Bergens Tidende has a good article about Linn’s machinima evening last Thursday, and Linn herself has blogged very useful rundowns of the program (part 1 and 2) and even two pieces that there wasn’t time for. The evening (and these blog posts) serve as excellent introductions to machinima, giving examples of typical genres and tendencies, neatly and entertainingly organised. A great resource for someone interested in learning about the genre or maybe in discussing machinima in class.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “machinima rundown

  1. Linn

    Thanks! I was so pleased to see people staying for the whole run-through! We were half expecting most people to leave during the break, but naw – the numbers just grew, despite my ability to keep swallowing my words with nervousness and a gag order to not keep people there for hours on end with my rambling excited thoughts on the whole phenomenon. We were really pleased with the turn-out, which I think really proves that there’s loads of people interested in this type of evening. There were so many great compliments during the evening – not the ones directed personally towards me but finding groups of the audience in deep conversation about what machinima was all about was just such a huge reward. And of course, such a great compliment to have you and Scott there! Thanks so much, it meant a lot! 😉

  2. […] Oct 22: Machinima evening III at Landmark, 7 pm, hosted by Linn S¯vig – third of an excellent series of talks and viewings of some of the best machinima out there. I was at the first of these evenings, and loved it. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]