header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT: Tech Nerd Thread

 (Read 10207 times)

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22974
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #210 on: May 22, 2025, 11:53:01 AM »
I generally liked the Force Awakens, but I hated the next two.  And as they've aged, I've hated them more. 
That's me.

And I'm not "everything new sucks" when it comes to Star Wars

I loved Rogue One, it's probably only behind Empire and Revenge of the Sith.  And I'd put Solo in Tier 2 with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.  I thought the cartoons were great, and I liked the prequel trilogy as a story.  It might be the best story of all of it.  But the script was bad, and particularly the first 2, probably pushed CGI beyond where we were, and wind up looking bad.

But my take on some of this is that while certain movies/shows etc in a series are bad, they don't detract from the good portions.  What angers me about the sequel trilogy isn't even that I think it was bad, I think it actually detracts from the older movies

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #211 on: May 22, 2025, 11:57:55 AM »
I liked the stories of the prequel trilogy okay, but I thought it missed on the tone, or vibe, or whatever, of the original trilogy.  The latest trilogy I thought captured the spirit and the tone better, but I wasn't as impressed with the stories. 
I think this is a good observation.

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3553
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #212 on: May 22, 2025, 12:01:34 PM »
I never realized that ESB was considered the best movie of the 3. I loved all 3 equally. Now that I’m older I do realize that ESB was simply done better, with a better story and photography. But ROTJ had…metal bikini Leia. So hot. 


utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #213 on: May 22, 2025, 12:04:08 PM »
That's me.

And I'm not "everything new sucks" when it comes to Star Wars

I loved Rogue One, it's probably only behind Empire and Revenge of the Sith.  And I'd put Solo in Tier 2 with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.  I thought the cartoons were great, and I liked the prequel trilogy as a story.  It might be the best story of all of it.  But the script was bad, and particularly the first 2, probably pushed CGI beyond where we were, and wind up looking bad.

But my take on some of this is that while certain movies/shows etc in a series are bad, they don't detract from the good portions.  What angers me about the sequel trilogy isn't even that I think it was bad, I think it actually detracts from the older movies

Yeah  that I definitely can't agree with. As I said, I think I'm kinder to the prequel trilogy than most, but there's absolutely nothing that can "detract" from Attack of the Clones.  That's the one I will skip every time during a Star Wars marathon.  

Committee arguments, a robot 50s diner waitress, and the awkward, clunky dialog that wasted McGregor's, Portman's, and even Christiensen's talents, are a really tough watch for me.  The ONY time I ever rewatch that one, is when my kids insist on it when we're doing a marathon over the holidays or whatever.


utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #214 on: May 22, 2025, 12:06:47 PM »
I never realized that ESB was considered the best movie of the 3. I loved all 3 equally. Now that I’m older I do realize that ESB was simply done better, with a better story and photography. But ROTJ had…metal bikini Leia. So hot.


ESB is a clear #2 for me because the original, is the original.  ESB was an excellent sequel, arguably the best ever, but it just couldn't compare to OG for me.
 

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1928
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #215 on: May 22, 2025, 12:25:16 PM »
The first Star Wars trilogy was a cultural phenomenon. It did something that hadn't happened before, creating a through-line in three distinct movies that were blockbusters. Other than the A Fist Full of Dollars trilogy (which was more niche), I can't think of another one like this that came before. The reason it became that phenomenon was the strength of the first two movies. The third was an adequate ending, but Lucas had been bitten by the merchandising bug by then. But it was fine. Yes, they are space westerns, not really sci-fi, yes, there are problems with those movies, but, in general, the acting was solid (enough)--and highlighted by good chemistry between the actors, the story was well paced, the effects were top notch for the time, and there was a culturally relevant sub-plot that Americans connected with.

