Netflix only got here because it put a movie into the cinema. HBO could have done this but didn't. Having a "movie" is not enough to be considered for an Oscar, there are various rules to follow.
Now my point is more about whether the same movie should be eligible for both an Oscar and an Emmy.
But why the "Oscars"? We already have the Emmy awards for television. If people stop going to the cinema then the Oscars should just decline in interest rather than trying to morph into something else. Or maybe the Golden Globes gets more status over time than the Oscars. But just because home television is popular is not a reason by itself that home television movies should be considered for a cinematic award, a better reason is needed than popularity.
The dividing line between television and cinema is pretty easy to see, and so the divide between Emmys and Oscars should be too. The problem only comes with an existing grey area: the movie is shown in a cinema but can also show up television (later on video as with many indie films, or concurrently in the case of streaming). Roma was only up for consideration because it was indeed shown exclusively in the theaters (for three weeks). Where this is annoying Spielberg and maybe others, is that this was primarily a streaming movie and the cinema portion was just a tiny blip done as a technicality to get an Oscar consideration.
Spielberg just gave his opinion, others in the academy will disagree. But the rules belong to the academy and it's up to them. But Netflix did seem to be playing very close to the edge of the rules here.
It's very often that people doing the exact same job will be in different pay grades. That's based upon your years of experience often, or how well you negotiated after the interview, or just based on whim (were they more desparate to fill that slot this year than they were in the past). It's only after the person is hired and has been working awhile that you learn that the high paid worker is actually less productive than the lower paid one, at which point it is very difficult to fix the situation.
Then they get promoted to Level 5. I will guarantee based on my experience over a few decades, and what I know first hand as a manager, is that "better" does not matter very much. Starting alary is most definitely not based on performance. Your annual raise may be based on performance, but often only partially. If a bad worker starts with pay $25K higher than you, it will take you a very long time for your annual 3% raise to catch up because that worker is probably getting a 2% raise. Bonuses count for more, but bonuses are also very iffy and depend upon corporate performance that you have little ability to influence.
So, trying to even everyone out is already much more fair than what currently exists at most corporations. Also note that Google already pays more than its neighbors, so being below average at Google still puts you above average most of the time.
If they have the good shows, this may be the second streaming service I use after Netflix. Not really fragmented, there's Netflix and then there is stuff that's not worth the effort.
I actually think there are a lot of twenty-somethings who think that as long as there's some money leftover in the paychecks that it should be spent. And I think this has been true for several generations. Amazon and Uber are just the modern ways to be naive about finances.
So instead of the cat merely playing with the toilet paper roll and leaving it all through the house, the cat figures out how to order a hundred rolls of the stuff to be delivered the next day.
And then during the next week you get 12 different Amazon boxes on your step, all packaged in boxes far bigger than are necessary. I suspect their garbage pickup has to come multiple times a week just to handle the trash. It would be better to just mark the items down in your phone and then push a "buy it all now" button later on when you have a full order. If you're in an emergency then head down to the local drugstore (and walk, it'll do you some good).
But there seem to be so few items that one typically goes though so much faster than other items that makes it worth having such a silly device. Add to that the tendency of Amazon to separate orders into as many shipments as possible resulting in immense waste. It would be better perhaps for a monthly shipment that you could easily tweak (overloaded on toothpaste so uncheck the box).
Overall though it would be much better if people would just head to the store. The idea of there being only a single retailer in the world with people never leaving their homes is most certainly not a utopia. It may be nice for those who are shut in and unable to easily leave the house, but when I see otherwise fully fit and toned hipsters with piles of Amazon packages on their doorsteps while the stores down the street are closing down, it's a bad omen for civilization.
I was thinking that if someone went through paper towels that fast that the best thing to change in their lifestyle wasn't the ability to buy them more conveniently.
It depends if you like doing that sort of game or not. I don't play a lot of chess, I find it boring. But it's a great game even though I personally don't like it. I spent 500 hours in one playthrough of Fallout 4, so there's a good chance I might like playing RDR2 if it showed up on PC, but I can guarantee you that I won't like anything in the Assassin's Creed series. Not every game is for every player.
