Jump to content
Welcome to the new Earwolf Forums! Read more... ×

ol' eddy wrecks

Members
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Neutral

About ol' eddy wrecks

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. ol' eddy wrecks

    Upcoming Episodes

    Well TCM/core-filmstruck + criterion is going to be better than just criterion. I think that is just simple set theory. And I think we're paying as much for just that as TCM + criterion, but I kept Hulu around for probably a year just for when it had criterion, and when it left for the launch of filmstruck, I signed up for filmstruck since day one. So, you know I'll be signing up for this.
  2. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    I think it's abundantly clear that I have a lump of pitch-black coal where my heart should be. It was required to get that necessary vote from the representative of West Virginia. I'm sure there are light-hearted fun movies I enjoy. I'm sure there are sentimental movies that get to me. I just don't know if they are any on this list though... I mean, besides Duck Soup. Fwiw, I do like The Hudsucker Proxy. There's a hoola-hoop around that lump coal, I guess. Like a ring of Saturn. On the latter part, does it though? The "certain corrupt actions can work toward the ultimate public good, like other achievements of Payne", I feel like that's presented more as a rationalization as a warning of the slippery slope of compromise. When talking about it, Payne's choice of words I think were, "you have to do grafts to get any of your legislation passed." Well, going back to the road to nowhere, I remember years after that whole fiasco, I remember reading an article where they interviewed people who lived in nowheresville, Alaska, and you know, for them, they could have really benefited from that road. It also would have brought money into the state for the people who had to work on the road and would have improved the lives of those people, who presumably lived there. Was this graft and probably a poor use of public funds even though it didn't necessarily enrich the personal life of the senator who wanted it (I can't remember if it did or didn't enrich their lives or had a Payne-like donor enrichment. But let's say it didn't) - the answer was probably still yes. Given the country's poorly maintained infrastructure system, the funds probably could have been better spent on that (not that not funding the road to nowhere meant those funds would go towards that); the money was just being appropriated to get a vote. Sometimes the graft is self-serving graft, sometimes the graft is constituency-serving graft (sometimes gratuitously bribing, sometimes just poor prioritization of funds), and sometimes it's just the compromise of funding someone else's also valid project (who might also be looking at your cause as also being graft or an ineffective use of funds). And I don't think the movie really conveyed the deal-making as anything other than a whittling away of one's morals to bleak corruption. I think there's something in the over-simplicity of the fable of the movie that really rubs me the wrong way. I find I don't like Spielberg movies, so I never watched Lincoln, but from what I heard, that movie did portray the deal-making as an actual instrument of getting good, necessary legislation passed. I do wonder if I were to re-watch Being There (it's been a decade), if I'd now see issues with it. But I think it's a lot more removed from the sausage making.
  3. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    I think if we dropped this whole Taylor/Payne corruption plot and just focused and the realities of passing Senator Smith's bill and how his good intentions had consequences that, which may have been justified, would have made his wholesome, simple Americana idea actually more complex that have to be figured out and reckoned with - I think I would have liked this movie more.
  4. ol' eddy wrecks

    Upcoming Episodes

    Criterion channel is coming back spring 2019. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/6044-new-independent-criterion-channel-to-launch-spring-2019 Probably not as good for the AFI list as the TCM/core-filmstruck part. Criterion had the rights to Spartacus at one point and has Dr Strangelove. And I think a good chunk of the silents. I think.
  5. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    Then his whole line of, "it'll pay for itself, America already has enough on its plate to worry about"... Why, that may not have been gee-gosh-golly truthful, if not with others, then at least with himself. Both now and it's ability to stay within budget in the future.
  6. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    Thinking through the core issue(s) I'm having with the movie, I'm coming back to a question I had, if the boy scout event isn't going to require funding, then why does he need to pass a bill? Why does it need to be state sanctioned? I'm guessing because of the corruption smear they were running against him, did he need the Senate to reserve the land for this? Which would require the government to buy or reimburse the owner of the land, right? Which would cost the taxpayers money. It would also divert a lot of the children of the country towards his state during the summer. This would presumably be akin to tourist money being diverted into his state (probably not large amounts, since they aren't supposed to be in commercially active parts of the state for large portions, but realistically, they are going to need supplies). What I'm saying is, yeah Payne and Taylor were engaged a legitimate scandal, but Smith's own gosh-good-feeling bill isn't removed from a lot of the pork that people demonize the government from engaging in (just on a smaller scale). But I'm not joking on the part about, "why did he need a bill for this?" Apart from the Senate bill that was about to destroy the campsite, which he didn't know about, why did he need a bill?
  7. ol' eddy wrecks

