabara Gordon/Oracle like role. It just seemed out of place for him.
I will say that the portrayals of Lex Luthor (minus the hair) and Wonder Woman (albeit limited) were pretty good.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Oddities in HBO's Silicon Valley
I recently began watching HBO's Silicon Valley. Once in awhile I see a technical and/or conceptual oddity that I can't help but ponder over and think "uhhh no". These are the ones that I noticed and bothered me.
I'm not going over any specific misuse of technical terms or over exaggerated elements for Hollywood humor.
Needless to say there are ***SPOILERS*** below if you haven't watched the show.
Season 1 - Episode 1
Richard is an employee at Hooli, but is also in a startup incubator launching Pied Piper. Later in the episode Hooli CEO Gavin Belson tries to purchase Pied Piper.
Shouldn't Hooli have an intellectual property claim on Pied Piper, given that Richard is still an employee at Hooli?
Now I can't speak for the IP rights contracts that every company in the world has, and there are obvious exceptions (some companies you can sign documents to indicate you have some outside business interests that are independent of your job), but this seemed odd to me.
(They eventually delve into this in Season 2.)
Season 1 - Episode 6
In this episode, elite programmer "The Carver" is hired to help get Pied Piper towards its deadline. In a somewhat cliche plot, he messes up some code and the team has to spend a lot of time fixing his mistake.
I couldn't help but think, "You guys don't have a code revision repository of any sort?" The kind of thing that could be backed out within a minute or two? Later in the episode, they are distinctly comparing lines of code on two screens, so it strongly suggests they don't have a code repo.
But this isn't what gets me. Later on, they also ran and passed regression tests to know they fixed the bugs/mistakes. Regression tests suggest that you have different versions of software. After all, what's the point of regression tests if you're not trying to catch old bugs/mistakes? So they have different versions of software, but no code repo to manage the different versions of code?
Season 2 - Episode 10
During the trial, Erlich mentions that Big Head's code for "Nip Alert" was so bad that it crashed Richard's laptop and Richard had to take it to the Apple store to fix and it was "in the shop" for three days.
Now "crash" is ambiguous, but I interpreted the dialogue context to mean this caused a hardware problem. It wouldn't have to be "in the shop" for three days otherwise. It would be very hard, if not impossible, for a web based application (let alone a normal installed application) to destroy a laptop's hardware. I can see potential theoretical ways, but it's hard to imagine a general application doing this. [1] Add in the fact that Big Head is generally regarded as incompetent, it's hard to believe he could have done anything that advanced.
If "crash" caused a software based problem, such as a process foolishly running amok and deleting valuable system software (again, shouldn't really be happening for a userspace non-privileged process and shouldn't be happening with such a dumb application), this one is perhaps a bit more believable. But a simple software reinstall and update from backup is all you need. No need to bring it into the shop.
Season 3 - Episode 6
In this episode Richard is shown to be a lover of tab indentation in code. He meets a girl named Winnie who codes uses spaces instead of tabs.
In one scene Richard and Winnie are sitting on the couch both coding and Winnie is programming and constantly smashing the spacebar to indent her code. It's loud and annoying and eventually Richard can't handle it. Hilarity ensues.
The "tabs" vs "spaces" debate is endless, but what I found interesting was the fact that Winnie repeatedly hit the spacebar to indent her code. Today, almost every editor will automatically convert a "tab" to the appropriate number of spaces. So there is no need to ever hit the space bar over and over again. Even those who prefer spaces to tabs don't actually hit the spacebar over and over again, they use the tab key.
[1] - While writing this I Googled "can you program software to damage hardware" and there are some write ups with theoretical ideas that seem to confirm my suspicions.
I'm not going over any specific misuse of technical terms or over exaggerated elements for Hollywood humor.
Needless to say there are ***SPOILERS*** below if you haven't watched the show.
Season 1 - Episode 1
Richard is an employee at Hooli, but is also in a startup incubator launching Pied Piper. Later in the episode Hooli CEO Gavin Belson tries to purchase Pied Piper.
Shouldn't Hooli have an intellectual property claim on Pied Piper, given that Richard is still an employee at Hooli?
Now I can't speak for the IP rights contracts that every company in the world has, and there are obvious exceptions (some companies you can sign documents to indicate you have some outside business interests that are independent of your job), but this seemed odd to me.
(They eventually delve into this in Season 2.)
Season 1 - Episode 6
In this episode, elite programmer "The Carver" is hired to help get Pied Piper towards its deadline. In a somewhat cliche plot, he messes up some code and the team has to spend a lot of time fixing his mistake.
I couldn't help but think, "You guys don't have a code revision repository of any sort?" The kind of thing that could be backed out within a minute or two? Later in the episode, they are distinctly comparing lines of code on two screens, so it strongly suggests they don't have a code repo.
But this isn't what gets me. Later on, they also ran and passed regression tests to know they fixed the bugs/mistakes. Regression tests suggest that you have different versions of software. After all, what's the point of regression tests if you're not trying to catch old bugs/mistakes? So they have different versions of software, but no code repo to manage the different versions of code?
Season 2 - Episode 10
During the trial, Erlich mentions that Big Head's code for "Nip Alert" was so bad that it crashed Richard's laptop and Richard had to take it to the Apple store to fix and it was "in the shop" for three days.
Now "crash" is ambiguous, but I interpreted the dialogue context to mean this caused a hardware problem. It wouldn't have to be "in the shop" for three days otherwise. It would be very hard, if not impossible, for a web based application (let alone a normal installed application) to destroy a laptop's hardware. I can see potential theoretical ways, but it's hard to imagine a general application doing this. [1] Add in the fact that Big Head is generally regarded as incompetent, it's hard to believe he could have done anything that advanced.
If "crash" caused a software based problem, such as a process foolishly running amok and deleting valuable system software (again, shouldn't really be happening for a userspace non-privileged process and shouldn't be happening with such a dumb application), this one is perhaps a bit more believable. But a simple software reinstall and update from backup is all you need. No need to bring it into the shop.
Season 3 - Episode 6
In this episode Richard is shown to be a lover of tab indentation in code. He meets a girl named Winnie who codes uses spaces instead of tabs.
In one scene Richard and Winnie are sitting on the couch both coding and Winnie is programming and constantly smashing the spacebar to indent her code. It's loud and annoying and eventually Richard can't handle it. Hilarity ensues.
The "tabs" vs "spaces" debate is endless, but what I found interesting was the fact that Winnie repeatedly hit the spacebar to indent her code. Today, almost every editor will automatically convert a "tab" to the appropriate number of spaces. So there is no need to ever hit the space bar over and over again. Even those who prefer spaces to tabs don't actually hit the spacebar over and over again, they use the tab key.
[1] - While writing this I Googled "can you program software to damage hardware" and there are some write ups with theoretical ideas that seem to confirm my suspicions.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Heroic Programming/Engineering in Hollywood
Once in awhile when I'm watching a tv show that includes some programming/engineering, I am amazed by the level of "Heroic Programming" or "Heroic Engineering" capabilities of the characters.
The one I've noticed the most is Timothy McGee on NCIS. At multiple points in time McGee is capable of engineering solutions to help solve a crime on the order of an afternoon. These are feats that would take people days to months. On a few occasions McGee single handedly developed data mining algorithms and capabilities that probably bordered on the capabilities of Palantir.
Keep in mind that McGee has mastered these heroic capabilities, despite the fact that he doesn't even program as his day job. So he has seemingly developed all these abilities as a side-task and/or hobby.
Another one I saw recently was on the show Silicon Valley. While the individuals on the show are atleast full time engineers, they seem to have epic capabilities. A very small team of just three engineers seems capable to engineer everything, on every platform, in every domain, without flaw, and at lightning speed.
The one I've noticed the most is Timothy McGee on NCIS. At multiple points in time McGee is capable of engineering solutions to help solve a crime on the order of an afternoon. These are feats that would take people days to months. On a few occasions McGee single handedly developed data mining algorithms and capabilities that probably bordered on the capabilities of Palantir.
Keep in mind that McGee has mastered these heroic capabilities, despite the fact that he doesn't even program as his day job. So he has seemingly developed all these abilities as a side-task and/or hobby.
Another one I saw recently was on the show Silicon Valley. While the individuals on the show are atleast full time engineers, they seem to have epic capabilities. A very small team of just three engineers seems capable to engineer everything, on every platform, in every domain, without flaw, and at lightning speed.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Horrible Movie Review: The Switch
Yesterday I saw one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. Not necessarily a "bad" movie, just one of the stupidest ones. This movie is "The Switch", a 2010 rom-com starring Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston.
WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD
In the movie, Wally (Bateman) is best friends with Kassie (Aniston). Kassie has decided she'd like to have a baby and wants to go the sperm bank route. Wally suggests he could be the father, because he's had a crush on Kassie for a long time. Kassie objects, but they remain friends.
Through a comedy of errors Wally hijacks the sperm bank donation and substitutes his own sperm. So ... Kassie's baby is actually his own.
Kassie begins dating the (presumed) biological father Roland at some point in the future. Despite Roland being in the picture, Wally becomes an even better father figure to Kassie's son (his biological son) than the presumed biological father.
At the climax of the movie, Wally reveals he is the biological father to both Kassie and Roland.
Now at this point in the movie, what do you think should happen?
A) Kassie enters a murderous rage and kills Wally
B) A more mild form of violence occurs, such as a beating, and possibly through proxy of another individual (such as Roland)
C) Kassie gets a lawyer and sues Wally for everything he owns
D) Kassie is pissed as hell, moves away, and they never see each other again
E) Kassie realizes Wally is her true love and they live happily ever after
Living in a civilized society and not believing Aniston wants to move into a new genre of film, I suppose 'C' or 'D' would be the most likely thing to happen. However, I think 'A' or 'B' would have been a reasonably expected response given the circumstances of how horrible this was.
But since this is a Hollywood rom-com, the answer is in fact 'E'. About the stupidest thing I think could possibly happen.
WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD
In the movie, Wally (Bateman) is best friends with Kassie (Aniston). Kassie has decided she'd like to have a baby and wants to go the sperm bank route. Wally suggests he could be the father, because he's had a crush on Kassie for a long time. Kassie objects, but they remain friends.
Through a comedy of errors Wally hijacks the sperm bank donation and substitutes his own sperm. So ... Kassie's baby is actually his own.
Kassie begins dating the (presumed) biological father Roland at some point in the future. Despite Roland being in the picture, Wally becomes an even better father figure to Kassie's son (his biological son) than the presumed biological father.
At the climax of the movie, Wally reveals he is the biological father to both Kassie and Roland.
Now at this point in the movie, what do you think should happen?
A) Kassie enters a murderous rage and kills Wally
B) A more mild form of violence occurs, such as a beating, and possibly through proxy of another individual (such as Roland)
C) Kassie gets a lawyer and sues Wally for everything he owns
D) Kassie is pissed as hell, moves away, and they never see each other again
E) Kassie realizes Wally is her true love and they live happily ever after
Living in a civilized society and not believing Aniston wants to move into a new genre of film, I suppose 'C' or 'D' would be the most likely thing to happen. However, I think 'A' or 'B' would have been a reasonably expected response given the circumstances of how horrible this was.
But since this is a Hollywood rom-com, the answer is in fact 'E'. About the stupidest thing I think could possibly happen.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Good vs. Bad Movie Fight Scenes
I recently came upon the following video:
It talks about "rhythm" and sequencing in fight scenes. There's a great quote around 4:25 that speaks of "the audience doesn't know the rhythm's there until it's not there."
I started to pay attention to this in some martial arts films and you can't help but notice it more once you are looking for it. Instead of "rhythm" what I like to think of it is "sequences of action" in a single film take. When a performer isn't good or the director is trying to save money on takes, very rarely will "sequences of action" be done in a single take. In other words, will only a single punch or kick happen in a video take before they cut away to a different angle? Or will multiple kicks/punches occur within a single take in a sequence of a choreographed fight?
Lets start by looking at a bad fight scene. This scene in The Medallion, a pretty terrible Jackie Chan film, with Claire Forlani in a pretty awful fight.
Very rarely is more than a single punch or kick ever done in a take. One punch or kick is done, then they director cuts to a different angle. Only at 41 seconds into the video do they even bother to sequence about 3 kicks together in a take and at about 46 seconds there are two kicks in the take.
In contrast, lets take a look at a fight that is perhaps a gold standard of excellence, the Michelle Yeoh vs Zhang Ziyi fight in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
This fight is wonderful. Throughout the fight you see sequences of multiple thrusts & blocks of a sword in a single take. The overhead sequences at 1:02 in the video is particularly wonderful. I counted about 15 actions (attacks/parrys/blocks) sequenced together in a single take as the actresses move across the floor.
It's interesting to look at Jackie Chan fights that were directed in Hong Kong vs. America. In the first fight scene in Rush Hour, we get this very meh fight sequence.
Again, you can see that most of the takes contain a single punch or action. Only at about 1:05 do they bother to sequence about 2 attacks in a single shot and a few multiple actions in a shot around 1:20.
In contrast, I think of this incredible fight from First Strike
There are many sequences of 3-4 actions in a single take which give the fight a much better rhythm. The chair sequence at 1:06 is particularly wonderful. Does Jackie Chan really need to jump over a chair, duck a chair thrown, and catch one in a single take? No. But it adds something special to the scene.
Likewise with the ladder sequence. You could probably forgive Jackie Chan for only doing a single attack or block with a ladder given its hefty weight. However, at 3:38 he actually launches an attack with the ladder opening up and bothers to block two further attacks in a single take. That's the kind of thing that makes these fights far more special.
While looking at martial arts fights on YouTube, I thought I'd bring up one particularly awesome scene. It's the elevator fight scene from Ip Man 3.
Once they exit the elevator, there are sequences of 5+ punches/blocks/kicks in a single take. The overhead shot at 1:54 is particularly amazing. I count 15 actions that take place as the actors move down the stairs, around the hallway, and end with one actor getting kicked down the next batch of stairs. All in a single take.
Finally, just to show that it doesn't take trained martial artists in Hong Kong to do good fights, lets take a look at this Neo vs. Agent Smith fight in the Matrix.
To my knowledge, neither actor is actually trained in martial arts. But with some good choreography and good editing and willingness from the director, you can sequence many punches/blocks into a single take and get a much better fight scene out of it.
It talks about "rhythm" and sequencing in fight scenes. There's a great quote around 4:25 that speaks of "the audience doesn't know the rhythm's there until it's not there."
I started to pay attention to this in some martial arts films and you can't help but notice it more once you are looking for it. Instead of "rhythm" what I like to think of it is "sequences of action" in a single film take. When a performer isn't good or the director is trying to save money on takes, very rarely will "sequences of action" be done in a single take. In other words, will only a single punch or kick happen in a video take before they cut away to a different angle? Or will multiple kicks/punches occur within a single take in a sequence of a choreographed fight?
Lets start by looking at a bad fight scene. This scene in The Medallion, a pretty terrible Jackie Chan film, with Claire Forlani in a pretty awful fight.
