Drivebyhaiku

joined 2 years ago
[–] Drivebyhaiku 2 points 2 months ago

This is basically it except the trick was Netflix wasn't actually all that profitable based strictly off of customers to start. It was a long con. It was ostensibly funded by people placing a bet. They offered a service that wasn't just disruptive, it was operating at a loss. People piled into the service so licences started to get dicey. Netflix started producing and filming, initially at independent rates amd sweetheart deals in my union territory because everybody looked at as being a little baby studio that needed nurturing and to be fair working a Netflix show back when it started had perks. They placed bets on creators who wanted to make something different. Not nessisarily great but different giving their production teams a lot of creative freedom. Paid lunches, cell allowance, sometimes better hours and crew gifts when a number of studios like Disney were pulling penny pinching bullshit and trying to pretend they were an independent studio to get lower rates while letting their producers act like skeeze.

Thing was it was a cuckoo all along.

They flushed the market with a business model sustained by outside money so everybody else started doing the same thing. It destroyed all the union and contract protections syndicated television once had particularly erasing residuals. That was the main thing. Creators used to make money off of the amalgamation of their lifetime work by being owed a small amount everytime a rerun was aired... But streaming didn't do that. They had those sweetheart deals that made streaming services exempt from on demand access counting as replays. So you cut off the career curve of creators from building security and only paid them for stuff they made once turning them effectively gig worker.

Once everyone was playing by the same rules the funding at the top cut out because they got what they wanted out of it they started jacking prices, removing titles, selling advertising because what the hell were you going to do, go back to cable? Now the boom is over and our local Industry is a bloody dust bowl. My seniority has jumped up more in the past year than it has in the full ten years before as folk have been retiring or dropping from the union to find new careers.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 1 points 2 months ago

This isn't as simple as you are implying as if you want to be a bro to trans people more nuance is generally required. Male and Female are not used strictly scientifically in context. Male and Female are often used as adjective forms of man and woman. Take the example of a male or female firefighter - if a trans man is a firefighter refering to him as a female firefighter using this reasoning comes across as fairly transphobic because it feels like you are either trying to utilize some sort of technical linguistic dodge to find an occasion to misgender them or your purpose is to out them to people unawares of their trans status.

Even when people use male and female as nouns instead of adjectives this transphobic reading applies because a lot of fairly obnoxious people will try and use these words as shorthand to imply that trans identities don't matter and to avoid calling you by terms that align to your identity or to isolate trans identify out of discussions. This is why you hear the phrase "Assigned male/female at birth" used by the trans community (though it actually originates from the intersex community) or "birth sex" to refer to groups that include non-binary people instead of just male or female. That linguistic abstraction is important because it implies removal by way of time. In trans terms one can be treated as female at birth given the assumption of cisness for infants implying that that term could be inaccurate in the present day.

By contrast "Trans Identitied males/females" is a transphobic dog whistle. "Biologic males/females" has the same vibe because from a scientific prospect the term is so bloody vague it is practically meaningless. The speaker is just trying to imply the social category is irrelevant or putting emphasis on an assumed physicality. Like if someone says for example "biological males in women's sports" you know the entire point they are going to be making is total exclusion before they even bother to elaborate further.

The reality is words Male and Female still represent social categories unless you append onto them more specific adjectives in term like Phenotypic, chromasomal or so on. These words are not immune from the cultural moment of negotiation of trans inclusion.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 12 points 2 months ago

"It isn't an actor's job"

Yeah... But he wasn't just an actor. Baldwin was a Producer. An actor and producer who ON THE DAY BEFORE HIS WEAPON WENT OFF had his stunt double have an accidental discharge of a weapon on set that fired a real ass bullet. I repeat. He had a complete dry run of the accident with his own fucking stunt double where nobody gor hurt because of complete chance after which he had crew approach him with extreme concerns over which a number resigned in protest. If he had been working on a union show they would have shut the whole thing down for a bloody week when the stunt double discharged that bullet but they didn't... Because union shows and studios have chains of safety liability that are designed to stop productions cold when they are in danger of causing a death. This serves not just to protect workers but Producers because if something goes wrong they are liable. Studios generally employ Production Managers who in exchange for veto power over Producers decisions assume the liability for safety.

Independent shows do not have those safety nets. If your Production manager comes to you and says "This has to stop" in an independent show that's more of a suggestion then a firm veto. In this case, the Producers flagrantly ignored those warnings and said that they would continue as is. People generally don't know what a Producer's role is... Hell Producers sometimes do not realize their full list of responsibilities because a lot of the less fun parts get outsourced but tje fact is if you are paying to make a show you are an employer who is liable for the safety of your employees.