    Listener Questions Special

    So I still don't really have an answer for the year question, but ordering TSPDT top 1000 by year and just scanning to see if any years stood out to me, in terms of famous movies, 1960... Breathless Psycho La Dolce Vita L'Avventura There's others to help the argument for 1960 (The Apartment, Spartacus - which I'm not the biggest fan of, Peeping Tom, Shoot the Piano Player), but just seeing those four together in the same year just seemed kind of crazy. Though now that I'm looking closer, 1959 also had a slew pretty great movies...
  8. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    I think Lovett's comparison was based more on the idea of the outsider shaking things up, which is what Stewart's character does. And then candidates campaign on that outsider myth. I will point out, that the insider vs. outsider campaign strategy is nothing new.
  9. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    If a movie is charming and wins you over, then isn't charm a valid merit of the film? I say as someone who has only watched this for the first time now, and am not sure if I even liked the movie. I am not entirely sure why. I think the cartoonish character types were just something I couldn't emotionally get on board with. Maybe because I listened to the podcast first and instead of being swept away by it, I found myself more seeing Lovett's criticisms. Saunders and Dez (Diz?) were definitely the strong point of the movie for me. Or all the random violence against boy rangers at the end. That was just so random and wacky, though it didn't feel that was intentional. Since it was the first time I saw it, I might be able to get more organized thoughts on it, but right now, I don't know if I have much more in terms of organized thoughts. It might just ultimately be, it's a simple story, somewhat archetypal, and I just wasn't on board with it.
  10. ol' eddy wrecks

    Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

    Wouldn't it be, Jacob's Ladder is just one big Mr. Smith's Yield (of the floor)? ETA: that doesn't work as well as I wanted to, since he doesn't yield. Or technically, does he? Does collapsing during a filibuster technically end it?
  11. ol' eddy wrecks

    Listener Questions Special

    So, thinking about it, maybe the solution would be scale/stretch out everybody's current rankings out to a scale of 100 (and there will just be numeric gaps). That way as more movies get filled in, one can also more closely compare if tastes start converging or diverging as they get to the 50th and 75th episode. And then take the square root and divide by number of entries. I should double-check the formula for standard deviation or variance to see how stats handles something vaguely similar to this. I'll admit this is all overthinking what's basically trying to come up with a heuristic on just seeing who has similar/different tastes to who, that ignores the details of why we like what we do. And it'd take more than five minutes, but if your spreadsheet is in Google sheets, you can always write custom functions in javascript. That is, if you deem it worth the effort, which I'd get that unless one got an itch of curiosity, it probably isn't.
  12. ol' eddy wrecks

    Listener Questions Special

    Well, it was all getting to the root challenge of why it's hard to use partial lists.
  13. ol' eddy wrecks

    Listener Questions Special

    And I said, ""! Also, my mind just glazed over when you said, "essentially." Unfortunately I haven't taken a stat (non-calc based) since high school. I think I figured out what I was having trouble with. Trying to conceptualize it as a vector space gives it weird properties that make common things we do with vector spaces (in this case, projections)... wonky. So to back up, when I said what are the dimensions, that was more focused on what the values were (the, use the ratings as our dimensions, still had each movie serving as what each dimension was, just the value in each dimension was the star rating for the movie) and it was getting conflated with the assigned metric/inner product. But to get to the wonky example, if we flip the values around, make the top rated movie of 25, value of 24, and the lowest rated movie, value of 0 (we could also do 25 and 1), while it shouldn't change anyone's computed squared-distance, it's just easier for me to think about for thought experiment purposes because of associating higher values with better movies for these things. Let's hypothetical ranker Kevin loves Citizen Kane and ranking it number 1, hates Titanic (always ranking it last), and let's say those were the first two movies reviewed. Also let's say there's a hypothetical ranker, Nivek, who's the reverse - loves Titanic, hates Citizen Kane, but for every other movie they have the same opinion and rank. So after week three, Kevin's vector is <2, 0, 1> and Nivek's vector is <0, 2, 1>. After 25 weeks, Kevin's vector is <24, 0, a, b, c...> and Nivek's vector is <0, 24, a, b, c...>. The squared-distance between them at week 3 is 8. At week 25, it is 2*24^2, even though all of the new dimensions are contributing 0 to this increased distance. Similarly, let's say users Ke and Ni come around, but they've both only seen the first three movies. And their vectors are, respectively, <2, 0, 1> and <0, 2, 1>. We want to project Kevin and Nivek's vectors down to 3-dimensional space from 25 dimensional space. Instead of projecting <24, 0, a, b, c...> and <0, 24, a, b, c....> down to <24, 0, a> and <0, 24, a>, it seems like we should project them down to <2, 0, 1> and <0, 2, 1>. And maybe that's the best way to compare for subsets, though simply taking the average squared-distance by dimension would be misleading, as above demonstrates, the squared distances increases at a rate of n^2 (where n = number of dimensions). That's what I mean by, that is wonky in terms of what I normally expect for a vector space/inner product space. And I focused on a projection because, well, trying to compare those of us with fewer rankings, it should be useful, even if it's incomplete data, to calculate what the distance is when projecting your rating vector point down into a lower dimensional space. Granted, I say that as someone who's only ever completed an undergraduate degree (which I guess I should say, linear projection, because as I type that out, an inverse stereographic projection would be one way to go from a subset of 3 dimensions to 2 dimensions which doesn't uphold the 'typical' linear projection behavior; though my gut reaction the inverse of a stereographic projection isn't an isometry, so talking about distances might not be the best idea. Not that I've seen talk about stereographic projections in a linear algebra class).
  14. ol' eddy wrecks

    Listener Questions Special

    I think you mean square of the euclidean distance. Though I'm trying to interpret it in my brain what the dimensions would be in a way that could be extractable. If we all actually rated the movies, you could have worked as the difference of ratings as each dimension of distance (and then divided for the average for incomplete lists). If each dimension is the distance in the movie rankings... then that would mean the value of each dimension would also be dependent upon the other dimensions. Abstractly speaking I am finding that thing a bit difficult to conceptualize at the moment. Oh well.
  15. ol' eddy wrecks

    The "I Voted" Thread

    Another message board I post on that's a lot more political than this one has someone from Wisconsin, so I've been hearing him complain about Walker for the past 8+ years. His hatred ran deep (and it also sounded like him and Reince Priebus either made Wisconsin ground zero or one of the most extreme cases of gerrymandering from the past census/decade). On that last part, throw in we have a new census coming up in two years (and thus new redistricting), that's a big deal. The structural problems in the math in the representative system is a big issue in my mind. This in turn, well, at least Florida is getting a recount. I don't know if I should get my hopes up on that or get prepared to get my hopes stomped on that one again. At least the number of voter enfranchisement laws and a few anti-gerrymandering (i.e. redistricting by non-partisan commission) bills passed in a number of purple states (more than I was aware of when I heard someone start to list them off). That said, I should probably go back to refrain talking politics. I frequent a small corner of the internet that has a long streak of despair in it and I'd probably just start parroting points and topics that other people there say (e.g. Yay! Scott Walker is gone.... and now Wisconsin state legislators are working to gut the amount of power the governorship has before the Democrat can take office, like North Carolina). And that's not what I came to these forums for. At least Walker is gone.
×