Categories
Politics

What Went Wrong with You, el primer programa de televisión 'Rotten' de Bryan Cranston en Rotten Tomatoes

[ad_1]

resumen

  • Su Señoría, no estuvo a la altura de las expectativas debido a una narración mediocre.
  • Bryan Cranston se ha enfrentado a comparaciones injustas con Breaking Bad in Your Honor.
  • La segunda temporada de Your Honor mejoró pero no pudo conseguir una tercera temporada.

Su Señoría Fue la muy esperada continuación televisiva de Bryan Cranston. DemasiadoPero la serie ni siquiera estuvo cerca de igualar la calidad de este último. después Demasiado Al final, Cranston parece no haber hecho nada malo, dedicando 62 episodios y cinco temporadas a una de las mejores series de televisión de todos los tiempos, convirtiendo a Walter White en uno de los antihéroes más icónicos y profundos de la televisión. Cranston protagonizó algunas películas después de eso. Demasiado Terminécomo 2014 Godzilla2015 tromboy 2016 kung fu panda 3 ¿Y por qué él? Tuvo un papel recurrente en Pete astuto.

Su Señoría Se esperaba que marcara el popular regreso de Cranston a protagonizar una serie de televisión que mucha gente ha apodado Los males colapsan Método de reemplazo. Sin embargo, después de dos temporadas mediocres que dieron como resultado que la serie recibiera solo el 58% en Rotten Tomatoes, Su Señoría No fue retomado para la tercera temporada. La serie fue creada por Peter Moffat.quien estuvo detrás de la popular serie limitada de HBO una noche Protagonizada por Riz Ahmed y John Turturro. Fuera del papel de liderazgo de Cranston, Tu presencia El elenco estaba formado por Hope Davis, Michael Stuhlbarg, Lily Kaye e Isiah Whitlock Jr.

Relacionado

¿Dónde está mirando, señoría?

Descubra dónde ver Your Honor, en la que Bryan Cranston interpreta a un juez obligado a abandonar el sistema legal para proteger a su hijo.

Su Señoría fue criticada por su historia y escritura derivadas.

Tu presencia La narración no logró esto.

Bryan Cranston tiene barba en tu honor

Aunque Cranston hace una gran interpretación como Michael Desiato, un respetado juez que se involucra en el mundo del crimen organizado a través de un error cometido por su hijo, Su Señoría Falla en el frente narrativo. porque Demasiado Era tan rica en narración gracias a la brillantez de Vince Gilligan y otros escritores como Moira Whaley Beckett y Peter Gould, que las expectativas eran muy altas. Su Señoría La cadena simplemente se cayó. Después de un primer episodio fuerte y convincente, La serie luchó por encontrar su equilibrio durante su primera temporada. No pudo ganar un impulso constante en su narrativa.

Ben Travers IndieWire Escribió en su reseña de Su Señoría Temporada 1,”Es como si nos ahogáramos en una miseria que nadie debería tener que experimentar, y el efecto no es dramático sino horroroso. Quizás los episodios posteriores encuentren una base más sólida, pero por ahora, no te preocupes por eso.Daniel Feinberg reportero de hollywood Señaló que “la serie lucha por darnos una idea de quién o qué es el personaje de Michael Desiato antes del evento desencadenante de la serie”. James Poniewozik New York Times Ella compartió sentimientos similares y escribió: “Los personajes parecen ilustraciones de archivo de un seminario virtual de filosofía moral… y el resultado es una proporción absurda entre talento actoral y material.

Relacionado

Los 10 mejores papeles de Bryan Cranston, clasificados

Sin duda, Bryan Cranston ha dominado su oficio y estos 10 roles ejemplifican perfectamente su talento excepcional.

Su Señoría a menudo ha sido comparada desfavorablemente con Breaking Bad de Bryan Cranston.

Tenías unos zapatos enormes que llenar después de Breaking Bad

Cualquier serie de televisión protagonizada por Bryan Cranston después de 2013 seguramente sería comparada con DemasiadoLo que sin duda añadió otra capa de presión y crítica. Su Señoría. Si bien la gran mayoría de las series de televisión pertenecen a la categoría de ser peores que Demasiadotanto los críticos como los fanáticos establecieron un listón alto para seguir a Cranston, y probablemente esa sea la razón Le tomó siete años asumir el papel principal en una nueva serie dramática.. Mientras que las comparaciones Su Señoría a Demasiado Fundamentalmente injusto y tuvo poco que ver con el motivo por el que se abandonó el programa después de dos temporadas.