In 2014 camera assist Sarah Jones was killed on a film set because Producers decided to okay a camera set up on train tracks for a shot. All but one was charged with manslaughter. The whole trial situation here missed the fucking point. They just as well told these rich independent nut jobs that they can get away with making shows under dangerous work conditions as long as they are popular.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There are limited examples of this effect working in reverse. Take the word "Nice" for example. Nice back in ye old medieval times used to be a synonym for "stupid" or "simple" so saying someone was "nice" was insulting. Then there was this prolonged long fad where things being very plain and straightforward was considered a good thing and "Nice/simple" gained a positive connotation. Saying someone is "simple" or a "simpleton" retains this original sort of vibe but "Nice" now just means pleasant.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 27 points 2 months ago

Reminds me of my partner and I's story of "Two Knives Guy"

So we're looking for a place for dinner downtown at dusk and this kind of guy starts following us. We are just outside one of those bustling Italian places where there's this outdoor seating lit by brewer's cable and there's like a whole bunch of people milling about waiting for tables or drinking. We are just at the edge of the crowd when behind us the guy calls for our attention.

We turn and he has a knife in each hand, one trained on either of us. I tense thinking that okay - it's a VERY short run to safety but I am not leaving my partner, if this guy attacks I'm protecting my man. The mugger gives us his best glower and goes "GIMMEYRMMMMERRGGR"

My partner blinks as though confused by his intentions "Umm... What?"

I feel like face-palming.

"GIMMEYRMMMMERRGGR!!! "

"I... sorry what are you asking?"

The guy just looks at us like we're complete idiots he turns to me and I just shrug. He tries one more time and my partner just goes "I don't understand..." and the guy, who realizes somebody in that busy establishment is gunna notice what's going on eventually just growls, feigns a slash at my partner and runs away.

When we were talking about it over dinner we broke the interaction down and we were like. The guy had a knife in each hand... If we tried to hand him something how would he take it? I dunno if we rolled a 20 or if the guy rolled a nat 1.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 6 points 2 months ago

As a Set Dresser/On set dresser - any set build before a director sees it/ wideshot films it.

How it generally works is we get a bunch of stuff and... Something. This something can be as exact as a blueprint (techpack) that clearly marks where furniture is supposed to go or as vague as a one sentence long description of what the set is supposed to be. We are usually given a bunch of options for virtually everything that is used. Then we make up the set.

Then the waveform goes nuts. The Heirachy goes Set Decorator, Production Designer, and then Producer. They will randomly visit or call in sometimes separately and whatever plans that existed immediately cease to matter. The set may completely change a random number of times back and forth as anyone above us in the hierarchy demands unless it countermands a specific demand made by someone above the demander in the hierarchy.

That is until shoot day. Once the Director has the floor all of that prep goes immediately out the window and the director may change whatever they please about the set and while there's usually too much time constraints to change everything it could mean getting rid of anything. The waveform only collapses to depict a singular reality once the wideshot is in the bag which means there is now a continuity that must (okay "must" is a strong word) be obeyed.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ohhh no... As a person who regularly builds random shit for film and television, the single slotted screw is the bane of my bloody existence. Some designers fucking love em for the aesthetic but the cam outs on them are terrible. Is it technically easier to produce? Yes, is it viable to use for construction purposes comparitively - fuck no. Every time you cam out ( lose traction on the screw) you risk accidentally damaging whatever medium you are screwing into.

Locally there is an insane institutional preference for the Robertson screw (which is basically a square) because it doesn't cam out much, drives in well and arguably resists stripping better than a Phillips... This is believed in so much that any screw not seen by the camera is a Robby (usually size 2) while anything that is perceived by the audience is a phillips or a single slot screw. Given a choice nobody wants to handle single slots and chances are good you only find them in period specific builds or when the designer is a psychopath.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh this is funnier than that.

Awhile ago my partner and I discovered there's a combined work "Woke Advisory List" of videogames compiled by these backwards grognards. It roughly places games into categories of "Do not play, tis too woke" and "mild Trigger warning - has woke elements"

There is no small matter of quality of game that seems to influence which category the game is put in. Generally blah games with like a non sexy female protagonist and a single gay person randomly existing as a character you optionally meet might classify as "Holy shit! Too woke too WOKE!"... But then LIFE IS STRANGE is only categorized with the mildest of warnings of "some gay themes".... Like bro... "some" ?

