battlewraith
-
Posts
1368 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
26 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
Why do you hate opinions.I like to live my life and embrace the diversity of thought by misrepresenting strangers on X talking about what their friends said about something. Yolo!
-
5 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
On a video game forum. You figured me out.The stakes have never been higher lol.
-
14 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
Here we go again.
So an article based on a post on X, that is itself responding to someone else's post on X.
Original post: several people had nothing but good things to say about it.
Reaction post: Was not great but not a bad film according to people I talked to.
Article title: Supergirl Test Screening Bombs.
FFS.
-
1
-
-
This thread, like all of the other movie threads, is just about the film. Not the trailer specifically.
There is ample evidence--most of the recent movie threads in fact--of people trashing a trailer, ruminating why the film will be bad, publicly discussing why they won't see a film or they will wait for streaming or whatever. And then a fair number of those film are actually good. So this repetitive activity of crapping on trailers has an established dismal track record.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
The movie isn't out yet. We're talking about the movie. We're allowed to talk about the movie, even if our opinions don't match yours.
I am so sick of people like you who want to shut down conversations that they don't like. If you don't like how the conversation is going then you know where the door is.
The irony of accusing me of trying to shut down the conversation while you're pointing to the door.
If people want to share their disapproval of a film they haven't seen based off of a trailer-fine. Whatever floats your boat. But maybe don't get mad if people don't agree with you. If you're that sick of it, sounds like you're getting a lot of disagreement.
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
There's nobody saying he's the director. The issue is you didn't heap glowing praise and adoration on the trailer, so of course that makes you some sort of criminal. Heaven forbid anyone doesn't like something.
The issue is that he said it looked like a typical James Gunn movie and that if you've seen one you've seen them all.
But it's not a James Gunn movie, so that's a non sequitur.
Capiche?
Heaven forbid somebody actually see a movie before drawing conclusions.
-
17 hours ago, Triumphant said:
Heh. Few things invoke as much raw emotion (both good and bad- though, more often bad, it seems) as nerd fandoms. Even if the conversation isn't political, per-se, it probably has that level of intensity.
Superman and Fantastic Four were solid, enjoyable films. Go back and read the discussions on the boards, the parts that weren't modded out, and you'll see then being ripped apart based on trailers, promo materials etc. I think it has less to do with the nature of nerd fandoms and more to do with the influence of social media grifters whose business model is to drive bitterness and controversy over films that no one is compelled to go see.
-
8 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
Who is "they"? Regardless, this is not at all saying that James Gunn is the director as you are trying to imply. No doubt there will be differences given there is a different director. With that said, there are quite a lot of people out there who do see a similar tone and style to James Gunn's other works in what has been presented in the first trailer. He is a producer on the film and head of the new DCU, so no doubt he has some say on how the movie will be produced. Again, I am not sure why that is a bad thing for those who enjoy his other work.
Also:
Looks like a typical James Gunn movie. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. Watching this, it could easily be Gamora: Woman of Tomorrow or Nebula: Woman of Tomorrow or Mantis: Woman of Tomorrow. It looks like yet another GoTG clone to me, with a setting that could easily be in Knowhere.Lol?
You spelled out why you thought it was a bad thing in the earlier post.
Again, Gunn is the producer, not the director. So unless you think that a director is just a puppet for the producer, the assumption should not be that this will just be a typical James Gunn movie. Despite superficial similarities people are fixating on from trailers.
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
You said that already. Nobody said he was the director. Gunn and Safran are producers on the film, so it's not like he isn't involved with the development at all.
Yes, but you posted a bunch of stuff talking about James Gunn and his movies. The inconvenient truth is that he didn't direct this.
Maybe it will be like all of his films, maybe it won't.
-
14 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
Suffice to say that while WB/D has many quite useful assets in it, it's going to need a strip-down and overhaul. And even if you got the studios, cable networks, CNN (and its B2B data arm) operating perfectly, and farmed out a bunch of back catalogues Hipgnosis/RMG-style, there is no way it's worth the premium Ellison's putting on it - and a whole chunk of any income is going to go straight to servicing debt.
Or it's just a grift where key players are looking to line their pockets or achieve certain goals and they couldn't care less if the rest burns down.
-
3 hours ago, Mr. Vee said:
my current, hades, is the most consistent and enduring actual fun i've ever had in a game. coh was great but a good deal of my staying power there was my love of a good food pellet. hades is a blast and unique every run. and i actually got decent, which i thought was beyond the grampsiness of someone who's never been gud at games
Hades and Hades 2 are amazingly well crafted games that get better the more you replay them. There are so many things to do and try that you almost never feel that you've wasted your time, even if you don't succeed on a given run.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
No doubt. This is the nature of software, for better or worse. I would not at all be surprised if there were already ways to circumvent this program.
An analogy would be a city where everyone leaves their doors unlocked. Thieves can just walk in and take things. That has been the situation with scraping.
Now that same city suddenly starts locking the doors. That doesn't stop thieving, but it raises the level of effort that thieves have to commit to in order to do the theft. That makes a difference and it also helps other types of initiatives have meaningful impact.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Masheenz said:
Other than printing 2D and 3D tech limits digital art can't really be considered actual art until a human has commanded it to create. To me that means the artist maintains creative ownership of the created art.
I don't know what you mean by this. Digital drawing, painting, sculpting etc. is generally done via some input device like a wacom tablet. You do not command something like Photoshop or procreate to create for you, unless there is some AI process involved. Works created by hand are your copyrighted creations, unless you did them as part of employment. Whether or not they are printed doesn't matter. Works created by AI are not subject to copyright as they are not considered to have a human author.
-
10 hours ago, TheMoneyMaker said:
Just you watch, there will be new ways created to scrape devised to get around the safeguards. It'll be a constant back and forth battle.
