 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>
> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> videogame character in real-time.
Oh how tedious...
> Then, take your time to also show me how they
> are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> perfect curves.
You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
known technology, right? I mean, I can't render one with a computer, I
can't draw one with a pencil, I can't sculpt one out of clay... The
human form is *far* too complex. The people who do this stuff for a
living get paid hansomly _for a reason_.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.
You don't make sense in your criticisms of things you don't know. But ok, this
is art -- or mere entertainment, your choice -- not knowledge, so it's really up
to your taste.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> >
> > Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> > videogame character in real-time.
>
> Oh how tedious...
BS that. You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
reasoning.
> > Then, take your time to also show me how they
> > are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> > perfect curves.
>
> You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
> known technology, right?
That's ok, you can just show me that squarish SDL phone of yours.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> >> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
> >
> > There's a thing called nostalgia filter.
> So you disagree with every point made in that review then?
Every point in the review dealt with the original trilogy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> >> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> >
> > They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
> > and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
> >
> > The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.
> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
You mean:
The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."
And that would make sense to you?
> >>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> >>>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
> >>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> >>> AFAICR.
> >
> >> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> >
> > It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?
> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
I see no variation in quality.
Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
> > since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
> > chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
> > start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
> > always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".
> You realise I've watched it several times, right?
> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
> a clearer idea.
The review wasn't about The Matrix.
> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
> the sequal looked great...
How hard is it to write "sequel"?
> > If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
> > prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
> > it.
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.
> Oh, wait... yes it is.
You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
sense or not?
If the movie makes sense to me, that's completely inconsequential? The
movie is still not good because it doesn't make sense to *you*?
> >> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
> >> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
> >> it. Good for them...
> >
> > Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
> > people didn't like it?
> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
principle of yours.
How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
else would" (and really mean it)?
> > I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
> Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
Is that a statement that you outright refuse to even try to make sense
of the plot? That someone else understanding it is just "an opinion"?
> > I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
> (Certain film producers
> seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be
> popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is
> films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people
> apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience
> is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the
> world?" I really hate that.
But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
be filled by deduction?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>>> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
>>> videogame character in real-time.
>> Oh how tedious...
>
> BS that. You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
> reasoning.
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?
...or I could just let you continue thinking I'm a liar, and go do
something more productive.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
>> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
>
> You mean:
>
> The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
> Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."
>
> And that would make sense to you?
It's not clear to me that Smith has the *ability* to destroy the Matrix
itself. If he does, then clearly that's a problem. (And I guess being
able to transcend the Matrix itself and take control of people outside
it implies that maybe he can...)
>> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
>
> I see no variation in quality.
>
> Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?
Well, understanding the plot is kind of prerequisit to enjoying the
film. But I could also mention cut density, for example.
In the first film, how long does Neo spend waiting to see the Oracle?
The whole journey there, the waiting room, etc. They could have cut that
much shorter and make the fight scenes in other parts of the movie
longer. But they didn't.
In the following two films, they did. (How many seconds does Neo spend
at the deserted apartment saying "where are you?") It had the feel of
"OK, how many fight scenes can we cram in?"
Don't get my wrong - some of the fight scenes in the sequals are *even
better* than in the original. You *want* to like it... but the rest of
the film is so drab, it's kind of hard to.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
>> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
>> a clearer idea.
>
> The review wasn't about The Matrix.
No. But it makes some interesting points about what makes a film work,
and what makes a film not work.
>> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
>> the sequal looked great...
>
> How hard is it to write "sequel"?
How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for
toffee. I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something.
I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in
20 minutes.
>> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
>> sense.
>
>> Oh, wait... yes it is.
>
> You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
> sense or not?
Last time I checked, I'm not the only person claiming the film wasn't
very good. (Although admittedly that's not an infalible measurement
either...)
>> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
>> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
>
> Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
> principle of yours.
>
> How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
> else would" (and really mean it)?
I just meant that I'm not sure what it is about it that made other
people enjoy it. Clearly there was something, but I don't know what that
something was.
>> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
>
> You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at
all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)
> But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
> be filled by deduction?
There's deduction, and there's guessing.
But sure, different people like different things. I was just saying what
*I* happen to like.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > How hard is it to write "sequel"?
> How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for
> toffee.
At this point it feels like you are doing it deliberately.
If you have learned to write words like "how" and "hard", it should be
quite easy to also learn to write words like "sequel". It's not that
difficult.
> I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something.
> I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in
> 20 minutes.
Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.
> >> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
> >
> > You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
> Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at
> all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)
I don't see much to be deduced in that movie. It's pretty straightforward.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
