Диотима с Безуминкой

Kicker

http://forum.kinopoisk.ru/showthread.php?t=202147&page=180

Новый Кинопоиск и что с ним не так:

Краткий список убитого функционала, part 1:

1. Рейтинг кинокритиков

2. Список премьер/Календарь новинок

3. Календарь выхода DVD & Blu-ray

4. Бокс-офис (топ фильмов сша/мир/россия)

5. Рекомендации от пользователей/от сайта на основе оценок

6. Сортировка добавленных фильмов в коллекциях (бывш. папки) по дате выхода/по рейтингам/по выходу на DVD и т.д.

7. Разнообразные графики и приятные эстетические мелочи вроде индекса активности

8. Прокрутка списков, вместо страниц

9. Невозможно восстановить старый пароль учетной записи, если учетка была привязана к Гугл-почте.

10. Даты к оценкам, графики, средние оценки по жанрам, актерам, режиссерам, годам.

11. Просмотр сеансов в кинотеатрах, возможность заказать или купить билеты в кино.

12. Подсказки в строке поиска с прямой ссылкой на фильм. (это есть, спасибо, но глючит)

13. Оценки друзей по интересам.

14. Агреггация твитов звезд.

Краткий список убитого функционала, part 2:

1. Полная статистика по всем просмотренным фильмам. Раньше можно было отсортировать фильмы по оценкам, стране, жанру, актерам, режиссерам. Было приятное окошко с актерами, с которыми больше всего просмотрено фильмов.

2. На странице у актеров была кнопка "связи", где можно было посмотреть связи актеров с другими актерами и режиссерами (сколько у них общих фильмов).

3. Также в фильмографии больше не отмечены фильмы, которые входят в топ-250.

4. Нет цифры, обозначающей количество просмотренных фильмов у конкретного актера, процента просмотренных фильмов.

5. Списки. На кинопоиске было столько списков сериалов, мультфильмов, детективов, фэнтези и т.д. Сейчас найти их не удалось. Топ-250 тоже изменился.

6. Друзей по интересам тоже больше нет. Нельзя посмотреть насколько совпадают интересы со своими друзьями.

7. На странице фильма очень мало информации, все спрятано.

8. Нельзя зайти и посмотреть статистику оценок у одного конкретного фильма: сколько оценок в день, был ли фильм в топе, если был, то как долго/на каком месте/когда попал туда/когда вышел из топа.

9. Пропала статистика по полу и возрасту пользователей, оценивших какой-либо фильм

10. Невозможно отфильтровать свои оценки, чтобы показывались только французские фильмы с МОЕЙ оценкой 10

Расширенный список убитого функционала:

- нет расширенного поиска

- поиск работает через жопу (на "терминатор генезис" выдал 0 вариантов, нашёл только по запросу "терминатор: генезис")

- нет даты проставления оценок

- нет поиска фильмов в списке оценок в профиле

- нет сортировки по оценкам

- нет рейтинга MPAA на странице фильма

- нет статистики с распределением оценок

- промотать оценки даже до начала года с таким форматом "подгрузки" - геморрой несусветный

- в списке оценок отсутствуют оригинальные названия фильмов (!)

- нет никакой статистики по рецензиям

- рейтинг да/нет собственных рецензий скрыт для пользователя (!)

- в комментариях теперь нет веток, что очень неудобно

- промотать рецензии даже до начала года с таким форматом "подгрузки" - геморрой несусветный

- нет сортировки рецензий (по дате, рейтингу и т.п.)

- список друзей в профиле не по алфавиту и постоянно меняется, найти нужную персону - геморрой несусветный

- в списке друзей исчезла лента оценок/рецензий (!)

по базе:

- на главной странице только режиссёр и актёры, нет сценаристов/операторов/композиторов

- нет вкладки "студии"

- нет информации о DVD (стримминге, если будет угодно)

- есть дата российской премьеры - но нет информации о прокатной компании

- нет бокс-оффиса

- есть один трейлер, но нет раздела с трейлерами/фрагментами/другим видео по фильму

- нет новостей, комментариев и прочего...

