Poll of the Day > GeekHouse of Horror LXXII

(+) Yeah! (+)

Metalsonic66 posted...

Yes, that's why it's a weird coincidence

idk, if Will Ferrell died the same day as Alex Trebek, I'd find that a little coincidental (since Will played Alex in the sketch). But the SNL skit wouldn't even count as a connection in Six Degrees of Separation >_>

To each their own, I suppose.

---

Constantine 2 is happening, with Keanu and Peter Stormare.

https://screenrant.com/constantine-2-development-keanu-reeves-peter-stormare

---

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I finally saw Constantine a few years ago and it was alright, but it wasn't anywhere near as good as the tv show. And the movie did a halfway decent job of stitching things together by the end that I never felt that I wish it had a sequel.

I guess I'm more interested in it than some MCU and other DC projects, but that's not saying much.

---

Disagree on the show. It's not gritty enough. The only thing I like better about the show is they did a much better job making the main actor look like Constantine, but Keanu plays the part a million times better so I'll take that trade-off. And Peter Stormare as Lucifer was tits

---

The real question is.... will Shia Lebeouf return?

---

Far-Queue posted...

Disagree on the show. It's not gritty enough. The only thing I like better about the show is they did a much better job making the main actor look like Constantine, but Keanu plays the part a million times better so I'll take that trade-off. And Peter Stormare as Lucifer was tits

Nah.
---

Supposedly the Sandman Live action series that finally crawled its way out of Development Hell is going to feature Constantine pretty heavily, and would have to at least for the Preludes & Nocturnes arc.

I liked the Lucifer series, but it resembled the source material about as well as the Voynich Manuscript represents the world we all live in. Granted, as-written, Lucifer was pretty much unfilmable, but it sure as hell wasn't a Police Procedural in the GN's.

I would have been more than happy if Sandman had just gotten the DC Dark treatment as an animated series, and it sure as hell would have been a lot easier for all involved... but i guess after Lucifer, Good Omens, and American Gods, someone finally wanted to get in on that sweet, sweet Sandman itch.

its weird to me that Gaiman's projects are seeing Live Action treatments in more or less reverse-chronological order.

---

Far-Queue posted...

Constantine 2 is happening, with Keanu and Peter Stormare.

WHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY??!?!?!?!



Far-Queue posted...

Disagree on the show. It's not gritty enough. The only thing I like better about the show is they did a much better job making the main actor look like Constantine, but Keanu plays the part a million times better so I'll take that trade-off.

Other than the name, almost nothing about Keanu's performance has anything in common with the comic book character at all.

I'm not actually entirely against the movie, and I liked Tilda Swinton in her role, but if I was actually a fan of the original comics and wanted anything resembling the original character, story, or setting, I would have loathed it.

It feels like someone read an issue or two of Hellblazer once, then that person tried to explain what they read to someone else, who decided to make a movie about what they thought the book was about. Something about some guy named Constantine who did magic or something? Also, something something Satan something soul something lung cancer something?

Though it probably doesn't help that they deliberately chose to focus on Garth Ennis' run on the comic for the plot of the movie, because in general I consider almost all of Garth Ennis' work to be absolute shit.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY??!?!?!?!

You mean because it would be fifteen years after the first one and nobody had really been asking for a sequel? >_>

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I liked Tilda Swinton in her role,

Tilda was incredible. It was a kinda wonky casting choice that worked out weirdly well.

---

Zeus posted...

You mean because it would be fifteen years after the first one and nobody had really been asking for a sequel? >_>

Especially since the original only really sort of broke even, which makes it almost inevitable that a sequel would lose money. I'm not sure why any studio would look at it as something they want to do.

It would almost make sense if it became a super-popular cult hit (it didn't), or if ratings for the TV show were so high (they weren't) they thought they could make another go of it for a new audience, but I honestly can't see a single factor that would lead anyone to go "Yes, this is a money-making prospect we should immediately pursue!"
---

People are in love with Keanu right now. That's literally the only reason.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Especially since the original only really sort of broke even, which makes it almost inevitable that a sequel would lose money. I'm not sure why any studio would look at it as something they want to do.

