@DRDMovieMusings said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for Stephen King's Pet Sematary novel. I read it at a particular time in my life that was at once both momentous yet also somewhat sad, and jumped to see the original movie released in 1989. It turned out to be among the better movie interpretations of a King novel which, as we all know, can be hit or miss.

So, I wasn't sure why they remade it. The original made good money, paying $5 but the remake didn't do much better, paying $5.35 (of course, that's still solid ROI). I suppose the sequel to the original, which I did not bother with, did poorly enough both critically and financially (mustering $2.14) that rebooting made more sense.

At any rate, this was released on Paramount+ so there'll be no ROI talk possible — all we have left is, perhaps, what should only have ever been, critical review of the film itself.

The trailer did indeed pique my interest. The story that Jud Crandall told Louis Creed was horrific enough to imagine (and imagination is really King's stock in trade, right?); thus, if they were going to attempt to tackle that back story as a movie, it'd be challenging to get it right; but then, it takes a special kind of ambition to tackle any King horror anyway.

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

Were you able to fix your ROI database?

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for Stephen King's Pet Sematary novel. I read it at a particular time in my life that was at once both momentous yet also somewhat sad, and jumped to see the original movie released in 1989. It turned out to be among the better movie interpretations of a King novel which, as we all know, can be hit or miss.

So, I wasn't sure why they remade it. The original made good money, paying $5 but the remake didn't do much better, paying $5.35 (of course, that's still solid ROI). I suppose the sequel to the original, which I did not bother with, did poorly enough both critically and financially (mustering $2.14) that rebooting made more sense.

At any rate, this was released on Paramount+ so there'll be no ROI talk possible — all we have left is, perhaps, what should only have ever been, critical review of the film itself.

The trailer did indeed pique my interest. The story that Jud Crandall told Louis Creed was horrific enough to imagine (and imagination is really King's stock in trade, right?); thus, if they were going to attempt to tackle that back story as a movie, it'd be challenging to get it right; but then, it takes a special kind of ambition to tackle any King horror anyway.

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

Were you able to fix your ROI database?

:-) Kinda.

I'm not a programmer. I built up some non-programmer skills in Excel over the years, and liked the tools to create the visuals. Excel gets really flaky once it gets too big, and some of the features that make it fun also make it unstable.

The record count has been restored, so I have the data to speak to movie profitability. For stability, I had to strip out all conditional formatting, making it much less visual. I'm also afraid to share it again, I just don't trust Microsoft to manage sharing elegantly, and suspect that had more to do with the crash than conditional formatting.

This unfortunate crash also prompted me to begin exploring other platforms, slowly — I've got a bunch of other priorities making this hobby difficult to focus on through the full implementation of a new tool. That is to say, I'd like to eventually maintain a new tool that offers vibrant visualizations and can be shared/published with stability. While this is not of front-burner urgency, do stay tuned :-)

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for Stephen King's Pet Sematary novel. I read it at a particular time in my life that was at once both momentous yet also somewhat sad, and jumped to see the original movie released in 1989. It turned out to be among the better movie interpretations of a King novel which, as we all know, can be hit or miss.

So, I wasn't sure why they remade it. The original made good money, paying $5 but the remake didn't do much better, paying $5.35 (of course, that's still solid ROI). I suppose the sequel to the original, which I did not bother with, did poorly enough both critically and financially (mustering $2.14) that rebooting made more sense.

At any rate, this was released on Paramount+ so there'll be no ROI talk possible — all we have left is, perhaps, what should only have ever been, critical review of the film itself.

The trailer did indeed pique my interest. The story that Jud Crandall told Louis Creed was horrific enough to imagine (and imagination is really King's stock in trade, right?); thus, if they were going to attempt to tackle that back story as a movie, it'd be challenging to get it right; but then, it takes a special kind of ambition to tackle any King horror anyway.

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

Were you able to fix your ROI database?

:-) Kinda.

I'm not a programmer. I built up some non-programmer skills in Excel over the years, and liked the tools to create the visuals. Excel gets really flaky once it gets too big, and some of the features that make it fun also make it unstable.

The record count has been restored, so I have the data to speak to movie profitability. For stability, I had to strip out all conditional formatting, making it much less visual. I'm also afraid to share it again, I just don't trust Microsoft to manage sharing elegantly, and suspect that had more to do with the crash than conditional formatting.

This unfortunate crash also prompted me to begin exploring other platforms, slowly — I've got a bunch of other priorities making this hobby difficult to focus on through the full implementation of a new tool. That is to say, I'd like to eventually maintain a new tool that offers vibrant visualizations and can be shared/published with stability. While this is not of front-burner urgency, do stay tuned :-)

So it was my fault?

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for Stephen King's Pet Sematary novel. I read it at a particular time in my life that was at once both momentous yet also somewhat sad, and jumped to see the original movie released in 1989. It turned out to be among the better movie interpretations of a King novel which, as we all know, can be hit or miss.

So, I wasn't sure why they remade it. The original made good money, paying $5 but the remake didn't do much better, paying $5.35 (of course, that's still solid ROI). I suppose the sequel to the original, which I did not bother with, did poorly enough both critically and financially (mustering $2.14) that rebooting made more sense.

At any rate, this was released on Paramount+ so there'll be no ROI talk possible — all we have left is, perhaps, what should only have ever been, critical review of the film itself.

The trailer did indeed pique my interest. The story that Jud Crandall told Louis Creed was horrific enough to imagine (and imagination is really King's stock in trade, right?); thus, if they were going to attempt to tackle that back story as a movie, it'd be challenging to get it right; but then, it takes a special kind of ambition to tackle any King horror anyway.