Very rarely is more than a single punch or kick ever done in a take. One punch or kick is done, then they director cuts to a different angle. Only at 41 seconds into the video do they even bother to sequence about 3 kicks together in a take and at about 46 seconds there are two kicks in the take.
In contrast, lets take a look at a fight that is perhaps a gold standard of excellence, the Michelle Yeoh vs Zhang Ziyi fight in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
This fight is wonderful. Throughout the fight you see sequences of multiple thrusts & blocks of a sword in a single take. The overhead sequences at 1:02 in the video is particularly wonderful. I counted about 15 actions (attacks/parrys/blocks) sequenced together in a single take as the actresses move across the floor.
It's interesting to look at Jackie Chan fights that were directed in Hong Kong vs. America. In the first fight scene in Rush Hour, we get this very meh fight sequence.
Again, you can see that most of the takes contain a single punch or action. Only at about 1:05 do they bother to sequence about 2 attacks in a single shot and a few multiple actions in a shot around 1:20.
In contrast, I think of this incredible fight from First Strike
There are many sequences of 3-4 actions in a single take which give the fight a much better rhythm. The chair sequence at 1:06 is particularly wonderful. Does Jackie Chan really need to jump over a chair, duck a chair thrown, and catch one in a single take? No. But it adds something special to the scene.
Likewise with the ladder sequence. You could probably forgive Jackie Chan for only doing a single attack or block with a ladder given its hefty weight. However, at 3:38 he actually launches an attack with the ladder opening up and bothers to block two further attacks in a single take. That's the kind of thing that makes these fights far more special.
While looking at martial arts fights on YouTube, I thought I'd bring up one particularly awesome scene. It's the elevator fight scene from Ip Man 3.
Once they exit the elevator, there are sequences of 5+ punches/blocks/kicks in a single take. The overhead shot at 1:54 is particularly amazing. I count 15 actions that take place as the actors move down the stairs, around the hallway, and end with one actor getting kicked down the next batch of stairs. All in a single take.
Finally, just to show that it doesn't take trained martial artists in Hong Kong to do good fights, lets take a look at this Neo vs. Agent Smith fight in the Matrix.
To my knowledge, neither actor is actually trained in martial arts. But with some good choreography and good editing and willingness from the director, you can sequence many punches/blocks into a single take and get a much better fight scene out of it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Could Justice League Members be President of the United States?
Recently, I've been watching some animated films from the DC Universe.
With the 2016 Presidential election going on and the debate over Ted Cruz's candidacy given his Canadian birth, a funny thought popped in my head. What members of the Justice League could be President of the United States? In either their superhero or alter ego forms.
In order to be President you must meet three conditions:
Superman - Born on Krypton, definitely not a natural born citizen. However, as Clark Kent, he probably qualifies. He's been working for awhile, so we'll say he's old enough.
Batman - AFAICT Bruce Wayne qualifies, he's gotta be old enough after years of running Wayne Enterprises.
Wonder Woman/Princess Diana - Born in Themiscyra, definitely not a natural born citizen.
Flash - AFAICT Barry Allen would qualify, assuming he's old enough. He's often portrayed as "younger" though.
Martian Manhunter - Born on Mars, definitely not a natural born citizen. Alter ego of J'onn J'onzz probably couldn't prove he's been living in the US for 14 years though.
Aquaman - Born in Atlantis, definitely not a natural born citizen.
Shazam - Billy Batson is 12 years old, so he's out.
Green Lantern - AFAICT qualifies regardless if it's John Stewart or Hal Jordan, and assuming both are old enough and they haven't wandered off planet for extended periods of time.
Hawkman or Hawkwoman - Ugh, different continuities. I believe in the animated series Hawkpeople are born on Thanagar, so definitely not a natural born citizens. Other continuities have them as Earth born, so they'd probably qualify in that case.
Cyborg - Unlike some of the above, Cyborg has always been portrayed as very young, running around with the Teen Titans for a long time and is a highschooler in Justice League: War. I think he's out due to age.
Atom - Ray Palmer has always been portrayed as a Professor, he's gotta be old enough to qualify.
Black Canary - AFAICT qualifies, assuming she's old enough.
Green Arrow - Typically portrayed old, Oliver Queen should qualify.
With the 2016 Presidential election going on and the debate over Ted Cruz's candidacy given his Canadian birth, a funny thought popped in my head. What members of the Justice League could be President of the United States? In either their superhero or alter ego forms.
In order to be President you must meet three conditions:
- be 35 years of age
- be a resident in the US for 14 years
- be a natural born citizen
Superman - Born on Krypton, definitely not a natural born citizen. However, as Clark Kent, he probably qualifies. He's been working for awhile, so we'll say he's old enough.
Batman - AFAICT Bruce Wayne qualifies, he's gotta be old enough after years of running Wayne Enterprises.
Wonder Woman/Princess Diana - Born in Themiscyra, definitely not a natural born citizen.
Flash - AFAICT Barry Allen would qualify, assuming he's old enough. He's often portrayed as "younger" though.
Martian Manhunter - Born on Mars, definitely not a natural born citizen. Alter ego of J'onn J'onzz probably couldn't prove he's been living in the US for 14 years though.