It would almost make sense if it became a super-popular cult hit (it didn't), or if ratings for the TV show were so high (they weren't) they thought they could make another go of it for a new audience, but I honestly can't see a single factor that would lead anyone to go "Yes, this is a money-making prospect we should immediately pursue!"

It would probably make money if they did a reboot with Matt Ryan instead.
---

Revelation34 posted...

It would probably make money if they did a reboot with Matt Ryan instead.

Maybe. It's hard to say - because Constantine has never really been that popular of a character for mainstream audiences. Sure, the TV show had fans (and people who watch the CW shows may have enjoyed the fact that they brought him in to their crossovers), but execs are going to look at the ratings of the show (which almost never pulled more than 4 million viewers or so, and which got cancelled after a single season), and are going to compare that to what they want out of feature films (a HELL of a lot more than 4 million tickets sold), and they're not going to see dollar signs.

And it's hard to argue with them. There are plenty of comic characters who have hugely devoted fanbases within the niche world of comics, and who may even have had some popularity outside of them, but who completely crash and burn when someone attempts to adapt them to mainstream movies. It's the main reason why some characters are seen as being safer go-tos for TV than film in the first place.

I think Constantine as a concept is a bit of a hard-sell to the average audience no matter who you cast. It's why they cast someone like Keanu for the role in the first place - sure, he may cost viewers from the pool of devoted comic fans who hate how different he is from what they were expecting, but you're potentially pulling in even more viewers who wouldn't otherwise be interested in Constantine at all but want to see it because "that guy from The Matrix" is in it.

On a similar note, I think this is the same problem Hollywood has with the Sandman live-action film they've been trying to do since the 1980s, and why it hasn't happened yet - Sandman fans are EXTREMELY fanatical, but Gaiman's work in general is a real hard-sell to most people (see also, Stardust). It almost doesn't matter who you cast to direct, or who to star (even if you go full Goth and just get Tim Burton and Depp like people have been asking for for years), because it's going to alienate or confuse the majority of the potential audience. So you're almost better off doing it as a TV show or made-for-Netflix series that can succeed via far lower standards.

In the same vein, this is why Marvel is throwing every major character they have at the big screen, but still felt it was a better idea to keep Daredevil, Power Man and Iron Fist, and Jessica Jones on Netflix instead (and why WandaVision, Falcon/Winter Soldier, Moon Knight, Loki, and What If? are going straight to Disney+ instead of getting movies of their own - those are properties that can potentially succeed on the small-scale, but which would almost certain bomb HARD as films. Though I do question their judgment in trying to push Eternals and Inhumans (originally) as full feature films, because that feels like a disaster waiting to happen).
---

How would What If? even work as live action?
---

Revelation34 posted...

How would What If? even work as live action?

It's going to be animated.

JigsawTDC posted...

It's going to be animated.

That makes more sense.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

On a similar note, I think this is the same problem Hollywood has with the Sandman live-action film they've been trying to do since the 1980s, and why it hasn't happened yet - Sandman fans are EXTREMELY fanatical, but Gaiman's work in general is a real hard-sell to most people (see also, Stardust). It almost doesn't matter who you cast to direct, or who to star (even if you go full Goth and just get Tim Burton and Depp like people have been asking for for years), because it's going to alienate or confuse the majority of the potential audience. So you're almost better off doing it as a TV show or made-for-Netflix series that can succeed via far lower standards.

I really, REALLY think that if you wanted normie dollars going to the Lord Shaper Morpheus, Dream of the Endless, DC should have given him a DC Dark treatment first. Hope in Hell would have been a great story as a test case. The DC Dark Constantine and Etrigan would have been a perfect warming of the pot as established characters, DC Dark would get to take the real Lucifer out for a spin, and they could have saved themselves millions drawing the batshit visuals just about any Sandman story is going to require rather than doing it in practical and CGI.

really, they could have given the entire Sandman run a perfect implementation as a DC Dark animated series, the existing GNs are literally already storyboarded. there might be a few lesser arcs even DC Dark couldn't get away with (I suspect The Corinthian and Kindly ones, possibly Rose Walker might be hard sells even as Dark runs) and there's going to be issues with Delirium, Desire, and Despair in [current year]...but i think DC Dark would have been the perfect place to tell most of Gaiman's Sandman arcs without spending Millions just to cover Sleep of the Just.

