Hey, remember that terrible Legend of Zelda cartoon that came out in 1989? You know, the one where Link was a douche, and Zelda was kinda hot and sassy even though she ran around in that ridiculous riding outfit? It also had something to do with a breakfast cereal, I think.
Well, this series of clips cracks me up. (I'm willing to admit I may have a problem.)
I'm pretty sure Link was already a perv before this cut.
My brother was obsessed with this show when it came out, and I don't blame him 'cause it was the peak of Zelda's popularity (so far). So we wanted the idea of a Zelda cartoon to be awesome even if it wasn't. Also, I think it was shown only once every two weeks, which made it even more coveted (the Beanie Babies strategy).
Is it just me, or does Google keep getting slower? It's all that porn clogging up the tubes! Actually, it's 'cause they won't quit "improving" their search page, Microsoft style, in an attempt to force you to use only Google Chrome.
And how many times per day do I have to tell Google, "NO, I meant EXACTLY what I typed in! Quit fucking trying to correct me!" I pretty much have to put quotes around everything now to prevent Google from trying to help, and it still fucks with me.
I guess it wouldn't take more than a John Riccitiello or two to bring Google's usefulness to a screeching halt. The entertainment value alone would outweigh the great loss that would be felt.
This movie captures the surreal feeling of dreaming more than anything I can think of.
The movie is about a teenage girl who wants to run away and not join the circus. When her mother has to go to the hospital, that night she goes to sleep and has a really strange dream about it. Then really weird things start happening in front of a "green screen". It was very challenging for me to accept the artificial scenes that begin to occur out of nowhere, but the nonchalance of everyone involved is itself the sort of thing that would happen in a dream. After a little while, it's very obvious that the whole movie is just the girl's dream, and a lot of clichés are delivered, but by the time you get to the end, the clichés almost manage to add up to something greater. It helps that the characters are likeable, and that many of the visuals thrust upon you spontaneously are remarkable. There are a lot of computer generated effects that seem to be straight out of the "virtual reality" era of 1993 or so, which made it hard for me to detect the actual year this movie was made. But the primitive nature of these effects really helps to convey the sense of dreaming: When a real person's face is pasted right onto a clearly non-living, crudely-animated object, it innately instills the creepy, foreboding feeling that the non-living thing is going to act unpredictably at any moment. And even though most of this movie was made with a "green screen", the "imperfect" compositing helps to create a sense of distorted time and scale... once more, just like in a dream! Some very artful transitions between scenes imply that no lack of skill caused the peculiarity of these effects.
Something about this movie reminds me of Dark City, especially considering both movies didn't quite live up to their full potentials. But Dark City is more of a mystery to be solved, whereas this movie offers less plot but a much stronger "dreamlike" feeling.
So without lingering on any weak points, let's just say I'm impressed by this particular achievement.
How to monetize a service that you had mistakenly been giving away for free:
Make it awesome; attract a bazillion users.
Sell it for undisclosed millions to a commercial competitor.
Fire everyone in the company.
Break a few subtle yet critical features.
Replace the support staff with a useless chat-bot.
Wait for all users to eventually give up and move to the commercial competitor.
Besides web sites in general, this plan can be applied to lots of other services, including media licenses and video games. It's especially viable when people's stock portfolios are involved.
The short version is: Some people who don't understand what kids do on the Internet, including the government, think that Pedobear is a "symbol" used by real-life pedophiles, and that it's "not a joke." Oh yeah, and when someone dresses as Pedobear at San Diego Comic Con, that person is automatically a Registered Sex Offender.
It makes you wonder if they know their audience consists of only old people... On the other hand, those same old people are the ones writing the comments that follow these videos...
This is pretty much how I feel about Scottsdale restaurants where they try to serve you ridiculous combinations of food as if it's a novel invention and not just stupid. The same goes for ingredients with the adjective "artisan" attached to them. (Hint: there's no such fucking thing.) I guess in Scottsdale you're not supposed to know your way around a kitchen.
When I read a Wikipedia page about a subject in which I'm an expert, I'm inevitably appalled by the misdirection presented. I wouldn't quite say it's "deliberate" but more of a consistent side-effect of Wikipedia's editing policies combined with the fact that anyone, including non-experts, can change the wording of things, which is frequently harmful. If I "compound" the implications of this, then I have no choice but to assume the rest of Wikipedia (in which I'm not an expert) is also full of misinformation. In other words, Wikipedia is consistently inaccurate "by design" and cannot get better. Yet consensus seems to indicate Wikipedia is a reliable (citeable) resource. This has lead me to the idea that Wikipedia is "the next step in the evolution of urban myths" due to its self-affirming nature. I'm just waiting for someone else besides me to notice. What do you think?
How many do you know?
Visually interesting and fun.