Everything that came after has to be judged against the phenomenon that made it possible in the first place. The prequels are fun-ish, do some more world building, but suffered from poor script writing, poor chemistry--particularly with two of the main characters--not living up to the world building reputation that flowed from two decades of post-trilogy writing, interviews, etc--and, yes, relied too much on CGI (that wasn't even all that advanced yet). Revenge of the Sith told the story that everyone wanted from the original trilogy, but is still marred by a poor script, poor acting, and poor chemistry. But they were still fun space westerns--with light saber duels, aliens, cool ships, etc. And, yeah, the kids from that generation liked it well enough.

For the true Star Wars nerds, there were plenty of other things to like going on: the animated serials were--I'm told--quite good, and pointed to the future we are living now with our big media serials, where you pick up a lot of plot points through the TV spin offs, sometimes to the detriment of the feature length films. 

I enjoyed each of the "final" trilogy movies on their own, but they didn't present a coherent story, largely because Disney didn't have them well-mapped out in advance, and tried to be avant gard with the director choice for the second film. I liked the characters in the last trilogy better than in the prequel, the script writing was better, and the chemistry between actors was improved. But the lack of a coherent story through the three movies really holds them back as a collection. And, again, the true Star Wars fanatics can find endless things wrong with them--and the culture critics can point to them trying to do too much inclusion--at times it felt forced, and for its critics, it probably felt more than that. I'm one of the few people who liked the second film best of the three--but it certainly had some big flaws. I liked the concept that it set out to democratize the Force. But the third movie completely reversed that. I think a lot of what they did on the third movie was fan service to try to recover from the poor reception to the second one. In doing that, they fell back on bringing the whole thing back to characters from the original trilogy, which--IMO--missed an opportunity to move on from it. From the perspective of someone who read the Thrawn Trilogy, but none of the other Star Wars books, there was a post-original trilogy world with new and different villains that could have been really interesting, but instead they told basically the same story again, even ending with the same old bad guy. A missed opportunity. Each was reasonably fun in its own right, but none were great movies. They were a decent way to retire the main cast from the original trilogy but failed to introduce a new world to build from. It's unfortunate, I thought the Daisy Ridley character was a good one. But I also thought that turning her into the royal bloodline was a poor choice.

The spinoffs have been hit or miss for me. I thought Solo was a downright bad movie. I thought Rogue One was excellent--it's falls behind Star Wars and Empire on my ranking of the films. I've enjoyed the Mandalorian, but it's just a run of the mill western. I thought the Boba Fett thing was a waste of my time, which soured me on the other shows. I hear I should watch Andor, and perhaps the Obi Wan thing, but they are low on my list, largely due to Star Wars fatigue.


betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14800
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #216 on: May 22, 2025, 12:45:00 PM »
The third was an adequate ending, but Lucas had been bitten by the merchandising bug by then. 
That's why I'm looking forward to Spaceballs 2: The Search For More Money :57:

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22974
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #217 on: May 22, 2025, 12:47:18 PM »
Yeah  that I definitely can't agree with. As I said, I think I'm kinder to the prequel trilogy than most, but there's absolutely nothing that can "detract" from Attack of the Clones.  That's the one I will skip every time during a Star Wars marathon. 

Committee arguments, a robot 50s diner waitress, and the awkward, clunky dialog that wasted McGregor's, Portman's, and even Christiensen's talents, are a really tough watch for me.  The ONY time I ever rewatch that one, is when my kids insist on it when we're doing a marathon over the holidays or whatever.


I mean in the sense that ROTJ didn't end it.  Palpatine was still alive, Vader's sacrifice didn't mean anything, Luke was whatever.  It made the arc of the other 6 no longer the arc, but for no actual reason

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #218 on: May 22, 2025, 01:05:31 PM »
I mean in the sense that ROTJ didn't end it.  Palpatine was still alive, Vader's sacrifice didn't mean anything, Luke was whatever.  It made the arc of the other 6 no longer the arc, but for no actual reason
Ah, I see.  I can agree with that for the most part.