It is equal parts hilarious and disheartening to go through and look at all the shit they decry as woke collated in one place and to recognize what counts as "exceptions" because they cannot bring themselves to cast games they love onto the burn pile.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 2 points 2 months ago

In the articles I have read the terms "raised alarms" does a lot of work. Yes a lot of Christian groups "raise alarms" but that's a little toothless when there is a history of a lot of sects believing that suicide, regardless of it's circumstances, is a gateway to hell. The median age of people taking up the offer on assisted suicide is at age 78.

We as a country have a massive die off occurring as the youngest of the Baby Boomers, one of the biggest ever generations in our country's history... Is now reaching retirement age. There is a steep change in how the body ages and metabolizes things around age 60 and there's a bit of an expected die off that accompanies that change. Considering the Canadian government and population is particularly sensitive to watchdoging any potential genocide or eugenics programs the system is designed with a lot of checks and balances. You need two doctors who are unrelated to each other's practice to sign off on even starting the process which takes about a year to complete if you are not terminally ill. Any particular spikes in pairs of potentially colluding doctors who sign off together on the paperwork too often trigger an investigation.

Part of the cultural development of the last two decades has been fallout from the government admiting that they and the Catholic Church were jointly responsible for a genocide of the indigenous peoples. While keeping a weather eye on the program is merited a lot of the controversy is more towards the end of people wanting a scary bogeyman to point to in order to erode faith in the Government when really the system is one that was heavily advocated for and was very carefully designed. While concern is natural... It's also good to do the reading to explore the depths of the system's design and implementation and know that it was from the get go in conversation with ethical watchdogs and is under review since it's inception to monitor the effect it is having. "Somebody warns scary numbers are scary" is basically the imperative of the media who only gets paid when you pay attention to them and scary, half explained things is one of the noisemakers that is effective.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As a Canadian who has watched a loved one die very slowly and spent a fair amount of time in hospice I changed my mind about wanting to fight to the bitter end.

My mother in law was a lovely lady, but unable to really face her death. Seeing what others were going through she begged us to not let that be her but the rules are she and she alone needed to sign off on the paperwork while she was lucid. We couldn't set that up for her, she needed to do it herself... And she couldn't face it and she missed her window.

The last week of her life was hell. She was so weak from not eating due to her cancer that she fell and hurt her hip. Thing people don't really tell you about wasting away is your brain essentially becomes too energy expensive to run. She lost the ability to understand what was going on around her and had to be restrained in the bed so she wouldn't try to get up and she, unable to interpret what was happening, started making escape attempts throughout the day and night frequently crying in pain. She begged like a small child for us to help her and looked at us like monsters because we couldn't. She had been one of the most staunchly independent people I had known and she spent her last week in agony and all of us were powerless watching knowing it was the last thing she wanted.

I was so thankful for the Hospice care. I realized it could have been so much worse if her care was expensive or wasn't handled with such an incredible standard of compassion... But the experience left all of us close to my MIL more than a little traumatized.

It's important to realize that these decisions are intensely personal. I would not wish what happened to my MIL on my worst enemy. Depictions of death in media do not adequately prepare you for the potential realities of every situation. That perceived duty to live as long as you can isn't always a kindness.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I theorize this is because she's had to adapt to code switch to speak a rhetoric specific for wider media coverage. Since the attention span of the general reader is fairly narrow and so many readers demonstrate confusion at perfectly correct terms (or the right wing coverage co-opts things in a very specific pattern) there's a certain way of looking at language utilized in short, quotable format as a unique tool. In those instances it's more useful to approach language from the aspect of what is the specific choices being made doing rather than saying. It's not always correct to believe the person saying it believes what they are saying is strictly literally true. The reasons for an intentional error are many, it could be phrased that way for a personal political reason, to attempt (though not always successfully) to make the quote more legible to someone with only a passing understanding or to achieve some kind of specific desired result in the reception of the audience.

Those who know better usually find it frustrating to interface with but if you are speaking to a large group you are actually speaking to multiple audiences and usually your target is to capture those at the bottom of the engagement curve. As an informed audience member target wise you are far more likely to understand what is being implied and are thus not the ideal target for the potential language tools being employed. In many ways as an audience type you can be safely ignored in favor of outreach to people who are generally not so literate or aware.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Due in large part to cultural bans on showing explicit (not sexually explicit, just undeniable romantic coding) same sex relationships in cartoons during it's production if you know what the creator's intent was for you are looking at... Kora's arc sort of plays out like a very common struggle queer women have with compulsory heterosexuallity.

view more: ‹ prev next ›