Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The last point I haven't heard discussed anywhere is whether we're in a time that can foster and raise up new IPs? At the time, audiences were open to adopting and latching onto new stories in film, like Blade Runner (based on Philip Dick novel). I am not sure an equivalent Blade Runner could work today. Audiences are too cynical towards new or riskier material, movies inevitably feel more derivative of previous works, and movies don't stand out as much, either as a cultural apex or as a distinction from other movies/shows which mostly all look the same.

Hey, I'm pro-cynicism when it comes to cultural zeitgeist, but I only want to cynicize(?) the appropriate amount, not overdo it.  I think a film like Project Hail Mary shows that new IPs can be fostered into production and that the audience is still there for it.  There's also KOT7K, which is new, and I found very enjoyable, and it seems to have not only re-captured a lot of GoT fans who were a bit played out, but also brought in new fans.  

I just watched Blackberry on Netflix, it's only from 2023, and it was very good.  I think there's still a lot of good TV out there, and while less so, still good films being made, even if they're off of Hollywood's beaten path and the formerly reliable "blockbusters" are largely efforts I avoid now.  There's a lot more examples I could point to, I was just naming a few things off the top of my head.  

Watched Project Hail Mary on Saturday. Fun film. SFIrish really enjoyed it. It speeds through a lot of things that are in the book, skipping some things entirely, but it's a good adaptation for someone who just wants to enjoy the story in a nice, visual medium. Well done.

It's also an uplifting film that doesn't involve space lasers, isn't larded up with tits and ass, a ton of vulgarity, brooding overtones, etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all of those things, but it was refreshing to see a well-done movie that survived on the basis of a positive story of perseverance and hope.

Finished the 4-episode limited series Death By Lightning on Netflix last night.  It enjoyed it.  It's about President James Garfield and his assassin, Charles Guiteau, and stars Michael Shannon, Ron Swanson*, Betty Gilpin, Matthew Macfadyen, and Bradley Whitford.  

I admit to knowing next to nothing about Garfield, and now I kinda see why.  I didn't realize he was only president for such a short time.  Frankly, I'm not even sure I knew he was killed, though that does seem to ring a vague bell.  He's not one I ever remember the history classes spending much time on and I've never independently read about him.  

I'm sure the events were fictionalized and dramatized, but as per usual my wife was compelled to look up the known medical details surrounding his death, and it seems really unfortunate that the bullet missed all his major organs, but he died from sepsis due to what today would be wild medical malpractice.  I asked if he would likely have survived the gunshot wound today, and she remarked almost certainly.  

Shannon's portrayal of Garfield is very sympathetic--and that's the tone of the show in general towards him--so it interests me to read a little bit about him to find out if the real Garfield was in any way similar to the character portrayed here.  

I'd recommend it.  Very well done overall.



*ok, it's Nick Offerman, but all I can ever see when he's on screen is Ron Swanson

We enjoyed Death By Lightning.

Watched the Untold Chess Mates last night on Netflix. I remembered the scandal when it happened. SFGopher was playing a fair amount of chess at the time. I'm generally pretty skeptical of Netflix's documentaries, but I thought it was well done. Hans is a wild guy, but also pretty clearly a really good chess player; currently ranked #20 in the world.

We enjoyed Death By Lightning.

Watched the Untold Chess Mates last night on Netflix. I remembered the scandal when it happened. SFGopher was playing a fair amount of chess at the time. I'm generally pretty skeptical of Netflix's documentaries, but I thought it was well done. Hans is a wild guy, but also pretty clearly a really good chess player; currently ranked #20 in the world.

Just started seeing Netflix advertise that.  I'm not familiar with the scandal, but I do like chess and a good documentary, so I'm sure we'll watch it soon.  

Incidentally, if you haven't seen Queen's Gambit on Netflix, you'd probably like that too.  It is loosely--and I mean very loosely--based on Bobby Fischer's story.  Not a documentary, it's a dramatic fiction, but it's well done and fun for chess nerds like me.  



^^^ no AI was used in the generation of those em dashes.  

Watched Untold Chess Mates.  I agree with your assessment that Hans is a wild guy and also a clearly talented chess player.  I wonder what your assessment is of the scandal in question.  

With no more info than this documentary provides, my opinion is that the guy most likely cheated in the matches in question.  I'd further opine that he doesn't deserve any institutional punishment for it since nobody ever proved it or provided a mechanism for how he did it (Netflix brought up the whole anal beads thing, but never really fleshed out anything more than it being a rumor).  I think it's consistent to say that you shouldn't be punished because you haven't been proven guilty, and also that I am reasonably justified in thinking you cheated.  I also don't blame the others for not wanting to play him, or getting nervous when they do play him because they believe he cheated.  Not punishing him in official capacities, and people personally blackballing him are two different things.  

The facts that he had such a huge history of cheating online, that he took none of the normal paths GMs take to get where they get (studying certain things in certain ways for certain lengths of time is more than heavily correlated with GM success....there's literally no deviation or outlier), that he couldn't intelligently talk about his stunning moves to offer an explanation of what he was thinking other than "I saw a good move, so I chose it," that he hasn't fared nearly so well since they started screening him harder for devices, and that we'd be required to believe he just happened to prepare the perfect defense on a whim to an obscure, never-used opening by Carlsen on the exact day Carlsen decided to use it, is enough to make me think my opinion is justified, without knowing how he did it.  

It also outweighs chess.com's "analytics" or whatever they did.  The documentary was so vague about that, but even if their methods were pristine, their algorithm not uncovering anything has so many problems, both realistic and philosophical, that it literally only means "we didn't detect cheating."  Which is far different from "there was no cheating."  

Also, he's a complete douche-nozzle, so there's that.  

Hans is a douche nozzle, no doubt. The thing about that particular game is that the cheating would have been very hard to pull off, sex toys or not. From what I've read of it, Magnus tried an uncommon opening and was surprised that Hans seemed to know how to handle it, but after the opening, Magnus didn't play very well. That seems to be the consensus from the chess wizarding world.

Hans is now #20 in the world, so he is the real deal, even if he got tagged for cheating on Chess.com. If Chess.com's algorithm analyzed that over-the-table game and didn't see it as cheating, and given how hard it would be to cheat effectively over the table, in a tournament where you are security checked before you are allowed to your table, what evidence is there that Hans cheated? He said that he randomly looked at that opening that morning. Chess players do study games, so it's possible, though the odds that he would pick the right opening to review would be low, that he did exactly that. It's the explanation that fits the cleanest. So I come down on the dumb luck side. I think he probably didn't cheat. And no doubt the whole chess world has been watching him like a hawk ever since, and he's climbed way up the rankings, into the true elite. So I think that's probably it. I don't have to like him. (PS Magnus comes across pretty well, but he's also a pretty arrogant fella.)

The show left out (I think it did, anyway), that at the e-chess tournament where Hans first beat Magnus, Magnus played him three more times, winning easily in each.

So Magnus is the better player, for sure, but Hans isn't a joke, even if he acts like a clown (particularly as a prodigy teen, go figure). My belief: clean win.