When I first hit some of these games that are on rails but which appear to be more open I was disappointed. Ie, Dragon Age Origins, everyone talked about how it was open and you had tons of choices, but it felt so restrictive with plenty of invisible walls and funnels everywhere. Now that's ok with something like the original Tomb Raider because it's obvious you're on the rails, there's only one path and it's not even a maze and you can see all of the walls, and it's a puzzle game and not an exploration game.
Really? We already know that there are millions of people out there who will dislike your favorite game. Why listen to them? You want someone to say "I've never used a computer before so this computer game thing is pretty weird, and frankly silly so I advise you to just go watch a Jim Carey movie instead"? Do you listen to people who say not to play chess because there's not enough explosions? Do you base your decisions based upon a silly metacritic score?
Essentially you've got someone who doesn't like a game. So what? What game actually exists such that everyone is supposed to like it? None. Every game has a different audience and some will like it and some will dislike it.
A lot of newer games have something similar, but you can ignore them. If designed for consoles most developers feel obliged to cater to the teen and pre-teen crowd who just want the interactive movie bits. Ie, the Thief reboot had a lot of stuff to simplify things, including the tell-me-where-to-go options, auto-saves, and such. That game got a lot of flack from Thief series fans, but I give them credit for taking the criticisms to heart and addressing them as best they could before being fired, too bad the Tomb Raider reboot didn't clean up its act as well and remove the QTE events and other console silliness.
Maybe the "audience" that found it dull wasn't the intended audience? Sure, any genre of games that I dislike I tend to end up disliking, that's to be expected. Maybe the fault is with releasing the game for consoles where it's a completely different class of players who are unused to open world, sandbox, or RPGs that don't have a J in front?
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix only got here because it put a movie into the cinema. HBO could have done this but didn't. Having a "movie" is not enough to be considered for an Oscar, there are various rules to follow.
Now my point is more about whether the same movie should be eligible for both an Oscar and an Emmy.
But why the "Oscars"? We already have the Emmy awards for television. If people stop going to the cinema then the Oscars should just decline in interest rather than trying to morph into something else. Or maybe the Golden Globes gets more status over time than the Oscars. But just because home television is popular is not a reason by itself that home television movies should be considered for a cinematic award, a better reason is needed than popularity.
The dividing line between television and cinema is pretty easy to see, and so the divide between Emmys and Oscars should be too. The problem only comes with an existing grey area: the movie is shown in a cinema but can also show up television (later on video as with many indie films, or concurrently in the case of streaming). Roma was only up for consideration because it was indeed shown exclusively in the theaters (for three weeks). Where this is annoying Spielberg and maybe others, is that this was primarily a streaming movie and the cinema portion was just a tiny blip done as a technicality to get an Oscar consideration.
Spielberg just gave his opinion, others in the academy will disagree. But the rules belong to the academy and it's up to them. But Netflix did seem to be playing very close to the edge of the rules here.
It is unfair though that the same movie can be up for an Oscar and an Emmy. If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema.
It's very often that people doing the exact same job will be in different pay grades. That's based upon your years of experience often, or how well you negotiated after the interview, or just based on whim (were they more desparate to fill that slot this year than they were in the past). It's only after the person is hired and has been working awhile that you learn that the high paid worker is actually less productive than the lower paid one, at which point it is very difficult to fix the situation.
Then they get promoted to Level 5. I will guarantee based on my experience over a few decades, and what I know first hand as a manager, is that "better" does not matter very much. Starting alary is most definitely not based on performance. Your annual raise may be based on performance, but often only partially. If a bad worker starts with pay $25K higher than you, it will take you a very long time for your annual 3% raise to catch up because that worker is probably getting a 2% raise. Bonuses count for more, but bonuses are also very iffy and depend upon corporate performance that you have little ability to influence.
So, trying to even everyone out is already much more fair than what currently exists at most corporations. Also note that Google already pays more than its neighbors, so being below average at Google still puts you above average most of the time.
Not just teenagers. There are adults who take their PvP way too seriously.
So it's like slashdot with graphics?
