LadyCrimson

^ Yeah I liked Hudsucker Proxy too. Not on a mega level but it's fairly entertaining oddball comedy. Buster Scruggs I liked the title segment and the one with Liam Neeson in it (but yes it was a downer), but the rest were nothing special. Barton Fink was ... weird. True Grit was all right for a straight Western (one of the least "Coen" of their films perhaps), if a little ponderous. A friend of mine really loved Blood Simple but I never got around to it, because I was already tired of neo-noir paranoia or however one would describe it.

Just to say: Exercise is just an excuse to stay in bed the rest of the day.

I liked No Country for Old Men fairly well, but mostly in terms of the performances (T.L. Jones, Bardem and Harrelson in his small role) and certain stylistic directions, rather than the movie/story itself, if that makes any sense. I don't think I've seen very many Cohen films - five or six maybe? - tbh, at least not in full. They are typically creators where I might like specific short scenes a lot but their overall style doesn't fully engage or resonate with me. Or the subject matter just doesn't interest me film-wise to begin with (Miller's Crossing).

^ I'm not a particular fan of the Coen brother's films, but Fargo is one of my favorite films. I bought the screenplay back then ... all those "yahs" and "real good thens" etc that the chrs's use were fully scripted. Those scenes where the girls in the bar and the man outside describe Steve Buscemi's chr. as "kinda funny looking" I crack up every time. It's also where I first really took notice of William H. Macy - loved him ever since. ...wait, 1996, it's 27 years old or something? Dangit...

I have a tablet. But the exercise gets in the way of really focusing on the media or the media distracts me mentally from exercising and I end up not really focused on either. I mean it kinda works sometimes but other times I just stare at the wall. That's how I'd describe it. I love being out in stormy weather. Not that I can't get sick of the wet and humidity of rain around home, but when outdoors and everything's wild, I love it. I wouldn't be on a storm chaser level or anything haha but it's exhilarating. ============== ...looks like hubby won't be back until Tues afternoon. And he has my car. Pffft. Too bad that Hogwart's game isn't out yet, I could use something new.

Noah's Forecast: rain with gusty wind, then some more rain, more wind, and then more rain. Oh, wait, 7 days from now it might only be partly cloudy. Since hubby took my car for a few days (his van developed a windshield leak) I can't go drive in the rain. But I'm currently about to toss on a hooded rainjacket, to go for a puddle-walk around the neighborhood. Because even if I'm not eight anymore, it's still fun/refreshing. Plus I'm bored of staring at a wall while using the elliptical.

Looks like they updated Hogwart's Legacy PC specs the last day or two. The game's website is more thorough w/added 1440/4k "Ultra" specs given, but the min. GPU Steam was edited (960/4gb vs. 1070) to match and that "upscaling" line has disappeared. https://www.hogwartslegacy.com/en-us/pc-specs

Pfft. I just need a short handled wisk broom.

I'm pleased that RRR won a Golden Globe for Best Original Song (Naatu Naatu). It's not my favorite of the film's original songs but it's a fun one. If the two stars + others were to do an Oscars stage performance of that dance, I might watch (part of) the Oscars for the first time in years and years (and years). But I won't hold my breath for the Oscars to do something that fun.

Re: Hogwarts Legacy I noticed under Additional Notes on the Steam requirements for this game, it says: ---(Min) 1080p/60 fps, Low Quality Settings, *Upscale -Performance- Setting* --(Rec) 1080p/60 fps, High Quality Settings, *Upscale -Quality- Setting* So, are they saying these requirements are taking into consideration that you must be running non-native upscaling for them? That seems disingenuous. I guess I can understand for Minimum, since that would be part of the ... minimum. But Recommended should always be for native resolution, imo. >.>