Aquaman - Born in Atlantis, definitely not a natural born citizen.
Shazam - Billy Batson is 12 years old, so he's out.
Green Lantern - AFAICT qualifies regardless if it's John Stewart or Hal Jordan, and assuming both are old enough and they haven't wandered off planet for extended periods of time.
Hawkman or Hawkwoman - Ugh, different continuities. I believe in the animated series Hawkpeople are born on Thanagar, so definitely not a natural born citizens. Other continuities have them as Earth born, so they'd probably qualify in that case.
Cyborg - Unlike some of the above, Cyborg has always been portrayed as very young, running around with the Teen Titans for a long time and is a highschooler in Justice League: War. I think he's out due to age.
Atom - Ray Palmer has always been portrayed as a Professor, he's gotta be old enough to qualify.
Black Canary - AFAICT qualifies, assuming she's old enough.
Green Arrow - Typically portrayed old, Oliver Queen should qualify.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Why is it called "blood sugar level"? Shouldn't it be "sugar blood level"?
I was getting through a sinus infection over the past week. With a sinus infection comes headaches and some lightheadedness. I learned over the years that increasing my blood sugar levels while sick helps with headaches, especially in the morning when I first wake up.
Suddenly, something occurred to me.
In English, the statement "X Y level" or "X Y ratio" would translate to the ratio of "X / Y". Or atleast that's how I would interpret it. For example, with "salt water", the salinity going up or going down matches the ratio "salt / water".
However, that's not what "blood sugar level" means, it actually means the "sugar / blood" ratio. So it's backwards. Like when someone says you have a "high blood sugar level", it means the "sugar / blood" ratio has gone up.
I was thinking of other phrases in English that translate this way but couldn't think of any.
I was thinking of other counters, and the only other one I could think of was in cooking. When people speak of ratios it's often something like "you want a 3:1 ratio of flour to sugar". You do technically speak the part levels, but again, it's spoken as "X / Y" and not "Y / X".
Update 7/6/15:
I just thought of another example, "blood alcohol level". Similar to "blood sugar level" it means "alcohol / blood".
Suddenly, something occurred to me.
In English, the statement "X Y level" or "X Y ratio" would translate to the ratio of "X / Y". Or atleast that's how I would interpret it. For example, with "salt water", the salinity going up or going down matches the ratio "salt / water".
However, that's not what "blood sugar level" means, it actually means the "sugar / blood" ratio. So it's backwards. Like when someone says you have a "high blood sugar level", it means the "sugar / blood" ratio has gone up.
I was thinking of other phrases in English that translate this way but couldn't think of any.
I was thinking of other counters, and the only other one I could think of was in cooking. When people speak of ratios it's often something like "you want a 3:1 ratio of flour to sugar". You do technically speak the part levels, but again, it's spoken as "X / Y" and not "Y / X".
Update 7/6/15:
I just thought of another example, "blood alcohol level". Similar to "blood sugar level" it means "alcohol / blood".
The Game Theory of Online Dating
I just learned this morning that John Nash, the famed economist/mathematician, passed away. I know of John Nash mostly through the famed "Nash Equilibrium" taught in most beginning economics courses and the theories I learned in a game theory class I took in college.
The game theory course I took in college is one of my favorite courses from college. Not so much in that I used the class in my career, but I liked the principal that you could try and apply mathematics/game theory to everyday normal life. And if you view life through these principles, it might help explain life in better (or minimally different) ways.
One of the ways I applied game theory in a conversation sometime ago was online dating. Myself and many of my friends have done online dating to various degrees of success (... or failure depending on your perspective :-|). One day I came up with the following conversation/theory.
(To anyone that I don't know reading this, please take this with a grain of salt. It is just a way to think about things.)
So this conversation/theory only applies to people looking for a relationship.
Assume all people in the world are classified in two groups:
However, nobody knows what group anyone belongs in, including themselves. A person may believe they want to be in a relationship, but they don't. A person may believe they don't want to be in a relationship, but really do.
Online dating, while becoming more socially acceptable, is not the traditional first route for dating. There are gajillions of other ways to meet people: school, church, work, your neighborhood, general social activity, etc. Online dating, in my opinion, is second or third order. Something people try when the other ways haven't worked out. I could be wrong about this, but I get the strong impression it is for most people.
So here in lies the question. If all people in the world are classified in the two groups I list above, who are the people doing online dating?
As I state above, online dating is second or third order. So, presumably, all the people that want to be in a relationship are already taken. Since there are a gajillion ways to meet people before online dating, they've presumably already met someone.
So are the people doing online dating a whole bunch of people who don't want to be in a relationship?
Now the above is just the setup and way to think about it. Reality is really different.
People aren't in the two classifications I list above. Instead, everyone's personality and desires falls along a spectrum like the below:
I'll be single forever! <------> I want to get married now!
Everyone in the world is in this spectrum.
People who want to be single forever, they probably are not doing online dating at all.
The people that want to get married now, they are already taken.
