Writers are entirely capable of original ideas, the creative isn't the problem, it's risk aversion. No exec wants to risk getting fired for trying an idea that wasn't an "obvious" win, and even if the tried and true flops they know everyone backed the idea. Don't be the nail that sticks out and you won't get hammered.

Of course the result is tired garbage, but that's what happens when the people running these shops are MBAs who don't love film, Moneyball might be fun in sports but it's the death of fresh perspectives in storytelling.

Not exactly. It's more to do with attribution and attempting to reduce the credit writers get by claiming AI provided significant story contributions. In other words, if a studio can prompt a bunch of AI ideas and then have a writer punch out a script then they could claim it as their own IP and reduce royalties to writers, or similarly just do a rewrite of someone else's script then they can claim in arbitration that there were significant changes and credit should be reconsidered. They're not trying to ban using AI though, just curb its credit + residuals.

I loved it, probably the smartest scifi I've read. In a way it reminded me of "The Forever War", not necessarily in style or tone, but just in its imagining of the future and how I expect a lot of people to borrow ideas from it for a while (worth noting that I got to The Forever War only in the last few years and it seems like it was inspo for tons of other scifi, I'm not stating that as a fact, just my impression). Certainly some bumps when it comes to character building (the English characters are hilariously bad), but the payoff is incredible. It's in no rush, for sure, but I think it earns its page count.

Apologies, I was trying to stay broad about the general idea of movement that affects anyone in a VR headset. It's a little tedious, but "VR" is really the type of experience you're having and means you're interacting with the content itself (ex: a video game that responds to you firing a gun or opening a door, you can choose to walk around the house or stand still), whereas 360 content is just a video that plays which you can look around as you please but cannot move the camera in z-space, so if you move your feet it won't get you closer to the door; ie. it's just a video shot with 360 cameras. So, it's not really tied to whether you move the camera or not, but when you put on a VR headset the average user kinda sees it all as a virtual experience they call "VR", and yes generally most experiences in a headset will let the user look around as they please.

But some filmmakers do something called "forced perspective" where they'll move the camera instead of letting the user look around which creates a lot of motion sickness and confusion. Filming 360 content seems very similar to regular 2D, except when you know you're filming for a VR headset you realize the camera is a stand-in for a human's head, because when someone plays the video they will take up the same space and POV as the camera. Therefore to create the most embodiment you try and give as much control to the user as possible, let them decide where to look and when, so you shape the experience around encouraging them to look at certain things through stuff like audio cues or how you block the scene but not usually by physically moving the camera. However, some directors instead of trusting the user may instead suddenly tilt the camera or rotate the video to make sure you see that car crash on your "left" which in a headset is very unsettling, because if you were already turning your head left then you'll probably be looking behind you.

My original comment was aimed at whether you let the user decide to move or not, look around or not, is what will have the greatest impact on motion sickness. Playing a normal game on PC you can run through a dungeon and obviously feel no motion sickness, but playing a VR game in a headset where you don't have all the space to actually run through the dungeon is tricky, because if you just press the forward button and you're running around in the headset POV while you yourself in your house are standing still then this will be incredibly sickening for many people. Whether you are physically acting out what your character is doing plays a huge role in motion sickness in my experience. So walking the plank isn't too unsettling, because most people have 5 feet of space to walk forward -- the POV is moving in tandem with their body -- so that's usually more about experiencing extreme heights, not whether putting on a headset is by default creating motion sickness.

In my experience it's highly dependent on the program you're engaging with. The plank walk isn't as offensive to most people because your motion is directly linked to your own movement, whereas if you stood still while the video played a character walking forward then it wouldn't end well for a huge portion of people, the disconnect is going to throw your inner ear way off.

I create content for VR headsets, mostly 360 video productions, and we always create content with motion sickness in mind, usually writing stories around a still camera. Simple things like not moving the camera seems obvious but baffles the minds of greater filmmakers than me (ie. Robert Rodriguez), because they carry a 2D mindset of how to visually wow an audience, but if you understand some basic tenets of VR filmmaking then you can create wonderful experiences that anyone can enjoy -- and I say this as someone who is prone to motion sickness in a VR headset. That said, you can certainly move the camera a little, but it takes deliberate planning and proper staging to make it work without ruining the experience for most people.

Same here.

Yeah I'm hoping they bring it back next year, too. Already had plans today so I won't catch any shows, but it could make for a fun day, especially if they include more classics then make it a double-feature of something old and new.

Seems like most commenters on /. try really hard to be unimpressed by everything. There's some really solid films out right now that are worth seeing, just looking at my local showings: "Top Gun" is fun, "Marcel the Shell" is adorable, "Vengeance" is fun, "Three Thousand Years of Longing" is imaginative and refreshing, "Nope" is a fresh take on UFOs, "Bullet Train" is over-the-top popcorn, "Bodies Bodies Bodies" is a funny take on modern culture, and that's not including a bunch of 1-offs like Ghibli anime, Godfather, Dark Knight, etc.

Love this $3 movie idea and hope it helps renew some interest in the theatrical experience. Yesterday I saw "Spirited Away" in theater and it was a far better experience than all the times I've seen it at home. The theatrical experience on average is superior, putting away phones/laptops, no pause button, sitting in the dark and really immersing in the film is a great way to connect to the story while escaping the world for a bit. I try to avoid packed times to escape any talkers/texters, plus have access to the Alamo Drafthouse which cuts down on riffraff a bit more, and because of assigned seating I can usually see how packed a theater is before I buy my ticket. It takes a minor amount of extra thought to ensure I have a better experience and think it pays off in spades.

That seems like saying "If smoking caused cancer there would be no smokers left alive." Maybe we're still early in the timeline and the effects are forthcoming. Hopefully you're right and we have nothing to fret over, but it does seem like a reasonable thing to continue researching before we casually move on.

Gyms also make it VERY difficult to cancel your membership with needless paperwork that must be filled out by hand and sent to a corporate office that will take an extra month to process it while they collect revenue for your trouble, and in-person paperwork gives you another chance to change the customer's mind and resell them on the dream or just subtly shame them into staying, whereas online subscriptions are usually far easier and only take moments with no possibility to resell them.

Maybe a dumb question, but does this shed any new light on SETI's sending/receiving radio signals? If sound travels at different speeds on other planets is sending or hoping to receive radio communication even more futile than we already assumed? Or is that just not how the array works in the first place?

Well let me introduce you to my little friend Columbia House, you can buy 12 CDs for a penny!

Alex Garland is by far my favorite screenwriter (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Ex Machina, Devs, also adapted Never Let Me Go, and Annihilation) but last year I read his original script for Halo which was really just a beat-for-beat adaptation of the storyline from Halo: Combat Evolved with almost no difference. Not that I'm blaming Garland for it, that has Microsoft's fingerprints all over it, but Halo fans missed out on absolutely nothing with that first movie attempt and it probably saved the franchise some embarrassment.

Yeah, tbh I struggle understanding the difference between Amazon and my local grocery store that makes their own cheaper brand of chips/xyz and places it in the premium spaces right next to Lays. I can understand the frustration from the sellers, but I'm not currently seeing why this should be an illegal practice.

You see every drink of liquor you take kills a thousand brain cells. Now that doesn't much matter 'cos we got billions more. And first the sadness cells die so you smile real big. And then the quiet cells go so you just say everything real loud for no reason at all. That's ok because the stupid cells go next, so everything you say is real smart. And finally, come the memory cells. These are tough sons of bitches to kill.

Maybe I've spent too much time playing Shadowrun, but I'm in. Go for it, Apple, but make it cyberpunk.