I have only just now learned of Hogwart's Legacy. I am not a Potter fan (did see all the movies, eventually, they were ok, only tried to read one of the books, not for me) so don't care about that aspect. But --I like that it's single-player only --I still enjoy the occasional open world and virtual tourism, if it's done well --I like that it's all wand and spells combat (no melee/swords etc) --Ever since Drakan: Order of the Flame and WoW, I like flying mounts, and the ones in this game look fantastic. --Taming pets/mounts in a personal yard or something? --I think eventually school friends can join as party members so not 100% a solo chr. game? --No micro transactions ... except that the extra stuff in the Deluxe version supposedly will be sold separately as a DLC? Not clear. Anyway...if it's too much like Skyrim type open world game, I would likely find it dull. But maybe it'll be a new openworld, virtual tourism, action-rpg that I could sink time into...or it'll be another hype-before-release that ends up as suck. hmm.

Re: natural water features: I don't like the slimy-toes or not seeing where I'm stepping either, but don't mind floating or paddling around in a lazy and muddy looking river, as long as the feet don't have to touch ground for more than 5 seconds at a time. That said as I think I've said before I'm not a huge fan of being in big open water etc, - boats are fine - so mostly I like to look at them, or to watch wildlife interact with them. I like/enjoy river/stream swimming holes and/or small waterfalls a lot more than giant lakes or oceans. Having one of these in an extended backyard would be nice.

Thought: I suppose it's also possible that they've just reduced the video compression quality so much that it's become very noticeable on big screens but not on smaller ones. All I know is the icons used to be there - even if they were lying, so to speak, and they've now corrected it - and that it used to look a ton better on the big TV's hence my assumption. Edit: well that and an article I read during covid, which I cannot seem to find now/again. >.>

No, no extension. Hm. It is possible that while the 4k icons were there, that it was only playing in 1080 and I just didn't think about it back then. All I know is the visual quality suddenly dropped (re: 50-55" TV's anyway, it still looks decent/good at 27"). I checked Prime on PC again (haven't in a while) and now the 4k/UHD icons are there again, but it tosses up a "because you're not on a supported device, only Standard Definition for you!" message that I never got/saw before. Supposedly this is mostly about DRM concerns and they consider Firefox not good enough for that. There was a time when there was some command while playing Netflix that let you see the tech stats/bandwidth etc. info but I think it no longer works, or it's changed and I know not what it is. If it's actually 720, not even 1080, that's even worse/would explain why it's so much more drastically softer/compressed on the TV's now.

No, 4k did work on Firefox initially, at least for me where I am. Both on Prime and Netflix. I remember suddenly noticing (at some point after Covid started) on both services that all the little 4k icon's on titles were suddenly nowhere to be found, as well as noticing the drop in video quality on the big TV's. Edit: I wouldn't have gotten the 4k level sub. if it hadn't. Edit: at any rate, thanks for checking for me. : ) PS4 still streams in 4k for services, it's the only reason I'm still paying Netflix that tier.

Well, this time all the rain and the oversaturated higher section of the yard decided to pool up ground water that overflowed over and down the higher wall/walkway behind the pool, so all this dirty water rivered into the pool. The pool is now all cloudy. Which doesn't bother me at all but hubby was worrying whether the pool filter would clean it out effectively, eventually. Not saying it's not nice to have one I suppose, but the extra work, care and cost (replacing pool filter parts or the auto-pool vacuum if you have one can get expensive...) is one reason why I've never cared about having one and it wouldn't be on my "must haves" when home buying. Hubby wants it, he takes care of it. If I was really into swimming for daily exercise (hubby isn't...), I'd rather build a room to house one of those small inifini pools where water pressure keeps you swimming in place or something to that effect. Or just go to the YMCA or something else cheap/similar. Edit: I know California needs the rain (when does it not, technically) but it would be nice if there were more breaks inbetween. Crazy weather this year all over.

So does anyone here that uses Firefox get Netflix and Prime to offer/play 4k titles thru it, at this point? I remember reading they stopped partly because of Covid/bandwidth concerns - and also maybe other concerns - and it hasn't returned yet for me. So wondering if this is still the normal for Firefox, or if it's maybe because, say, I haven't updated Win10 or the browser for a little while.

