I don't know if it's perhaps a regional thing but, in the UK, "being patronising" is used pretty much exclusively in the pejorative sense, with a similar meaning to "condescending". I don't think I've ever heard (in actual conversation) "being patronising" used to mean someone is giving patronage, in fact - we would say someone is "giving patronage" or "is a patron" instead. We also pronounce "patronise" differently, for whatever reason: "patron" is "pay-trun", "patronage" is "pay-trun-idge" but "patronise" is "pah-trun-ise".
It seems the pejorative use of the word dates back to at least 1755, too, so it's not exactly a new development.
For me personally, the plot doesn't matter all that much anyway. What I love is Douglas Adams' prose - the plot's mostly just a vehicle for that - and I feel that doesn't really translate to film. The perfect example:
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
It's funny. It's succinct. It's very descriptive. It doesn't just tell you that the ships were hovering, it draws comparison to bricks which conjures up images of blocky, inelegant ships, and it gives the impression that the way they're just stationary in the sky is somewhat unsettling or surreal. I think it's quite impressive how much such a short sentence manages to convey really!
Translating it to film, and having shot of some blocky, inelegant ships hanging in the sky, doesn't manage to capture the same humour or feeling that that short sentence in the book does, at least for me. And it's the same throughout the whole series, but that line is probably the easiest example to bring up. Some books translate really well to film and the imagery in the film ends up being far better than what I could imagine myself on the fly, but that's not the case with Hitchhiker's Guide at all.
The Hitchhiker's Guide radio series has a fair amount of narration so the prose still shines through in that.
I had similar issues with the various Dirk Gently adaptations, too. And I find I have the same issue with screen adaptations of Terry Pratchett's work for similar reasons. Without Adams' or Pratchett's wonderful prose, it often tends to feel very B-movie-esque to me.
BBC/HBO did a TV adaptation of the full series, aptly called "His Dark Materials". I didn't enjoy it quite as much as I did the books, but it was a good adaptation (and much better than The Golden Compass).
The books won a bunch of awards and were very well received when they released. The first one, Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in the US) came out in 1995 so it was fairly popular for a few years as the "premier" young adult novel, but it ended up being dwarfed in popularity by Harry Potter once that released (as did, well, everything else on the planet).
I think the books were a little less popular and well-received in America. In part because Philip Pullman is a British author, so obviously he got more attention here in the UK. But also, quite a few Christian groups - particularly in America because, let's be honest, most evangelical Christian groups are American - took issue with His Dark Materials' world and themes. It doesn't paint the church in a good light at all, and the series' God analogue, The Authority, is pretty tyrannical. Although, funnily enough, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was one of the biggest supporters of the series - he felt it basically highlighted the dangers of dogmatism and attacked the ways religion could be used to oppress rather than Christianity itself - so obviously not all Christians were offended by the series.
Anyway, yes! Not only is the world fantastic (and it only gets more interesting and wild as the series goes on) but it also handles the characters really well. The way it handles the main characters - children who age into teenagers throughout the series - developing feelings for each other and discovering sexuality was done in a really thoughtful and age-appropriate way (for the characters and the audience). It addresses some interesting philosophical concepts, too, including some religious ones - I'd say the spirit, the body and the soul is a pretty key theme throughout, albeit not necessarily in the same way Christianity approaches it
I'd start by reading the books - Northern Lights/The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass - and then watch the TV series. He's also written other books in the world - some novellas, and (currently) two out of three books in a second trilogy called "The Book Of Dust".
If they're just doing it for money, I agree that it feels pretty desperate. But I get the impression that a lot of them do Cameo because it's a fun way for them to interact with fans, and because it's nice for the fans to be able to get something like that.
Regardless of their reasoning, it sucks that people abuse it. Expected, of course, but it still sucks.
Nowadays, you have to assume your personal data being used to train an AI model is the cost of signing up to any free website unless they explicitly tell you otherwise.
I wouldn't say I'm consciously boycotting Ubisoft, personally. But I sure as hell haven't bought one of their games for a long time, and with the way they've been going as a company in general, I can't see myself buying anything from them in the near future. If they do release something worth buying then I'll consider it, though.
My usual go-to is to ask what their latest/current obsession is. It works really well for a few reasons:
it's nice and simple to ask - it doesn't require a monologue/wall of text to set up, and it doesn't require you to know anything about them to ask it;
it's both as personal and as low-stakes as they want it to be. They can give very intimate, in-depth answers if they feel like it, or they can just mention something like the latest film they enjoyed. There's no risk of making them uncomfortable by asking it;
it lets you filter out boring people who don't really take interest in anything;
assuming they do have interests, it often gives you plenty of opportunities to dive into deeper conversation;
it's often engaging for them because they get to talk about something they're passionate about;
it's often interesting for you because people talking about things they're passionate about is awesome (and often attractive).
it's pretty much always relevant and fresh because their latest obsession will change over time. This makes it particularly great for things like dating sites/apps because people's bios will often be out of date and/or they'll have talked about the things mentioned in their bio so much that they're kind of sick of them.
I've actually had multiple people on dating sites tell me how great a question they think it is, and that they're going to use it themselves in the future. So obviously it's not just me who thinks it's a great question!
It’s better to be remembered as being good from the start.
I think NMS is an exception. If it released today, I think most people would end up feeling that it's just kind of "fine" and it'd die down somewhat quickly. It's managed to get a lot of goodwill because of how they turned it around and I think it gets a lot more publicity and positive attention because of that.
I'd generally agree, but one huge exception that comes to mind is No Man's Sky. It feels like its updates get far more attention than most games' just because they did manage to turn it around. Even though it was generally considered "redeemed" years ago, it still gets credit and publicity for its redemption every time there's an update, to the point where I think it does far better today than it would be doing if it had released in the state it was supposed to.
It's not a strategy I'd recommend other companies try to emulate, though. I think Hello Games got very lucky with people letting them redeem No Man's Sky, along with it taking them a lot of extra time and work. It was a phenomenon, not something that can be worked into a strategy.
You only get to make a first impression once, after all.
People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you've no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US' strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn't mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.
By all means, criticise society as a whole - it's a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn't the way to win anyone over.
Well I'm just glad Harry Mack managed to release his 100th episode of "Omegle Bars" this week. He decided to take a break from doing Omegle-based content at the right time, it seems.
For anyone who doesn't know, Harry Mack's a freestyle rapper. He has (had) a series where he'd ask strangers on Omegle to give him a handful of words and then create a full song out of them on the fly. And not just saying those words then immediately moving on like most freestyle rappers do; he actually creates entire verses on the topics he's given and really raps around them. Plus he'd be calling out things the people were doing as they react to him, responding to things they say, mentioning things he can see in the room, etc, as he raps.
He takes what are some fairly negative, "cry for help" words from the girls and turns them into a really beautiful, positive rap overall. He's a very positive guy in general, and I've watched him consistently since I discovered him. Binging his videos got me through a breakup, in fact.
My own experiences with Omegle have either been penises or just bland, and it's not something I've used for many years as a result. But videos like Harry Mack's show what wonderful things could come from it and I do think it's a huge shame it's gone. It feels like another part of the old internet's gone, and that we're moving even closer to the sanitised, heavily-monetised internet run by megacorporations. I hate that.
loobkoob @ loobkoob @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 263Joined 2 yr. ago
I don't know if it's perhaps a regional thing but, in the UK, "being patronising" is used pretty much exclusively in the pejorative sense, with a similar meaning to "condescending". I don't think I've ever heard (in actual conversation) "being patronising" used to mean someone is giving patronage, in fact - we would say someone is "giving patronage" or "is a patron" instead. We also pronounce "patronise" differently, for whatever reason: "patron" is "pay-trun", "patronage" is "pay-trun-idge" but "patronise" is "pah-trun-ise".
It seems the pejorative use of the word dates back to at least 1755, too, so it's not exactly a new development.