 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land! He teaches you how to line up pool
shots too. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> You mean "A Beautiful Mind".
yes!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> how about a mathematician? "A brilliant mind"?...
Which is only appealing due to his schizophrenia, and the drama (most
of it untrue) that it created.
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> > other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> > involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>
> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
you geek! :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
>>> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
>>> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
>
> you geek! :P
Hey, I was in third grade at the time. I was more impressed they were
showing 8-year-olds how to pool shark than I was by the math itself.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
Good Will Hunting?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
> If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
> commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
I have yet to see the movies in commentary mode (each movie has, IIRC,
at least 3 commentary tracks).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While I was stationed in Iceland, I did a business trip to the town of
> Thorshofn, and there I stayed at a very nice bed and breakfast. One night
> there was film on TV called "The Night is Dark on the Shores of the
> Baltic" or something like that. The movie was originally in Russian, and
> it had Icelandic subtitles. Having only the very slightest grasp of
> either language, the movie was a total mystery to me.
>
> The next day I was chatting with some Icelanders at a radar site that was
> the purpose of my visit, and I mentioned it to them. They replied that
> the subtitles didn't help; the movie was still inscrutable.
I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> I guess the thing is that technical details aren't very interesting in
>> a movie...
>
> It's not quite a counterexample, but I found that the anime Hikaru No Go
> was quite interesting despite going into at least a bit of technical
> detail about go. Can't think of any examples with mathematics though,
> but I bet it's possible. Perhaps part of the reason that it's easier to
> do in a TV series than a movie is that it takes a lot of time to explain
> even the basics of more technical subjects if you're audience isn't
> already familiar with it.
Go is a strange game - the rules are vastly simpler than Chess, and yet
the resulting game is vastly *more complicated*.
Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
> me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
> in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
Computer go is much easier to beat than computer chess. That's because
go cannot be played so well with brute-force searching.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
>> me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
>> in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
>
> Computer go is much easier to beat than computer chess. That's because
> go cannot be played so well with brute-force searching.
Either way, I still get comprehensively thrashed every single time. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> Good Will Hunting?
Math had little to do with it. It's about a young person who is
brilliant and has personal issues. Had he been a brilliant artist, the
story would still be the same.
--
Youthful Figure: What you get when you ask a woman her age.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
I really liked it. Don't recall it being at all obfuscated. Simple
story - nothing really hidden.
--
Youthful Figure: What you get when you ask a woman her age.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> I've seen quite a few, but I try to stay away from the bad ones.
>
> That's called "prejudice".
Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only rarely
see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to sort
away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
Is judging a movie you haven't seen a random shot in the dark? Of course
not. I think most people have seen movies they didn't want to see very much
because it was together with someone else who wanted to see it. In those
situation you most often find that you were right about your initial
prejudice and only very rarely is a movie you didn't think was good actually
a positive surprise. At least in my experience.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
> You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only rarely
> see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to sort
> away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
I have learned to not to judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case,
a movie.
I have been surprised in both directions. Movies which I was almost
certain would be mediocre (but I didn't have anything better to do than
to watch them) have surprised me for being unexpectedly enjoyable. Also
many movies which I was rather sure I would like have been disappointments.
It's just not possible to know in advance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
>> If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
>> commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
>
> I have yet to see the movies in commentary mode (each movie has, IIRC,
> at least 3 commentary tracks).
>
They're well worth making the time to watch.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> While I was stationed in Iceland, I did a business trip to the town of
>> Thorshofn, and there I stayed at a very nice bed and breakfast. One night
>> there was film on TV called "The Night is Dark on the Shores of the
>> Baltic" or something like that. The movie was originally in Russian, and
>> it had Icelandic subtitles. Having only the very slightest grasp of
>> either language, the movie was a total mystery to me.
>>
>> The next day I was chatting with some Icelanders at a radar site that was
>> the purpose of my visit, and I mentioned it to them. They replied that
>> the subtitles didn't help; the movie was still inscrutable.
>
> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
Really? I loved it. One of the best martial arts movies I've ever
seen, in fact.
The DVD has an English language track on it; maybe watching that would
make it easier for you. For me, seeing the actors mouths not match the
words come out is far more jarring than reading subtitles. I'm more
than willing to read what they're saying in order to have the spoken
dialog fit how their mouths move.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's just not possible to know in advance.
Not entirely, but it IS possible to make an educated guess. After all,
that's why we have trailers and reviews.
Of course, I use reviews the opposite way that most people do... I find
that many critics look down on films I enjoy, and praise films that I
find to be trash.
But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
movie, you can usually get a good idea of what the "feel" of the movie
is, which often is more important than other details anyway.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
>> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
>> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
>
> Really? I loved it. One of the best martial arts movies I've ever seen,
> in fact.
>
> The DVD has an English language track on it; maybe watching that would
> make it easier for you. For me, seeing the actors mouths not match the
> words come out is far more jarring than reading subtitles. I'm more than
> willing to read what they're saying in order to have the spoken dialog fit
> how their mouths move.
>
She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
> movie
... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
it again. That's my opinion.
There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
They spoil way too much.
Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
She's flying by the power of her Chi. That's how you fly when you're
using your Chi to do it. (At least, that's what my chinese-born wife
tells me.)
Chinese magic isn't a whole lot like western magic.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story
*at all*?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
>> movie
>
> ... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
> it again. That's my opinion.
>
> There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
> They spoil way too much.
>
> Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
> and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
> and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
> you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
>
A good movie is worth watching even if you know what's going to happen.
Or why else do people still go to see Shakespeare's plays?
"Romeo and Juliet? Why would I want to see that when I already know
they both die at the end?"
Case in point: The Sixth Sense. The ending was "spoiled" for me before
I ever saw it. Even so, I found it to be an excellent movie, and was
still able to appreciate it.
Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>> scenes.
>
> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>
> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
> all*?
What story? The one where they spy on people and
jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
instantly in the middle of the desert?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
I'm guessing that would be a "no", then. ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>>> scenes.
>> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>>
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
Do yourself a favor, and watch the movie again (in English, if you have
to). This time, ignore the martial arts, and pay attention to what the
characters are thinking and feeling.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:22:40 -0000, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>
did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.t4ews0hkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
>>> news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>>>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>>>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>>>>
>>>> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what
>>>> the
>>>> chimps and the space baby were all about'
>>>
>>> I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better
>>> after the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???
>>
>> Well obviously some of us are more intelligent then others, and by some
>> of
>> us I mean you and by others I mean me :-)
>>
>>>> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
>>>> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some
>>>> of
>>>> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered
>>> the
>>> first one.
>>> Each to their own.
>>
>> Indeed. The third one does drag until Jacurutu, but the forth amused.
>>
>
> The first is great, I've read it atleast twice. I read the second twice
> as
> well, because I was planning on reading the third recently, and couldn't
> remember what happened in the second execpt for broad plotlines. I've
> heard
> that the third is better than the second, but still not as good as the
> first.
Well the second is really more an interlude linking the events between one
and three, so it would be unfair to judge it against the 'full' novels. As
Gail said though it's all down to a matter of each to their own.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:42:03 -0000, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The main point was to demonstrate special
>> effects. The plot was secondary. That's why they spend so long on things
>> like showing space ships coming over the horizon (first matte painting),
>> pens floating in air, jogging around the inside of a centrifuge, and so
>> on.
>
> Cinema is a visual medium. And 2001 excels at this, with very powerful
> and
> poetic imagery: the famous opening with the sun rise from space at the
> sound
> of Richard Strauss' finest; the bone flowing into air and cutting to the
> ship;
> or the ships ballet in space with Blue Danube...
Which I don't think anyone here would deny.
> ironically, much more impacting than most CG orgies showing these days...
>
> the plot was secondary?! An enigmatic monolith sparking intelligence, a
> paranoid AI and a men's quest for survival going beyond the beyond
> should be
> enough...
The point I (and I think Andrew) is making is that none of this is really
made explicit; you yourself said that you had to read between the lines
and thus it may be possible to come away from the film with completely the
wrong conclusions (as per the ones I made-up) or just a state of confusion.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>
> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
Yes, it would. I can be *very* hard to please at times :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>
> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
Of all the movies I've *seen*, certainly over 1% were worth watching
over (for me). If I did an analysis (which I kind of could - I have a
record of almost all the movies I've seen in the last 8-9 years), it
would not surprise me in the least if that percentage were as high as 5.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
Who said she died? ;-)
And you know, if someone *wants* to die, I don't think his/her body
would automatically revolt, go into fly mode, and refuse to let her die...
In any case, your point has about as much validity as the criticism of
the virtual reality physics in The Matrix.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
> >> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
> >
> > That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
minded if I had never seen them...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
>> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
>
> Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)
>
Personally (and remember, this is just in my own experience) there are
so many good movies out there that losing the ones not worth watching
more than once doesn't limit my choices noticeably.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:47:33 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
>
>> You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only
>> rarely
>> see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to
>> sort
>> away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
>
> I have learned to not to judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case,
> a movie.
>
> I have been surprised in both directions. Movies which I was almost
> certain would be mediocre (but I didn't have anything better to do than
> to watch them) have surprised me for being unexpectedly enjoyable. Also
> many movies which I was rather sure I would like have been
> disappointments.
>
> It's just not possible to know in advance.
Examine first movie
|
Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
...
I'm joking of course; sort of.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
> 2.
Why has nobody mentioned the second film? Based on the second book.
Nowhere near as good as the first film, but nevertheless well-made and
enjoyable. It concerns the follow-up mission to find out what happened
to Discovery, answers most of the questions without being too bleedin'
obvious, and completes an open-ended story quite nicely with some new
ideas at the same time. It also explains why HAL was not mad in any
sense - a widespread misconception that always bugs me...
Happy New Year to y'all, by the way :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
deserve a second watching at some point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:52:03 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
Depends on who's providing the cheese.
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
>> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
>
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
>> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.
What I'm saying is that I apply critera to what I watch. I'm not saying I
won't watch anything that's 'banned' by the above; it'll just naturally
full lower on my list of priorities.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
>
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
>> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
>
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
>> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
Different people like different things. ;-)
[Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
sucks beyond belief...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
http://www.xkcd.com/224/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839abb$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
Huh? Related how?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>
> Huh? Related how?
"My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839f0a$1@news.povray.org...
> >>>
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
> >> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
> >
> > Huh? Related how?
>
> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
universe using lisp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>>> Huh? Related how?
>> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
>
> The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
> universe using lisp.
Oh well, never mind then. It's certainly not the first time somebody has
told me I'm not funny.
[I thought the idea of a real person having a name like Sandy Beaver was
very amusing - but the entire NERV clan disagreed with me, so...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.
I honestly don't understand why Cutthroat Island was such a flop.
IMO it was ok. Definitely much better than many movies which profited
more.
I suppose the chaotic nature of the big audience cannot be predicted
(if it could be, every movie would be a huge success).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
> sucks beyond belief...]
The problem with SW3 (and the previous two) is not that it was bad (it
was quite good from all points of view, IMO), but that it failed to meet
fan expectations. If there weren't any expectations about it at all it
would have probably been considered an above average movie, perhaps even
a good movie, but big expectations and not meeting them ruined it.
IMO Lucas made a mistake with the way he did the trilogy. Basically he
didn't listen to what the fans wanted, but made what he wanted. While the
result was IMO quite good, fans didn't like it.
If I were Lucas I would redeem myself by making one movie more: A movie
for the fans. A movie about Darth Vader (which happens between episodes
three and four), a movie which is the epitome of all that is cool about
Darth Vader.
But I've got the feeling that Lucas is too proud to do that, unfortunately.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
Only when they're actually funny. ;-)
I think there's a segment of the population that just doesn't find
watching other people's pain to be funny, even for fictional people.
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
It was.
Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than
once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at
home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
how it was filmed.
In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character
from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to
make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as
cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.
If you liked the cartoons about halflife and LotR, check this out:
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/darthsanddroids/
You need to start at the beginning so you know who's playing what
characters for that strip to make sense, tho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
>> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
>
> Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)
You said 99.9% of movies, not 99.9% of movies you've seen.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
