![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povray org> wrote in message
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> > And if they hadn't made the characters so one
dimensional, then I'd
> > have liked the movie more.
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by
"one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character
development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional"
characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why
they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.- Warp
Pretty good article here:
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=10109
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
I think it's sad if the only thing people care about you is that you pay.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> > form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> > art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.
I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:47:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
>> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into
>> > any form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious
>> > incomprehensible cheap art films don't count because that's not
>> > storytelling, it's randomness)?
>
>> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
>
> No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.
Just because you aren't seeing a story doesn't mean there isn't one
there. It just means that for you, the method by which the story is
being told is incomprehensible. Doesn't mean it's that way for everyone.
> I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
> and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
> might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.
But what you're saying is in fact a true statement.
What you're doing is constraining a set using a subjective definition
(that subjectiveness is "if I don't understand it, then it doesn't
count", and is implied in the way you stated the condition).
You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
it. My example of counting to 10 was taking it to an absurd level to
make a point about it.
In other news, did you know that no resistor has an orange band, if you
exclude resistors that have orange bands? Wow, that's amazing isn't
it! ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povray org> wrote in message
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.
In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
depth", all referring to the same thing. When I see a performance (and it's
fifty fifty whether it's the actor's fault or the writer's fault) and the
character doesn't change or always reacts the same way to differing stimuli,
I use one of those terms. Real people act in different ways at different
times, and performances by an actor should show that, unless the character
is intended to be ignored or lack of depth is a stylistic choice for some
reason (for example, cartoons targeted at children are usually populated
with characters with no depth, although they're often brightly colored and
say, "Zowie!" a lot).
Sometimes what is considered "depth" is a matter of opinion, and sometimes
the depth of a character is subtle (as in real life). Back to the topic, I
think the character of Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar has a great deal of
depth, although I know lots of people who disagree. The character has an
incredibly rich back story, but it's revealed in such an undertone that it
takes some thought to see it.
A lot of people look at characters who are so focused on a goal or obsessed
with something and say the character lacks depth. Quaritch is suffering from
an obsession and a fear of losing control, and he is on the verge of sinking
in to madness, but his own obstinance won't let him. What we see in this
film is the tip of an awfully big iceberg, and it's hard to see past it, but
it's there.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
An unusually positive review of the movie:
http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/12/19/avatar-review.aspx
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcast net> wrote:
> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
> dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
> depth", all referring to the same thing.
Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
character with no depth), after which some people started using an
exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
Do I understand correctly that when a character in a story exists basically
for one single purpose (eg. to be a jerk, a greedy executive, a naive
Mary Sue, or such) with no other personality traits or history, and when
this character maintains the role in its purest form throughout the entire
story, it's usually a bad case of two-dimensionality?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
> it.
The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 01/22/10 12:41, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
>> have liked the movie more.
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.
One dimensional typically means that they're very simple.
My use of the phrase is probably problematic/invalid. By 1-D, I meant
so strongly stereotyped. People like the jealous friend, military
commander, the corporate guy were all fairly simple characters, some of
whom were taken to silly extremes. The romance was also fairly
stereotyped, as was the response of the natives to the main character, etc.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:02:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
>> it.
>
> The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
Well, I suspected it was. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |