Chambers wrote:
> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
> I tried to read it?).

	I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...

-- 
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.

Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters 
they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)

-- 
   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

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
>> I tried to read it?).
> 
> 	I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
> 

That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number 
close to fifteen years later?)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:19:25 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.
> 
>   Tideland was weird, though.

I haven't seen that one, going to have to add it to my netflix queue. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:58:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:09:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors,
>>> given how it was filmed.
>> 
>> And the fact that the scripts generally sucked.  There wasn't a lot for
>> the actors to work with, since most of the budget was blown on the
>> effects.
> 
> I think the actors tried hard, but the script, as you say, was sub-par.
>   Additionally, Lucas wasn't interested in honing dialogue or shooting
> any re-takes at all (except for completely fluffed lines, sets falling
> over etc). Consequently, the action and effects are awesome but the
> actual character interaction feels really fake and unbelievable.

Oh, I do think that the actors tried hard and didn't have a lot to work 
with, absolutely.  Agreed 100%.

>> It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and
>> still I was disappointed.
> 
> I went in with mixed feelings, but I was pleasantly surprised. That
> suggests I was expecting to be disappointed...!

I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but 
then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something 
Lucas-like.

I had low expectations for 2 & 3, and as I think I said elsewhere, 3 I 
actually kinda liked because it went to where it inevitably needed to go 
and ended with a pretty dark ending (just like ESB, for that matter).  I 
generally prefer films where the end doesn't wrap everything up all nice 
and neat and everyone lives happily ever after.

I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the 
theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed a 
"clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far, far 
better because you just didn't know how things ended up.

> I like all the Star Wars films, but I'll be the first to admit that
> they're all seriously flawed in one way or another. Except maybe ESB.

ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:02:00 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>> 
>> Never saw it.
> 
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.

I'll have to add that to my list as well, then. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:33:55 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps
>>>>   even
>>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>>
>>> Never saw it.
>> 
>> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
>> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
> 
> 	Samuel Jackson more or less made the movie. It's good 
entertainment
> overall, but his character just kept cracking me up.

I think that's one of the things about films he's in that make me want to 
see them - you don't expect him to be funny, but he is.  Same for Robert 
DeNiro - I loved "Analyze This", because I just never thought of him as a 
comedian.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:02:24 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> I actually like all of his movies, though The Village and Lady in the
> Water aren't his best.  Personally, Unbreakable and Signs are my
> favorites.

Ah, yes, I didn't see The Village either.

> He focuses much more on the emotions of his characters than the events.

That's true, and that's what made Sixth Sense work for me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:33:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>  Far too much of the popular stuff is like
> that.

Agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:19:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sense was IMO the best of them.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
> 
> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
> have been excellent.

Agreed, now that you mention it - that was the problem with it for me the 
second time I watched it; I couldn't remember enough from the first time, 
and it's because the story was too drawn out.

Drawing a story out can be done well (think LOTR books), but it's 
something that takes a great degree of skill.  For me the LOTR books 
demonstrated that because I just kept reading and didn't realize how much 
I was reading.

>> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.
> 
> It wasn't too confusing to me. It was trying to be scary or something,
> or suspenseful, but it failed that too.  The only good bit of acting was
> when the brother or whoever it was was watching the TV and saw the
> creature and jumped back. *That* was convincing acting.

Yeah, that's what I meant - it was confusing not in plot or story, but in 
what it was trying to be.  But you're right, that jump was very 
convincing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:25:24 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   (One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first
>   Fantastic4
> movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at
> all*, and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food
> ration.)

Agreed.  We haven't seen the second one because the first was so 
disappointing; I'll probably flix it just to see the Silver Surfer 
effects.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:25:05 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>> 
>>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
>>> other 2.
>> 
>> There were other sequels?  I only knew about 2010 (which I quite
>> liked).
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
> I tried to read it?).

Ah, I'm going to have to search those out as well now.  I think I did 
hear about them, but had other things on my mind/plate at the time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be 
> quite good.  

Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as 
his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think the actors tried hard, but the script, as you say, was sub-par.
>>   Additionally, Lucas wasn't interested in honing dialogue or shooting
>> any re-takes at all (except for completely fluffed lines, sets falling
>> over etc). Consequently, the action and effects are awesome but the
>> actual character interaction feels really fake and unbelievable.
> 
> Oh, I do think that the actors tried hard and didn't have a lot to work 
> with, absolutely.  Agreed 100%.

There is one scene in EpIII that I think transcends the normal StarWars 
feel with powerful, subtle meaning: the completely dialogue-free scene 
where Anakin and Padme are in separate locations across the Capital, 
each looking toward where they know the other must be and each thinking 
about the other. It's just before Anakin makes the decision that pushes 
him past the point of no return - to go to Palpatine's office when Windu 
tries to arrest him. It might just be me, but I really like that scene.

> I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but 
> then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something 
> Lucas-like.

Jar Jar was annoying, but I didn't think EpI was as bad as everyone else 
thinks. I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound 
effects when they should have been using turbine engines!

> I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the 
> theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed a 
> "clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far, far 
> better because you just didn't know how things ended up.

Which theatrical release? There have been 3! ;-)
I've not seen the recent iteration, only the second (the original 
'director's cut')... the ending is nicely open in that version.

> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.

Best lightsaber fight of the series. Best effects shot (for me) - when 
the Falcon escapes Bespin at full pelt with the sun peeking from behind 
the planet in the background. Best acted scene of the series - "I love 
you" - "I know". And no ewoks! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound 
> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!

Clearly you haven't heard an F1 car recently. ;-)

[It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 
>> I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound 
>> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!
> 
> Clearly you haven't heard an F1 car recently. ;-)

Well, not at close range, but some of the dopplered sounds made by the 
podracers going past the camera were identical to the sounds made by F1 
cars going past the camera. Some of the in-cockpit sounds effects had 
gear-shift noises, too, which you absolutely don't get with a turbine.

> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]

Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly 
the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the speeders 
on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more cleverly in that.

Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!

Post a reply to this message

>> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
> 
> Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly 
> the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the speeders 
> on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more cleverly in that.
> 
> Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!

I suppose theoretically a flying machine of this type wouldn't make any 
sound at all (except wind turbulence). That wouldn't be very exciting 
though, would it? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
>>
>> Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly 
>> the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the 
>> speeders on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more 
>> cleverly in that.
>>
>> Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!
> 
> I suppose theoretically a flying machine of this type wouldn't make any 
> sound at all (except wind turbulence). That wouldn't be very exciting 
> though, would it? ;-)

Which? A speeder? They have very small turbines tucked under their rear 
ends, those would make some racket. And antigravity in the starwars 
universe always seems to make at least a droning noise...

As for the podracers, they'd be deafening at close range. I once 
experienced Concorde's engines from fifty yards and that was just 
ridiculous.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Agreed.  We haven't seen the second one because the first was so 
> disappointing; I'll probably flix it just to see the Silver Surfer 
> effects.

  I don't rate the second one very high either.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.

  Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
you think something negative about the acting. When you don't notice, ie.
you don't pay any thought about the acting, it's acceptable.

  Defining *good* acting is harder, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Jar Jar was annoying

  I have always noticed that I'm different than the majority of people,
and this is no exception: Jar Jar was not annoying when I watched the
movie for first time, and neither when I watched it a second time.

  I actually found Yoda to be much more annoying the first time he appears
on screen in the older trilogy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Jar Jar was annoying
> 
>   I have always noticed that I'm different than the majority of people,
> and this is no exception: Jar Jar was not annoying when I watched the
> movie for first time, and neither when I watched it a second time.
> 
>   I actually found Yoda to be much more annoying the first time he appears
> on screen in the older trilogy.

