This month has had the ups and downs of movies doing well in theaters or struggling. Not a shocker. But it could be a sign that the new decade may begin with not many checking out specific movies.
Some of the biggest failures were films such as Richard Jewell and Cats. I saw Jewell failing because of the subject matter and not knowing what exactly was the truth. I don't think politics played a role. Cats is one of those ideas that bringing a musical play to the big screen would be good. Universal has had some hits with musicals in recent memory and more than likely thought they had a good spot to do strong. They are going to lose millions on it.
Sequels like Star Wars and Jumanji are still films people will fawn over and anticipate the next big release. So far, Star Wars has done okay, but how much people are still on the bandwagon for it, that's what I'm looking at. Last year I talked about oversaturation and fatigue. I think we're seeing it even though it's only been out for less than two weeks. Not to the level of Solo, but still. The amount of success Jumanji has had these last two years, it's a surprise to revive a modest success the 1995 original had. Maybe ditching a storyline helps? As long as it doesn't get too sequel happy.
Then you have films like Uncut Gems and Little Women. Uncut Gems helps a little bit with Adam Sandler and a few other people like Kevin Garnett being in it. A crime thriller, something you don't see too often. While it debuted a strong opening weekend, whether it has legs is another question for A24, which is still a very small company despite growing and getting into television. Little Women is more of a smaller budget adaptation of a book that hasn't seen a film adaptation in a very long time. With critical acclaim at the moment, it enjoyed a good five day debut. These are the kind of films we need as we rely too much on tent pole releases
Smaller releases around this time are getting wide releases soon. Just Mercy and 1917 are just a few example. VHYes is something I am genuinely curious about and hopefully it goes wide after its release in mid January. We need that healthy mix of small films and the big ones as 2020 begins. Something like a Bad Boys or a Birds of Prey. You have to hope Hollywood knows what kind of dark future it could have for a year or so as people continue to go towards the streaming route and watching more and more movies at home.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Minor League Downsize
I personally think Bud Selig ruined baseball, but what Rob Manfred plans to do will be even worse.
The last month and a half has seen a lot of displeasure towards Manfred. His ideas are to after the 2020 season, get rid of 42 minor league baseball teams from all over the country. It includes a ballpark in Florida named after the great Jackie Robinson. Both sides, him and Minor League Baseball, are at war. Manfred has criticized the complaints and may look to get rid of all of the minors. I don't think he would do that, but not the best choice of words.
Minor league players don't make a lot and from reading articles, pay raises are a concern. But is eliminating teams the option? No. Because you not only kill those teams, you kill a lot of futures. Some of the potential superstars may not have any other chance to make a name in the majors. A guy like Peter Alonso may not have gotten his opportunity if it wasn't for the minors the last couple of years prior to this year. Not only that, but you get rid of employees who work there and the numbers combined go into the thousands with the cut teams.
Towns can be affected. It is a source of revenue and losing a team could affect a bottom line and budget for said town. Major league teams suffer since not everyone has a huge payroll. Farm systems exist so some of the smaller teams can develop their guys and have them ready in a couple years. A team like the Marlins would not survive. But what also hurts are families. Not everyone is going to spend more than 500 dollars to go to a MLB game. A minor league game will set you back close to or around 100 for a family of four in terms of tickets, parking, and food, and that's not including a gift shop. Or locals that watch the games every day. You never know.
The MLB relies too much on crotchety old men to run the league. There has to be better options than cutting minor league teams. Manfred knows that, but doesn't want to admit it. If they want to fix their attendance issues, get teams to not price ridiculous ticket prices. The average person does not have funds to go to one of the big name teams' game. Advertise to kids and teenagers. Stop relying on 60 year olds who want their Viagra or Budweiser commercials. The NBA and NFL don't have issues catering to almost every demographic. Maybe MLB can learn a thing or two from them in terms of the game and social media.
The last month and a half has seen a lot of displeasure towards Manfred. His ideas are to after the 2020 season, get rid of 42 minor league baseball teams from all over the country. It includes a ballpark in Florida named after the great Jackie Robinson. Both sides, him and Minor League Baseball, are at war. Manfred has criticized the complaints and may look to get rid of all of the minors. I don't think he would do that, but not the best choice of words.
Minor league players don't make a lot and from reading articles, pay raises are a concern. But is eliminating teams the option? No. Because you not only kill those teams, you kill a lot of futures. Some of the potential superstars may not have any other chance to make a name in the majors. A guy like Peter Alonso may not have gotten his opportunity if it wasn't for the minors the last couple of years prior to this year. Not only that, but you get rid of employees who work there and the numbers combined go into the thousands with the cut teams.
Towns can be affected. It is a source of revenue and losing a team could affect a bottom line and budget for said town. Major league teams suffer since not everyone has a huge payroll. Farm systems exist so some of the smaller teams can develop their guys and have them ready in a couple years. A team like the Marlins would not survive. But what also hurts are families. Not everyone is going to spend more than 500 dollars to go to a MLB game. A minor league game will set you back close to or around 100 for a family of four in terms of tickets, parking, and food, and that's not including a gift shop. Or locals that watch the games every day. You never know.
The MLB relies too much on crotchety old men to run the league. There has to be better options than cutting minor league teams. Manfred knows that, but doesn't want to admit it. If they want to fix their attendance issues, get teams to not price ridiculous ticket prices. The average person does not have funds to go to one of the big name teams' game. Advertise to kids and teenagers. Stop relying on 60 year olds who want their Viagra or Budweiser commercials. The NBA and NFL don't have issues catering to almost every demographic. Maybe MLB can learn a thing or two from them in terms of the game and social media.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Thursday, December 26, 2019
BeastMode Returns Returns
What better way to invoke memories of the past? It's been official the last few days, but Marshawn Lynch returns to football and also returns to Seattle for the first time in almost four years. This comes after Chris Carson was ruled out the rest of the season with a hip injury. He better be ready because the competition for the playoffs is a high stakes one. Seattle wins, they get the second or third seed. I forget.