- закрыли возможность личных сообщений..

- нельзя скачать трейлер (как и любое другое видео)

- нельзя скачать обои в полном размере, как и любую другу картинку

- нет карты стран, где рыжим цветом выделялись государства

- нет поиска по фестивалям, с учетом года фестиваля, номинаций по тем годам, со всей конкурсной программой

- на всю страницу топ 250 видно от силы 7 фильмов, а дальше тебе придется скролить и скролить до конца веков (банально, раньше что бы узнать, что за фильм из топа 250, под номером скажем 220 уходило 10 сек, теперь этой займет где-то 1 мин 40 сек)(а ведь проблема не только в топе 250, какой есть почти на всех подобных сайтах, дело и в обычном поиске, когда по твоим параметрам поиска выдается по 500 фильмов, тут даже до середины хрен дойдешь, свихнешься)

отредактировал предыдущий список. теперь тут нет неточностей, вроде всё что написано, действительно отсутствует. поправьте если я не прав

Отчет "Пир во время чумы"

http://dubikvit.livejournal.com/307929.html

----

http://www.exler.ru/blog/item/17926/

The film sets up the audience to feel superior to Frances. Oh it starts off quirky and perhaps amusing, but by the time you get to her Paris trip, (her utter failure) almost everyone will laugh at her, not with her. That's intentional.

The audience is also set up to look at Sophie as the 'sensible' one. Despite the fact that they start off the film as "same person, different hair" the audience quickly sees Sophie as staid, mature, and responsible. That's intentional too.

What the audience doesn't realize at this point is that they are being set up. Sophie's life will fall apart and Frances will blossom. All along the mistakes Frances made were easily corrected, while the sensible girl was making a real mess.

As I've written before, Frances earns the audience's easy derision, but it doesn't really amount to much important at all. It says so much about the audience and our attitude to Frances.

Why Her will influence the future of UI design even more than Minority Report

For production designer KK Barrett, the man responsible for styling the world in which the story takes place, Her represented another sort of design challenge. Barrett's previously brought films like Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette, and Where the Wild Things Are to life, but the problem here was a new one, requiring more than a little crystal ball-gazing. The big question: in a world where you can buy AI off the shelf, what does all the other technology look like?

Technology shouldn't feel like technology

One of the first things you notice about the "slight future" of Her, as Jonze has described it, is that there isn't all that much technology at all. The main character Theo Twombly, a writer for the bespoke love letter service BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com, still sits at a desktop computer when he's at work, but otherwise he rarely has his face in a screen. Instead, he and his fellow future denizens are usually just talking, either to each other or to their operating systems via a discrete earpiece, itself more like a fancy earplug anything resembling today's cyborgian Bluetooth headsets.

In this "slight future" world, things are low-tech everywhere you look. The skyscrapers in this futuristic Los Angeles haven't turned into towering video billboards a la Blade Runner; they're just buildings. Instead of a flat screen TV, Theo's living room just has nice furniture.

This is, no doubt, partly an aesthetic concern; a world mediated through screens doesn't make for very rewarding mise en scene. But as Barrett explains it, there's a logic to this technological sparseness. "We decided that the movie wasn't about technology, or if it was, that the technology should be invisible," he says. "And not invisible like a piece of glass." Technology hasn't disappeared, in other words. It's dissolved into everyday life.

Here's another way of putting it. It's not just that Her, the movie, is focused on people. It also shows us a future where technology is more people-centric. The world Her shows us is one where the technology has receded, or one where we've let it recede. It's a world where the pendulum has swung back the other direction, where a new generation of designers and consumers have accepted that technology isn't an end in itself-that it's the real world we're supposed to be connecting to. (Of course, that's the ideal; as we see in the film, in reality, making meaningful connections is as difficult as ever.)

Jonze had help in finding the contours of this slight future, including conversations with designers from New York-based studio Sagmeister & Walsh and an early meeting with Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio, principals at architecture firm DS+R. As the film's production designer, Barrett was responsible for making it a reality.

