This is one of the main reasons that I started the trailers community. There absolutely are unique, original films being released all the time, they just rarely get noticed. I hope that surfacing their trailers right along side the big boys will help get them in front of curious audiences.
I wrote that as a former movie theater usher. I literally did that job. You regularly clean up giant messes. Kids matinees were always the messiest. That is the job. When you aren’t cleaning auditoriums, you’re cleaning toilets, the lobby, polishing the brass on the stanchions, etc. There’s literally no idle time being stolen by this work.
It’s fine.
This Minecraft business is fine. It’s no different than any afternoon kids movie matinee (ie: Paw Patrol; something that only kids are interested in). The mess that ends up on the floor is sold at a 99% profit margin and anyone who understands the finances of running a theater gives zero fucks about that product getting wasted. I can’t imagine any upset patron getting stiffed on a free screening to compensate for it, either.
At this stage, theater owners are hungry for literally anything that sells tickets and puts butts in seats. Fuck it; let the kids have fun at the movies.
It’ll admit that it’s a very low-content teaser, not a trailer. Just a bunch of background and reference art to whet the appetite. The series is still a long long way off.
I’m not sure “swap” is quite the right word for it. Effects can be used to drastically reduce the risks for performers, which already happens. Stunt performers wear harnesses and safety wires for high falls that get digitally painted out. Functioning guns with blanks can be replaced by non-functioning guns that have muzzle flash effects added later (though I still don’t know how to accurately depict recoil). I would like to see awards going towards innovations in these areas.
That said, I’m not sure how to properly honor stunt performers for the risks and sacrifices asked of them without encouraging more people to do it.
Idiots will hurt themselves doing stunts for cheap too without the prestige. The “Big” stunts are actually usually safer as they have more people knowing what they are doing.
Having a prize for stunts encourages more low budget unsafe stunt work too as people take risks to increase their prestige to get the bigger gigs.
I don’t deny that stunt work demands immense talent and effort and risk. Just like a performance artist who does five-finger filet really fast for money. But is it moral to give out accolades for it?
Would it be better to look at ourselves and say “Woah, this is fucked up. It’s fucked up that it’s happening and it’s fucked up that I’m entertained by it. What can I do to encourage less of this in the world?”
Oh dear.
The stunt arms race is officially on. That means bigger stunts, more danger, and more people getting hurt to chase the big shiny prize they just created.
The safe and humane way forward here was better digital effects. This change will literally mame and kill people who didn’t have to get hurt.
I’d be 400% more interested if Ernest P. Worrell showed up on my watch.
This is all helpful and very good to keep front-of-mind while interviewing, but I imagine all but the most obtuse hiring managers are going to know how to not ask these kinds of questions. What I think would be an insightful follow-up to this article is how, as a hiring manager, to spot transphobic assessments after an interview panel/round has taken place.
When interviewing in the tech field, it’s common to go through several rounds of interviews: one interview with an HR representative to sniff-test the candidate and ensure compensation expectations are in-line, one interview with the hiring manager to see if they think you’re a good fit for a full interview loop, then the full interview loop itself (3-6 individual interviews with potential coworkers assessing various aspects of your talents). After that interview loop, the interviewers all meet to discuss how you did and share their assessments. The flaw here is that there’s no verification that any particular interviewer is providing a fair or accurate assessment; you just have their word. If an interviewer is made uncomfortable by my appearance, they can claim that I didn’t answer questions correctly, or that I didn’t speak with sufficient confidence and authority, or any other kind of misrepresentation or half-truth and no one would be the wiser.
Hiring managers should have tools in their toolbelt to spot indicators of this. The biggest red flag I’ve seen is if the interviewer refuses to use the candidate’s name or pronouns when sharing their assessments, like speaking in lists or incomplete sentences. Instead of saying “Susan didn’t seem like she was adequately prepared for this interview,” they might say “Wasn’t ready for the interview. We don’t need people like this.”
There’s more stuff like this: body language, not being able to produce notes on the interview, etc.
I wonder if Transvitae takes article submissions.
I’m sure Dunkey will be happy about the Animal Well plug.
I believe so, but they’re going to use the public tweet to argue that the tip was public. “It’s not insider trading if it’s all out in the open.”
Mafioso shit.
He’s deliberately manipulating stock prices on a massive scale. And his administration controls the regulators who would be policing this.
End of story.
Even using GhostArchive, the medium article is cut off after a few paragraphs. :(
See also the July 4 2022 cover of the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2022-07-04
I don’t like Elon Musk either, but Cox and 404 are awful close to libel with that headline. They’re talking about a person who goes by the online identity “ElonmuskWHM”, not Elon Musk himself.
Loves, your journalism is strong; you don’t need to do that shit.
Regular Car Reviews had some genuine signature insight on this…
https://youtube.com/shorts/DetsWY3e99w
“Yumyumyumyum, these boots taste amazing!”
I’m watching the subtitled version and don’t speak Japanese, but I get the sense that the rapid-fire dialogue may be serving some fun comedic timing that doesn’t translate via subtitles. The first episode had a frenetic energy that seemed to jive with that kind of tone.
But this second episode, oof. The charm wore off fast, and the entire purpose seemed to just be a dumping ground for Azu to treat everyone like a gigantic turd while the entire cast absorbed it and never reacted. That’s a lot of lost opportunities for character moments.
I will give the show at least one more episode purely to see where they’re going with this Azu plot twist.
Anime Feminist right now: 😬