Lynch was one of the big reasons the Seahawks had one of the best run games for the first half of the 2010s. Notably the playoff game against New Orleans. Running for 60 plus yards and barreling over the Saints defense, creating an earthquake like environment from the noise. The best years came towards the end and he was also able to receive a little bit and catch some passes for touchdowns. A lot of good despite the health issues in 2015.
I wonder why it took so long to get Lynch back on the field. Surely, he would have been a fit on other teams. With issues on teams like Tampa, Arizona, and Miami, he would have been an X factor for those organizations. His return to Seattle should help build his resume for what could be a Hall of Fame career, but I don't know. Time to show his worth. Seattle better be ready and carve San Francisco up if they want that home game.
Lynch was one of the big reasons the Seahawks had one of the best run games for the first half of the 2010s. Notably the playoff game against New Orleans. Running for 60 plus yards and barreling over the Saints defense, creating an earthquake like environment from the noise. The best years came towards the end and he was also able to receive a little bit and catch some passes for touchdowns. A lot of good despite the health issues in 2015.
I wonder why it took so long to get Lynch back on the field. Surely, he would have been a fit on other teams. With issues on teams like Tampa, Arizona, and Miami, he would have been an X factor for those organizations. His return to Seattle should help build his resume for what could be a Hall of Fame career, but I don't know. Time to show his worth. Seattle better be ready and carve San Francisco up if they want that home game.
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
Geeks and Jocks Episode 24
Episode 24 up and running on Anchor.fm
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj/episodes/Geeks-and-Jocks-Episode-24-End-of-2019-e9p0hm
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj/episodes/Geeks-and-Jocks-Episode-24-End-of-2019-e9p0hm
Monday, December 23, 2019
The Lore of: Life is Strange
Going through a demo known as The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit and the release of Before the Storm, I kind of get it. Life is Strange is masterful so far in its young existence to create stories that are more grounded than you realize. But how much do they understand people regardless of age? Quite a bit. A warning though as I will be spoiling parts of the game, so bear with me. And I'm no expert on any of this. If you haven't played any of these three games, try them out.
The biggest one of the bunch is through the rebellious Chloe Price, appearing in the original and Storm. I wasn't sure if I was going to like Storm because of her attitude in the first game. She can be a bit rough. But that is more of a rough first impression on the saddle. When you go through Storm, she is a bit more likeable and you make sense of why she is like this and how she handles life a couple years after her father's death. I've had friends lose direct family members and I can't imagine if they played this, they would be crying. As such, it triggers a painful realization in the first game that her good friend Rachel Amber, who is more prominent in Storm, was killed. Although not addressed, I would figure it triggered bad memories of her dad.
As far as other characters go, it varies throughout. From the first game, one of the biggest examples is Kate Marsh. A highlight is saving her from suicide in Episode 2 if you can. Bullying is a part of school and it bothers me to say that. You can be bullied or be a bully. I've been both and it's not something to be proud. Hell, I regret being a dick at times. But the way bullying is now with viral video, it makes me glad I was a 90s/2000s kid. With that in mind, no one should go through what Kate did. Getting drugged up and humiliated all over the world. In the real world, kids have died from the humiliation. And it's something that no one stops or tries to help. Episode 2 had a hotline setup in case any one had the same feelings as Kate. I can't think of anything else other than intervening, but even that could have consequences.
I view Nathan Prescott as a villain, but not severely. I felt bad for him since he has pressure in him from the school and his father in the original and Storm. There's always that kid who stresses over how they are in a school setting.You got to have some sympathy. The same can be said for David Madsen in terms of sympathy. Military guys don't always transition to everyday citizens after several tours of duty on foreign countries. Like Chloe, he is rough, but you make sense of it when you play Storm and the end of the original. With Rachel, it's all about secrecy, which I can understand. Some people don't give a shit and would rather do other things than take care of her. It made me think of my own life a little bit and when playing Captain Spirit. Out of all my siblings, I have a deadbeat sister, who's never gave any care about me or anyone else, who would rather drink, get drugged up, party, and fuck any thug she meets instead of caring for her kids. So much selfishness.
But the similarities with Rachel, I can kind of see in Captain Spirit in a different way. Chris Eriksen tries to live life with his dad a couple years after his mother was killed in a car accident. But the dad, Charles, griefs in bad ways like drinking and implied abuse. Towards the end, kind of blaming Chris for his mother getting killed, but regretting that. Regardless of who it is, it's difficult to not have someone around. I don't see them trying to paint Charles as truly evil, but it paints one of the darkest realities, and its something kids, regardless of age, have to deal with. They may or may not have the imagination of Chris to cope, but it may not always be enough. It's enough to make any gamer cry and trigger anything painful for people who have experienced abuse at any point.
That's why Life is Strange works. Not everyone gets the ending they deserve. They have their pros and cons and they delve deep into some of these individuals. It creates a world where there is beauty, but also darkness at both corners. And it makes me wonder how I'll feel about Life is Strange 2. The last episode released a few weeks ago, and I've seen snippets of the first episode last year. It's going to be hard to top. But alas, I am a little hyped on trying it out and seeing the culture it creates through its two brothers.
The biggest one of the bunch is through the rebellious Chloe Price, appearing in the original and Storm. I wasn't sure if I was going to like Storm because of her attitude in the first game. She can be a bit rough. But that is more of a rough first impression on the saddle. When you go through Storm, she is a bit more likeable and you make sense of why she is like this and how she handles life a couple years after her father's death. I've had friends lose direct family members and I can't imagine if they played this, they would be crying. As such, it triggers a painful realization in the first game that her good friend Rachel Amber, who is more prominent in Storm, was killed. Although not addressed, I would figure it triggered bad memories of her dad.
As far as other characters go, it varies throughout. From the first game, one of the biggest examples is Kate Marsh. A highlight is saving her from suicide in Episode 2 if you can. Bullying is a part of school and it bothers me to say that. You can be bullied or be a bully. I've been both and it's not something to be proud. Hell, I regret being a dick at times. But the way bullying is now with viral video, it makes me glad I was a 90s/2000s kid. With that in mind, no one should go through what Kate did. Getting drugged up and humiliated all over the world. In the real world, kids have died from the humiliation. And it's something that no one stops or tries to help. Episode 2 had a hotline setup in case any one had the same feelings as Kate. I can't think of anything else other than intervening, but even that could have consequences.
