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

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:18:43 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?

Pretty much.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490479/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087225/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089110/



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's 
> got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the 
> central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you 
> couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you 
> could do something that made you not be disabled.

  I just went to see the movie, and I cannot understand that opinion.
I don't see anything like that in the movie (on the contrary, the disabled
person explicitly states at one point something along the lines of he not
going to let his disability stop him no matter what other people say).

  Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the movie
without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I never
watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's 
>> got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the 
>> central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you 
>> couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you 
>> could do something that made you not be disabled.
> 
>   I just went to see the movie, and I cannot understand that opinion.
> I don't see anything like that in the movie (on the contrary, the disabled
> person explicitly states at one point something along the lines of he not
> going to let his disability stop him no matter what other people say).
> 
>   Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the movie
> without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I never
> watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)
> 
Been there, said that, rinse and repeat. lol But, yeah, they are jumping 
on it as a scape goat, based solely on one tiny bit of a trailer with a 
guy in a wheel chair, and some false extrapolation from it. Basically 
the same as you get every time in cases like this. There isn't much 
point attacking something you *know* is being intentionally offensive, 
apparently, but making up reasons to attack them because they *may be*, 
and you have a huge chip on your shoulder this week... that makes 
perfect sense, apparently.

-- 
void main () {

     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

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:43:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the
>   movie
> without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I
> never watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)

Very possible.  I never claimed that they had seen it, since the opinion 
was based on the trailers. <shrug>

Jim

Post a reply to this message