Exactly, it was absolutely meant to be Johansson's voice
1,215 karma · joined November 17, 2010
You don't.
I've walked into every startup with big promises of stock compensation highly cynical about seeing any of that equity, ever.
Unless the cash is sitting in your account, it doesn't exist.
He steps into 'problematic' occasionally with the 'make people do things for money' but generally it's all pretty inoffensive fun.
Encouraged? Huh? We spent YEARS splitting logic from presentation and not describing presentation with visual characteristics.
This is a terrible idea.
I'm a fan (her latest work with Bon Iver and the National is great) but yes, there's no one else in the world exploiting the music industry right now quite like Taylor
"never ever trust the client"
Ritalin fundamentally changes my approach to life, allows me to present and focused in ways I've never experienced before, and have since come to realise I'd been missing my whole life
> the failure of this Apple product is going to be a big turning point for the company
and then Apple go on to make a billion dollars on it?
> Users can create a Personal Voice by reading along with a randomized set of text prompts to record 15 minutes of audio on iPhone or iPad.
That's a monumental software feature to deliver on a consumer device, with massive potential, but there it is, as just another dot point
It's in OP's favor; we tend to be more easily employable because we can step into roles with admittedly less of the impact that someone with dedicated skills in that area, but having advantage the breadth of the work we can do is wider.
We're cross-disciplinary, usually not academically educated, and tend to look at problems differently because we'll have a more diverse experience.
I think it'll be TikTok
(I never knew the name of it until recently, but it's called "The Stockade Paradox" https://bigthink.com/health/stockdale-paradox-confronting-re...
for context, that's when a "a couple hundred comments" was as big as "a couple of thousand/tens of thousands" of comments is now.
Slashdot was the centre of the (tech) internet for a long time.
I had reservations about it, and I was surprised how much I liked it and how on board I was with it.
I mean, it's not perfect, the third act is soft and there are plot-holes you can drive a truck through, but that wasn't the point and once I settled that, I found myself really enjoying it.
I honestly think I'd have been more down on it trying to be just another "Matrix" film
it's not spite. She didn't "sink" it because she was spiteful, she wanted to say something about the films and her work and chose to deconstruct the act of making a sequel to a trilogy after 20 years. It's their art, they can do what they want with it.
Their work since Matrix has always been avant-guard (Cloud Atlas is barely a film in any normal sense, a Speed Racer film by anyone else isn't _that_) they were never coming back to make another stock science-fiction action film.
The real question is, how did Warner green-light the script and release knowing that it was going say all those things.
sorry, yeah I agree, this is a better way of saying that
WB's been in pre-production on a new Matrix for years now, and maybe she saw the opportunity to use it.
----
I think people have fallen into two camps, and it depends how you saw the first film. I loved Matrix, not for the wire-fu, gunplay and special effects, but for all the subtext and "simulacra and simulation" of it all. It was film that very cleverly pulled together a lot concepts that had been done in 90s cinema about depersonification, reality and identity and presented them in an incredibly unique way.
If you liked Matrix for the wire-fu gunplay, Resurrections isn't your film, it does spend most of its time "shitting on the original" but that was the point. It's a deconstruction of "genre cinema" rebooting/remaking their successes to re-engage and revive a franchise.
The movies and the production of them? Yes.
The concept and story? No.
> Did she honestly ruin it on purpose?
Yes. I think she did.
That.
Not so much a "troll", but there's a scene in the first act that literally lays out the entire premise of the production and the creator's feelings about feeling forced to do it.
There are "lampshade hanging" fourth-wall breaks in the production meeting scenes that make Deadpool look conservative.
The Wachowskis didn't want to do more Matrix. Warner were going to do more Matrix regardless, so Lana Wachowski decided to do it herself and use it to deconstruct both their own movies and reboot/nostalgia cinema in general (looking at you Force Awakens, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Space Jam et al)