That's fair enough. Yoda was supposed to be annoying, at least to start 
with - he appeared to be hindering Luke's quest.

Jar Jar is the same - he clearly tests the patience of the Jedi by his 
clumsiness and carefree demeanor. That's all I meant, really, he didn't 
spoil the film for me. Many people say they would have liked EpI were it 
not for Jar Jar; I suspect these people would have found fault with the 
film anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "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.
> 
> 
Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in advance 
if you have).

Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list 
using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.

Sounds complete nonsense until you learn that CAR stands for 'Contents 
of the Address Register' and CDR stands for 'Contents of the Decrement 
Register' and that LISP is from LISt Programming.  It is all about 
processing lists, including lists of data and lists of instructions. 
CAR and CDR were the assembler code mnemonics for the instructions that 
performed the operations on some ancient machine (IBM 704 ?).  Actually 
I think they may have been assembler macros that expanded into a few 
machine instructions each.  Anyway programmers used to write this stuff 
by hand.  Later LISP would translate the program text into the instructions.

Starter exercises in LISP are all about understanding what (CAR (CDR '(A 
B C))) returns.

So it is a neat pun and I had a chuckle at the cartoon.

Now I'm going to BXLE out of here.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:59:34 -0000, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think the actors tried hard, but the script, as you say, was sub-par.
>>>   Additionally, Lucas wasn't interested in honing dialogue or shooting
>>> any re-takes at all (except for completely fluffed lines, sets falling
>>> over etc). Consequently, the action and effects are awesome but the
>>> actual character interaction feels really fake and unbelievable.
>>  Oh, I do think that the actors tried hard and didn't have a lot to  
>> work with, absolutely.  Agreed 100%.
>
> There is one scene in EpIII that I think transcends the normal StarWars  
> feel with powerful, subtle meaning: the completely dialogue-free scene  
> where Anakin and Padme are in separate locations across the Capital,  
> each looking toward where they know the other must be and each thinking  
> about the other. It's just before Anakin makes the decision that pushes  
> him past the point of no return - to go to Palpatine's office when Windu  
> tries to arrest him. It might just be me, but I really like that scene.

The major difficulty was trying to believe that Anakin loved Amadala so  
much he'd turn to the darkside to save her; as has been mentioned the  
spark just wasn't there.

>> I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but  
>> then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something  
>> Lucas-like.
>
> Jar Jar was annoying, but I didn't think EpI was as bad as everyone else  
> thinks. I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound  
> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!

My problem with the podrace was thinking "Ah yes let's stick a race in the  
middle of this film so we've got something to liven up the inevitable game  
version"

>> I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the  
>> theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed  
>> a "clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far,  
>> far better because you just didn't know how things ended up.

Ah yes the 'we know the audience better then you do' approach "Ending not  
clear, Me no understand, is sequel coming? Me not happy. Hulk smash!"

> Best lightsaber fight of the series. Best effects shot (for me) - when  
> the Falcon escapes Bespin at full pelt with the sun peeking from behind  
> the planet in the background. Best acted scene of the series - "I love  
> you" - "I know". And no ewoks! ;-)

ESB was the best of the original three, which in turn automatically makes  
it the best of the six ;-)

-- 
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

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.

> Best lightsaber fight of the series.

  Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
> 
>> Best lightsaber fight of the series.
> 
>   Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.

Did you see the YouTube video where they took the fight scene from 
Episode III and played it at 2x speed?

Damn that was amusing...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
> 
>> Best lightsaber fight of the series.
> 
>   Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.

I had to think carefully to put ESB ahead of PM, because PM's duel is 
indeed superb. The swordplay is definitely better. And bonus points to 
the double blade. However, I have to give it to ESB because of the 
setting, the context, the climax, and the fact that lots of scenery gets 
chopped up convincingly. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
> they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)

	And you know how the characters are *supposed* to behave?

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
> 
>   Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes

	I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
behavior in real life situations.

	For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
(and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.

	I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)

	It's been about that long for me...

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:47862260$1@news.povray.org...

> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in advance
> if you have).

Thankfully not.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
>> they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
> 
> 	And you know how the characters are *supposed* to behave?

Sure. You don't expect James Bond or Batman to flinch when someone pulls 
a gun on him, do you?

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to 
>> be quite good.  
> 
> Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as 
> his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.
> 

I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask?  IMDB seems to confirm 
that it was Dave McKean, but I can see how it was a similar style to 
something Gilliam might do.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask? 

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I think it was merely an ad where Gilliam 
recommended it that made me want to see it.   My bad.

-- 
   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

And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:16:31 -0000, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  
did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>>         But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting".  
>>> What exactly
>>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
>>
>>   Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
>
> 	I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
> actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
> behavior in real life situations.

But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained  
film universe.

> 	For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
> (and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
> that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
> scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.

But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the  
accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old) silent  
movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the Star Wars  
movies muted and try to work out who are the goodies who are the baddies  
and what everyone's relationship is with each other.

> 	I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.

But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say  
"Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your  
subjective opinon"?

-- 
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

> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in advance 
> if you have).
> 
> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list 
> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.

In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in 
>> advance if you have).
>>
>> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list 
>> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
> 
> In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
> 
Well that's just crazy :)

Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same 
reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging 
clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it 
being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given 
bubble help.

One nice thing in LISP is that there are forms like caadr as shorthand 
for (car (car (cdr ...))).

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:478752be$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
> >> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail.  (Apologies in
> >> advance if you have).
> >>
> >> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
> >> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
> >
> > In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
> >
> Well that's just crazy :)
>
> Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same
> reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging
> clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it
> being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given
> bubble help.

Hey. Don't be insulting...



*grin*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

  I just rented it because it's more than 10 years since I last saw it.
It's surprisingly good, especially considering that it was made in 1968.
While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.

  Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
straightforward.

  It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
the popularity of the movie.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:32:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be
>> quite good.
> 
> Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as
> his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.

There's another one I need to see.  OK, flixing all of his films just to 
make sure I haven't missed any others. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:59:34 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> There is one scene in EpIII that I think transcends the normal StarWars
> feel with powerful, subtle meaning: the completely dialogue-free scene
> where Anakin and Padme are in separate locations across the Capital,
> each looking toward where they know the other must be and each thinking
> about the other. It's just before Anakin makes the decision that pushes
> him past the point of no return - to go to Palpatine's office when Windu
> tries to arrest him. It might just be me, but I really like that scene.

No, I think that scene worked - ironically, the scenes that worked the 
best in 1-3 were the ones where nobody talked.  There's some good 
cinematography there, no doubt.

That wasn't the case in eps 4-6, though - the characters didn't feel so 
wooden in 4-6.

>> I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but
>> then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something
>> Lucas-like.
> 
> Jar Jar was annoying, but I didn't think EpI was as bad as everyone else
> thinks. I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound
> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!

The podrace was probably my second favourite scene there.  The fight with 
Darth Maul was my first, but it wasn't long enough IMO.  The fact that 
Ray Park was actually doing the stunts himself and there was very little 
(if any) wire work made it that much better.

>> I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the
>> theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed
>> a "clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far,
>> far better because you just didn't know how things ended up.
> 
> Which theatrical release? There have been 3! ;-) I've not seen the
> recent iteration, only the second (the original 'director's cut')... the
> ending is nicely open in that version.

Well, the original theatrical release.

>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
> 
> Best lightsaber fight of the series. Best effects shot (for me) - when
> the Falcon escapes Bespin at full pelt with the sun peeking from behind
> the planet in the background. Best acted scene of the series - "I love
> you" - "I know". And no ewoks! ;-)

I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the 
lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch 
with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.  
And the wide shots of that fight were very good.  Too much today fight 
scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is 
faster, it doesn't feel as authentic.  I wish fight scenes were more 
often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the 
camera was more or less stationary.  With good fighters, many fight 
scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one 
shot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:40:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Agreed.  We haven't seen the second one because the first was so
>> disappointing; I'll probably flix it just to see the Silver Surfer
>> effects.
> 
>   I don't rate the second one very high either.

So really, probably just worth it (barely) for the effects and 
rendering?  That's disappointing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>> when I tried to read it?).
>> 
>> 	I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>> 
>> 
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)

2^2677009:1 against.

(Name that number!)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
> film universe.

	Fair enough, but I've found people's expectations of how people should
behave in those universes differs widely.

> But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
> accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old)
> silent movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the

	I've watched a number of old movies, including silent ones.

	I see patterns in acting behavior for different eras. Some quite
different from the modern era. Yes, they had a different acting style,
but what's your point? It just means that people expected something
differently back then.

	I have a colleague who used to badmouth B&W movies because they're
acting was "horrible". So I finally got sick of it and asked, "And the
acting these days is better how?". He's a smart guy. Thought about it
for a few minutes, and then retracted his statement.

	And then I've seen old B&W movies from a number of other non-English
cultures. Some really, really vary from the style you saw in Hollywood
at that era.

	It really is all subjective.

>>     I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
>> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
>> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
> 
> But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
> "Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
> subjective opinon"?

	Yes.

	Have you never liked music that 90% of the world dislikes? Would you
change your mind and say the music is bad because they do?

	Or movies?

	Or books?

	It seems you're trying to _define_ the quality of acting to be more or
less: Whatever the audience at the time expects...

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the 
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch 
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.  
> And the wide shots of that fight were very good.  Too much today fight 
> scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is 
> faster, it doesn't feel as authentic.  I wish fight scenes were more 
> often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the 
> camera was more or less stationary.  With good fighters, many fight 
> scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one 
> shot.

You've got a problem there - most actors can't do an entire fight in one 
shot.

That was one of the unmentioned strengths of the second Matrix movie, 
that the shots for the fight scenes were much longer than in the original.

Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira 
Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving 
through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into 
and out of focus in it.  In one scene in particular, I was like "That's 
cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow, 
this is still the same take!"  It's the kind of thing you can imagine 
getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and 
ruining the whole shot, but nobody did.  I was very impressed by that :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
> movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.

My physics prof had us work out the numbers for things like rotational 
speed, acceleration & deceleration, etc just to prove that the movie was 
physically correct.

(This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final 
exam).

>   Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> straightforward.
> 
>   It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
> comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
> the popularity of the movie.

I'd bet on more popular at first, less popular over time.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira 
> Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving 
> through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into 
> and out of focus in it.  In one scene in particular, I was like "That's 
> cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow, 
> this is still the same take!"  It's the kind of thing you can imagine 
> getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and 
> ruining the whole shot, but nobody did.  I was very impressed by that :)

I've seen a couple of movies which take the long shot to its extreme and 
film the entire movie in essentially one uninterrupted shot.  There's 
Rope by Hitchcock and a more recent film Russian Ark.  The former is a 
pretty good suspense film, and the latter, while a bit dull, has 
absolutely stunning camera work.  I'd take a look if you're interested 
in that sort of thing.  Apparently Russian Ark also took only two takes 
to get right, which is very impressive for a movie which is over an hour 
and a half long.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch 
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.  

But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference 
between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start 
amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise. :-)

-- 
   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 wrote:
> (This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final 
> exam).

We had to do the things like shave the edges off a hot-wheels track and 
then calculate where to start the car from to have it go around the 
curve without falling off.

Or figure the angle to shoot a dart gun to hit a target several feet away.

Or calculate the speed of light, given a different charge and mass for 
an electron.

Neat class.

-- 
   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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:24:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
>> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
> 
> But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference
> between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start
> amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise.
> :-)

True.  Wasn't Bob Anderson the weapons guy in all 6 of them?

Jim

Post a reply to this message