Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some
>>>> people, not what is at all intended.
>>> That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not
>>> thought about at all, though it should be.
>>>
>> I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person
>> making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference
>> that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact
>> that they *might* be offending by it? 
> 
> No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more 
> interesting, for one thing.  Using stereotypes and characters based on 
> stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many 
> people.
> 
Saw it today. I think the stereotype goes both directions. He *could 
have* got a spinal fix, but the military pay he got couldn't pay for it, 
and no one else would either. In the end, the jerk he works for offers 
it to him for how "valuable" he was to the cause, but... lets just say 
that things don't quite work out with him getting it. One of the 
comments he makes on why he went there, and even put up with some of the 
comments made as he exist the ramp to enter the base is, "Maybe I got 
tired of doctors telling me what I *can't* do."

Some people will be offended just to be offended. Nothing you will do 
will satisfy them, and they will **usually** jump to conclusions. If 
some people need to be more aware of their audiences, as you say, then 
they audiences need to be more open to the reality that not everything 
is about **them** either. They have their own "stereotypes", one of 
which is, "Everyone else thinks we need to be fixed, and will be 
assholes about it." It doesn't matter if you are or not, they will judge 
you based on what they imagine, not on what you meant, intended, or implied.

>> That's completely ridiculous, and
>> if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you
>> should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the
>> British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the
>> Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it.
> 
> We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that 
> matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.
> 
> At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in 
> reality.
> 
It was the only thing I could think of at the time. But you know what I 
meant.

>> Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not
>> unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people
>> might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different.
>> Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.
> 
> Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to 
> have a problem.  That's the problem.  You generally don't find 30's 
> cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the 
> stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some 
> old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc 
> actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).
> 
True enough. You also don't see them on because the characters often did 
some damn stupid stuff. The "Editing" done on the famous 'Daffy in a 
devil suit with a gas can' episode being a good example of the 
hyper-sensitivity some people have developed over some things. Last I 
checked, no one of my parents generation tried to fry themselves, or do 
any of the other stupid stuff, based on cartoons. A few, including my 
own relatives, tried things, like jumping from a roof with an umbrella, 
without even needing such prompting. :p

>>>> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you can get people who just
>>>> flat out can't see past their own position on a matter, and presume
>>>> that there is a message that isn't there.
>>> Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to,
>>> because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires
>>> effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People
>>> are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that
>>> isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our
>>> own views are the only thing that matters, right?
>>>
>> Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should
>> be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of
>> thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the
>> only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with
>> what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica
>> in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.
> 
> Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things 
> like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness 
> that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in 
> general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me 
> understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a 
> good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is 
> trying to do.
> 
> Jim

And, some groups are loud and obnoxious enough that you don't offend 
them, on fear of offending someone else, for being identified as someone 
willing to offending the first bunch, even if the original people are a 
small minority, and the offense is bordering on the imaginary. They all 
need to frakking grow up.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's easy :)
>>
> 
> Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
> remembering better.
> 
> -Aero

And so you did :)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said 
> "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember 
> wondering why...

Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out, 
I went "WTF? Episode 4?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I *know* I can't spell for toffee. 

I have found what helps is to notice what you regularly write but get wrong, 
then looking for an mnemonic to memorize it.

Necessary. Embarrassed. Ridiculous. Conscience. Non-sequitur. All these are 
words I had to consciously take time to just sit and memorize.  It just 
takes a bit of practice.

That works more poorly for idioms and such, if you're not a native speaker 
of the language, of course.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it 
> offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its 
> anti-disability? 

I haven't seen the film either, but I'm pretty sure from the previews that 
the guy is and wants to be a marine. Hard to do that with bum legs.

Kind of like an old M*A*S*H episode I remember, where they took a vein from 
a guy's arm to save his leg. Except he's a concert pianist. So he's all ticked.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I can understand why it might piss some people off.

I also remember a deaf friend (well, email-friend :-) getting pissed off 
because she couldn't win a video game, because she couldn't hear where the 
bad-guys were. (It might have been Thief, where a big part is figuring out 
where the enemy is based on the sound of their walking, talking, etc.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 28-12-2009 19:59, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I *know* I can't spell for toffee. 
> 
> I have found what helps is to notice what you regularly write but get 
> wrong, then looking for an mnemonic to memorize it.
> 
> Necessary. Embarrassed. Ridiculous. Conscience. Non-sequitur. All these 
> are words I had to consciously take time to just sit and memorize.  It 
> just takes a bit of practice.
> 
> That works more poorly for idioms and such, if you're not a native 
> speaker of the language, of course.

I don't think he is going to reply on that for a week. I can only assume 
that he trying not to meet foreigners and probably failing.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said 
> > "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember 
> > wondering why...

> Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out, 
> I went "WTF? Episode 4?"

  AFAIK the very first time Star Wars was shown on theaters it did not have
the subtitle "Episode 4", but the next movie did have "Episode 5" as its
subtitle when it first was shown (causing quite some confusion). Star Wars
was then retroactively given its "Episode 4" subtitle.

  So it seems that, indeed, Lucas had planned for a prequel trilogy right
from the beginning.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > > No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said
> > > "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember
> > > wondering why...
>
> > Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out,
> > I went "WTF? Episode 4?"
>
>   AFAIK the very first time Star Wars was shown on theaters it did not have
> the subtitle "Episode 4", but the next movie did have "Episode 5" as its
> subtitle when it first was shown (causing quite some confusion). Star Wars
> was then retroactively given its "Episode 4" subtitle.
>
>   So it seems that, indeed, Lucas had planned for a prequel trilogy right
> from the beginning.

As I recall, both SW and Indiana Jones were conceived as homages to old movie
serials like the Perils of Pauline, Buck Rodgers and Flash Gordon.  The episodic
subtitles and initial "recap" from previous episodes were following the same
formula as well.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:30:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> Right. So I'm going to load up the DVD, figure out how to take  
> screenshots from the film, and shuffle back and forward to the right  
> part of the movie to try to find a single still frame which illustrates  
> the point I'm trying to make, just because one random guy on the  
> Internet accuses me of being a liar?

No need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dROyIwJ8_wE&fmt=22

The less than spectacular CGI-Neo becomes more obvious roughly five  
minutes in, when the number of Smiths goes up.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message