Have fun and congrats.

How much are non-matinee film ticket theater prices these days, in the USA? The new Puss n Boots film is getting good reviews -that first one was cute in spots but not that great so this is supposedly leaps above that one- and I was half tempted to try and convince hubby to go to a theater with me. Then I saw it was early-access rent-able. For $25. What happened to $20 early-acess rent price? Is that Amazon or Dreamworks being greedy, or both? I'm not sure Puss n Boots is worth $25 for at home viewing. >.>

WHITE NOISE - I didn't realize it was on Netflix already. So I tried watching it. There was a chuckle here and there but despite the satire or whatever you want to call it, I found it generally not-amusing. Just offbeat and strange. I think it was too cerebral or existential or whatever, for my current tastes/moods.... Actors, including most of the children, were all fine. The middle section was probably the best section. The credits with a strange dance sequence in a grocery store was pretty creative.

I find the term limited series a little odd but I'm used to stuff like k-dramas, that are 93% single, no 2nd season series, all the time. Although if Netflix has their way, it'll change before too long. At any rate, as long as Netflix continues to put up quite a few k-dramas (and other "foreign" to the US) shows that I like, I'll continue with it. I think hubby goes through Prime far more often than Netflix now tho (just more serials to try), whereas I find Prime mostly useful only for film rentals. And while I occasionally like having HBO-Max on hand, I'm not sure it's worth the $150 a year at this point, either. I miss the more procedural dramas the US used to make more frequently. Maybe they still do, just not for streaming channels so much, no clue, I haven't watched broadcast/cable TV in ages. But I mean where suchwould still have some character arcs sprinkled in, and cliffhangers, but each episode was much more self-contained. story wise. Made cancellations a little less painful.

^ Well that's why I said it doesn't seem like a good long-term plan, if only because gaining too much of a rep like that = self-fulfilling prophecy of low viewership/cancel, plus is likely to cause long-form content series creators to not even go to Netflix in the first place. Although, at least I no longer have to watch most fictional TV on a certain day and time or otherwise lose the chance to see it ever. I don't want to go back to that, thanks. Cancelled shows happen constantly regardless, but I'm not ever going back to watching anything on a day/time schedule like that.

Constant on and off rain, with a lot of very gusty winds periodically. Us and the neighbors have the long, cheaply-constructed plastic-squares patio shade covering thingies, with none of them being new or in great shape, and you can often hear them loudly rattling with big winds. This evening most of the right-corner plastic squares on our patio cover blew off. We wanted to replace the whole patio cover next summer anyway so less work for us! One neighbor's was already very badly wind/weather-damaged, I wonder if it's totally stripped now. Too dark for me to tell, heh. ...at least the power came back on quickly.

Just to report, I was just now unable to post a reply with quotation marks and italics in it - when I removed those, it posted. So that issue seems to still exist (if sporadically/not always) for me as well.

I think Netflix likely looks at series watching completion rates, and within a fairly short time-frame at that (a month or three), when deciding whether to cancel a show. Fans pointing at the -most watched this week- type stuff, forget that may only consist of tons of ppl checking out only the first episode. In one way it sorta makes sense, because even if a shows first few episodes garner a lot of views, if a large percentage of people don't go back and finish it, a sequel may not fare well, with possibly even much lower early viewing. It's the kind of fast gauge metric pre-internet TV didn't have, and I remember shows back then sometimes being cancelled mid-season -usually over Xmas- if those weekly ratings dropped crazily each week after the premiere, so you wouldn't even get a full single season. I'd theorize Netflix views a lack of a series quick completion rate in a similar vein. That said, of course shows can/do take a couple seasons to grow/find its footing, or for more people to even be aware something exists, and current Netflix management apparently doesn't want to pay/contract commit for long-term maybes - unless it's easy and very cheap to produce fluff. They only want to renew series that hit total binge-watchers like a freight train vs. try and foster a slow burn popularity over time. Doesn't seem like a great long-term plan.