---

LuciferSage posted...

I really, REALLY think that if you wanted normie dollars going to the Lord Shaper Morpheus, Dream of the Endless, DC should have given him a DC Dark treatment first.

I feel like the real problem is that -I'M- a huge comics nerd, a lit nerd, a fantasy nerd, and you'd think that I should be prime target for the audience, yet even I couldn't really get into Sandman.

Sandman kind of requires a very specific sort of reader in my opinion. I'm not really sure there IS a way to translate that into anything that would have mainstream appeal. If anything, it feels like the entire point of Sandman is to be more of an outsider work that literally could not exist in any mainstream sense. Like matter and antimatter.

It kind of feels to me that if anyone ever managed to make a version of Sandman that the mainstream was willing to accept, literally every existing Sandman fan would loathe it.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I feel like the real problem is that -I'M- a huge comics nerd, a lit nerd, a fantasy nerd, and you'd think that I should be prime target for the audience, yet even I couldn't really get into Sandman.

Sandman kind of requires a very specific sort of reader in my opinion. I'm not really sure there IS a way to translate that into anything that would have mainstream appeal. If anything, it feels like the entire point of Sandman is to be more of an outsider work that literally could not exist in any mainstream sense. Like matter and antimatter.

It kind of feels to me that if anyone ever managed to make a version of Sandman that the mainstream was willing to accept, literally every existing Sandman fan would loathe it.

to be fair PO, I've always gotten the vibe that you dislike Gaiman about as much as you hate Kevin Smith...so you might not be the best judge on this one.

---

Case in point, the Live Action Lucifer had zero resemblance to its Comics counterpart, be it under Gaiman, or Carey and it had legs on network TV, and a revival on Netflix...

Good Omens, and American Gods have had mostly positive runs.

there's like a half dozen Gaiman Novels at this point that have gotten movies...

...but you're right in some regard. Sandman has literally spent two decades in development hell for whatever reason.

even the deeply flawed Neverwhere got a BBC miniseries over 20 years ago, but Sandman has some sort of stink on it still despite literally being the gateway to Gaiman's popularity.

its a strange paradox.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

On a similar note, I think this is the same problem Hollywood has with the Sandman live-action film they've been trying to do since the 1980s, and why it hasn't happened yet - Sandman fans are EXTREMELY fanatical, but Gaiman's work in general is a real hard-sell to most people (see also, Stardust). It almost doesn't matter who you cast to direct, or who to star (even if you go full Goth and just get Tim Burton and Depp like people have been asking for for years), because it's going to alienate or confuse the majority of the potential audience. So you're almost better off doing it as a TV show or made-for-Netflix series that can succeed via far lower standards.

If nothing else, Keanu kinda has the right look for Dream >_>

ParanoidObsessive posted...

In the same vein, this is why Marvel is throwing every major character they have at the big screen, but still felt it was a better idea to keep Daredevil, Power Man and Iron Fist, and Jessica Jones on Netflix instead (and why WandaVision, Falcon/Winter Soldier, Moon Knight, Loki, and What If? are going straight to Disney+ instead of getting movies of their own - those are properties that can potentially succeed on the small-scale, but which would almost certain bomb HARD as films. Though I do question their judgment in trying to push Eternals and Inhumans (originally) as full feature films, because that feels like a disaster waiting to happen).

And honestly, fans often get far more out of a season of a show than they do a film. Three seasons or three movies? Pretty much a no-brainer.

LuciferSage posted...

to be fair PO, I've always gotten the vibe that you dislike Gaiman about as much as you hate Kevin Smith...so you might not be the best judge on this one.

I don't really fault anybody for Kevin Smith dislike. I've certainly really come to dislike Kevin Smith more and more as the years go on as well.

Likewise, I can kinda see (and mildly agree) that Gaimon is overrated. I still really like his work, though. Even the Gaimon stuff that's kinda shit is still fun... although his short story "Harlequin Valentine" was absolute shit (not sure in the comic was any better)

---

LuciferSage posted...

to be fair PO, I've always gotten the vibe that you dislike Gaiman about as much as you hate Kevin Smith...so you might not be the best judge on this one.

