Connect with us

Entertainment

Raunchy AI Bros Accidentally Remind Us Who The Hottest Woman On Netflix Is

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated

Years after the advent of generative AI, there are still endless debates about how this tool should be used (or if it should be used at all) for creative purposes. One reason for the controversy is that purely AI-generated images often have a creepy, downright uncanny look about them. However, even the biggest AI skeptics have to reluctantly give the tech props for one thing: parody. Basically, apps like ChatGPT and Grok are really good at tweaking existing images based on various prompts. Recently, users on X have discovered this while cranking out the last thing you’d expect: AI-modified Seinfeld images. 

It all started when one user generated an image of a fully bald and bearded George; that user surprised himself with how sexy the new and improved Costanza looked. Other users tried their hand at other characters, and it didn’t take long for the platform to be flooded with modified images of Elaine. Many who posted these images commented on how much sexier it made the character look, but that was a mistake because it unleashed a flood of angry responses. All of these responses basically said the same thing: that the AI was completely unnecessary because Seinfeld-era Julia Louise-Dreyfus has always been one of the hottest women on the planet!

From George To Art Vandelay

While the discourse on X eventually centered on Elaine, it all began with George. This character was always written as a bit of a lovable loser, and the producers made him look that much schlubbier by having actor Jason Alexander wear clothes a size too small. It made for an ongoing visual gag on the show; decades later, X user @e_cdalton decided to create his own visual gag, using AI to remove the remainder of George’s hair and give him a beard. The user says that his original intent was “to mock the modern ‘bald plus beard’ look” and he was shocked by how “great” the new appearance was. 

After that, the user riffed on how Jason Alexander would have constantly been named one of “People’s Sexiest Men,” but at the expense of Seinfeld’s overall quality. As his post gained traction (over 35,000 likes as of this writing), @e_cdalton began posting AI images of other characters on the show. While the hipster versions of Jerry and Kramer were particularly fun, many users on X became fascinated with the user’s new version of Elaine. With straight hair, bangs, and a denim jacket, she looked like the protagonist (or, at least, a supporting character) in every Millennial manic pixie dream girl movie ever made. 

Millennial Elaine Isn’t Real, She Can’t Hurt You

Unsurprisingly, countless X users chimed in about this Seinfeld icon’s AI-assisted new look. There was some initial pushback, of course: some pointed out that she just looked like Zooey Deschanel from New Girl, and others pointed out that artists transformed these characters into Millennials a decade ago, without AI. For the most part, though, users gushed about how great this new Elaine looked, and many couldn’t resist creating their own versions. This included a blonde Elaine, a weirdly Laura Boebert-esque Elaine, and my personal favorite: Cowboy Bebop Elaine. Before these users could have too much fun, though, they got collectively bodied by an army of Julia Louise-Dreyfus superfans.

Those fans were mostly here to share the same message: that Julia Louise-Dreyfus was a complete smokeshow and could never be improved by AI chicanery. Several of them also pointed out that the AI bros were creating “new” looks that Louise-Dreyfus already rocked on Seinfeld. For example, the character actually had straight hair and bangs in the show’s final seasons. She also wore glasses, which may come as a surprise to everyone adding them to her character via AI. These often-hilarious user responses were a reminder that for all of its impressive features, even artificial intelligence can’t improve upon perfection.

Want to get a closer look at the hottest woman on Netflix? You won’t see her nipples or anything (at least, not unless you get a Christmas card from her), but you can gawk at Julia Louise-Dreyfus until October, when this hit sitcom finally leaves the streaming platform. There, you can enjoy her nearly hypnotic beauty for yourself in glorious widescreen. Remember, there’s no need to create some gooner AI demon version of Elaine when you can just watch the actual show; to paraphrase one of Seinfeld’s other characters, she’s real, and she’s spectacular!


source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

EA reverses course, removes microtransactions from College Football 27

EA Sports announced it will remove all paid progression options from College Football 27‘s Dynasty and Road to Glory modes, reversing a decision that drew significant backlash from fans and content creators following the game’s launch.

In a statement posted to social media during the game’s launch week, the developer acknowledged that player feedback indicated the microtransactions “missed the mark.”

The studio said the paid options had been “added independent of deeper mode progression with the aim to give players more choice,” but conceded that “what you’ve said is that they’re not adding the value we intended.” EA said the changes would take effect the following morning, though it warned that players with existing College Point balances would lose the ability to apply them to Road to Glory or Dynasty once the features were removed, urging fans to spend their points beforehand.

Our big Guessing Game is back! Enter now for a chance to win an Apple Watch.

