Do we think George W Bush has ever enthusiastically described himself as a girl dad?

I have _always_ read in his fantasy reviews a mild snobbery about the genre that seemed to me to be an SF fan treating the genre with slight condescension, and that is based solely on having read only his film crit.

The Dick Van Dyke Show with Bob and David

The first season, which I liked.

This movie looks kinda rad, but, then, I love the aesthetic of FMV adventure games.

(I have never seen this movie, being a huge fan of the book, but it's honestly just fine, if a bit cowardly around the book's sharper themes.)

Watching the 2007 Golden Compass movie is a great chance to realize Roger Ebert gave this a perfect four-star rating, which he never did for any Lord of the Rings movie. (Ebert had an unexamined prejudice, I think, that fantasy was for children and should have that audience in mind always.)

I'm talking much more about the idea floated here and elsewhere that people don't get that it's about how we're not doing enough to stop climate change, which is... I mean... the text of the film.

I was going to wait, but I'm really glad I saw it in theaters.

(I am, in general, an AGI hater, and I think this one is worth seeing, if only to argue about it.)

I don't really think this discourse is happening around the usual AGI lines. It's a lot weirder and more diffuse.

I do not think anybody is missing what the movie is about! It tells you multiple times! But (to paraphrase Ebert), a movie is not what it is about but how it is about it. The "how" drives a lot of people up the wall here.

As someone who is mostly pro-Digger, the idea that people who don't like it are film illiterates or something is very strange to me. That movie makes many deliberate choices you will either find intriguing or excruciating, and the second you tip over into "excruciating," it's not getting you back.

need to figure out how to write about the proliferation of AI-based tools in filmmaking, and the growing disconnect between how filmmakers understand the tools their crews make use of, and audiences' understanding of AI as a broadly defined pathogen they find aesthetically and morally distasteful

when your campaign is going awesomely

Depends on the day/angle/declination of the sun.

All of my books are in a shared universe, and though they are all realistic fiction, I declare by authorial fiat that the following are true: --Ghosts are real --But only on shipwrecks --They're all at the bottom of the ocean --Don't go in the Titanic --There is one really big bird who grants wishes

It's flatly obscene for Elon Musk to be talking about cruelty to robots when he is personally, singlehandedly and gleefully responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. (And, not to put too fine a point on it, when he thinks nothing of dressing those robots up as sex slaves for him)

she said "you can do anything in fiction as long as the situation afterwards is more interesting that the situation before." since then i have been keeping an eye on character death in fiction. many writers seem to think that character death "raises the stakes" but actually just makes things boring