I view Nathan Prescott as a villain, but not severely. I felt bad for him since he has pressure in him from the school and his father in the original and Storm. There's always that kid who stresses over how they are in a school setting.You got to have some sympathy. The same can be said for David Madsen in terms of sympathy. Military guys don't always transition to everyday citizens after several tours of duty on foreign countries. Like Chloe, he is rough, but you make sense of it when you play Storm and the end of the original. With Rachel, it's all about secrecy, which I can understand. Some people don't give a shit and would rather do other things than take care of her. It made me think of my own life a little bit and when playing Captain Spirit. Out of all my siblings, I have a deadbeat sister, who's never gave any care about me or anyone else, who would rather drink, get drugged up, party, and fuck any thug she meets instead of caring for her kids. So much selfishness.
But the similarities with Rachel, I can kind of see in Captain Spirit in a different way. Chris Eriksen tries to live life with his dad a couple years after his mother was killed in a car accident. But the dad, Charles, griefs in bad ways like drinking and implied abuse. Towards the end, kind of blaming Chris for his mother getting killed, but regretting that. Regardless of who it is, it's difficult to not have someone around. I don't see them trying to paint Charles as truly evil, but it paints one of the darkest realities, and its something kids, regardless of age, have to deal with. They may or may not have the imagination of Chris to cope, but it may not always be enough. It's enough to make any gamer cry and trigger anything painful for people who have experienced abuse at any point.
That's why Life is Strange works. Not everyone gets the ending they deserve. They have their pros and cons and they delve deep into some of these individuals. It creates a world where there is beauty, but also darkness at both corners. And it makes me wonder how I'll feel about Life is Strange 2. The last episode released a few weeks ago, and I've seen snippets of the first episode last year. It's going to be hard to top. But alas, I am a little hyped on trying it out and seeing the culture it creates through its two brothers.
Sunday, December 22, 2019
End of Year Thoughts
We enter a new decade in almost a week. I'll give a few thoughts what I'll be doing for the blog during these final days of 2019.
The final YouTube Friday videos for the year will be done as always. No blogs will be made on Christmas Day or the New Year. I will still continue to go on about whatever comes into my mind. The Geeks and Jocks episode will be posted either the 24th or 26th, so keep your eyes on that.
I am pleased to see the small growth this year over last year and over 30,000 pageviews overall. Always nice to see some of those days where 100 is still an accomplishment. I expect bigger things for 2020. Hopefully, some followers. But this year has been better than what I thought it would have been.
Keep enjoying your holiday. New blog tomorrow.
The final YouTube Friday videos for the year will be done as always. No blogs will be made on Christmas Day or the New Year. I will still continue to go on about whatever comes into my mind. The Geeks and Jocks episode will be posted either the 24th or 26th, so keep your eyes on that.
I am pleased to see the small growth this year over last year and over 30,000 pageviews overall. Always nice to see some of those days where 100 is still an accomplishment. I expect bigger things for 2020. Hopefully, some followers. But this year has been better than what I thought it would have been.
Keep enjoying your holiday. New blog tomorrow.
Friday, December 20, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Afterlife: New Ghostbusters
I'll be the first to admit I'm not a huge fan of Ghostbusters. The original is a fun movie, but very overrated. It's second film was okay and I have no incentive of watching the 2016 version. But this Afterlife one, I might think about it, but the trailer leaves me with questions.
Does this movie know what it's trying to do? It played off like a serious drama instead of being wacky. I assume judging by it, it's about the late Egon Spengler's grandkids and finding all the stuff he used to do in the 80s. A professor is enthralled about it along with the history and things occur to where they have to save the day. It's being done by Jason Reitman, who has forged his own directing career like his father Ivan, who directed the first two movies. There is that sense of relief that someone who is acquainted with the projects will have a sense on what to do.
But the seriousness is a little jarring and I wonder if there is a false first impression. It doesn't come out until July, so I figure there will be a new trailer at some point towards the end of winter or early spring. They didn't go overboard with showing off the special effects. Maybe it could be more story focused. I don't know. But at least on paper, it continues on in terms of continuity, similar to what's happening with Cobra Kai the last few years. I'm rambling a bit with regards to this trailer from last week, but it's one of those things that has a make it or break type of scenario.
Columbia has been on a path of looking at projects and doing sequels/reboots. Bad Boys 4 Life is due in January. Jumanji did well with the third film's opening weekend. Charlie's Angels was a big flop. A new Grudge film comes out just as the new year begins. The need to make other original films is needed, but you can't blame them for doing some of these sequels/reboots. There is an audience that is hungering for another adventure with the same characters. Ghostbusters should headline the summer very well, but whether the audience is ready for it, that's what I'm going to wait and see about.
Does this movie know what it's trying to do? It played off like a serious drama instead of being wacky. I assume judging by it, it's about the late Egon Spengler's grandkids and finding all the stuff he used to do in the 80s. A professor is enthralled about it along with the history and things occur to where they have to save the day. It's being done by Jason Reitman, who has forged his own directing career like his father Ivan, who directed the first two movies. There is that sense of relief that someone who is acquainted with the projects will have a sense on what to do.
But the seriousness is a little jarring and I wonder if there is a false first impression. It doesn't come out until July, so I figure there will be a new trailer at some point towards the end of winter or early spring. They didn't go overboard with showing off the special effects. Maybe it could be more story focused. I don't know. But at least on paper, it continues on in terms of continuity, similar to what's happening with Cobra Kai the last few years. I'm rambling a bit with regards to this trailer from last week, but it's one of those things that has a make it or break type of scenario.
Columbia has been on a path of looking at projects and doing sequels/reboots. Bad Boys 4 Life is due in January. Jumanji did well with the third film's opening weekend. Charlie's Angels was a big flop. A new Grudge film comes out just as the new year begins. The need to make other original films is needed, but you can't blame them for doing some of these sequels/reboots. There is an audience that is hungering for another adventure with the same characters. Ghostbusters should headline the summer very well, but whether the audience is ready for it, that's what I'm going to wait and see about.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
How The Simpsons at 30 Tick.