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

Were you able to fix your ROI database?

:-) Kinda.

I'm not a programmer. I built up some non-programmer skills in Excel over the years, and liked the tools to create the visuals. Excel gets really flaky once it gets too big, and some of the features that make it fun also make it unstable.

The record count has been restored, so I have the data to speak to movie profitability. For stability, I had to strip out all conditional formatting, making it much less visual. I'm also afraid to share it again, I just don't trust Microsoft to manage sharing elegantly, and suspect that had more to do with the crash than conditional formatting.

This unfortunate crash also prompted me to begin exploring other platforms, slowly — I've got a bunch of other priorities making this hobby difficult to focus on through the full implementation of a new tool. That is to say, I'd like to eventually maintain a new tool that offers vibrant visualizations and can be shared/published with stability. While this is not of front-burner urgency, do stay tuned :-)

So it was my fault?

Nooo! Not at all! Perish the thought.

I am fairly convinced that it was the conditional formatting. But that does not come up a lot in the literature on what causes xls file corruption. So, without absolute certainty that I could pin it on conditional formatting, I had to consider what changed from before to now, and the only thing that changed was sharing. And, it is well-documented that Microsoft is not good at this new internet/sharing thing (do a good search for OneDrive search to see just how bad it is vs. a competitive landscape that includes Google Drive, Dropbox and others which boast very good search, which is curious since search in OneNote, born in the stand-alone era, is quite good). Another great example of Microsoft's poor online acumen is the hate for SharePoint.

At any rate, this is more a reflection on me. I've been stuck on Excel when there may indeed be better platforms out there to do what I want this thing to do — the kick in the seat of my pants that this experience is, I choose to interpret as a good thing. I mapped out what this could be in Excel, terrific; but it may be time to take it to another level.

As such, THANK YOU @bratface for your interest in it!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for Stephen King's Pet Sematary novel. I read it at a particular time in my life that was at once both momentous yet also somewhat sad, and jumped to see the original movie released in 1989. It turned out to be among the better movie interpretations of a King novel which, as we all know, can be hit or miss.

So, I wasn't sure why they remade it. The original made good money, paying $5 but the remake didn't do much better, paying $5.35 (of course, that's still solid ROI). I suppose the sequel to the original, which I did not bother with, did poorly enough both critically and financially (mustering $2.14) that rebooting made more sense.

At any rate, this was released on Paramount+ so there'll be no ROI talk possible — all we have left is, perhaps, what should only have ever been, critical review of the film itself.

The trailer did indeed pique my interest. The story that Jud Crandall told Louis Creed was horrific enough to imagine (and imagination is really King's stock in trade, right?); thus, if they were going to attempt to tackle that back story as a movie, it'd be challenging to get it right; but then, it takes a special kind of ambition to tackle any King horror anyway.

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

Were you able to fix your ROI database?

:-) Kinda.

I'm not a programmer. I built up some non-programmer skills in Excel over the years, and liked the tools to create the visuals. Excel gets really flaky once it gets too big, and some of the features that make it fun also make it unstable.

The record count has been restored, so I have the data to speak to movie profitability. For stability, I had to strip out all conditional formatting, making it much less visual. I'm also afraid to share it again, I just don't trust Microsoft to manage sharing elegantly, and suspect that had more to do with the crash than conditional formatting.

This unfortunate crash also prompted me to begin exploring other platforms, slowly — I've got a bunch of other priorities making this hobby difficult to focus on through the full implementation of a new tool. That is to say, I'd like to eventually maintain a new tool that offers vibrant visualizations and can be shared/published with stability. While this is not of front-burner urgency, do stay tuned :-)

So it was my fault?

Nooo! Not at all! Perish the thought.

I am fairly convinced that it was the conditional formatting. But that does not come up a lot in the literature on what causes xls file corruption. So, without absolute certainty that I could pin it on conditional formatting, I had to consider what changed from before to now, and the only thing that changed was sharing. And, it is well-documented that Microsoft is not good at this new internet/sharing thing (do a good search for OneDrive search to see just how bad it is vs. a competitive landscape that includes Google Drive, Dropbox and others which boast very good search, which is curious since search in OneNote, born in the stand-alone era, is quite good). Another great example of Microsoft's poor online acumen is the hate for SharePoint.

At any rate, this is more a reflection on me. I've been stuck on Excel when there may indeed be better platforms out there to do what I want this thing to do — the kick in the seat of my pants that this experience is, I choose to interpret as a good thing. I mapped out what this could be in Excel, terrific; but it may be time to take it to another level.

As such, THANK YOU @bratface for your interest in it!

Thank goodness it wasn't my fault. And you're welcome. I'm sure you have probably already seen these programs but in case you haven't:

https://www.jotform.com/blog/best-spreadsheet-software/

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I'm not a programmer. I built up some non-programmer skills in Excel over the years, and liked the tools to create the visuals. Excel gets really flaky once it gets too big, and some of the features that make it fun also make it unstable.

Good ol' Excel

@DRDMovieMusings said:

But the reviews thus far are low. If anyone out there has seen it, any thoughts on what went wrong?

I've seen it and unfortunately it is really poor. The characters doing really stupid things (especially the last act), superhuman speed from the "dead" and no explanation why a character was kidnapped instead of killed. Also Pam Grier, Duchovny and Samantha Mathis really underused. I didn't like the remake but it was so much better than this!