Walter White se ha convertido en una figura tan icónica de la televisión que hoy en día es difícil ver a Cranston en cualquier proyecto y no volver inmediatamente a su brillante actuación en… Demasiado. En un sentido, Walter White se ha convertido en un hito en la historia de la televisión Que Cranston nunca podría escapar de ello. Afortunadamente para él, a medida que Walter desciende al personaje de sangre fría de Heisenberg y continúa mostrando su clásico perfil calvo, comienza a parecerse cada vez menos a Cranston en otros papeles, lo que en parte explica por qué su actuación es tan condescendiente. Sin embargo, incluso el próximo papel protagonista de Cranston en una serie dramática, que aún no ha sido anunciado, llamará la atención. Demasiado Comparaciones.

Relacionado

10 escenas geniales y malas de las que los espectadores siguen hablando más de 10 años después

Diez años después de que terminara la serie, los fanáticos de Breaking Bad todavía están debatiendo las escenas más icónicas de la historia de la transformación de Walter White en Heisenberg.

¿Por qué la temporada 2 de Your Honor fue una mejora tan grande con respecto a la temporada 1?

La temporada 2 de Your Honor intentó sacar provecho de su elenco estelar

Bryan Cranston como el juez Michael Desiato en su honor

Su Señoría La segunda temporada recibió más elogios de la crítica que la primera, recibiendo un 67% y una calificación fresca certificada en Rotten Tomatoes. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los críticos estuvieron de acuerdo en eso. Su Señoría La segunda temporada fue casi tan cruda y decepcionante como la primera, Todavía fue entretenido en partes inconexas y fue una mejora en general. De la primera temporada. Los elogios adicionales no fueron suficientes para que Showtime retomara la serie para una tercera temporada, convirtiendo la “Parte 20”, que se emitió el 19 de marzo de 2024, en el final involuntario de la serie. Su Señoría Tenía los ingredientes para convertirse en algo grandioso, pero incluso con los esfuerzos de Cranston, finalmente no pudo lograrlo.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Bisnis Industri

Apple video for iPad Pro rubs creatives the wrong way

[ad_1]

Apple Let Loose Event: Apple’s “Crush!” video advertising the new iPad Pro is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way with its graphic destruction of creative tools.

The video first aired during Apple’s “Let Loose” event Tuesday. And when CEO Tim Cook included the video in a post about iPad Pro on X, hundreds of people replied with irritation. You can see some of the strongest reactions, and the video itself, below.

‘Crush!’ Apple video for iPad Pro rubs creatives the wrong way

The point of the ad, which runs a bit more than a minute, seems clear enough. Using the latest iPad Pro and powerful software, you can harness the creative power of many different tools like paints, musical instruments and even games and toys.

But the way the ad depicts a giant crushing device — reminiscent of the trash compactor scene in Star Wars — laying waste to a huge pile of perfectly innocent creative tools rubbed a lot of creatives the wrong way.

When the ad’s detailed and lingering views of pianos, guitars, paint sets, classic arcade games, turntables, sculptures and more being utterly obliterated finally comes to an end, the compactor lifts to show iPad Pro.

Voila! The ultra-thin device is everything, and the only thing, a creative person needs, the ad seems to say.

An ad for a creative tool destroys other creative tools

Apple video for iPad Pro - Crush
The trumpet on top of the pile will be the first to get it in Apple’s “Crush!” ad.
Photo: Apple

“Yes, but at what price, Apple?” many creatives seem to reply. The ad struck many as wasteful, to say the least. I know I was ready to turn off the video by the time the cute little toy ball’s eyes blew out from the brutal compression.

“Everything beautiful, charming and analog will be destroyed by a flat black screen,” one X user noted, sourly.

“iPad crushes the soul of humanity,” summed up another.

Given the large negative response from creatives online after Cook posted the video, the surprisingly graphic ad seems like the wrong way to sell iPad Pro to that audience. His post drew nearly 4,000 replies as of Wednesday morning, quite a few of them expressing criticism of the ad.