Today is 30 years to the day the very first episode of The Simpsons aired. Granted it didn't air weekly episodes until mid-January 1990, but the Christmas episode was the introduction of America's animated family. It also gave Fox some recognition beyond Married... With Children. As it grew, it was this, Cops, Beverly Hills 90210, Martin, Melrose Place, The X Files and other short and long term shows prior to gaining the NFL rights that the network became a big deal.
Why people still tune in 30 years later is the dynamics of the title name's family. Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie all their quirks and moments that create interesting storylines. When it was brand new, they were a regular family and it was a very realistic show before slowing becoming more of a cartoon after the third season. Money troubles, mainly. Marriage on the rocks. Of course, there's the Treehouse of Horror episodes.
Springfield in general is a beacon for writers to create stuff. Tons of episodes dedicated to Ned Flanders, Krusty, the late Edna Krabappel. Just to name some of the characters who had their moments to shine. Apu and his family. The Hibberts, Sideshow Bob, Mr. Burns. Lots of funny visual moments. Great one liners and one off dialogues. I would argue that even the worst episodes can get you to laugh at least once. I haven't watched much of the show in the last 10 years, but I could probably watch one and find something to chuckle over.
I would say we are in a third generation of writers that are involved with The Simpsons. One of my criticisms is that they don't age the characters. That is something I wish they would have done. Stories of the kids as teenagers would have helped in setting up plots and other approaches to humor. The political side will have a lot of mileage may vary moments. The first few seasons is the same thing, but in regards to animation and fleshing out the characters. By the time the second season was finished, it was where it was with giving them their identities.
I do think the show will end at some point. I'd guess sometime in the new decade. But even with the big episode list, it would still be in my top three greatest shows ever. Only those writers and producers will know when to hang it up.
Why people still tune in 30 years later is the dynamics of the title name's family. Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie all their quirks and moments that create interesting storylines. When it was brand new, they were a regular family and it was a very realistic show before slowing becoming more of a cartoon after the third season. Money troubles, mainly. Marriage on the rocks. Of course, there's the Treehouse of Horror episodes.
Springfield in general is a beacon for writers to create stuff. Tons of episodes dedicated to Ned Flanders, Krusty, the late Edna Krabappel. Just to name some of the characters who had their moments to shine. Apu and his family. The Hibberts, Sideshow Bob, Mr. Burns. Lots of funny visual moments. Great one liners and one off dialogues. I would argue that even the worst episodes can get you to laugh at least once. I haven't watched much of the show in the last 10 years, but I could probably watch one and find something to chuckle over.
I would say we are in a third generation of writers that are involved with The Simpsons. One of my criticisms is that they don't age the characters. That is something I wish they would have done. Stories of the kids as teenagers would have helped in setting up plots and other approaches to humor. The political side will have a lot of mileage may vary moments. The first few seasons is the same thing, but in regards to animation and fleshing out the characters. By the time the second season was finished, it was where it was with giving them their identities.
I do think the show will end at some point. I'd guess sometime in the new decade. But even with the big episode list, it would still be in my top three greatest shows ever. Only those writers and producers will know when to hang it up.
Monday, December 16, 2019
YouTube COPPA Update And More
We're only a couple weeks away from changes that will happen with YouTube when the new year begins. I am by no means a lawyer, so here's what I've thought about in regards to this whole situation from watching videos and reading articles on this.
I don't see the FTC targeting nearly everyone that does videos as some YouTubers have said. There has to be huge concrete evidence to show that content is directly for kids. But the FTC is not forcing YouTube to do a multitude of things in order to comply with the rules they broke back in September. The one thing they were told to do is have content creators say whether this stuff is for kids or not. But both sides still have to figure out what exactly is for kids because most don't know.
They are not going to fine people 42,000 dollars for each video, either. They are going to look and review them. I'll assume they will target obvious red flags. The FTC does know that adults will watch old cartoons and it will be a case by case basis. They know about video games to a point as mentioned in some videos. It does come off as a gray area type of scenario. I believe they will target Minecraft, modern Nintendo games, Fortnite, and a few other games that are hot along with specific aspects that might be construed as targeting kids. They are aware that just because there's bright colors, it doesn't mean you will automatically be in trouble. I don't think they will target small channels like me and many others, but who knows.
One dreadful aspect again is the algorithm. I've said it before, but it typically doesn't work for YouTube. This kind of mechanism can make a lot of false positives for stuff that doesn't fall into the made for kids area. I know some want a mixed audience button, but I'm not sure if its possible. Not because they refuse, but because how much of your audience is for adults and kids. I'm not sure if it could work. Also, making videos made for kids non-existent will make things worse and kids trying to find content will be troublesome. And not every content creator wants to make adult videos. By that, anything that could be for teens and up.
YouTube has also worked on updating their harassment policies. They are focusing on video creators who insult people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and it doesn't matter whether the person is famous or not. I think they are looking for the extreme type of people, but it will trickle down to many "ranters" who think they have the freedom to say whatever they want in their video. I'm sure they'll target a lot of comments, whether it's from content creators or not. There's a difference between speaking your thoughts and getting into hate speech. I'm willing to bet most are in the latter. And that's why they are frustrated. YouTube has to police content. They're sterilizing it, but if they want people to keep coming, they have to abide by stuff and work on fixing things. Only now are they trying to make the site better in terms of avoiding hate controversy.
I don't have much else to talk about. I don't think most people will be in trouble with COPPA, but some clarifications could help. And the harassment type videos and content is kind of a necessary thing to look at and remove. Especially with the election in less than a year, we don't need nut jobs on both sides. Hopefully a healthier YouTube is the goal for 2020.
I don't see the FTC targeting nearly everyone that does videos as some YouTubers have said. There has to be huge concrete evidence to show that content is directly for kids. But the FTC is not forcing YouTube to do a multitude of things in order to comply with the rules they broke back in September. The one thing they were told to do is have content creators say whether this stuff is for kids or not. But both sides still have to figure out what exactly is for kids because most don't know.