I was really saddened at the time, that one of the great love stories of cinema-- Han and Leia-- turned out to be all for naught.  Not only that, but their child, the product of that love story, turned around and murdered the best movie character of all time.  I found that to be disappointing but also poignant and heartbreaking in precisely the way the writers and director intended.  But still, it sucked.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14800
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #219 on: May 22, 2025, 01:21:50 PM »
So as we started discussing a little on the obituaries thread, we often try to align things to decadal times--was something an "80s" thing or a "90s" thing. I think that's both inaccurate and lazy sometimes. At least we don't do that with generations--things like the Baby Boomers or Millennials are aligned to specific cultural eras, not a date year ending in zero. 

So I'd ask what you all think about the technological eras of our time. I'll throw a few things out there regarding computing / communication, but we certainly don't need to limit it to that. 

My view on some of these:


  • Pre-1981 - the computing prehistoric era: This was essentially the "pre-computer" era for most people. Most were unlikely to do much with computers, even at their jobs. Nobody outside of engineers or tech geeks would have a computer at home. The "IBM PC" hadn't been released yet. Computers, for most people, basically didn't exist. 
  • 1981-1992 - the "PC" era: With the release of the IBM PC and then the various clones, we started to see consolidation of operating systems, and therefore software, and a rapid decline in price. However, the PCs of this era didn't really DO much. They were basically tools for things that we could already do, to make it easier. Things such as word processing (instead of using a typewriter), bookkeeping or taxes (doing it on the computer rather than by hand), etc. And generally your computer was "your computer"--it largely wasn't used to communicate. It was merely a tool in your house for tasks you need to accomplish -- and for gaming because you only have SO much work to do lol...
  • 1992-1997 - the "online service" walled garden era: Now we're getting to Windows, we're getting to modems, and we're getting to... America Online! For the first time, regular people (i.e. not BBS nerds) had a way to use that PC to communicate. For many, it would be their first experience with email. However, for most people, getting on AOL was used to "get on AOL". It was not used to get onto a wider internet, which barely existed. The services were provided and curated by AOL. And if you were AOL, you weren't on CompuServe, or Prodigy, etc. 
  • 1997-2007 - the "world wide web" era: Here's where I think we started to see people break out of the walled garden, and the growth of web sites--including e-commerce. However, this was still a "computer-based" era. You got onto your computer to go check your email, go to a web site, perhaps read online news/blogs, etc. And at this point, you largely would "go to a web site", not having any curated content, any algorithms feeding you, or any real "platforms". The web era was that--an era of distinct and largely separate web sites. 
  • 2007-2018?? - the smartphone/social media era: This was the point--with the iPhone--at which everything really changed. You went from interacting with technology primarily through a device that you either had at home or in a bag/backpack, with a screen and a keyboard, to carrying the world around with you in your pocket. It was also when social media was really hitting its stride--accelerated by the smartphone. However in my opinion this is separate from what I'm about to talk about--at this point social media was still very much about connecting with friends & family, about the people in your life you already know. But this is when it moved from the "web" era to the "platform" era. 
  • 2018??-present - the influencer/algorithm era: As I mention above, I think this is when everything got truly supercharged and hyper-focused to push content in your face all day long. I think it differs from the previous social media era, because eventually we all realized that there's only so much we want to interact with friends and family. And the platform era is all about engagement. So they want to drip-feed you content and keep you coming back, and that content will be individualized to YOU and what they believe will cause YOU to remain engaged. 
  • Next - the AI era? Not sure what happens next. 

Thoughts? 


NorthernOhioBuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1254
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #220 on: May 22, 2025, 01:32:39 PM »


  • Next - the AI era? Not sure what happens next.


Skynet.

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1928
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #221 on: May 22, 2025, 02:09:01 PM »
One of the people I have run into in life was one of the key creators of Facebook's algorithm. It made him very wealthy. It also makes him lose sleep at night.