If they have the good shows, this may be the second streaming service I use after Netflix. Not really fragmented, there's Netflix and then there is stuff that's not worth the effort.
This is bullshit. It is not happening. Please get your news from somewhere other than slashdot, youtube, and infowars.
Who reads their email that often? No wait, don't tell me, I probably don't want to know.
I actually think there are a lot of twenty-somethings who think that as long as there's some money leftover in the paychecks that it should be spent. And I think this has been true for several generations. Amazon and Uber are just the modern ways to be naive about finances.
So instead of the cat merely playing with the toilet paper roll and leaving it all through the house, the cat figures out how to order a hundred rolls of the stuff to be delivered the next day.
And then during the next week you get 12 different Amazon boxes on your step, all packaged in boxes far bigger than are necessary. I suspect their garbage pickup has to come multiple times a week just to handle the trash. It would be better to just mark the items down in your phone and then push a "buy it all now" button later on when you have a full order. If you're in an emergency then head down to the local drugstore (and walk, it'll do you some good).
But there seem to be so few items that one typically goes though so much faster than other items that makes it worth having such a silly device. Add to that the tendency of Amazon to separate orders into as many shipments as possible resulting in immense waste. It would be better perhaps for a monthly shipment that you could easily tweak (overloaded on toothpaste so uncheck the box).
Overall though it would be much better if people would just head to the store. The idea of there being only a single retailer in the world with people never leaving their homes is most certainly not a utopia. It may be nice for those who are shut in and unable to easily leave the house, but when I see otherwise fully fit and toned hipsters with piles of Amazon packages on their doorsteps while the stores down the street are closing down, it's a bad omen for civilization.
I was thinking that if someone went through paper towels that fast that the best thing to change in their lifestyle wasn't the ability to buy them more conveniently.
I think transhumanists should also do this for the purpose of Darwinification.
It depends if you like doing that sort of game or not. I don't play a lot of chess, I find it boring. But it's a great game even though I personally don't like it. I spent 500 hours in one playthrough of Fallout 4, so there's a good chance I might like playing RDR2 if it showed up on PC, but I can guarantee you that I won't like anything in the Assassin's Creed series. Not every game is for every player.
When I first hit some of these games that are on rails but which appear to be more open I was disappointed. Ie, Dragon Age Origins, everyone talked about how it was open and you had tons of choices, but it felt so restrictive with plenty of invisible walls and funnels everywhere. Now that's ok with something like the original Tomb Raider because it's obvious you're on the rails, there's only one path and it's not even a maze and you can see all of the walls, and it's a puzzle game and not an exploration game.
Really? We already know that there are millions of people out there who will dislike your favorite game. Why listen to them? You want someone to say "I've never used a computer before so this computer game thing is pretty weird, and frankly silly so I advise you to just go watch a Jim Carey movie instead"? Do you listen to people who say not to play chess because there's not enough explosions? Do you base your decisions based upon a silly metacritic score?
Essentially you've got someone who doesn't like a game. So what? What game actually exists such that everyone is supposed to like it? None. Every game has a different audience and some will like it and some will dislike it.
A lot of newer games have something similar, but you can ignore them. If designed for consoles most developers feel obliged to cater to the teen and pre-teen crowd who just want the interactive movie bits. Ie, the Thief reboot had a lot of stuff to simplify things, including the tell-me-where-to-go options, auto-saves, and such. That game got a lot of flack from Thief series fans, but I give them credit for taking the criticisms to heart and addressing them as best they could before being fired, too bad the Tomb Raider reboot didn't clean up its act as well and remove the QTE events and other console silliness.
Most MMOs have something similar to this. It's "fast" travel though as travel faster than you normally can.
Maybe the "audience" that found it dull wasn't the intended audience? Sure, any genre of games that I dislike I tend to end up disliking, that's to be expected. Maybe the fault is with releasing the game for consoles where it's a completely different class of players who are unused to open world, sandbox, or RPGs that don't have a J in front?
You mean maximum of 15 minutes until they hit the end of the map?
Agh, I'm not on any rails! What do I do now? Please Mister Developer, give me more cut-scenes and Quick Time Events!
You really need a big AAA studio though in order to get your bug count that high.