Throughout that process, he drew inspiration from one of his favorite books, a visual compendium of futuristic predictions from various points in history. Basically, the book reminded Barrett what not to do. "It shows a lot of things and it makes you laugh instantly, because you say, 'those things never came to pass!'" he explains. "But often times, it's just because they over-thought it. The future is much simpler than you think."

That's easy to say in retrospect, looking at images of Rube Goldbergian kitchens and scenes of commute by jet pack. But Jonze and Barrett had the difficult task of extrapolating that simplification forward from today's technological moment.

Theo's home gives us one concise example. You could call it a "smart house," but there's little outward evidence of it. What makes it intelligent isn't the whizbang technology but rather simple, understated utility. Lights, for example, turn off and on as Theo moves from room to room. There's no app for controlling them from the couch; no control panel on the wall. It's all automatic. Why? "It's just a smart and efficient way to live in a house," says Barrett.

Today's smartphones were another object of Barrett's scrutiny. "They're advanced, but in some ways they're not advanced whatsoever," he says. "They need too much attention. You don't really want to be stuck engaging them. You want to be free." In Barrett's estimation, the smartphones just around the corner aren't much better. "Everyone says we're supposed to have a curved piece of flexible glass. Why do we need that? Let's make it more substantial. Let's make it something that feels nice in the hand."

Theo's phone in the film is just that -- a handsome hinged device that looks more like an art deco cigarette case than an iPhone. He uses it far less frequently than we use our smartphones today; it's functional, but it's not ubiquitous. As an object, it's more like a nice wallet or watch. In terms of industrial design, it's an artifact from a future where gadgets don't need to scream their sophistication -- a future where technology has progressed to the point that it doesn't need to look like technology.

All of these things contribute to a compelling, cohesive vision of the future -- one that's dramatically different from what we usually see in these types of movies. You could say that Her is, in fact, a counterpoint to that prevailing vision of the future -- the anti-Minority Report. Imagining its world wasn't about heaping new technology on society as we know it today. It was looking at those places where technology could fade into the background, integrate more seamlessly. It was about envisioning a future, perhaps, that looked more like the past. "In a way," says Barrett, "my job was to undesign the design."

The Holy Grail: a discrete user interface

The greatest act of undesigning in Her, technologically speaking, comes with the interface used throughout the film. Theo doesn't touch his computer-in fact, while he has a desktop display at home and at work, neither have a keyboard. Instead, he talks to it. "We decided we didn't want to have physical contact," Barrett says. "We wanted it to be natural. Hence the elimination of software keyboards as we know them."

Again, voice control had benefits simply on the level of moviemaking. A conversation between Theo and Sam, his artificially intelligent OS, is obviously easier for the audience to follow than anything involving taps, gestures, swipes or screens. But the voice-based UI was also a perfect fit for a film trying to explore what a less intrusive, less demanding variety of technology might look like.

Indeed, if you're trying to imagine a future where we've managed to liberate ourselves from screens, systems based around talking are hard to avoid. As Barrett puts it, the computers we see in Her "don't ask us to sit down and pay attention" like the ones we have today. He compares it to the fundamental way music beats out movies in so many situations. Music is something you can listen to anywhere. It's complementary. It lets you operate in 360 degrees. Movies require you to be locked into one place, looking in one direction. As we see in the film, no matter what Theo's up to in real life, all it takes to bring his OS into the fold is to pop in his ear plug.

Looking at it that way, you can see the audio-based interface in Her as a novel form of augmented reality computing. Instead of overlaying our vision with a feed, as we've typically seen it, Theo gets a one piped into his ear. At the same time, the other ear is left free to take in the world around him.

Barrett sees this sort of arrangement as an elegant end point to the trajectory we're already on. Think about what happens today when we're bored at the dinner table. We check our phones. At the same time, we realise that's a bit rude, and as Barrett sees it, that's one of the great promises of the smartwatch: discretion.

"They're a little more invisible. A little sneakier," he says. Still, they're screens that require eyeballs. Instead, Barrett says, "imagine if you had an ear plug in and you were getting your feed from everywhere." Your attention would still be divided, but not nearly as flagrantly.

Of course, a truly capable voice-based UI comes with other benefits. Conversational interfaces make everything easier to use. When every different type of device runs an OS that can understand natural language, it means that every menu, every tool, every function is accessible simply by requesting it.

That, too, is a trend that's very much alive right now. Consider how today's mobile operating systems, like iOS and ChromeOS, hide the messy business of file systems out of sight. Theo, with his voice-based valet as intermediary, is burdened with even less under-the-hood stuff than we are today. As Barrett puts it: "We didn't want him fiddling with things and fussing with things." In other words, Theo lives in a future where everything, not just his iPad, "just works."

AI: the ultimate UX challenge

The central piece of invisible design in Her, however, is that of Sam, the artificially intelligent operating system and Theo's eventual romantic partner. Their relationship is so natural that it's easy to forget she's a piece of software. But Jonze and company didn't just write a girlfriend character, label it AI, and call it a day. Indeed, much of the film's dramatic tension ultimately hinges not just on the ways artificial intelligence can be like us but the ways it cannot.

Much of Sam's unique flavor of AI was written into the script by Jonze himself. But her inclusion led to all sorts of conversations among the production team about the nature of such a technology. "Anytime you're dealing with trying to interact with a human, you have to think of humans as operating systems. Very advanced operating systems. Your highest goal is to try to emulate them," Barrett says. Superficially, that might mean considering things like voice pattern and sensitivity and changing them based on the setting or situation.

Even more quesitons swirled when they considered how an artificially intelligent OS should behave. Are they a good listener? Are they intuitive? Do they adjust to your taste and line of questioning? Do they allow time for you to think? As Barrett puts it, "you don't want a machine that's always telling you the answer. You want one that approaches you like, 'let's solve this together.'"

In essence, it means that AI has to be programmed to dumb itself down. "I think it's very important for OSes in the future to have a good bedside manner." Barrett says. "As politicians have learned, you can't talk at someone all the time. You have to act like you're listening."

As we see in the film, though, the greatest asset of AI might be that it doesn't have one fixed personality. Instead, its ability to figure out what a person needs at a given moment emerges as the killer app.

Theo, emotionally desolate in the midst of a hard divorce, is having a hard time meeting people, so Sam goads him into going on a blind date. When Theo's friend Amy splits up with her husband, her own artificially intelligent OS acts as a sort of therapist. "She's helping me work through some things," Amy says of her virtual friend at one point.

In our own world, we may be a long way from computers that are able to sense when we're blue and help raise our spirits in one way or another. But we're already making progress down this path. In something as simple as a responsive web layout or iOS 7′s "Do Not Disturb" feature, we're starting to see designs that are more perceptive about the real world context surrounding them-where or how or when they're being used. Google Now and other types of predictive software are ushering in a new era of more personalised, more intelligent apps. And while Apple updating Siri with a few canned jokes about her Hollywood counterpart might not amount to a true sense of humor, it does serve as another example of how we're making technology more human-a preoccupation that's very much alive today.

Five days of 'Her:' How Spike Jonze created the future

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969) : Differences in the movie and the book

MARY MacGREGOR - in the book, she does not join the war in Spain where she dies soon after; she joins the Wrens (the female branch of the Royal Navy) and is killed in a fire sometime during her early 20s. Also, Mary is described by everyone in the book as simply "stupid" and seemingly lacking any redeemable trait, and everyone including Miss Brodie is mean to her. The film presents her somewhat more sympathetically as as a naive but sweet girl. There is another girl, however, who is introduced quite late in the novel who does in fact leave for the Spanish war and is killed in a train attack. It appears that Mary MacGregor in the film is a composite of Mary MacGregor in the novel plus the girl I just discussed.

MR. LLOYD - in the book, Miss Brodie does not have a physical affair with him because he is married but she does love him deeply; her attempt to substitute her student in her place (as his lover) makes more sense in the book because to me, she is living vicariously through the student. She won't bed a man who wears a ring, but she'd like to live out that fantasy through someone else. In the film, she does sleep with him so the student transference seems to suggest that she is just tired of him and wants to pass him off to another. This does not seem to work as plausibly as the vicarious fantasy angle found in the book. Also, in the novel, Mr. Lloyd has only one arm (the other was lost in WWI). In the novel he is blond, in the film he has dark brown or black hair.