The people doing online dating are in between. There will be those who broke up with someone and really want to be in a relationship again. They are going to be towards the right side of the spectrum. There will be those who may have the attitude, "ehhh maybe I'll meet someone". They may be towards the left side of the spectrum.
But what does the population of people doing online dating look like?
I don't know for sure. But based on my theory on the two classifications, I speculate there are many people more towards the left side of the spectrum than the right doing online dating. In other words, there's perhaps a reason why a person is still single. This isn't meant to imply that a person is single for a terrible reason. It's for very normal reasons: career, location, commitment, what makes you happy, etc. etc.
So, what kind of questions can be gather and think about from this thought process.
If you're someone that really wants a relationship, is online dating the right avenue? Perhaps not. Or perhaps its the best out of a lot of crappy options.
If you're doing online dating and think you really want a relationship? Do you really?
The game theory course I took in college is one of my favorite courses from college. Not so much in that I used the class in my career, but I liked the principal that you could try and apply mathematics/game theory to everyday normal life. And if you view life through these principles, it might help explain life in better (or minimally different) ways.
One of the ways I applied game theory in a conversation sometime ago was online dating. Myself and many of my friends have done online dating to various degrees of success (... or failure depending on your perspective :-|). One day I came up with the following conversation/theory.
(To anyone that I don't know reading this, please take this with a grain of salt. It is just a way to think about things.)
So this conversation/theory only applies to people looking for a relationship.
Assume all people in the world are classified in two groups:
- A person wants to be in a relationship/get married
- A person does not want to be in a relationship/get married
However, nobody knows what group anyone belongs in, including themselves. A person may believe they want to be in a relationship, but they don't. A person may believe they don't want to be in a relationship, but really do.
Online dating, while becoming more socially acceptable, is not the traditional first route for dating. There are gajillions of other ways to meet people: school, church, work, your neighborhood, general social activity, etc. Online dating, in my opinion, is second or third order. Something people try when the other ways haven't worked out. I could be wrong about this, but I get the strong impression it is for most people.
So here in lies the question. If all people in the world are classified in the two groups I list above, who are the people doing online dating?
As I state above, online dating is second or third order. So, presumably, all the people that want to be in a relationship are already taken. Since there are a gajillion ways to meet people before online dating, they've presumably already met someone.
So are the people doing online dating a whole bunch of people who don't want to be in a relationship?
Now the above is just the setup and way to think about it. Reality is really different.
People aren't in the two classifications I list above. Instead, everyone's personality and desires falls along a spectrum like the below:
I'll be single forever! <------> I want to get married now!
Everyone in the world is in this spectrum.
People who want to be single forever, they probably are not doing online dating at all.
The people that want to get married now, they are already taken.
The people doing online dating are in between. There will be those who broke up with someone and really want to be in a relationship again. They are going to be towards the right side of the spectrum. There will be those who may have the attitude, "ehhh maybe I'll meet someone". They may be towards the left side of the spectrum.
But what does the population of people doing online dating look like?
I don't know for sure. But based on my theory on the two classifications, I speculate there are many people more towards the left side of the spectrum than the right doing online dating. In other words, there's perhaps a reason why a person is still single. This isn't meant to imply that a person is single for a terrible reason. It's for very normal reasons: career, location, commitment, what makes you happy, etc. etc.
So, what kind of questions can be gather and think about from this thought process.
If you're someone that really wants a relationship, is online dating the right avenue? Perhaps not. Or perhaps its the best out of a lot of crappy options.
If you're doing online dating and think you really want a relationship? Do you really?
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Social Media: David Letterman vs. Jimmy Fallon vs. Jimmy Kimmel vs. Conan O'Brien vs. John Oliver
I recently came upon an article that said that one of the reasons David Letterman was looking to retire was a realization that he was not keeping up with social media in today's vastly different entertainment market. The reality is that getting "viral hits" was as important to the success of modern shows than nightly ratings.
I was curious on Letterman's success with social media compared to his contemporaries. Boy, it is not good. The following is a chart of David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien, and John Oliver videos on YouTube with the indicated number of views. I would also do Jon Stewart, but he lacks a Daily Show specific channel on YouTube.
Holy cow! That is awful for Letterman. With the exception of a single video, he doesn't even have any other 5M+ view video on YouTube. It's also worth noting that the video that cracks the 10 million mark is a video released less than two weeks before his last show.
What I find amazing is how Conan O'brien and John Oliver have such better social media audiences on YouTube despite being on basic cable or HBO. Even their total views blow away Letterman. Oliver's channel does much better than Letterman's even though he has weekly program while everyone else has nightly programs. So he is doing more with a much smaller of videos.
Another completely random measurement, number of Twitter Followers for their respective shows and their own personal accounts. It appears that Letterman only has a twitter for his show and not a personal account.
@letterman: 348K
@jimmyfallon: 25.3 Million
@FallonTonight: 2.63 Million
@jimmykimmel: 5.29 Million
@JimmyKimmelLive: 834K
@ConanObrien: 16.5 Million
@TeamCoco: 588K
@iamjohnoliver: 991K
@LastWeekTonight: 417K
Again, numbers don't look good for Letterman. He's substantially lower than everyone else.