They are not going to fine people 42,000 dollars for each video, either. They are going to look and review them. I'll assume they will target obvious red flags. The FTC does know that adults will watch old cartoons and it will be a case by case basis. They know about video games to a point as mentioned in some videos. It does come off as a gray area type of scenario. I believe they will target Minecraft, modern Nintendo games, Fortnite, and a few other games that are hot along with specific aspects that might be construed as targeting kids. They are aware that just because there's bright colors, it doesn't mean you will automatically be in trouble. I don't think they will target small channels like me and many others, but who knows.
One dreadful aspect again is the algorithm. I've said it before, but it typically doesn't work for YouTube. This kind of mechanism can make a lot of false positives for stuff that doesn't fall into the made for kids area. I know some want a mixed audience button, but I'm not sure if its possible. Not because they refuse, but because how much of your audience is for adults and kids. I'm not sure if it could work. Also, making videos made for kids non-existent will make things worse and kids trying to find content will be troublesome. And not every content creator wants to make adult videos. By that, anything that could be for teens and up.
YouTube has also worked on updating their harassment policies. They are focusing on video creators who insult people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and it doesn't matter whether the person is famous or not. I think they are looking for the extreme type of people, but it will trickle down to many "ranters" who think they have the freedom to say whatever they want in their video. I'm sure they'll target a lot of comments, whether it's from content creators or not. There's a difference between speaking your thoughts and getting into hate speech. I'm willing to bet most are in the latter. And that's why they are frustrated. YouTube has to police content. They're sterilizing it, but if they want people to keep coming, they have to abide by stuff and work on fixing things. Only now are they trying to make the site better in terms of avoiding hate controversy.
I don't have much else to talk about. I don't think most people will be in trouble with COPPA, but some clarifications could help. And the harassment type videos and content is kind of a necessary thing to look at and remove. Especially with the election in less than a year, we don't need nut jobs on both sides. Hopefully a healthier YouTube is the goal for 2020.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Sign says No Fighting Fans
I'd argue golf is a mental sport. You're in that zone and nothing is better than striking the ball and putting it in the cup. With tons of fans, you want to be like Happy Gilmore and want to strike other people, but like him, you can't. Hecklers can do whatever they want for the most part.
I'd see Patrick Reed's caddie getting suspended a little bit for this. And I'm talking more than just this match. Things got horrible when he beat up a fan and he is banned for tomorrow's President's Cup round. Kessler Karain has to show some restraint. Even he can't mess with fans. You could ask for removal of a fan. Davis Love did that in 2004 when one kept heckling "No Love" and the guy was gone.
Even more so than basketball and hockey, golfers are more vulnerable to visceral takedowns and all that. It's not ridiculous like in Happy where the heckler hits him with the car and blows up a TV tower, but it's up close and center. The toll it takes is enormous because one little thing can turn a day upside down. But you also have the ones that will cheer on when you go to the tee and when you have the round of your life, the support for you grows.
Terrible to hear what happened, but caddies have to be careful, too. Don't let the hecklers or fans bother them that much. Remove them quickly if they become a headache. Hopefully, it sets a reminder to some people not to do this.
I'd see Patrick Reed's caddie getting suspended a little bit for this. And I'm talking more than just this match. Things got horrible when he beat up a fan and he is banned for tomorrow's President's Cup round. Kessler Karain has to show some restraint. Even he can't mess with fans. You could ask for removal of a fan. Davis Love did that in 2004 when one kept heckling "No Love" and the guy was gone.
Even more so than basketball and hockey, golfers are more vulnerable to visceral takedowns and all that. It's not ridiculous like in Happy where the heckler hits him with the car and blows up a TV tower, but it's up close and center. The toll it takes is enormous because one little thing can turn a day upside down. But you also have the ones that will cheer on when you go to the tee and when you have the round of your life, the support for you grows.
Terrible to hear what happened, but caddies have to be careful, too. Don't let the hecklers or fans bother them that much. Remove them quickly if they become a headache. Hopefully, it sets a reminder to some people not to do this.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Streets of Grouchy Birds
As the 90s rolled along, I never was into PBS. When I did watch it, it wasn't for Sesame Street. It was mainly stuff like Wishbone, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and whatever they had at the time like the Carmen Sandiego game show. But I do understand how important Sesame was. I would argue that Mister Rogers was a lot more influential, but they both have their place in history.
But as time went on, there was a constant. Knowing that the late Caroll Spinney would continue to be the man behind both Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch. He was for the show from its inception in 1969 and stayed there until last year. Unfortunately, as the stories unfold, he suffered from dystonia, which took him not too long ago. I'm not the age of where late boomers and early Gen X people are, but I do think the show was part of their earliest memories. And I'm sure the same applies to Gen Y and the new generations of kids.
This guy was responsible for fleshing out Big Bird into someone kids could relate to. Heck, Spinney paid tribute as the 8-foot character at Jim Henson's memorial when Henson passed away in 1990. I never knew that until reading these articles. It tells how close knitted he was with the show and what it meant to be a cast member for some of these people that are no longer around. And as more of the original people around keep passing, it's easy to forget the legacies they forged just to make entertainment for kids and maybe learn a thing or two.
I do think Sesame Street still has its place in television. And the shift in programming for PBS has changed a bit over the last couple of years. It's even on HBO, which it has since 2015. With people ditching television and cutting the cord, regardless of this program, it does have am impact. While other kids networks may have their idea of fun, there still needs to be that balance in fun and education without it feeling like a school lesson. Without talent like Spinney, you don't something like Sesame air for that long. And hopefully, it still sticks around for a longer time.
But as time went on, there was a constant. Knowing that the late Caroll Spinney would continue to be the man behind both Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch. He was for the show from its inception in 1969 and stayed there until last year. Unfortunately, as the stories unfold, he suffered from dystonia, which took him not too long ago. I'm not the age of where late boomers and early Gen X people are, but I do think the show was part of their earliest memories. And I'm sure the same applies to Gen Y and the new generations of kids.