SANDY - in the novel, she joins a nunnery and is visited later in life by a couple of her old classmates as well as Miss Brodie herself. Sandy seems to be very much more interested in Miss Brodie's romantic life in the novel, and at times downright obsessed by it, constantly speculating on her private life with Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Lowther with typical prepubescent curiosity. The "love letter" she writes does not, however, end up in Miss MacKay's hand but remains hidden in a cave. As a nun, Sandy writes a popular book on psychology.

SANDY'S BETRAYAL OF MISS BRODIE - In the novel Miss Brodie does not ever find out that it was Sandy who betrayed her; when she visits Sandy years later at the convent, she asks her "I wonder who it was that betrayed me." In the film, the main reason for Sandy blabbing to Miss MacKay is because of Mary MacGregor's death but in the novel, it is certainly due to the realization that Miss Brodie's plans for making young Rose the lover of Mr. Lloyd were not idle daydreaming but a methodic scheme that she had every intention of putting into place. It was this realization that prompts Sandy to feel that Miss Brodie must be stopped.

MR. LOWTHER - he and Miss Brodie are lovers in both the film and novel. He is described in the novel as having very short legs and generally not attractive at all. Miss Brodie sets about to fatten him up, obstensibly because his housekeepers are not providing him sufficient nourishment but perhaps truly because doing so would make him unattractive and would become a good reason for ending her affair with him.

MISS MacKAY - in the novel, she is younger than Miss Brodie. Also, there are no confrontations between MacKay and Brodie directly mentioned in the novel.

MISS BRODIE - she seems to be a few years older in the novel; when she tells of her lover dying at Flodden in 1918 she says that he was 22 and she was 6 years older, making her 28 at the time and thus born in or around 1890. So when the girls begin their term with her in 1930 she is 40 and she ages 6 years with them, dying in a nursing home shortly after WWII.

THE BRODIE GIRLS - there are six in the novel. In the film, Mary MacGregor is a combination of Mary MacGregor in the novel plus another minor character. Jenny in the film is a combination of Jenny in the novel plus Rose, the character in the novel who Miss Brodie tries to make the lover of Mr. Lloyd.

I have not yet read the play...does anyone know if or how the play differs from the novel and/or film?

There are, for all intents and purposes, six-and-a-half girls in the novel. All of the girls in the movie, save Sandy, are composites, bringing the number down to four. Jenny in the movie is a composite of Jenny (a beauty) and Rose (who would be famous for sex and was Jean's choice to share Teddy's bed). Monica is a composite of two rather colorless characters, Monica (a math whiz with a temper) and Eunice (who becomes a nurse). Mary is a composite of Mary (a very stupid girl who dies in a hotel fire) and Joyce Emily (who has a delinquent brother and dies on her way to fight for Franco in Spain). Joyce Emily isn't a true "Brodie Girl" but rather a wannabe who is all too eager to be persuaded to head for Spain to join her brother; she would be the "-and-a-half."

It took Franzen nearly 10 years to write Freedom after his ground-breaking novel Corrections

Ruby herself is played by Zoë Kazan, granddaughter of the great Elia (On the Waterfront et al), with great energy and some charm. Kazan also wrote the film. So we have a film about art imitating life, written by the actor playing the title character, starring her real-life partner (Dano), and directed by the real-life partnership of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (best known for Little Miss Sunshine).

The Inner Life of Martin Frost

Stranger Than Fiction

Till Human Voices Wake Us

Safety Not Guaranteed

Submarine, Eagle Vs. Shark, Me and You and Everyone We Know, Adventureland, Safety Not Guaranteed, Wet Hot American Summer, (obvious ones like Weird Science, Stranger Than Fiction, The Odd Life of Timothy Green) Donnie Darko, Lars and the Real Girl, Love Object, The Happiness of Katakuris, Let the Right One In

Hughes' 'Weird Science'

Splash and Mannequin