Cook’s messaging with video simply introduced the new tablet. He called it “the thinnest product we’ve ever created with the most advanced display we’ve ever produced,” and mentioned the powerful M4 chip. “Just imagine all the things it’ll be used to create,” he added.

Could backlash to ‘Crush!’ video for iPad Pro erode Apple’s brand equity?

Scads of people, including quite a few from Japan, used their computing tools to create outraged replies to the video. One person referred to Apple losing brand equity “instantly” with the video.

“Who approve this creative? Who create this? Everyone in the studio was excited to see everything destroyed?” asked a user. “Definitely this is the good case study the world big tech company lost brand equity instantly. Promise to prevent my kids to watch this video.”

“I felt sad when I saw creative tools such as musical instruments and cameras being destroyed. I don’t think the creators will like this video. Is it my Japanese sensibility that makes me feel this way?” asked another poster.

“Even if you wanted to claim that your products could replace musical instruments and cameras, there was no need for scenes that suggest violence towards humans,” said a third, including images with their post of figures and toys with faces getting crushed.

One factor that could mitigate the video’s impact would be if CGI effects created most of the visuals. That could be the case. In other words, Apple didn’t necessarily smash all those tools and objects in real life. But even so, a lot of people took a message other than the one Apple clearly intended.

Watch Apple’s ‘Crush!’ video:



[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Featured

I thought screens on earbuds cases were a bit meh – but JBL just proved me wrong

[ad_1]

One thing we never put in the reviews that make up our best earbuds or best noise cancelling earbuds guides is a mark specific to the case. Usually, we like said charging nest to be pocketable, for the magnets in the lid to keep their precious music-giving cargo safe and if there’s a nice powerful onboard battery for extra stamina, so much the better. But when JBL put a smartwatch-style screen on an earbuds case in December 2022, it initially felt like the game was about to change. This was something we never thought possible! 

Although that inaugural screen was pretty, it made the case it was attached to rather big – and our JBL Tour 2 Pro review was something of a mixed bag because it made the earbuds a pricey proposition within a crowded market. Also, the promised message notifications, call history and any social media access via the Tour Pro 2 case never arrived. 

JBL Live Beam 3's JBL Headphones app, three screen-grabs showing smart charging case settings

The Smart Charging Case settings within the app – neat!  (Image credit: JBL)

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Featured

Steve Jobs was wrong about the post-PC era and the next batch of iPads should embrace this

[ad_1]

The original iPad was important enough to get its own live on-stage introduction by the late Steve Jobs. It was such a revolutionary idea that it predates the iPhone and we might’ve been using Apple‘s first tablet in 2007 if Steve Jobs hadn’t steered the technology to a pocketable format.

After the January 27, 2010 launch, the world, for a time, seemed to revolve around Apple’s iPad, a silicon, glass, and metal gadget so ground-breaking it rated its own storyline on the then wildly popular Modern Family TV series (it was really like a 22-minute ad with a lot of jokes).

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Featured

Discord’s updated Terms of Service are exactly the wrong response to its recent data breaches

[ad_1]

It seems that Discord has been in the news for one reason or another lately, ranging from layoffs to massive privacy breaches and information theft by third parties. And now there’s something new on the horizon — one that may not seem like such a huge deal now but could cause massive issues later on down the line for Discord users.

Discord has recently updated its forced arbitration clause in its Terms of Service for its service for US residents, a decision that follows many other corporations that operate primarily in the US. According to the clause, any users who reside in the US waive their right to a jury trial, which includes any class action suits:

screenshot of discord TOS

(Image credit: Future)

But why would Discord bother to update its TOS now?



[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Featured

You’re not wearing Vision Pro wrong and Apple isn’t hiding anything

[ad_1]

I would be lying if I said that wearing Apple Vision Pro feels like you’re wearing nothing, so I’m not surprised that some overly enthusiastic wearers are complaining of headaches, neck aches, and even black eyes. It’s enough to prompt me, if not Apple to say, “You’re wearing it wrong.”

Apple is not saying that, though. In fact, after Marketplace published its report on Wednesday, Apple didn’t respond directly to the claims but did point to its Vision Pro guidelines.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

have we got evolution the wrong way round?