The problem there is twofold:

1) I don't really hate either of them - they've both done things I like, and at worst they've done stuff that leaves me cold. But it's not really a visceral thing - I'm more than capable of appreciating a given work outside of the context of the works I dislike. If someone asked me if I was a Kevin Smith fan, I wouldn't necessarily endorse his comic work (though I don't know any comic fans who would), or his more recent work (he's been kind of shit since he became a stoner and redirected most of his creative energy into podcasting), but I was a big fan of his early work (and I've enjoyed his stage work and podcasts in the past). I also never considered it an insult or anything when people online said my sense of humor reminded them of him (which I never personally saw in myself, but I always just attributed it to having the same style of snarky Jersey humor). With Gaiman, he's more poetic and allegorical fairy tale than I like at times, but he's definitely written stories I like (and I really loved "Only the End of the World Again").

2) If I DO dislike or outright hate a creator to the point that I'm dismissing the entirety of their work, it isn't something that magically happened overnight, where I just woke up one morning and said "Fuck it, I'm going to randomly and arbitrarily hate [insert person or thing here] today!" I'm actually relatively chill (people's perception of me here to the contrary), so if something has my disdain it's done something pretty significant to earn it. So "Well, you just hate so-and-so" really isn't a valid argument in anyone's defense, because the counter is "That just means they did something to cause me to hate them". If I knee-jerk dislike an entire creator's body of work solely because it IS their work, it's usually because every individual example of their work I've ever encountered has actively annoyed or turned me off in some way (and I feel like it's pretty obvious when I'm talking about people like that - Ennis, Ellis, and Millar all fall into that category... Gaiman, not so much). Don't mistake my passive disdain for a specific work for a more proactive and passionate dislike of an entire body of work - I'm definitely capable of saying "Well, I disliked X, but I enjoy Y, which is weird because so-and-so made both."

For that matter, I'm generally pretty good at the ability of separating creator from the creation, which seems like a skill the younger generation today is losing completely. I've seen way too many "X said/did something I disagree with, now I can never enjoy anything they've done ever again, even though I used to love it" type posts online recently, and it always just sort of leaves me with the impression that some people (mostly online, and mainly on Twitter) really need to get out of the house more, and stop being so incredibly oversensitive. It also makes me wonder how we managed to survive this long as a species when apparently everything ever is enough to trigger someone and sense them into a neurotic downward spiral of resentment and impotent rage. I can appreciate Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown as films without thinking about Polanski's murky criminality (or demanding they be removed from AFI film lists or other Best Ofs because morality trumps craft), I can watch The Usual Suspects without Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey's issues turning me off, all of the ridiculous drama between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard where it seems like they're both apparently terrible, terrible people doesn't make it hard to watch Pirates of the Carribean, and so on. I usually try to appreciate a work on its own merits, regardless of whether or not I radically agree with a creator's politics, ideology, life-choices, or whathaveyou. Because I kind of feel like reacting to every work based on the totality of your personal opinion of the creator means we'd have to do away with about 99% of all human history and art.

But aside from all that, when I say Sandman doesn't really seem like something mainstream audiences will ever really connect with, it's not so much because -I- hate Sandman (I don't, I'm mostly apathetic to it... though I do like Death as a character, and High Cost of Living was a neat story), as much as because Gaiman's work in general never really seems to catch on with larger mainstream audiences, and Sandman definitely feels very niche. Yes, a lot of comic fans hold it in high esteem, but that's not really a guarantee of success outside that sphere.
---

You guys wouldn't understand. It's a Joisey thing

---

LuciferSage posted...

Case in point, the Live Action Lucifer had zero resemblance to its Comics counterpart, be it under Gaiman, or Carey and it had legs on network TV, and a revival on Netflix...

Yeah, but at that point, you're really just agreeing with what I've already said - if you have to change every major aspect of a work so that it's really just that thing in name only, is it really an adaptation of that thing? Or is it just exploiting brand recognition and a built-in fanbase?