This guy was responsible for fleshing out Big Bird into someone kids could relate to. Heck, Spinney paid tribute as the 8-foot character at Jim Henson's memorial when Henson passed away in 1990. I never knew that until reading these articles. It tells how close knitted he was with the show and what it meant to be a cast member for some of these people that are no longer around. And as more of the original people around keep passing, it's easy to forget the legacies they forged just to make entertainment for kids and maybe learn a thing or two.
I do think Sesame Street still has its place in television. And the shift in programming for PBS has changed a bit over the last couple of years. It's even on HBO, which it has since 2015. With people ditching television and cutting the cord, regardless of this program, it does have am impact. While other kids networks may have their idea of fun, there still needs to be that balance in fun and education without it feeling like a school lesson. Without talent like Spinney, you don't something like Sesame air for that long. And hopefully, it still sticks around for a longer time.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Geeks and Jocks Episode 23
Episode 23 of the podcast is up on Anchor.
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj/episodes/Geeks-and-Jocks-Episode-23-Thin--Dumb--and-Fiery-e9em53
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj
https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj/episodes/Geeks-and-Jocks-Episode-23-Thin--Dumb--and-Fiery-e9em53
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
The Irishman Review
Gotta hand it to Martin Scorsese to work on another mob film based on a memoir. Wiseguy was adapted into Goodfellas back in 1990. That film may be the best mob film ever. The Irishman, adapted from the memoir, I Heard You Paint Houses, follows the story of the guy who claims to have killed union man Jimmy Hoffa. It's good, but it doesn't top a few of the director's other works.
The movie reflects around Frank Sheeran, played by Robert De Niro. A few cuts to his days at his old age, but we see a long chronicle beginning from his days as a driver delivering meat to places in the Northeast. On one of his drives, he meets Russell Bufalino and in one incident, is defended in court by Russell's lawyer cousin, William. Ultimately, Frank starts doing small things for the Bufalino crime family, no questions asked. As time goes on, he becomes involved with Hoffa by joining his union, helping the guy out. It becomes a crazy period as things spiral out of the control of the mobsters.
It feels very much like Goodfellas, but not as ridiculous. In fact, this film doesn't go killing a character every five minutes. They portray Frank as a very loyal person, doing tasks for Russell and trying to make Hoffa appear calm in meetings and in the public eye. The amount of violence is a bit restrained and saved for when it was necessary. De Niro does a great job acting in this film. I found Al Pacino to be a bit over the top with Hoffa. I don't know if it was his choice or not, but the yelling comes off similar to some of his later films. But Joe Pesci as Russell, this might be his best performance ever. Better than Tommy in Goodfellas. He has a strong demeanor. Serious about what he does, serious about being a leader of his crime family. Out of the three actors, I think he should win an Academy Award or Oscar.
The visual effects are very good for making De Niro and Pesci look younger. I was easily impressed with how much they made De Niro look like a 30 year old. As far as other characters go, the acting was strong. The cinematography was through the roof. Its score comprises of how the 50s through the 70s was like. My only concern for some would be the lengthy runtime, which is almost three and a half hours. Some parts did feel a little dragged on, especially some parts in the middle of it. I don't know how much truth there is, since it's hard to figure out what exactly happened to Hoffa. I didn't find Pacino to be that great as him. Passable, though.
If its still playing in the theater, I would give The Irishman a watch unless you have a Netflix subscription. Scorsese was still able to continue his brilliance as a filmmaker. A little weaker, but still a strong enough film with good production and mostly well acted people.
Score: 7.5 out of 10
The movie reflects around Frank Sheeran, played by Robert De Niro. A few cuts to his days at his old age, but we see a long chronicle beginning from his days as a driver delivering meat to places in the Northeast. On one of his drives, he meets Russell Bufalino and in one incident, is defended in court by Russell's lawyer cousin, William. Ultimately, Frank starts doing small things for the Bufalino crime family, no questions asked. As time goes on, he becomes involved with Hoffa by joining his union, helping the guy out. It becomes a crazy period as things spiral out of the control of the mobsters.
It feels very much like Goodfellas, but not as ridiculous. In fact, this film doesn't go killing a character every five minutes. They portray Frank as a very loyal person, doing tasks for Russell and trying to make Hoffa appear calm in meetings and in the public eye. The amount of violence is a bit restrained and saved for when it was necessary. De Niro does a great job acting in this film. I found Al Pacino to be a bit over the top with Hoffa. I don't know if it was his choice or not, but the yelling comes off similar to some of his later films. But Joe Pesci as Russell, this might be his best performance ever. Better than Tommy in Goodfellas. He has a strong demeanor. Serious about what he does, serious about being a leader of his crime family. Out of the three actors, I think he should win an Academy Award or Oscar.
The visual effects are very good for making De Niro and Pesci look younger. I was easily impressed with how much they made De Niro look like a 30 year old. As far as other characters go, the acting was strong. The cinematography was through the roof. Its score comprises of how the 50s through the 70s was like. My only concern for some would be the lengthy runtime, which is almost three and a half hours. Some parts did feel a little dragged on, especially some parts in the middle of it. I don't know how much truth there is, since it's hard to figure out what exactly happened to Hoffa. I didn't find Pacino to be that great as him. Passable, though.
If its still playing in the theater, I would give The Irishman a watch unless you have a Netflix subscription. Scorsese was still able to continue his brilliance as a filmmaker. A little weaker, but still a strong enough film with good production and mostly well acted people.
Score: 7.5 out of 10
Saturday, December 7, 2019
What it Takes to Review
I have helped with two system sites over the last few years and one site in a year and a half with reviewing games. But what does it take to get a game reviewed? What are the necessary steps to look good? Well, I'll tell you, and I think this will apply to anything in media.
1. Soak in your head. I would give it a little bit of time. Whether it's a few hours or a day, reflect. Think about what was good and what was bad. Was there stuff you appreciated? How high was the bar set? If it's a sequel or prequel, how does it stack up to its own franchise or its competition? Small or large criticisms? You got to account for all that.