I was curious on Letterman's success with social media compared to his contemporaries. Boy, it is not good. The following is a chart of David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien, and John Oliver videos on YouTube with the indicated number of views. I would also do Jon Stewart, but he lacks a Daily Show specific channel on YouTube.
| Views | Letterman | Fallon | Kimmel | O'Brien | Oliver |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50M+ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 20M-50M | 0 | 23 | 19 | 0 | 0 |
| 10M-20M | 1 | 24 | 16 | 4 | 1 |
| 5M-10M | 0 | 64 | 43 | 22 | 14 |
| Total Channel Views | 155 Million | 2.8 Billion | 2.0 Billion | 1.4 Billion | 288 Million |
Holy cow! That is awful for Letterman. With the exception of a single video, he doesn't even have any other 5M+ view video on YouTube. It's also worth noting that the video that cracks the 10 million mark is a video released less than two weeks before his last show.
What I find amazing is how Conan O'brien and John Oliver have such better social media audiences on YouTube despite being on basic cable or HBO. Even their total views blow away Letterman. Oliver's channel does much better than Letterman's even though he has weekly program while everyone else has nightly programs. So he is doing more with a much smaller of videos.
Another completely random measurement, number of Twitter Followers for their respective shows and their own personal accounts. It appears that Letterman only has a twitter for his show and not a personal account.
@letterman: 348K
@jimmyfallon: 25.3 Million
@FallonTonight: 2.63 Million
@jimmykimmel: 5.29 Million
@JimmyKimmelLive: 834K
@ConanObrien: 16.5 Million
@TeamCoco: 588K
@iamjohnoliver: 991K
@LastWeekTonight: 417K
Again, numbers don't look good for Letterman. He's substantially lower than everyone else.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Mike Awesome vs Tazz - A tale of ECW vs WCW vs WWF
I always found the "sport" of professional wrestling fascinating for a number of reasons.
The list an go on.
While in college, I became a pretty big WWF/WWE fan. WWE shows, especially with characters like The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, the APA, and others, were just plain entertaining. I jokingly told friends, "It's like a soap opera for guys. There's love, greed, betrayal, revenge, etc. ... except everything is resolved with fighting." (See prior post here)
Watching some random videos on YouTube one time, I eventually came upon this match.
The match was one of the most interesting ones I recall, even though I had never seen it until just in the past few weeks. It is one of the most fascinating stories I can recall while a wrestling fan in college.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were three major wrestling promotions, ECW (Extreme Championship Wrestling), WCW (World Championship Wrestling), and WWF (World Wrestling Federation) [WWF would later become WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment].
WWF was the most popular by far, but each of the others had their fans.
From my understanding, ECW had some financial troubles. Their champion, Mike Awesome, had reportedly gone unpaid (or felt he was due money) and felt that his contract with ECW was effectively voided. He then went onto sign with WCW, although he was the reigning ECW champion.
ECW was naturally pissed. I assume legal action was taken for breach of contract, but eventually WCW & ECW came to a compromise that Mike Awesome would come back to ECW and perform in a single match to lose his championship to someone else.
This is where it gets interesting. Instead of losing to another wrestler in ECW, Mike Awesome instead lost his belt to Tazz (sometimes known as Taz). Tazz was a former popular ECW wrestler that had recently gone to WWF. The match Tazz wins the belt is the one in the video above.
I find this tale fascinating for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, professional wrestling is a scripted show. But there is a certain pride that one takes in having the championship belt in your promotion. You're the star of the program, you're the one that sells tickets, and gets the most money for the promotion. You are the face of the franchise/company. While there may have been tough times, a number of ECW wrestlers and employees took pride in their company. For the ECW champion to jump ship was a tough pill to swallow. I'm sure it felt like a huge betrayal.
So ECW, to some extent, wanted to embarrass Mike Awesome in this final match for ECW. Effectively, hurt the Mike Awesome brand before he goes to WCW. So they wanted to get the biggest star they could to beat Mike Awesome.
WCW was a bitter rival of WWF. Despite the fact that WWF had absolutely nothing to do with this mess, they also had an interest in hurting the WCW brand as well.
So, WWF being the larger brand, lent ECW Tazz for this match. Tazz would then lose the belt to someone else in ECW that I can't recall.
I find it fascinating that effectively ECW and WWF thought it best to team up to hurt the WCW brand. ECW, perhaps running a bit on emotion, simply wanted to get the most popular wrestler they could to beat Mike Awesome in a match. WWF agreed just to try and embarass the WCW brand.
If you watch the match above, it's pretty pathetic. The ECW champion falls in about 1 minute and taps out with almost no effort.
- While matches outcomes are scripted ahead of time, the shows continue to sell the "sport" as real.
- Despite it being scripted, the wrestlers deserve an incredible amount of respect for the real pain they suffer during a match.
- There is an incredible art to selling the wrestling moves as real.
- There is an art to the selling and promotion of individual wrestlers, for example the promotion of a lesser known wrestler by beating a better one, the establishment of "good guys" and "bad guys".
The list an go on.
