omg i didnt even realize the connection

now idk how commonly discussed this is. but in my viewing, how to train your dragons 3 was one of hardest movies to watch in a long time. and thats all to be blamed on this

this dragon actually made me pause a dozen times just to check if im not going insane. it is like if someone made misogyny into a character design. from old timey ‘perfect women ideals’ to some current ones, they are all here:

• smooth white skin thats translucent
• all the features are smoothed out, horns, tails, wings, any texture of any kind
• body details are gone in order to make the body/skin and even the eyes appear smooth
• she talks with what i can only imagine is intentional ‘stereotypical smooth feminine’ voice
• the way she’s animated itself is that, more smooth and more delicate movements

I know describing it like this sounds stupid. but i had to take days long breaks in viewing the movie bc i thought i was being crazy, “it cant be that bad”. but it is, i cant unsee it, and i feel horrible that this movie has this. they could’ve changed the dragon and it would’ve not been this bigotry.mp4 movie for me. but it is

I think the point being missed a lot here is that the art style was thematically relevant to the Shrek franchise. Atleast to me. It was stylized realism, where the humans were clearly stylized but also detailed in a way to make them be allegoric to the real world. And with that the main cast was also textured and modelled in stylized realism manner.

The goal to me was clear, thematically it was to say the main cast looks out of place from the realistic world around them. The main cast’s stylization was also relevant to their unconvential looks (and other things too but we focusing on that), the exaggurated chin on shrek, the messy but slightly tied down hair on Fiona. You can argue that wasn’t to make them unconvential, just a choice fitting for that era of Shrek, and it doesn’t work now when Shrek cast is part of the world and accepted just fine. But I don’t see the point of these characters coming on the big screen together without the core theme of the original run, maybe it will surprise me and use the new character models in thematically relevant ways. Maybe the thick and perfect hair of Fiona will have a reason, maybe the button noses used instead of triangular ones will server a purpose. I dont know.

Oh wait art style. The previous rant was regarding the character models. The art style has a similar issue, the shading specifically makes things look not-realistic. In a way that thematically ruins (for me) the idea of Shrek, being a wildly different person in a realistic world. The art style is great in isolation (to me), but for something like Shrek it looks wrong. If they did this art style for a new set of characters I wouldn’t even mind, but this ruins the themes. And I don’t trust Dreamworks (especially after Kung Fu Panda 4) to build a new theme that uses this art style and character design changes for the themes.

Now to end, Fiona’s hair covering most of the face, her nose being buttoned up, her lips smoothed out, her neck being shrunk, all combine to make her look more conventially attractive. The cast isn’t thin, but their facial features have been beautified and hence made more convential. I dont have an answer on how to change them otherwise for the new art style, the issue is with Shrek, it’s hard to do the new dreamworks art styles. Maybe a better artist can think of a way to keep the realism while making the art style work, the hair shader at least shouldn’t be this clean and untextured.

so the support for this i found on steam community posts for the game. where people were asking if there’s a way to run freelancer mode offline. and comments were support always online decision and calling it as genuis anti piracy decision… which is ridiculous

grim reality where EA survives till 20174

i get 1-4 new games a year at most to play, almost never AAA games. but i liked hitman as a teen and i heard praises for the ‘new’ ones online so i tried the ‘new’ one. the confusing ‘what to buy’ and so many different bundles on steam already confused me so i did what anyone would and use the dark side to get it. realizing that its online bs made me not willing to buy it anymore, i have gone through days without any internet and that has made me immediately get erked when anything requires internet to functional properly.

and i kinda didnt like the missions, i heard freelancer mode solves the issues of following directions and steps (like in the original games u could just do whatever to finish). but i cant try it offline, and its not worth really setting up things just for one game. ill try peacock tonight (mostly bc sunk cost on time lol) but im not supporting the game financially with all this bs

to me, any game after 2018 feels new because i’ve yet to really see any generational difference between games in that period. 2018 is just random though, so like late 2010s and now is ‘new’ to me. though thats coming from me who genuinly gets confused about ‘graphical differences’ in games over time, like have had to pause videos of ‘comparing half life 1 and black mesa’ lmao (im autistic like that, and i literally have worked as modeller in games lol)

the new one came out in 2022, for me thats current releases. old is like pre 2018 minimum :p

oo i will check it out

and yea it was confused as fuck to find what game to get. its apparently world of assasination but u also need chapters which are dlc but also not really. its stupid and hard for no reason. only matched by how confusing buying an xbox is

yea i am trying that, but i will remain pissed off that this is the case. and those who defend it, not caring about us where internet isnt reliable or fast

christopher columbus approves

pixels? /j

https://imgflip.com/meme/260102760/Aqua-PTSD

when an archea and a bacterium love each either very much

random images i combined

so the funny thing is, the site where i had it was closing my account and i got a notification hence finding. i downloaded it but i dont intend to upload elsewhere, atleast for now, to show

yey!!!

I think you are correct, Google just uses your data for ads. Facebook both sells and uses that data for ads.

These are some fair points. Thinking in the angle that they were kinda selling data for a while but just told us now bc of a new law; and are now muddying the word’s meaning and shading on the california law to save face; does make Mozilla look pretty bad. It makes them look worse if they were doing this for a while and told us just now.

I wonder if checking out of ads and data sending does stop all this from the user’s end or if that’s just a suggestive tick box.

as much as i have issues with firefox, in my reading of the changes this doesnt seem to be ‘selling’ the way like google is ‘selling’. and it seems that people misunderstand how legal definitions of words dont align with social idea of that word.

though, im happy to be guided to resources that explain how the changes do say firefox is selling data the way its commonly understood. but so far reading things, it doesnt seem to be that