2. Don't play fanboy. What I mean is be honest in your opinion. There is no reason to be gushing at every little thing. Talk what is good and go into reasons why you think it's that good or perfect. Go into detail. The same applies to the bad stuff. Don't go bashing for the sake bashing. Explain why something is horrendous. If you're going to compare, don't use it as a crutch for your review unless its necessary. It will bring out the fanboy in you.
3. Don't be different for the sake of being different. Going against the grain is not going to make you look cool. There's a reason a couple movie critics get shitted on for their opposite opinions. Much like the fanboy card, you should have reasons why you think differently. Even if people disagree in a venomous way, don't let it get into your head. If you can't, then you shouldn't be reviewing.
Those are just some of the reasons of what it takes to review. If you think there should be a part two, let me know.
1. Soak in your head. I would give it a little bit of time. Whether it's a few hours or a day, reflect. Think about what was good and what was bad. Was there stuff you appreciated? How high was the bar set? If it's a sequel or prequel, how does it stack up to its own franchise or its competition? Small or large criticisms? You got to account for all that.
2. Don't play fanboy. What I mean is be honest in your opinion. There is no reason to be gushing at every little thing. Talk what is good and go into reasons why you think it's that good or perfect. Go into detail. The same applies to the bad stuff. Don't go bashing for the sake bashing. Explain why something is horrendous. If you're going to compare, don't use it as a crutch for your review unless its necessary. It will bring out the fanboy in you.
3. Don't be different for the sake of being different. Going against the grain is not going to make you look cool. There's a reason a couple movie critics get shitted on for their opposite opinions. Much like the fanboy card, you should have reasons why you think differently. Even if people disagree in a venomous way, don't let it get into your head. If you can't, then you shouldn't be reviewing.
Those are just some of the reasons of what it takes to review. If you think there should be a part two, let me know.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Thursday, December 5, 2019
25 Years of Play
Tuesday the Third marked 25 years since the first PlayStation sold in Japan. It wouldn't be worldwide until the end of 1995 when it hit the States in September and later on in Europe. When you think about it, it is one of gaming's most consistent home consoles. The ability to have tons of support, sales, and companies behind it. You forget that Nintendo is one of the reasons why this exists.
The idea formed around the time the SNES was being made in Japan. Ken Kutaragi was instrumental in all this because he was interested in gaming. Ever think why the system had a good sound chip? Because of him. Plans were made to make an add-on capable of playing CD's and was unveiled in the early part of the 90s. But Nintendo began partnering with Philips to do stuff for their cd-I. It's a complicated story, but Nintendo still wanted Sony involved, but due to that partnership and Nintendo wanting full control of everything, Sony left and began working on PlayStation.
When you look at it, it strived for an audience that was more than kids. Sega had that idea with the Genesis at the start of the 90s, but Sony pushed that envelope further. But, it was able to get all audiences. Kids were able to play their Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, while adults could play Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil. The hardware was easy to make games. Companies figured out how to use CD's properly compared to earlier CD systems. Memory cards became the norm. System reliability has been a notorious issues. But Sony keeps chugging.
Without Sony, you don't see gaming as it is today. They are not the main reason for how it is, but it paved the way for how we look at stuff. I've been around for every home console with the exception of the PS3 (which I'm trying to make up for lost time). Getting them a few years after they released. The brand is still viable for gamers. And when PS5 shows up, it's going to continue one of the strongest names in all of gaming.
The idea formed around the time the SNES was being made in Japan. Ken Kutaragi was instrumental in all this because he was interested in gaming. Ever think why the system had a good sound chip? Because of him. Plans were made to make an add-on capable of playing CD's and was unveiled in the early part of the 90s. But Nintendo began partnering with Philips to do stuff for their cd-I. It's a complicated story, but Nintendo still wanted Sony involved, but due to that partnership and Nintendo wanting full control of everything, Sony left and began working on PlayStation.
When you look at it, it strived for an audience that was more than kids. Sega had that idea with the Genesis at the start of the 90s, but Sony pushed that envelope further. But, it was able to get all audiences. Kids were able to play their Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, while adults could play Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil. The hardware was easy to make games. Companies figured out how to use CD's properly compared to earlier CD systems. Memory cards became the norm. System reliability has been a notorious issues. But Sony keeps chugging.
Without Sony, you don't see gaming as it is today. They are not the main reason for how it is, but it paved the way for how we look at stuff. I've been around for every home console with the exception of the PS3 (which I'm trying to make up for lost time). Getting them a few years after they released. The brand is still viable for gamers. And when PS5 shows up, it's going to continue one of the strongest names in all of gaming.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Ron, I Have to Fire You
Kind of surprised. The Carolina Panthers have gotten rid of their head coach, Ron Rivera, after almost nine years of being with the team. I figured his job was on the line a little bit, but I didn't think he was in the hot seat that badly The outlook has been different and the disappointment over these last two seasons might have the been the ultimate reason for him being gone.
When he took over, he became the fourth coach in Panthers history since they started in 1995. That 2011 team was an improvement over an abysmal team a year ago, but still needed work. Improvements on defense and complimenting Cam Newton with competent players got them in the playoffs two years later. In came a five year stretch of making the playoffs four times, including a 2015 Super Bowl run that ended in a loss to the Denver Broncos. This year and last year have had high expectations, but have been disappointments.
You would think they would have gotten rid of Rivera last year. This year, they don't have Newton under center, and even he could be gone after this season. Lots of injuries on both sides of the ball. Playing with guys who aren't used to the workload. Tons of struggle on defense. Maybe the patience is wearing thin for the Panthers owner. You lose to lowly Washington, the hot seat gets hotter. What the new decade will bring for the 25 year team is uncertainty. They have players who can deliver. Can it come at the right time next year to give them a playoff push?
When he took over, he became the fourth coach in Panthers history since they started in 1995. That 2011 team was an improvement over an abysmal team a year ago, but still needed work. Improvements on defense and complimenting Cam Newton with competent players got them in the playoffs two years later. In came a five year stretch of making the playoffs four times, including a 2015 Super Bowl run that ended in a loss to the Denver Broncos. This year and last year have had high expectations, but have been disappointments.