Will Smith's version of I, Robot may have the name of a book Isaac Asimov wrote and some of the characters may be named after characters Asimov created, but it isn't a story Asimov ever wrote, it radically contradicts the entire point of most of the robot stories Asimov wrote, and he almost certainly would have hated it had he lived to see it (moreso because the more faithful adaptation of the book he was pushing for years earlier died in development hell). Most people who know the difference hesitate to call it an adaptation of Asimov at all, and most Asimov fans tend to be very down on it. That being said, there are still people who can enjoy it as its own entity.

Being different isn't necessarily a bad thing - the Milius version of Conan the Barbarian (the 1982 film) has almost nothing in common with the original stories other than some of the names, but it's still beloved by lots of people (and I've honestly been listening to the soundtrack from it for like an hour now, before it came to mind for this conversation). I personally really enjoyed it - but I wouldn't blame any major fan of the original stories who saw that movie for the first time in 1982 and hated it. Or who still hate it, because it changed the public perception of what Conan is to the point where a more accurate portrayal is likely destined to fail simply because it's too different from what people expect (a similar phenomenon to what happened with the Hulk, where far more people knew and remembered the character from the 70s TV show than the comics, which skewed their perception of what a Hulk movie should be).

Like I said, I think Sandman is one of those properties where you basically HAVE to change huge parts of it to appeal to the mainstream, at which point a lot of the original fans are going to feel like its lost all its charm and appeal. And because it's a property that has passionate, fanatical fans, they're more likely to angry reject "Sandman in Name Only" than they are to embrace it as an alternative take. Kind of like the seething, murderous rage I felt the first time I saw The Seeker.

Sandman kind of borders on being outsider art. I'm not sure you can bring it "inside" without destroying it.



LuciferSage posted...

Good Omens, and American Gods have had mostly positive runs.

Those are very different types of stories, though.

Though I admit, I kind of expected American Gods to fail. On the other hand, it's on a premium cable network and it's never drawn more than a million viewers in the ratings (and for most of its run it didn't even get close to that), so I might even be willing to argue it's not really a "success" either.



LuciferSage posted...

there's like a half dozen Gaiman Novels at this point that have gotten movies.

Many of which have bombed, or barely broken even. I mentioned Stardust earlier for a reason - it was probably the story most capable of succeeding somewhat unchanged (ie, it was the most accessible), and it still barely broke even. It was mostly considered a failure by the studio. Even stuff like MirrorMask and Neverwhere were only modest successes at best in a much smaller pond.

Gaiman doesn't really adapt well. There's no real shame in that - there are plenty of great writers whose stories would make for terrible movies (and some of my favorite fantasy novels of all time would be almost completely unfilmable without changes so drastic it would gut everything worthwhile about them). But it does add up to me looking at Sandman and seeing something that would be very hard to turn into a hugely popular success without turning it into something that really isn't Sandman any more.

Personally, I think I'd rather have a story I loved never adapted at all than turned into something I can only hate. A lesson I learned when I watched the aforementioned The Seeker.
---

Zeus posted...

And honestly, fans often get far more out of a season of a show than they do a film. Three seasons or three movies? Pretty much a no-brainer.

I actually feel like most works benefit more from adaptation into a series rather than a single film. Especially more long-form works like comics, or long-running book series (as opposed to, say, stretching The Hobbit out into three movies when it barely needed one, and then ruining all three by filling time with your own OC Donut Steel story elements to pad out the run-time and charging large swaths of the tone because you'd rather be making LotR again instead of the book you're actually adapting).

Plus, a series has the added advantage of a much lower bar for success - you can thrive with a much smaller audience, especially if you're limiting your audience to a single platform (like Netflix or Amazon). Shows on streaming services can be seen as wild successes, when the same audience engagement would get them cancelled on a major network. And that lack of pressure to pander or conform to the mainstream can allow much more creative freedom and artistic integrity.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

For that matter, I'm generally pretty good at the ability of separating creator from the creation, which seems like a skill the younger generation today is losing completely. I've seen way too many "X said/did something I disagree with, now I can never enjoy anything they've done ever again, even though I used to love it" type posts online recently, and it always just sort of leaves me with the impression that some people (mostly online, and mainly on Twitter) really need to get out of the house more, and stop being so incredibly oversensitive. It also makes me wonder how we managed to survive this long as a species when apparently everything ever is enough to trigger someone and sense them into a neurotic downward spiral of resentment and impotent rage.