Yeah sure. If there's a buck to be made, people will attempt to find a workaround. Just because there are laws, policing, etc. doesn't mean that there is no crime.
This is just a piece of the puzzle. It's offering some protection to artists (for free) to make them less threatened just for sharing their work online.
Communities are coming together to support artists and I think sentiment against AI slop is growing.
-
17 minutes ago, TheMoneyMaker said:
There are AI tools specifically devoted to removing watermarks.
There are tools specifically devoted to printing fake money.
The legislation is not a silver bullet to end all fakery that is meant to take advantage of people. The idea would be to reign in the biggest players so that slop is not permeating everything. Then worry about the people removing watermarks.
-
1 hour ago, biostem said:
If you've shared it online, it's probably already been scraped. The hard part will be successfully litigating such an instance of an AI copying one's style or work...
AI image generation is a lot like money laundering. It is, by design, very difficult to seek damages for your work being used in this way.
In the video she's talking about artists, as a standard practice, using software to code their digital work in a way that actually derails the scraping. This obviously doesn't help work that has already been scraped, but it protects new work from being assimilated. This addresses the risk artists now face simply for posting things in online galleries.
-
1
-
-
This is a Ted talk from Dr. Heather Zheng, one of the researchers behind the development of Glaze and Nightshade, free applications that have been developed to thwart AI scraping on people's creative work. This is a good discussion of problems posed by generative AI and the limited options artists have in the face of large corporations assimilating their creative expression.
-
1
-
-
I don't think that anyone is making the argument that propaganda is a new thing that came into being with AI. And the fact that people have fallen for propaganda throughout history is in no way an argument that propaganda or misinformation campaigns are somehow ok or not something we should worry about. The ease and accuracy with which this technology makes the problem worse is something that merits action.
One way of addressing this issue is requiring AI image and video generation applications to watermark content in such a way to make it instantly apparent that the thing being shown was generated via AI.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Gobbledygook said:
I'm just going to jump in here real quick.
Some of us are good artists. I can draw anything I can see.
However, I have aphantasia and can NOT visualize anything in my head.
I can't even visualize my kids faces.
But using A.I. I can use words to describe what I want something to look like.
It's a huge benefit for people like me.
I don't have any condition like that and despite being able to draw reasonably well I would not be able to sit down and draw my family members.
Most artists don't just sit down and draw something directly from their mind. Most people do sketches, preliminary studies, work from reference, etc.
-
On 11/2/2025 at 11:46 PM, Excraft said:
Propaganda and misinformation have been around since the written word.
And the extent to which human societies have progressed has largely involved fighting against these things. The fact that AI technology lends itself so well to propaganda and misinformation makes those issues more of a concern, not less. It's gasoline for the fire.
Imagine someone built a robot that randomly started killing people and someone shrugged and said "well we've always had murder."
-
I was out of town for a month, so didn't see the last two episodes until a couple of days ago.
There were a lot of things I liked about the show, but I think it suffered from everything being sort of shoehorned into this Peter Pan theme--to the extent that interesting issues, characterizations, ideas, etc. were just overlooked or discarded.
My main gripes:
--I don't buy that these hybrids would remain childlike for long. I think they would develop really quickly and in ways that would probably seem unexpected or counterintuitive to the technicians. The closest thing we got to that was the character that became convinced she was pregnant, but that wasn't allowed to play out. There's also no explanation why Wendy develops super hacking skills and the ability to talk to xenomorphs while the others are hanging out throwing pebbles in the pond--other then keeping things in line with the Peter Pan motif.
--Nearly every human or humanoid character in the series possessed the self preservation instincts of a potato. It's one thing in the original film when you have a group of space truckers encounter an alien, while being mislead by an android. It's another when you have trained people who know they're dealing with dangerous lifeforms exhibit sustained incompetence in dealing with them.
--At the start of the series, everyone is speculating that the hybrids will lead to great discoveries such as faster than light travel. By the end, Boy Kavalier tells them "you're just floor models!" Wtf?
By the end of the episodes, I really didn't find myself rooting for anyone with the exception of eyeball creature. I do think it's interesting that the people ultimately responsible for the situation are trapped at the end. It could be interesting to see them have to put their heads together and think of a way to turn the tables on the hybrids. However, the genius made stupid decisions throughout and I don't have faith that the writers would actually redeem him. I was also convinced that Kirsh wanted to end humanity, but I guess that's not the case.
It did inspire some dog costumes this year:
-
On 10/17/2025 at 11:15 PM, Silver Lancer said:
I uploaded a screeshot into Grok Imagine and I love the way it turned out.
Why are you posting this stuff here instead of the AI art thread?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Excraft said:
Cool! So you're sending money to the families of all the artists who created the superhero genre this game is based on?
If it was identifiable as their distinct creations, yeah they or the IP owners would expect compensation --hence rules in this game about using copyrighted characters. Beyond that, this argument is just silly. Nobody owns genres, despite the fact that they may have been popularized by certain creators.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Excraft said:
Exactly. Bob Ross learned (some say he "stole") from Bill Alexander. Should Ross' estate pay the Bill Alexander estate for any money Bob Ross made off of using the wet on wet technique? Is any artist today who paints impressionistic style paintings forking over any money to Monet's estate? I guess its acceptable for one artist to copy another artists' style or work and sell it for money because they're all artists, so that's makes it ok.
This is a weird argument. People get sued for copyright infringement. You can look into court cases and see what types of things constitute infringement.
A style or technique alone is generally not something that an individual owns (eg. Monet doesn't own impressionism).
We are so welcoming
in General Discussion
Posted
To be an exploit or a gross abuse of a bug doesn't it have to actually outperform stuff? I thought changeling brought kheldians up to the level where they were just marginally worse than the top performing builds.