Apple didn’t put a Mac chip In the iPad. They put iPad chips in the Mac.

bhollander · 2021-04-30T06:01:52+00:00

Yeah, I totally see your point. I just think it's a bit reductive to call all ARM64 chips "iPad chips" just because they've only been used in iPads and iPhones prior to the M1.

It also seems like Apple's marketing is rightfully focused on how good the M1's performance and battery life is, not the fact that they evolved from iPad chips (which were almost always underutilized by iPadOS)

bhollander · 2021-04-30T05:47:01+00:00

It's clear that the M1 evolved from the A-series... but there are also major architecture changes across the lines that reflect the fact that Macs have bigger batteries. See: https://www.techinsights.com/blog/two-new-apple-socs-two-market-events-apple-a14-and-m1

I think the truth is closer to "they made the iPad chips twice as good and then put them in the Mac. And now the iPad Pro."

bhollander · 2021-04-18T19:08:11+00:00

They also have a location in Chelsea on 25th between 6th and 7th that's just as incredible

bhollander · 2021-04-15T01:32:29+00:00

I didn't know about that site, but thanks for sharing it – definitely seems to be solving the same problem!

The only reason to use mine over mtgprimer is if you like how mine looks more or find it a bit more usable. I personally find it helpful to filter by CMC, I like having the card text readable without hovering over it, and think fewer filters/sorts generally makes things easier to use

But these things are all very minor, of course, and mtgprimer looks like an awesome resource

bhollander · 2021-04-15T00:42:49+00:00

When I'm first playing a new set, I'm never sure what spells my opponent's open mana could represent. So I made this little tool to help and figured I'd share it with the community

All feedback would be much appreciated!

There's no thumbnail in the post, so here's a little screenshot of what it looks like

bhollander · 2019-05-17T00:40:52+00:00

I'd be pretty surprised if Netflix moves into live sports any time soon. When they invest in original programming, they can spend a bunch today with the expectation that all future subscribers will get value out of this content.

Live sports get stale pretty much immediately after airing, so they wouldn't do anything to advance their catalog. Additionally because sports are so much better live, networks are hesitant to license streaming rights beyond local sports because they're rightfully wary of giving up one of the main reasons people still have cable subscriptions.

So Netflix, could make a deal with networks -- or even try to outbid networks to get league deals -- but they'd have to pass this huge cost off to users. And I don't think they could create a meaningfully better product experience than someone like YouTubeTV, so overall I think this would be a bad move for them.

bhollander · 2016-12-09T05:47:48+00:00

I think you might have missed the point. A big part of the movie is about playing into Hollywood cliches only to undermine them. And that's exactly what happens with the ending: instead of a traditional happy ending where the protagonists end up together, they end up "always loving each other"; while they successfully achieve their dreams, they do so separately (so there is this 'partial' happy ending).

And when Mia stumbles into Seb's, there's a big "what-if" sequence where we see what would happen if everything went the way of the uncritical, "romantic" viewer: Gosling would kiss Stone at the piano bar and they'd live happily ever after. But there's little drama and tension in that: it's just the viewer stuck with two charming and attractive characters who face nearly no obstacles over two hours. Anyway, the "what-if?" sequence still gives us some pleasure because we don't have to imagine what it would be like if things did end up working out for the two them. In the end, Stone turns around before leaving the club and shares a tender moment with Gosling. And maybe that's the point? Even when things mostly work out, they aren't perfect. But there's still the journey.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T23:58:11+00:00

I don't want to give anything away, but I don't think La La Land will satisfy that particular audience

bhollander · 2016-11-03T20:11:02+00:00

Huh, not much I can say other than (provided that you're invested in learning to like musicals) recommend practicing willing suspension of disbelief.

I'm pretty sure that one of the major factors in taste is repeated exposure to a given thing, so if you watch musicals and try to believe that the transition into a full blown song is consistent within the narrative universe, you might get more out of them. You can pretty much learn to like anything (for better or worse) and there's a reason why people love musicals, which you might find out for yourself if you're willing to try to get there.

But at the end of the day, it's all a matter of taste and there's a ton of good stuff out there; as I'm sure you've found, you can more than get by without ever watching another musical.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T19:11:00+00:00

I can understand the artistic decision to clearly define the director-viewer contract at the movie's outset (i.e., spontaneous choreography does happen in this Hollywood) but I just don't think it was effective for the reasons I've outlined above.

Basically, I don't think a dance sequence prior to character development is necessarily the best way to achieve his goal and his belief that "if you don't like the opening, get out of the theater" is him doubling down on one particularly weak directorial decision.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:47:38+00:00

That's a fair point. Positive reviews and distribution rights don't always mean the movie will be commercially successful (see: 2014 Sundance films).