The reversal follows a wave of criticism after College Football 27‘s release, with fans organizing around the hashtag #CFBPlayDontPay to voice frustration over microtransactions appearing in the game’s single-player offline modes. The system allowed players to spend real money to instantly boost their coach or player’s development. For example, maxing out a coach in Dynasty from the start could cost as much as $100, more than the price of the game itself.

Compounding the frustration, EA also removed sliders that let players in College Football 25 and 26 manually adjust how much experience they earned, a feature that had let people level up faster without paying. With that option gone, spending money became the only way to speed up progression, which is what drove much of the backlash.

Notably, the statement stopped short of ruling out microtransactions from the franchise going forward. EA said its “goal for live service plans in CFB28 and beyond will be to deliver valuable features and content with greater transparency and communication” — language suggesting paid content will return in some form in next year’s edition, even as the company walks back the current game’s implementation.


source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Underappreciated R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi With Stacked Cast Is Genius With Its Worldbuilding 

By Robert Scucci
| Updated

When was the last time you watched 1993’s Demolition Man? It’s one of those movies that feels like a sci-fi classic because it is. Whenever I talk about it with people who haven’t seen it in a while, or even revisited it as an adult, I always get the same answer, something along the lines of, “That movie is so dumb.” It’s the same treatment Starship Troopers gets when people only experience it at face value. In actuality, it’s a perfect satire about future life that reminds me more of Idiocracy than anything else, just in a more sophisticated, less overtly slapstick kind of way.

That is all to say, if it’s been a minute since you’ve watched Demolition Man and you’re of the mind that it’s not a very smart movie, you might want to give it another shot. If you picked up on the satire the first time around, I’d still suggest another watch because it’s such a fun movie.

But if you’re asking, and I’m being real here, I still don’t know what the three seashells are used for in the bathroom.

Swearing Is Illegal, But Taco Bell Is A Black Tie Experience

I’m not going to spend too much time talking about the plot to Demolition Man because it’s pretty barebones. What really sells the movie is the world it inhabits, and how the worldbuilding is drip-fed to us instead of ever being explicitly explained. It’s the same thing Officer John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) experiences when he wakes up in the year 2032 and suffers the worst kind of culture shock.

Demolition Man

John’s problems started in 1996 while facing off against the most charismatic psychopath ever committed to film in the form of Wesley Snipes‘ Simon Phoenix. When a hostage situation goes horribly wrong, resulting in piles of dead hostages thanks to John’s miscalculation, both John and Simon are convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms at the California Cryo-Penitentiary.

During a parole hearing in 2032, a thawed Simon escapes and embarks on a crime spree that’s inadvertently facilitated by the “subliminal rehabilitation techniques” used during his incarceration, allowing him to adapt to his new surroundings with an alarming amount of precision. Given John Spartan’s history with Simon Phoenix, Officer Zachary Lamb (Bill Cobbs) advises Lieutenant Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock) that the best course of action is to thaw John out and let him loose after his arch nemesis.

Demolition Man

Woozy from cryosleep and in a complete state of shock over how different life is in 2032, John has his work cut out for him. He’s familiar with Simon’s modus operandi, but everything else is foreign. Why is he now living in the city of San Angeles? Why is eating at Taco Bell a formal affair? And WHAT THE HELL ARE THE THREE SEASHELLS FOR?!

Somebody, please, answer me.

World Building Through Serious Scene Chewing 

Demolition Man

One thing that Demolition Man doesn’t get enough credit for is its unwillingness to explicitly lay out how society works in 2032. The advantage this offers is twofold. We’re just as confused as John Spartan when he receives written citations for swearing and engaging in other carnal pleasures now deemed immoral. John is a smart guy who relies on instinct when he’s in his element, but the world he came from no longer matches the one he now lives in. Most of the humor comes from him asking questions that anybody in 2032 would take for granted, resulting in bemused stares and stifled laughter despite the fact he’s serious as a heart attack.

On the other side of the coin is Wesley Snipes, whose scene-chewing charisma steals every single scene. He’s mentally enhanced thanks to the “rehabilitation” program, and basically all that means is that he’s one step ahead of everybody because he possesses talents he never had before. The dude is running around hacking computers, stealing weapons, and cackling every step of the way. Snipes in Demolition Man has the same energy he brings to White Men Can’t Jump (1992), but instead of conning Woody Harrelson as a means of survival, he’s dead set on unleashing absolute chaos and antagonizing the very officer who locked him up decades earlier.