While in college, I became a pretty big WWF/WWE fan. WWE shows, especially with characters like The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, the APA, and others, were just plain entertaining. I jokingly told friends, "It's like a soap opera for guys. There's love, greed, betrayal, revenge, etc. ... except everything is resolved with fighting." (See prior post here)
Watching some random videos on YouTube one time, I eventually came upon this match.
The match was one of the most interesting ones I recall, even though I had never seen it until just in the past few weeks. It is one of the most fascinating stories I can recall while a wrestling fan in college.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were three major wrestling promotions, ECW (Extreme Championship Wrestling), WCW (World Championship Wrestling), and WWF (World Wrestling Federation) [WWF would later become WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment].
WWF was the most popular by far, but each of the others had their fans.
From my understanding, ECW had some financial troubles. Their champion, Mike Awesome, had reportedly gone unpaid (or felt he was due money) and felt that his contract with ECW was effectively voided. He then went onto sign with WCW, although he was the reigning ECW champion.
ECW was naturally pissed. I assume legal action was taken for breach of contract, but eventually WCW & ECW came to a compromise that Mike Awesome would come back to ECW and perform in a single match to lose his championship to someone else.
This is where it gets interesting. Instead of losing to another wrestler in ECW, Mike Awesome instead lost his belt to Tazz (sometimes known as Taz). Tazz was a former popular ECW wrestler that had recently gone to WWF. The match Tazz wins the belt is the one in the video above.
I find this tale fascinating for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, professional wrestling is a scripted show. But there is a certain pride that one takes in having the championship belt in your promotion. You're the star of the program, you're the one that sells tickets, and gets the most money for the promotion. You are the face of the franchise/company. While there may have been tough times, a number of ECW wrestlers and employees took pride in their company. For the ECW champion to jump ship was a tough pill to swallow. I'm sure it felt like a huge betrayal.
So ECW, to some extent, wanted to embarrass Mike Awesome in this final match for ECW. Effectively, hurt the Mike Awesome brand before he goes to WCW. So they wanted to get the biggest star they could to beat Mike Awesome.
WCW was a bitter rival of WWF. Despite the fact that WWF had absolutely nothing to do with this mess, they also had an interest in hurting the WCW brand as well.
So, WWF being the larger brand, lent ECW Tazz for this match. Tazz would then lose the belt to someone else in ECW that I can't recall.
I find it fascinating that effectively ECW and WWF thought it best to team up to hurt the WCW brand. ECW, perhaps running a bit on emotion, simply wanted to get the most popular wrestler they could to beat Mike Awesome in a match. WWF agreed just to try and embarass the WCW brand.
If you watch the match above, it's pretty pathetic. The ECW champion falls in about 1 minute and taps out with almost no effort.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Testing the Quality of a Daughter's Boyfriend via Fried Chicken
I've told this story a few times over the years and I have no idea how I ever learned it. No one else seems to know the story.
So the boyfriend of a daughter is finally being brought over to meet the parents. The parents, especially the father, are (over) protective of their daughter.
They prepare fried chicken for dinner (technically it could be any type of chicken, but some reason the story is fried chicken) and the father asks the boyfriend, "What piece would you like? Breast?"
Of course, the question is sexually suggestive, trying to see what the boy is thinking of at that moment in time.
If the boyfriend says yes, he fails. He's clearly thinking dirty thoughts.
If the boyfriend says leg or thigh, it's a fail, but not a complete and utter fail.
If the boyfriend says drumstick, it's sort of a neutral answer (since he didn't say leg instead).
If the boyfriend is smart, he answers wing.
So the boyfriend of a daughter is finally being brought over to meet the parents. The parents, especially the father, are (over) protective of their daughter.
They prepare fried chicken for dinner (technically it could be any type of chicken, but some reason the story is fried chicken) and the father asks the boyfriend, "What piece would you like? Breast?"
Of course, the question is sexually suggestive, trying to see what the boy is thinking of at that moment in time.
If the boyfriend says yes, he fails. He's clearly thinking dirty thoughts.
If the boyfriend says leg or thigh, it's a fail, but not a complete and utter fail.
If the boyfriend says drumstick, it's sort of a neutral answer (since he didn't say leg instead).
If the boyfriend is smart, he answers wing.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Saved By The Bell Reunion on Jimmy Fallon - All The Inside Jokes/References
The skit is absolutely brilliant with tons of inside jokes and references. Here's the ones I found.
1:10 - Zack recites the Saved By The Bell theme song. (youtube)
2:37 - A reference to a Saved By The Bell episode (youtube)
2:56 - Mario Lopez was on season 3 of dancing with the stars (wiki)
4:08 - References a recent interview with Nicole Kidman (youtube)
4:25 - Referencing how Elizabeth Berkley was in Showgirls after Saved By The Bell was over. (wiki)
4:40 - Another reference to a Saved By The Bell episode (youtube)
6:46 - Two references, running off to Las Vegas is a reference to the Saved By the Bell Wedding after the "College Years" show (wiki)
The second reference to moving to Beverly Hills is because Tiffani Thiessen joined the cast of Beverly Hills 90210 after Saved By The Bell.
7:08 - And "Zack Attack" was of course an episode of Saved By The Bell (youtube)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)