I wish it were just limited to the young, but it seems like their zealotry extends to those who ought to know better. So I see it as being limited to less to the younger generations having to do some growing up and more a matter of it being a problem of this current era (and it is probably is driven across all age groups by social media which has allowed people to cultivate echo chambers)

Of course, the other issue is that comments (and even allegations) that might have stayed unknown (because they weren't reaching the right people, or because they couldn't be verified) can now be disseminated on a wide scale with ease.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I can appreciate Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown as films without thinking about Polanski's murky criminality (or demanding they be removed from AFI film lists or other Best Ofs because morality trumps craft),

Or anything Woody Allen has done, excluding his criminal shit >_>

Of course, within the context of Polanski's criminality, Repulsion (which I found kinda lousy in the first place) has entirely different connotations.

ParanoidObsessive posted... Or who still hate it, because it changed the public perception of what Conan is to the point where a more accurate portrayal is likely destined to fail simply because it's too different from what people expect (a similar phenomenon to what happened with the Hulk, where far more people knew and remembered the character from the 70s TV show than the comics, which skewed their perception of what a Hulk movie should be).

Or how people reacted to the latest Addams Family movie which more closely resembled the original art.

---

Short Circuit is getting a remake

https://nerdist.com/article/short-circuit-remake-johnny-5

---

Far-Queue posted...

Short Circuit is getting a remake

https://nerdist.com/article/short-circuit-remake-johnny-5

Must they destroy everything I enjoyed growing up?

They aren't just trying to milk nostalgia at this point, they're trying to strip mine it...

And there's absolutely no way we're going to get a Fisher Stevens-style brown face portrayal of Ben in [current year] after the whole made up nontroversy over Apu.

Oh, and it's getting a "latinx" update whatever that's supposed to mean.

Can they make anything new at this point, or are we just going to reboot my entire childhood to push an agenda?


---

LuciferSage posted...

Oh, and it's getting a "latinx" update whatever that's supposed to mean.

tbh, wonder when the media is going to drop that stupid term considering it sounds terrible and, on a conceptual level, seems borderline offensive since it's just white people using it to refer to Latinos most of whom aren't even familiar with the term (with only 2-3% of Latinos actually using it, per Pew Research)

---

Zeus posted...

tbh, wonder when the media is going to drop that stupid term considering it sounds terrible and, on a conceptual level, seems borderline offensive since it's just white people using it to refer to Latinos most of whom aren't even familiar with the term (with only 2-3% of Latinos actually using it, per Pew Research)

You mean nobody is heading out to the tacx shop next to the bodegx to grab a burritx and a fantx?

---

Zeus posted...

borderline offensive since it's just white people using it to refer to Latinos most of whom aren't even familiar with the term (with only 2-3% of Latinos actually using it, per Pew Research)

Most political correctness or SJW terminology is just white people doing the talking for minorities.

It's why a lot of people point out that a lot of "progressivism" is itself racist, because at its core it's essentially the idea that non-whites aren't intelligent enough or are too passive to stand up for themselves, so Mighty Whitey has to protect the poor little dears by standing up for them. It's treating minorities as if they were children, who need people to speak for them rather than being able to speak for themselves.

It's one thing to say everyone should be equal and should be treated as such regardless of race or color (which is a good thing), another to act like certain people are so delicate and fragile that they have to be coddled and paternalistically protected because they're too inferior to defend or speak for themselves (which is just another form of racism).

It's also a lot easier to invent new words and pat yourself on the back than it is to actually enact meaningful social change, which kind of underlines the actual motivation behind certain people when it comes to pushing the ideology. It's the slacktivism problem - for a lot of people, it's more about earning "Good Guy Points" and feeling good about yourself than it is about actually fixing things.
---

*catches up*

My wife is going to bounce off the walls (in happiness) when I tell her about Constantine 2.