[ad_1]

Selfish Genes to Social Beings: A Cooperative History of Life Jonathan Silvertown Oxford Univ. Press (2024)

The fact that all life evolved thanks to natural selection can have depressing connotations. If ‘survival of the fittest’ is the key to evolution, are humans hardwired for conflict with one another? Not at all, says evolutionary biologist Jonathan Silvertown in his latest book, Selfish Genes to Social Beings. On the contrary, he argues, many phenomena in the natural world, from certain types of predation to parasitism, rely on cooperation. Thus “we need no longer fret that human nature is sinful or fear that the milk of human kindness will run dry”.

Silvertown uses examples from genes, bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to emphasize that cooperation is ubiquitous in nature. For instance, bacteria called rhizobia thrive in the root nodules of legumes — and turn nitrogen from the air into a soluble form that the plants can use. Some beetles cooperate to bury animal corpses that would be too large for any single insect to manage alone, both reducing the risk of other animals stealing food and providing a nest for beetle families to live in.

And many bacteria indicate their presence to each other using a chemical-signalling system called quorum sensing, which is active only when members of the same species are tightly packed together. This allows each cell to adjust its gene expression in a way that benefits the individuals in the group — to release a poison to kill other species, for instance, when enough bacteria are clustered together to mount a decent attack.

Even eighteenth-century piracy, says Silvertown, is a good example of effective cooperation. Pirates worked together on their ships, and used violence more often against outsiders than as an internal mechanism for law enforcement.

The author argues against the idea that cooperation is fundamentally at odds with competition — a view that emerged as a consequence of the sociobiology movement of the 1970s, in which some biologists argued that all human behaviour is reducible to a Darwinian need to be the ‘fittest’. The reality, as Silvertown shows, is not black and white.

Lichen on a wall in Ambleside, Lake District, UK.

Lichen is a composite organism, in which an alga lives within a fungus.Credit: Ashley Cooper/SPL

A matter of perspective

Take lichens, for instance — ‘composite organisms’ in which an alga or cyanobacterium lives within a fungus. The Swiss botanist Simon Schwendener, who discovered this relationship in the 1860s, argued that a lichen is a parasite: “Its slaves are green algals, which it has sought out or indeed caught hold of, and forced into its service.” Another way to view the relationship is that these algae and fungi are co-dependent — when they co-exist as a lichen, each grows better than it would alone. The line between parasitism and mutualism, competition and cooperation is not clear cut. It’s a matter of perspective.

Similarly hazy boundaries are found in the biology of our own cells. More than a billion years ago, cells absorbed bacteria, which eventually evolved into structures called mitochondria that generate energy. Mitochondria are an essential part of the cells of all plants, animals and fungi alive today. They could be considered slaves, with cells the parasites. Or perhaps they are more like adopted family members.

Fundamentally, Silvertown proposes, cooperation in each of these situations stems from selfishness. Animals did not evolve to act for the benefit of their species, but to spread their own genes. Cooperation happens because mutual benefits are better, biologically speaking, than working alone, as the case of lichens effectively demonstrates.

If this seems heartless, it’s a reflection of the human tendency to apply human moral frameworks to biological phenomena. The use of emotionally charged words such as ‘slave’ and ‘adopted’ takes us away from rigorous science and leads us to see biological interactions as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, rather than as the morally agnostic, transactional processes that they truly are.

The anthropomorphizing of biological processes is a deep and current problem. The tendency to falsely imply agency in the natural world is an easy trap to fall into — consider how often people might say that a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 ‘wants’ to be transmitted, for instance, or that ants act ‘for the good of their colony’. I would have liked to hear more about Silvertown’s views on this category error. But in places, I felt that he could have made his implied understanding more explicit. Instead, he sometimes sacrifices that carefulness for unnecessary jokes, noting, for instance, that bacteria “are essentially singletons who like to party”.

The author could also have talked more about how the amorality inherent in most of the natural world does not apply to humans. Similarly to other organisms, our evolutionary heritage makes us social, but whether that sociality is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a moral, not a scientific, question. This distinction from the other cooperative processes that Silvertown outlines could have been explained better.

