Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
> 
>   Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes

	I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
behavior in real life situations.

	For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
(and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.

	I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)

	It's been about that long for me...

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:47862260$1@news.povray.org...

> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in advance
> if you have).

Thankfully not.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
>> they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
> 
> 	And you know how the characters are *supposed* to behave?

Sure. You don't expect James Bond or Batman to flinch when someone pulls 
a gun on him, do you?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to 
>> be quite good.  
> 
> Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as 
> his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.
> 

I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask?  IMDB seems to confirm 
that it was Dave McKean, but I can see how it was a similar style to 
something Gilliam might do.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask? 

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I think it was merely an ad where Gilliam 
recommended it that made me want to see it.   My bad.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:16:31 -0000, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  
did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>>         But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting".  
>>> What exactly
>>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
>>
>>   Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
>
> 	I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
> actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
> behavior in real life situations.

But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained  
film universe.

> 	For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
> (and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
> that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
> scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.

But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the  
accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old) silent  
movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the Star Wars  
movies muted and try to work out who are the goodies who are the baddies  
and what everyone's relationship is with each other.

> 	I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.

But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say  
"Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your  
subjective opinon"?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in advance 
> if you have).
> 
> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list 
> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.

In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in 
>> advance if you have).
>>
>> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list 
>> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
> 
> In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
> 
Well that's just crazy :)

Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same 
reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging 
clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it 
being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given 
bubble help.

One nice thing in LISP is that there are forms like caadr as shorthand 
for (car (car (cdr ...))).

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:478752be$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
> >> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in
> >> advance if you have).
> >>
> >> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
> >> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
> >
> > In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
> >
> Well that's just crazy :)
>
> Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same
> reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging
> clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it
> being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given
> bubble help.

Hey. Don't be insulting...



*grin*

Post a reply to this message