---

I saw the "new episodes" tag on American Horror Story on NF and got all excited. I then clicked on it only to learn it's 1984, which I've already seen. I was confused for a few minutes afterward before remembering I'd seen that season on Hulu >_>

One of my favorite seasons, too.

Show itself is still delayed due to COVID. And apparently Slasher s4 is going to be a Shudder exclusive, which sucks (then again, Slasher kinda sucks).

---

Sorry, I've been busy doing adult things.

We got the bunny fixed so he'll stop jumping my cats... from behind. Even though the bunny is tiny and the cats are huge. Go figure.

I spent all day yesterday calling contractors to fix my house. At least a dozen different roofing companies, another 5 siding companies, another 6 or 7 fence companies, and an interior decorator.

Then I had to meet with all of these people from sun up to sun down, and wrote a 15,000 check for that new roof.

You know what I could have done with fifteen grand?

Like buy one PS5 off Ebay.

---

The Wave Master posted...

You know what I could have done with fifteen grand?

Like buy one PS5 off Ebay.

Or you could just wait a few months to a year and buy one for normal price, when there are actually enough games worth playing to justify the purchase.

And if you're lucky, long enough time to get to the second iteration of the hardware, where they've solved problems like disc drives breaking or thermal paste screwing things up or power cables bursting into flames.
---

I'll probably wait for a PS5 Pro or at least a Slim lol

---

I'm not entirely sure I'll ever buy one at all. idk, depends on whether I ever finally use my ps4.

---

Apparently the PS5 won't wake up after going to sleep.
---

Man, I've been there.
---

Ha!

---

Best Buy's Black Friday deals are live online right now.

Borderlands 3 is 9 bucks and DBZ: Kakarot is 15 dollars.

---

The Wave Master posted...

Borderlands 3 is 9 bucks

Is it bad that I'm tempted by that even thought I have at least one of the others still shrinkwapped with little intention of getting around to it?

I'll have to check out BB's sales. I might find the next great game I'll procrastinate playing. (However, I do intend on playing that copy of SMB U Deluxe.)

---

BlackAdder season 2 is definitely a step up from the first season in terms of comedy.

---

I finally got my new expresso colored television stand, to match my new floors, and now I have television in my living room again.

---

I've been trying to figure this shit out for a while, but I *still* can't figure out the difference between the standard, collectors, and "Rangers Edition" versions of Power Rangers Battle for the Grid. And it's information that shouldn't be that hard to find.

Otherwise I'm just looking through the early bird Black Friday shit. There were some things I was going to get from BBuy then I realized that for the same price I could get the collectors ed of Battle for the Grid off Amazon and now I'm looking more towards that. Not that I'm probably going crazy on any of that shit because I'm backlogged and not starting anything.

The Wave Master posted...

I finally got my new expresso colored television stand

>_>

The Wave Master posted...

now I have television in my living room again.

Eh, when I hear the words "television stand," I picture something tiny, but I can't imagine you have anything smaller than a 40" screen.

---

Zeus posted...

I've been trying to figure this shit out for a while, but I *still* can't figure out the difference between the standard, collectors, and "Rangers Edition" versions of Power Rangers Battle for the Grid. And it's information that shouldn't be that hard to find.

Otherwise I'm just looking through the early bird Black Friday shit. There were some things I was going to get from BBuy then I realized that for the same price I could get the collectors ed of Battle for the Grid off Amazon and now I'm looking more towards that. Not that I'm probably going crazy on any of that shit because I'm backlogged and not starting anything.

>_>

Eh, when I hear the words "television stand," I picture something tiny, but I can't imagine you have anything smaller than a 40" screen.

I currently have a projector sitting on my coffee table. its about 68" now give or take. if i actually got a proper stand, i could push that to 120"

---

So yeah, I'm still doing that novel thing. I wound up just giving up on the NaNoWriMo site for it because the whole thing was just more effort than it's worth and ultimately it just tracks progress anyway which is nothing (I can do that in a spreadsheet or just in notepad). And I'm really in the weeds with this one (in both senses -- ton to get done and I'm getting hung up on potentially unimportant accuracy questions).

