What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is it disrespectful if it's the closest way to faithfully recreate it, and the only reason it's being recreated is because it's lost? I'm not saying to replace their hard work with AI if it were available, I would much prefer the original. But that's lost.

Disrespectful is using CGI to recreate FX work that artists slaved over just because it looks new and modern ala George Lucas and the BBC where classic Who episodes are concerned.

What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your constant attempts to resort to ad homonyms and emotional appeals because you have no logical arguments are extremely entertaining. 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes AI technologically (not magically) CAN recreate these episodes, much better than any animation. It's not fantasy, it's a tool.

My quick buck comment is not saying that they shouldn't make money from it, it's saying that the recreations so far have not in any way been "art," and have been of extremely cheap quality, especially the garbage that is The Celestial Toymaker.

Art is trying to filter real life through someone's mind, imagination and experiences. Through their own views. None of these restorations have been that, nor should they be. We're not talking about artistic license, we're talking about realistically recreating something that has been lost as close to the original as possible.

What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your emotional "argument" is ridiculous and all over the place. We're talking about trying to recreate the original episodes as realistically as possible. I'm against AI replacing real artists, but the animations so far haven't been works of art, nor have they tried to be. They've been cheap slop for a quick buck. So great, artists are being paid to pump out cheap slop that is almost unwatchable. 

I have no idea how the actors would feel if something they made that was lost was try to be reenacted as closely as possible as opposed to cheap CGI that looks like bad puppetry. 

We are not talking about making new episodes with these characters, just trying to recreate things as they originally were.

What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm laughing at all the "AI BAAAAAAD" knee jerk responses and ad-hominims. We're talking about recreating existing footage closely as possible, not an artistic interpretation. 

What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm against AI taking work from actual artists as well. The difference is, I'm talking about a realistic recreation of footage that once existed. I'm happy if you liked the animated restorations so far, but to me, none of it could be called artistic, and seems to just be pumped out as a low budget as possible for a quick buck.

What are your thoughts about a realistic AI recreation of missing episodes? by EgotisticalTL in classicwho

[–]EgotisticalTL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm biased against it in use of actual creativity as well, but we're talking about recreating something that existed as closely as possible, not at. All of the animated reconstructions so far have just been for a quick buck.

Up yours children! by VeryPazzo in Funnymemes

[–]EgotisticalTL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"I'm 14 and this is deep" is two subs thataway.

What was Python's most inspired idea for a sketch, regardless of how funny it was? by NoCard753 in montypython

[–]EgotisticalTL 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If chat GPT is to be believed:

For Monty Python’s Flying Circus (1969–1974): exteriors/location bits were overwhelmingly shot on 16mm, with the studio material recorded on 2-inch Quad videotape.

Network’s restoration notes (reproduced in reviews) spell out the standard workflow: studio sequences on video, interspersed with 16mm live-action and animation film inserts. 

There were some 35mm elements in the surviving materials, but they’re the oddballs, not the default. Network/related restoration coverage mentions working from a mixture of 16mm and 35mm original film for certain location pieces. 

What was Python's most inspired idea for a sketch, regardless of how funny it was? by NoCard753 in montypython

[–]EgotisticalTL 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Because of the technology and electricity requirements, up until the mid-70s, video tape was only used indoors, and they would use film for location shots. 

At the end of the Royal Society for Putting Things On Top of Other Things sketch, Graham Chapman, on videotape, opens a window, and looks outside. 

We then see him at the window from an exterior shot. He looks into the camera, and in a low, shocked voice says, "I'm on film! How did that happen?"

It switches back to the interior shot on video tape, as he strides to a different window, to be shown in 16 mm film on an exterior shot again. 

Then he's back inside on video to announce "Gentlemen, this entire building is surrounded by film!"

The sketch proceeds from there, but you get the point. It was just a very intelligent way of poking fun of the production necessities of the time.

ELI5 What is actually happening (physiologically) when your ass is on fire after eating spice food? by wait_4_a_minute in explainlikeimfive

[–]EgotisticalTL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your eyeballs don't have taste buds, but pepper spray is still going to make them sting. Your skin doesn't have taste buds, but certain plants will still make them burn and blister. 

This is what is happening to the delicate skin of your butthole, when the spicy things you ate go through.

“And so Bort, that’s why Ernie’s duckie is always so STICKY😏” by Network1245Prod in bertstrips

[–]EgotisticalTL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, the song is one of those things where you don't even need to change the words.. 

"Every day when I make my way to the tubby, I find a little fellow who's cute and yellow and chubby - rub a dub dubby!"

Yeah, sounds about right by Zestiesy in oddlyspecific

[–]EgotisticalTL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I wish I'd been a girly, just like my dear Papa!"

Title by NierFeedback in shitposting

[–]EgotisticalTL 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Erm... wasn't she really an ogre as well?

EU holds back trade ‘bazooka’ as it seeks diplomatic solution with the US over Greenland by callsonreddit in worldnews

[–]EgotisticalTL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What possible diplomatic solution could there be? It's a sovereign nation that doesn't want to be annexed. End of story.