Demolition Man

Rounding out the cast is Sandra Bullock with her portrayal of Lenina Huxley. While Stallone and Snipes dish out cynicism in healthy doses, Bullock brings a child-like sense of naivety with her fascination for late 20th century culture, something she’s only learned about through history lessons. This naturally evolves into a romantic entanglement between Lenina and her new de facto partner, John, who’s from the very time and culture she’s obsessed with. It’s an odd-couple dynamic given how apprehensive they are toward each other at the beginning of the film, but it leaves them both with plenty of room to grow by the time the credits roll.

Demolition Man earns its keep as a satire because it shows instead of tells. The city of San Angeles in 2032 is as perplexing as it is amusing, and we’re learning about it alongside John when we’re dropped into this world. The logic is established early on, but the incidental things we take for granted, like going to the bathroom (again with the shells), are left open to interpretation. The film merely alludes to the franchise wars before dropping you into the ridiculousness of a formal Taco Bell dinner. Before long, you’re used to the profanity-policing drones, and you’re completely immersed in the world. 

Demolition Man

If you’re willing to give Demolition Man a second chance, overdue for a rewatch, or simply never saw it, you can stream it on Tubi for free as of this writing.


source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi Thriller Somehow Has Better CGI Than Most Movies Today

By Robert Scucci
| Published

I’ve been putting it off for a very long time, but I finally revisited 1999’s Deep Blue Sea this past weekend, and I’m so glad I did. The funny thing about movies from this era is that the CGI is pretty terrible because it was relatively new technology, generally speaking. I remember laughing at the creature design when I was 11 years old, but after a few decades of CGI in movies somehow getting exceptionally worse, I was actually impressed by what I saw.

I think Deep Blue Sea’s real charm is its willingness to show us the monster, which is normally the worst thing you can do. Have you seen the Jurassic World movies or Disney’s Haunted Mansion (2023)? The screen is so dark during some sequences that you can’t even see what’s going on half the time, and it’s by design. Bury the CGI in darkness and nobody will notice how bad it is. But here’s the problem: nobody can see what the heck is going on, so everybody loses.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Deep Blue Sea, on the other hand, shows us shark attacks up close, for better or worse. Fortunately, everybody brings their A game to the table, and it never feels like a bunch of actors on a soundstage talking to a green screen. It feels lived in, even if it doesn’t always look like it. The moral here is that if you thought movies like Deep Blue Sea were crappy back in the ’90s because of their visual effects, it’s time to revisit them. They look so much better by comparison when pitted against the crap coming out today.

Let’s Make An Apex Predator Even Smarter, What Could Possibly Go Wrong? 

Oh boy, where do we begin? Deep Blue Sea centers on the idea that shark brain tissue may be the key to curing, or at the very least slowing, the damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease. We’re introduced to doctors Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) and Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgard), who are basically trying to play God in their underwater research compound. When one of the sharks escapes and wreaks havoc on the public, Samuel L. Jackson’s Russel Franklin, a corporate executive, is sent down to see what all the hubbub is about.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

While visiting, he’s introduced to ex-con shark wrangler Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), marine biologist Janice Higgins (Jacqueline McKenzie), and engineer Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport), who are all moments away from watching all hell break loose in the form of a super-intelligent shark destroying the facility and eating anybody who gets in its way. Their one goal is to escape back into the ocean, which would be a terrible outcome because we soon find out that, in order to speed up their research, the scientists genetically engineered the sharks to have larger brains. That means there’s not only instinct behind all those razor-sharp rows of teeth, but advanced intelligence as well.

It wouldn’t be an action thriller without some comic relief, though, and that’s where LL Cool J’s Sherman Dudley comes in. Sherman spends most of his time cooking for the crew, quoting scripture, and getting into verbal spats with his pet parrot. He knows how to make the perfect omelet, and he wants the world to know it more than anything else.

Straight Up Popcorn Spectacle That We Should Fully Embrace

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Deep Blue Sea is one of those movies you go into with low expectations thanks to hindsight and the film’s reputation for swinging and missing with its special effects. But even Roger Ebert, who once commented that the sharks looked like cartoons, gave the movie three out of four stars for being an effective thriller. Once the setup is out of the way, the whole thing is basically one action sequence after another in rapid succession, and sometimes that’s all you need from a movie.

The best way to think about Deep Blue Sea is as a big-budget B movie. It’s your standard monster movie survival fare, but with $82 million thrown at it, and it couldn’t be cast more perfectly. While it’s a far cry from Jaws, it still has a lot more going for it than the Sharknado films when it comes to set design and its overall level of seriousness.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Don’t get me wrong, Deep Blue Sea is a fun movie and has plenty of comic relief to go around, but at the end of the day it’s a big-budget sci-fi thriller that holds up shockingly well nearly 30 years after it made its initial splash.

As of this writing, Deep Blue Sea is streaming for free on Tubi.


source

Continue Reading