The big thing that's killing me is questions of population demographics in terms of age cohorts, natural population growth rates, how certain elements fit into a timeline, etc. Granted, I know there's some leeway here because unless people don't necessarily notice unless something is egregiously wrong and some of it doesn't directly get addressed anyway (although it impacts other areas)

Of course, the most logical and easiest thing would be to simply take an existing area and just model my setting on it. However, there are logistical issues there since my setting isn't going to be quite like a lot of other settings and those differences would likely have a substantial impact. However, since you can't just directly find a lot of information, I've been stuck trying to do partial-modeling based on what could be considered acceptable ranges using real-world examples. Simultaneously, I recognize that most of this is just pointless since, even though the setting is basically a character unto itself within my story, it's not like I've necessarily paid much attention to the nuances of settings myself and I'm well aware that if you leave enough blank space readers are going to fill that in with something that makes sense within their mind. And, of course, a lot of this could be fixed during a re-write anyway.

LuciferSage posted...

I currently have a projector sitting on my coffee table. its about 68" now give or take. if i actually got a proper stand, i could push that to 120"

Over the years I've considered getting a projector -- mostly for lightgun games (that don't need CRT) -- but it kinda necessitates a dedicated amount of space that I don't like and I don't feel that confident in the technology.

Granted, if it's feasible to beam it up onto a ceiling, I guess that would be one way of getting around the space issue (although that would kill the gaming side)

---

Zeus posted...

So yeah, I'm still doing that novel thing. I wound up just giving up on the NaNoWriMo site for it because the whole thing was just more effort than it's worth and ultimately it just tracks progress anyway which is nothing (I can do that in a spreadsheet or just in notepad). And I'm really in the weeds with this one (in both senses -- ton to get done and I'm getting hung up on potentially unimportant accuracy questions).

The big thing that's killing me is questions of population demographics in terms of age cohorts, natural population growth rates, how certain elements fit into a timeline, etc. Granted, I know there's some leeway here because unless people don't necessarily notice unless something is egregiously wrong and some of it doesn't directly get addressed anyway (although it impacts other areas)

Of course, the most logical and easiest thing would be to simply take an existing area and just model my setting on it. However, there are logistical issues there since my setting isn't going to be quite like a lot of other settings and those differences would likely have a substantial impact. However, since you can't just directly find a lot of information, I've been stuck trying to do partial-modeling based on what could be considered acceptable ranges using real-world examples. Simultaneously, I recognize that most of this is just pointless since, even though the setting is basically a character unto itself within my story, it's not like I've necessarily paid much attention to the nuances of settings myself and I'm well aware that if you leave enough blank space readers are going to fill that in with something that makes sense within their mind. And, of course, a lot of this could be fixed during a re-write anyway.

Over the years I've considered getting a projector -- mostly for lightgun games (that don't need CRT) -- but it kinda necessitates a dedicated amount of space that I don't like and I don't feel that confident in the technology.

Granted, if it's feasible to beam it up onto a ceiling, I guess that would be one way of getting around the space issue (although that would kill the gaming side)

i mean, space isn't quite an issue when you can post/stand mount the fucker 6' in the air on a peg. the real space issue factors in between furniture against the wall you're pointing it at and shit like a coffee table blocking the view.

---

Projectors always felt weird to me for using as a screen, they're weirdly expensive, and feel too sensitive to the overall area.

I have no idea what their framerate is, or how expensive they are to buy/maintain, or anything else slightly. I've only seen them used for extremely slow things (powerpoints), and relatively low framerates (movies). So I don't know how they handle extreme gamer 60fps with ultimate resolution, or really how they react to other things.

A TV I understand, I get it, there are positives, and negatives, but it's a permanent object, a projector feels too loose for me.

LuciferSage posted...

i mean, space isn't quite an issue when you can post/stand mount the fucker 6' in the air on a peg. the real space issue factors in between furniture against the wall you're pointing it at and shit like a coffee table blocking the view.

Obviously by space I meant the area being projected to and anything that might interrupt it =p And while you can project over obstacles, that can also depend on how your ceilings are. But then there's the general secondary issue of needing empty walls.


---