You would think they would have gotten rid of Rivera last year. This year, they don't have Newton under center, and even he could be gone after this season. Lots of injuries on both sides of the ball. Playing with guys who aren't used to the workload. Tons of struggle on defense. Maybe the patience is wearing thin for the Panthers owner. You lose to lowly Washington, the hot seat gets hotter. What the new decade will bring for the 25 year team is uncertainty. They have players who can deliver. Can it come at the right time next year to give them a playoff push?
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Ford v Ferrari Review
I haven't done of these in over a month, but here we go. Flashy is always something used throughout the last century. Cars are one of those things. You can kind of see where Ford v Ferrari games. It's a test for Ford in the mid 60s as things are not as smooth sailing compared to their own soil and the world.
Ford is struggling and suggestions are made to buy out Ferrari, who are one of the leading companies in automobiles and the racing industry. The buyout fails, Fiat buys Ferrari, and Ford is left wondering what to do. They seek out Carroll Shelby to help with building a car that can withstand the 24 hour Le Mans race. Through thick and thin with tests, corporate red tape, and hot headed Ken Miles, the test is put to full effect within a few years span.
When you look at this, it is more than just a racing movie. It's about the efforts Ford was trying to do to stand out in the world and to rejuvenate a struggling company. With Shelby and Miles in the mix, they try to show what they are capable of to just about everyone. Miles putting the effort and even though at points being a guinea pig, having the knowledge to know what works and what doesn't. Shelby knowing how great his talent is despite Ford having issues with his driver. There is a lot of drama and a good focus on Miles because without him, you don't see how their race in 1966 goes. They are the underdogs throughout it.
The cinematography is amazing with the lighting and shot compositions. It hits the gas on being like the 60s with its score and getting a modern score in the last hour of it. Always amazing to hear movies in stereo and its used to full effect here in a lot of the driving scenes. Matt Damon and Christian Bale play Shelby and Miles very well, especially Bale. Only he can pull it off with that British accent. The rest of the cast add to the drama with great performances. There isn't a dull moment throughout it. The driving visual effects are not bad either. Very passable.
Ford v Ferrari is a little overrated, but it deserves its accolades. Definitely get a chance to see it in theaters. One of the more interesting stories.
Score: 8 out of 10
Ford is struggling and suggestions are made to buy out Ferrari, who are one of the leading companies in automobiles and the racing industry. The buyout fails, Fiat buys Ferrari, and Ford is left wondering what to do. They seek out Carroll Shelby to help with building a car that can withstand the 24 hour Le Mans race. Through thick and thin with tests, corporate red tape, and hot headed Ken Miles, the test is put to full effect within a few years span.
When you look at this, it is more than just a racing movie. It's about the efforts Ford was trying to do to stand out in the world and to rejuvenate a struggling company. With Shelby and Miles in the mix, they try to show what they are capable of to just about everyone. Miles putting the effort and even though at points being a guinea pig, having the knowledge to know what works and what doesn't. Shelby knowing how great his talent is despite Ford having issues with his driver. There is a lot of drama and a good focus on Miles because without him, you don't see how their race in 1966 goes. They are the underdogs throughout it.
The cinematography is amazing with the lighting and shot compositions. It hits the gas on being like the 60s with its score and getting a modern score in the last hour of it. Always amazing to hear movies in stereo and its used to full effect here in a lot of the driving scenes. Matt Damon and Christian Bale play Shelby and Miles very well, especially Bale. Only he can pull it off with that British accent. The rest of the cast add to the drama with great performances. There isn't a dull moment throughout it. The driving visual effects are not bad either. Very passable.
Ford v Ferrari is a little overrated, but it deserves its accolades. Definitely get a chance to see it in theaters. One of the more interesting stories.
Score: 8 out of 10
Monday, December 2, 2019
Above and Beyond: VR Medal of Honor
After the failure of Warfighter, the Medal of Honor series stopped in favor of Battlefield games, which were gaining steam on consoles at the start of the decade. While World War II may not be the choice today, it is very refreshing for some. Above and Beyond goes back to the series roots with Electronic Arts giving Respawn Entertainment control to develop it.
This was revealed back at the end of September, but this is going to be one of the big name titles for Oculus Rift heading into the new decade. Virtual reality has always been niche, but it has been growing for quite some time. Whether it reaches mainstream status is another topic for another day. But you are set in France, helping the Resistance against the Nazis. They have one of the original programmers of the early games on board and from the video uploaded, went out of their way for the authenticity, something those early games strived for.
Parts I was curious about are the ability to grab grenades and throw them back, having to reload weapons and using other objects. I'm guessing anything can be a weapon. What I hear and read is the single player, which is a strength the series has always had and potentially multiplayer, which every game has had. What I want to see more of is what kind of levels they have. It's nice to go back to France, but what can you do that hasn't been done already? That would be my biggest concern.
I would also like to see if this winds up on PlayStation VR or as a regular game for PS4 and Xbox One. While I think it will be a big deal on Rift, will people bite and get the system to play this? Only time will tell next year.
This was revealed back at the end of September, but this is going to be one of the big name titles for Oculus Rift heading into the new decade. Virtual reality has always been niche, but it has been growing for quite some time. Whether it reaches mainstream status is another topic for another day. But you are set in France, helping the Resistance against the Nazis. They have one of the original programmers of the early games on board and from the video uploaded, went out of their way for the authenticity, something those early games strived for.
Parts I was curious about are the ability to grab grenades and throw them back, having to reload weapons and using other objects. I'm guessing anything can be a weapon. What I hear and read is the single player, which is a strength the series has always had and potentially multiplayer, which every game has had. What I want to see more of is what kind of levels they have. It's nice to go back to France, but what can you do that hasn't been done already? That would be my biggest concern.
I would also like to see if this winds up on PlayStation VR or as a regular game for PS4 and Xbox One. While I think it will be a big deal on Rift, will people bite and get the system to play this? Only time will tell next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)