Selfish Genes to Social Beings is at its best in the long, fascinating discussions of the complexity of cooperative behaviours across the natural world. For instance, although I’ve read a lot about biology, before reading this book I could never understand how RNA chains might have joined together and started the process of self-replication through which all life evolved. Silvertown can talk as easily about the compounds making up your genes as most people can about yesterday’s football match.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Here’s what many digital tools for chronic pain are doing wrong

[ad_1]

Chronic pain is a health crisis of enormous proportions. In the United States and Europe, about 20% of adults experience chronic pain, defined as pain lasting more than three months. Incidence is likely to rise in the coming decades, owing in part to ageing populations.

The past few years have witnessed an explosion in the number of digital tools, some powered by machine learning and big data, that promise to help people living with pain. Digital-therapeutics companies, such as Hinge Health in San Francisco, California, offer remote physical therapy, monitored by computer vision, to correct posture. In 2022, the device company Neurometrix in Woburn, Massachusetts, received authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration to market Quell, a wearable smart device for nerve stimulation, as the first non-pharmacological treatment for fibromyalgia, a disorder characterized by widespread body pain and fatigue. Virtual-reality (VR) platforms for neurofeedback therapy, which helps users train their brains to cope better with pain over time, promise to provide relief similar to that offered by opioid medications.

In my sociological research, I have spoken to dozens of entrepreneurs, physicians and people with chronic pain about the promise of digital technology for pain management. Our conversations are full of examples showing that data-driven alternatives to addictive drugs can help to fight chronic pain. Indeed, the companies spearheading this trend have produced good evidence that their tools work, such as Hinge Health’s longitudinal cohort study (J. F. Bailey et al. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e18250; 2020).

But there are caveats. A 2022 review of research from 12 countries, including the United States, found that digital health technologies could create health disparities or exacerbate existing ones (R. Yao et al. J. Med. Internet Res. 24, e34144; 2022). For example, rural areas often don’t have broadband Internet access, and older adults might lack digital literacy. Disabled people can be left behind if digital tools are not designed to be accessible. If digital health equity concerns are not taken into account, these technologies will be inadequate in tackling the pain crisis.

Although digital therapies that use a single approach, such as online physical therapy, can benefit some people, they can promote a view of pain as easily fixable and ignore co-occurring conditions that require other solutions. Chronic pain is complex and often involves several overlapping pain conditions, depression, anxiety, sleep disorders and social factors. That’s why the International Association for the Study of Pain affirms that the gold standard for treating chronic pain is integrative care, which centres on an individual’s needs, involves collaboration between pain physicians and other health professionals and can combine several therapies. This approach requires time, resources and infrastructure enabling seamless, real-time coordination among specialists and with the patient.

Digital technology has huge potential to improve access to integrative care, but it falls short on delivery. The competitive mentality of Silicon Valley does not mesh with the continuity of care and inter-professional communication and organization that are needed to manage this condition. If simply added alongside existing systems — instead of being integrated thoughtfully — digital technology might lead to sub-optimal care and contribute to burnout of providers, who will have to spend more time on electronic health records and coordinate the use of yet another tool.

One solution is focusing on strategic partnerships between digital-health companies that have technological know-how and hospitals and health systems that provide quality pain care. For example, Fern Health, based in New York City, is co-developing and scaling its multimodal education and lifestyle-intervention programme with the MetroHealth System, a non-profit public health-care system based in Cleveland, Ohio. Fern also merged with VR company BehaVR, based in Nashville, Tennessee, which offers neurofeedback therapy at home. New digital health solutions should be designed as add-ons or plug-ins for broader collaborative platforms, rather than as standalone solutions.

Other examples of digital technologies that are addressing the divide and making care accessible to more people can be seen in some newer companies, including US firm Override Health and Upside Health in New York City. These platforms do not promote one specific therapy; rather, they digitally connect several providers to discuss a person’s progress in a coordinated way, and provide patients with access to networks of people with similar conditions.

This leaves the challenge of access. Beyond broader societal issues, such as broadband access, digital technology must be understood as a two-way medium not only between health-care provider and patient, but also between platform designers and users. The digital transformation of chronic-pain care cannot succeed without design input from those who should benefit from these tools.

Everyone affected by pain misses out on a massive opportunity when digital technology is seen merely as an upgrade of existing, singular solutions, instead of as a transformative connector.

Technological fixes to medical problems should be viewed with caution. But digital health technology — if used to integrate care and focused on equitable access — might change the course of the current pain crisis.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link