An engineer I know and respect a great deal believes things like that can't really be attributed/blamed on any individual. His perspective: humans are, by nature, inventors. We create before we analyze our creations. He makes this argument about nuclear weapons: he believes they were inevitable. I'm sure he would say the same thing about the algorithm form of marketing. It's an interesting world view.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #222 on: May 22, 2025, 02:18:03 PM »
As far as advertising or marketing is concerned, I don't have any problems with the algorithms.  Why would I be upset with algorithms that target me with products or services that I like or want, rather than things I don't like or don't want?

If we're talking about the facebook echo chamber/angry algorithms, these don't upset me either, because I can easily ignore them.

It is actually possible for humans to exercise some self control and not allow themselves to be goaded and ruled by stuff that infuriates them.  That's actually what mature human beings should be expected to do, as a bare minimum.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22890
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Tech Nerd Thread
« Reply #223 on: May 22, 2025, 02:34:52 PM »
So as we started discussing a little on the obituaries thread, we often try to align things to decadal times--was something an "80s" thing or a "90s" thing. I think that's both inaccurate and lazy sometimes. At least we don't do that with generations--things like the Baby Boomers or Millennials are aligned to specific cultural eras, not a date year ending in zero.

So I'd ask what you all think about the technological eras of our time. I'll throw a few things out there regarding computing / communication, but we certainly don't need to limit it to that.

My view on some of these:


  • Pre-1981 - the computing prehistoric era: This was essentially the "pre-computer" era for most people. Most were unlikely to do much with computers, even at their jobs. Nobody outside of engineers or tech geeks would have a computer at home. The "IBM PC" hadn't been released yet. Computers, for most people, basically didn't exist.
  • 1981-1992 - the "PC" era: With the release of the IBM PC and then the various clones, we started to see consolidation of operating systems, and therefore software, and a rapid decline in price. However, the PCs of this era didn't really DO much. They were basically tools for things that we could already do, to make it easier. Things such as word processing (instead of using a typewriter), bookkeeping or taxes (doing it on the computer rather than by hand), etc. And generally your computer was "your computer"--it largely wasn't used to communicate. It was merely a tool in your house for tasks you need to accomplish -- and for gaming because you only have SO much work to do lol...
  • 1992-1997 - the "online service" walled garden era: Now we're getting to Windows, we're getting to modems, and we're getting to... America Online! For the first time, regular people (i.e. not BBS nerds) had a way to use that PC to communicate. For many, it would be their first experience with email. However, for most people, getting on AOL was used to "get on AOL". It was not used to get onto a wider internet, which barely existed. The services were provided and curated by AOL. And if you were AOL, you weren't on CompuServe, or Prodigy, etc.
  • 1997-2007 - the "world wide web" era: Here's where I think we started to see people break out of the walled garden, and the growth of web sites--including e-commerce. However, this was still a "computer-based" era. You got onto your computer to go check your email, go to a web site, perhaps read online news/blogs, etc. And at this point, you largely would "go to a web site", not having any curated content, any algorithms feeding you, or any real "platforms". The web era was that--an era of distinct and largely separate web sites.
  • 2007-2018?? - the smartphone/social media era: This was the point--with the iPhone--at which everything really changed. You went from interacting with technology primarily through a device that you either had at home or in a bag/backpack, with a screen and a keyboard, to carrying the world around with you in your pocket. It was also when social media was really hitting its stride--accelerated by the smartphone. However in my opinion this is separate from what I'm about to talk about--at this point social media was still very much about connecting with friends & family, about the people in your life you already know. But this is when it moved from the "web" era to the "platform" era.
  • 2018??-present - the influencer/algorithm era: As I mention above, I think this is when everything got truly supercharged and hyper-focused to push content in your face all day long. I think it differs from the previous social media era, because eventually we all realized that there's only so much we want to interact with friends and family. And the platform era is all about engagement. So they want to drip-feed you content and keep you coming back, and that content will be individualized to YOU and what they believe will cause YOU to remain engaged.
  • Next - the AI era? Not sure what happens next.

Thoughts?



I agree pretty much across the board with these delineations and their implications.  Unsurprisingly, I'd add. :)


 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.