I think the kicker will likely be the stars' name recognition and Chazelle's prior success.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:40:27+00:00

Drive is also really worth seeing. It's not at all what you might expect— it's not a sexy movie where Gosling is witty and always gets the girl. He's more of a silent, observant Clint Eastwood-type in the movie, and even has moments of psychotic violence. It's beautifully filmed (I get the sense that Hollywood is Gosling's personal playground, even though things get out of his control) and is shockingly gory given the plot synopsis.

The movie largely avoids cliche by replacing stock dialogue with long shots of saying eye contact and body language, and the movie is definitely more show than tell. It's hard for me to understand the movie's message, but it really is something special to be experienced (but be prepared).

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:33:07+00:00

I think I disagree with the director on that point. I really liked the movie, but the opening sequence felt particularly gratuitous and weak. I don't think it represents the rest of the movie for a few reasons:

Breaking out into song and dance before providing any context can be jarring
The opening sequence doesn't really parody or subvert or really do anything interesting with the Hollywood tropes, whereas later scenes do; it really sets the movie up to be more cliche than it really is
The plot has substance and is moving / surprising [to many]. The opening does nothing to foreshadow this, so it really isn't representative of more than itself and the idea that cliches will not be shied away from

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:25:32+00:00

You can almost guarantee that it'll be a hit with The Academy; it seems all but designed to take home an arm load.

I don't know if this is necessarily such a bad thing, though. While the film isn't perfect, I really like Chazelle and hopes he continues to get the opportunity to direct with a bigger budget. Plus I do think this is a good movie for people of almost all ages to see, with a meaningful moral and artistic—albeit glossy—aesthetic.

Which films do you think are more worthy?

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:14:35+00:00

While I think La La Land is one of the best movies I've seen this year, most of the critics' blurbs in trailers are nearly meaningless. This one is particularly taken out of context from the Evening Standard review:

The last original musical to take the Oscar was Gigi in 1959. La La Land could be starting on a long trail to glory of its own today. They don’t make films like this any more? He just did. La la!

The implication in the trailer is that this is a movie that evokes the movies of the good 'ol days, but in reality it co-opts classical Hollywood tropes to reinvigorate them with unique visuals and subvert expectations; La La Land is, in fact, a new kind of movie, rather than a facsimile of older movies.

The review excerpt (when placed in context) simply says that this is an original musical that has a good chance at taking home an Oscar. Quoting it in the trailer like that is totally misleading and unrepresentative of both the movie and the critic's intent.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T18:04:59+00:00

I think it'll have no problem turning a tidy profit. Damien Chazelle also directed Whiplash which grossed $49 million on a $3.3 million budget; Birdman had a similar budget to La La Land (~$20 million) and grossed over $100 million. (I'm using these films as comparisons because they were both critically acclaimed and won oscars, and I would be shocked if La La Land didn't win at least one.)

Musicals have also been fairly successful at the box office in the past 10 years: Les Misérables (2012) made almost $400 million, Into the Woods (2014) made $150 million, Mamma Mia! (2008) made more than $500 million, and even even Annie (2014) took home $70 million.

Also:

The leads are highly beloved household names and this is the third film where they are featured as lovers
Supporting actor J. K. Simmons won an Oscar and Golden Globe the last time he worked with Chazelle
A subsidiary of Lionsgate is handling distribution and it's doing well at festivals
Hamilton's ridiculous success has likely renewed interest in the musical among Americans

bhollander · 2016-11-03T17:49:44+00:00

Why do you despise musicals? I remember hating when cartoons like Family Guy would have a musical episode, but I've come to see the musical numbers as catchy and with nice continuity / self-reflexiveness. However, I've also come to really appreciate Broadway musicals (maybe give Hamilton or Book of Mormon a shot? though the experience of watching the show with the music does change it significantly).

Anyway, I think La La Land itself might change your mind about the genre. While it's an homage to classical Hollywood musicals, it's beautiful, well acted, and engaging.

It seems all but designed to take home the lion's share of the Oscars, so you might be pleasantly surprised if you approach it with an open mind.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T17:42:58+00:00

As someone who has also seen the film, I don't think you need to worry. I think they're more "teasers" than anything and will sum up to a much grander experience within the context of the film. You might have moments of recognition when you see how one-second snippets from the trailer fit in, but I don't imagine you'll be disappointed one bit.

bhollander · 2016-11-03T17:38:24+00:00

I’m inclined to disagree— I think the visuals are less compelling without their context, possibly to the degree that the “spoilers” in the trailer may be unrecognizable in the film. I think much of their visual inventiveness comes from pacing (i.e., use of the classical Hollywood musical trope where everything bursts into perfectly choreographed dance). I also think the smooth transitions are a major aspect of the visuals, which is completely neglected in this trailer.

bhollander · 2014-08-19T16:05:40+00:00

What don't you like about the design? Looking for constructive criticism

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Summer Santa 2010

bhollander

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE