Invisible wrote:
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

I understood 2001.

I am the future.

You will be assimilated.

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

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> Did you see the movie "Pi"?  It's only one letter in greek and about maths, 
> I guess you should get it :D

It's not about Math, it's about Numerology.

A horrible disappointment to someone who actually wanted to see a movie 
about math :(

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

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
>> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense!
> 
> Yes a few times, but seeing as I've read all the books more than once, they
> made sense anyway.
> Though there are long pieces in the movie that aren't in the books at all.

Speaking of which, did you get the feeling that the Dwarves were only 
used in the movie for comic relief?  I found it quite disrespectful.

Especially when the Elves show up in Helm's Deep - yay, so the Elves are 
our friends, but the dwarves are too greedy and uncaring, or something.

The book specifically states that neither the Elves nor the Dwarves help 
out the humans, simply because they are already being attacked by Sauron.

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

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> hmm, come to think of it, Final Fantasy:  Advent Child is pretty
> incomprehensible for non-fans too... seems like there are too many CG artists
> out there while most good story tellers are busy at Pixar...

That was a movie?  I thought it was an ad for their new game.

Seriously though, it's not just incomprehensible... it's one of the 
worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

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

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Seriously though, it's not just incomprehensible... it's one of the
> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

yes, but the CG was top-notch! :)

and if you were a fan of the game, that final battle between Cloud and Sephiroh
was well worth it!

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)
>
> I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until they get  
> to the
> moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a manned
> mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the real
> mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith near  
> the
> giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's main  
> mission
> and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans and  
> it's up
> to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discovers  
> the real
> purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid trip  
> could be
> seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer for  
> inspection
> by the creators...

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but you've pretty much summed up  
why in parts the film could be considered incomprehensible...

See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone,  
they use this to fly to the Moon where they've discovered another  
monolith. Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes  
mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew who  
hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and  
thereby discovers another huge monolith floating around Jupiter. Despite  
declaring that "It's full of stars" is does in fact contain a small white  
room in which an old man is looking at a baby. The End.

> the old man seeing the baby in the monolith is an alegory for the life  
> cycle...

Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P

-- 
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

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
....
> Speaking of which, did you get the feeling that the Dwarves were only
> used in the movie for comic relief?  I found it quite disrespectful.
>
....
Not NEARLY as disrespectful as this little song form "Mr. Frito"
in Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings":
===============================================================
  "A King of Elves there was of old,
      Saranrap by name,
  Who slew the Narcs at Mellowmarsh
      And Sorhed's host did tame.

  And with him marched the stubby dwarves
      Drafted from their mines,
  But when the fearsome Battle raged
      They hid behind the lines.

 Sing: Clearasil, metrecal, lavoris in chorus
  They hid behind the lines!

  Angered was the mighty King
      About to raise the dickens,
  'Just let me get my hands,' quoth he,
      'On those half-pint chickens!'

  Fearful were the chicken-Dwarves,
      But mickle crafty too.
  King Yellowbac, their skins to save,
      The elves did try to woo.

 Sing: Twist-a-cap, reynoldswrap, gardol and duz
  The elves he tried to woo!

  'If you doubt our loyalty,'
      Yello told the King,
  'Take this gift, a dwarfish sword
      That packs a mighty sting.

  'Clearasil, it's called by name,'
      The clever Dwarf spoke on,
  'Take this bribe, and let us let
      Bygones be bygone.'

 Sing: Cadillac, pickapack, Edsel and coke
  Bygones be bygone.

  'I accept this wondrous gift
      And think you Dwarves are tops,'
  Said he, as he took the sword
      And smote him in the chops.

  And since that day it's said by all
      In ballad, lay and poem,
  'Only trust an elf or dwarf
      As far as you can throw 'em!'

 Sing: Oxydol, geritol, wheaties and Trix.
  As far as you can throw 'em!"

===============================================================
I'm afraid the Hobbits (Boggies) don't fare much better.:
===============================================================

  "We boggies are a hairy folk
  Who like to eat until we choke.
  Loving all like friend and brother,
  And hardly ever eat each other.

  Ever hungry, ever thirsting,
  Never stop till belly's bursting.
  Chewing chop and pork and muttons,
  A merry race of boring gluttons.

 Sing: Gobble, goggle, gobble, gobble,
  Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble.

  Boggies gather round the table,
  Eat as much as you are able.
  Gorge yourselves from moon till noon
  (Don't forget your plate and spoon).

  Anything edible, we've got dibs on,
  And hope we all die with our bibs on.
  Ever gay, we'll never grow up,
  Come! And sing and play and throw up!

 Sing: Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble,
  Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble!"

===============================================================

The whole text is here:
http://denrob.freeshell.org/stories/bored.txt

(There may be a copyright issue. I don't really know.
I just stumbled on it.)

Watch our for the Nozdrul,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P

In seriousness for a moment...

My sister did media studies at school. Apparently she can no longer 
actually enjoy a film without considering an in-depth analysis of the 
plot devices used.

I remember we were watching The Lion King once. [Damn, that film should 
have been really cool... but somehow isn't.] Simba walks to the top of 
pride rock, and you see a split-second clip of some water washing away 
an antilope skull. "That's a representation of the changing equilibrium 
of good and evil" my sister tells me. "...Oh" I said.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis
> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)
> >
> > I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until they get
> > to the
> > moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a manned
> > mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the real
> > mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith near
> > the
> > giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's main
> > mission
> > and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans and
> > it's up
> > to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discovers
> > the real
> > purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid trip
> > could be
> > seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer for
> > inspection
> > by the creators...
>
> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic

I was not.  I just described the plot.

> See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone,

no, the monolith instigates curiosity and spark of intelligence grews around the
apes around it.  It shows afterward first contact, they learning and mastering
how to use a tool and them a poetic license is used by showing the tool -- a
bone -- being throw high by the monkey and then the scene cuts to the future
and a space ship, result of countless years of tool-making by the intelligent
race.  Is it so hard to get it from the movie?

I guess some people have trouble with continuity in non-linear plots... for
instance, I showed my ex-wife this strip:
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF162-Executive_Decision.jpg

and she had trouble figuring it out...

> Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes
> mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew who
> hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and

that's sarcasm.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> if you want a really incomprehensible movie

  I have heard good things about Eraserhead. Never seen it, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> it's one of the 
> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

  Then you haven't seen many movies, have you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>
> In seriousness for a moment...
>
> My sister did media studies at school. Apparently she can no longer  
> actually enjoy a film without considering an in-depth analysis of the  
> plot devices used.
>
> I remember we were watching The Lion King once. [Damn, that film should  
> have been really cool... but somehow isn't.] Simba walks to the top of  
> pride rock, and you see a split-second clip of some water washing away  
> an antilope skull. "That's a representation of the changing equilibrium  
> of good and evil" my sister tells me. "...Oh" I said.

Those wacky Disney animators I can imagine them now...

"Okay so Simba is going to walk to the top of Pride Rock, now we need some  
sort of visual cue to represent the changing equilibrium of good and evil  
- suggestions"
"How about some water washing away an antelope skull?"
"Hmm don't you think that's a bit obvious?"
"Well we are aiming at the 5-10 age bracket"
"True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive  
words in clouds of dust..."

-- 
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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
> > Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>
> In seriousness for a moment...

it is:  unknown intelligent race devises a device (monolith) to spread
intelligent life in the galaxy.  One of them ends up on Earth where it
instigates apes to become the dominant life form on the planet.  They
eventually get to a level of sophistication that allows them to travel through
space and reach the moon where the beacon monolith warns the creators that the
new intelligent species are now able to contact.  One of the species come in
contact with the portal monolith and trips over to unknown place where it lives
for the rest of his life.  When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR 
> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense! Although, to watch all 
> three, you had better have a big bowl of popcorn... it's something 
> absurd like 9 hours in total.]

  A bit over 11, actually. Yes, I have watched all three extended versions
on a row once.

  I own the extended trilogy. It rules.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:

> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...

> > Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> > and why is it there?)

> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.

  Intelligent Design! ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:50:26 -0000, nemesis  

<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was..
.)
>> >
>> > I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until the
y  

>> get
>> > to the
>> > moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a  

>> manned
>> > mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the
  

>> real
>> > mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith n
ear
>> > the
>> > giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's m
ain
>> > mission
>> > and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans
  

>> and
>> > it's up
>> > to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discov
ers
>> > the real
>> > purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid t
rip
>> > could be
>> > seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer f
or
>> > inspection
>> > by the creators...
>>
>> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic
>
> I was not.  I just described the plot.

and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?

>> See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone
,

I know, really I do.

> Is it so hard to get it from the movie?

You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.

> I guess some people have trouble with continuity in non-linear plots..
.  

> for
> instance, I showed my ex-wife this strip:
> http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF162-Executive_Decision.jpg
>
> and she had trouble figuring it out...

Bye-bye Earth heh.

>> Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes
>> mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew wh
o
>> hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and

>
> that's sarcasm.

As was the bit before it.

-- 

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

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> You will be assimilated.

  Should I resist? Or is it futile?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"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.
>
> -- 
> Phil Cook

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.

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:50:26 -0000, nemesis
> > I was not.  I just described the plot.
>
> and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?
> You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.

Long cuts, same movie, same story.  The logical conclusion from seeing the bone
in the air cut to a spaceship is pretty straightforward.  Would it really be
worth it to show men's technical evolution through the ages?  It'd be boring
and not as poetic as that hallmark of a scene...

> Bye-bye Earth heh.

yes, but I guess she didn't know how to follow the logical jump from cute doggy
alien to Earth exploding...

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> "True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive  
> words in clouds of dust..."

  Like SFX?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:477e677d@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
> > "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> > news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > > Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> > > and why is it there?)
>
> > Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>
>   Intelligent Design! ;)
>

Thank you. I nearly choked on my supper when I read that. *g*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

>> and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?
>> You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.
> 
> Long cuts, same movie, same story.  The logical conclusion from seeing the bone
> in the air cut to a spaceship is pretty straightforward.  Would it really be
> worth it to show men's technical evolution through the ages?  It'd be boring
> and not as poetic as that hallmark of a scene...

The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly 
random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or 
meaning. Surely the creators had *something* in mind when they created 
this thing, but it's so far removed from what is actually visible on 
screen that it's very hard to guess what they were trying to say...

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

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
....
> "True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive
> words in clouds of dust..."

Couldn't resist...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sugwords.jpg' (34 KB)

Preview of image 'sugwords.jpg'

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
> meaning.

surely there is this huge visual clue connecting it all together, namely a black
monolith?  Note the story isn't about people or any character in particular...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>> In seriousness for a moment...
> 
> it is:  unknown intelligent race devises a device (monolith) to spread
> intelligent life in the galaxy.  One of them ends up on Earth where it
> instigates apes to become the dominant life form on the planet.  They
> eventually get to a level of sophistication that allows them to travel through
> space and reach the moon where the beacon monolith warns the creators that the
> new intelligent species are now able to contact.  One of the species come in
> contact with the portal monolith and trips over to unknown place where it lives
> for the rest of his life.  When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Close, but not quite.  According to the book (which was written at the 
same time as the movie, but the movie got released first due to 
Kubrick's paranoia), Dave goes through the Stargate (long before 
MacGuyver got to it), sees various cosmic scenery, ends up in a holding 
cell whereby he spends the rest of his life.  The Monolith, programmed 
aeons ago by the aliens to do just this sort of thing, records his 
memories and, as his physical body dies, stores his essence in a lattice 
of light, hence the Star Child, newborn ambassador for Earth and toady 
for the aliens' designs.  Close the novel with him looking at shiny 
Earth and having the same thought of what to do with his abilities as 
Moon Watcher, the man-ape whose brains got stir-fried by the paleolithic 
monolith.

If you want incomprehensible-for-the-sake-of-being-artsy, check out the 
anime Ergo Proxy.  It's all deep and cerebral, right up to the very end, 
where...something anticlimactic happens.  And you, the viewer, goes "ho 
hum, that was lame compared to the buildup".

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists 
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist 
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation

I think in the USA, it was just called "twelve monkeys". And it makes a 
lot of sense if you just watch it a couple times. (Unlike 2001, which is 
missing a whole bunch of story bits.)

> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

It was a great film!   "Bruce Willis, please report for Volunteer Duty!"

> I think I'd class that one more as "rather hard to follow" rather than 
> actually "incomprehensible".

12 monkeys was simply "hard to follow" too, as a time-travel movie.

> Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)

It was a special-effects movie.The book makes more sense.

-- 
   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

Gilles Tran wrote:
> There's a movie called "The Island"

That was definitely rentable, altho I liked the book "Spares" much better.


-- 
   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

Invisible wrote:
> But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd 
> given up *trying* to understand it.

I would recommend you avoid "Pan's Labrynth" then too. I thought it was 
delightful, but you'd just be depressed.

 From another review:
"""
You know those movies where no matter how depressed you are, and how 
poorly things are going for you, you can just watch this movie and no 
matter how often you've seen it, it cheers you right up and you can face 
the day again?  Pan's Labrynth is like that, except exactly opposite.
"""

> Um... wuh??

I'm with you on this one. The book makes way more sense.

-- 
   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:
>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>   Intelligent Design! ;)

That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans 
without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution 
has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)

-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Actually, if you read the second book, it is claimed that the baby is 
actually what the old man turns into, for reasons explained in the 
second book.

-- 
   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

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly 
> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or 
> meaning. 

Much of it was, actually. 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.

-- 
   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

Mike the Elder wrote:
> #2 The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
>    (Friendly warning: this film is considered offensive by several folks
>    who are generally rather difficult to offend, myself included.)

Ah yes, the only movie I ever walked out of during the opening credits. 
Bleh.

Also the only movie where the door had a sign saying "if you want your 
money back, just ask."
-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
>> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
>> meaning.
> 
> surely there is this huge visual clue connecting it all together, namely a black
> monolith?  Note the story isn't about people or any character in particular...

So... it's a story about an inanimate black brick?

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Pan's Labrynth is like that, except exactly opposite.

OMG, that's quotable...

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Also the only movie where the door had a sign saying "if you want your 
> money back, just ask."

Woah... that's *advanced*! o_O

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Pan's Labrynth is like that, except exactly opposite.
> 
> OMG, that's quotable...

I had already seen the movie, and I was reading the review going "WTF? 
What movie did *this* guy watch?" until I got to the end, which I still 
giggle over.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
> >   Intelligent Design! ;)
>
> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans
> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution
> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)

tell me then who designed the alien designers? ;)

Post a reply to this message

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...

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...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
> >> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
> >> meaning.
> >
> > surely there is this huge visual clue connecting it all together, namely a black
> > monolith?  Note the story isn't about people or any character in particular...
>
> So... it's a story about an inanimate black brick?

yeah, that's the materialist take...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>>>   Intelligent Design! ;)
>> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans
>> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution
>> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)
> 
> tell me then who designed the alien designers? ;)

It's monoliths all the way down!

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
> >>>   Intelligent Design! ;)
> >> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans
> >> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution
> >> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)
> >
> > tell me then who designed the alien designers? ;)
>
> It's monoliths all the way down!

giggle... :)

surely such perfectly-sharp geometric shape handifully spreading life around is
proof of existence of God, Adamsian thinking notwithstanding... :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

I actually found this to be one of the very few movies I've seen in 
which the time travel actually seemed to work in a coherent way (the 
other one I can think of is Primer).  Sure, it's by Terry Gilliam so 
it's a bit strange, but I think it's reasonably comprehensible, 
particularly as far as his movies are concerned.

> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

I like this movie quite a bit, but I do agree that it doesn't go through 
many lengths to explicitly tell you what's going on.  I'd suggest 
reading the book first since it does a much better job of explaining 
things instead of just showing them.

> #1 Dune.

You should see some of the *other* films by David Lynch!

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.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>>>   Intelligent Design! ;)
>> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans
>> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution
>> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)
> 
> tell me then who designed the alien designers? ;)

They don't need to be designed. This is just one of the arguments 
against "irreducible complexity implies God" type statements. Maybe the 
aliens evolved naturally, and then created humans from scratch, in which 
case *nothing* you find out about humans disproves evolution happens.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
> >   Intelligent Design! ;)

> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans 
> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution 
> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)

  Oh, come on! Can't you rest about the subject even for a second?

  It was a *joke*. Keep it like that. Give it a rest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>>>   Intelligent Design! ;)
> 
>> That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans 
>> without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution 
>> has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)
> 
>   Oh, come on! Can't you rest about the subject even for a second?
> 
>   It was a *joke*. Keep it like that. Give it a rest.

Myself, I'd almost posit the notion of UNintelligent Design.

Wink.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Oh, come on! Can't you rest about the subject even for a second?
>   It was a *joke*. Keep it like that. Give it a rest.

Um, yes, I know it was a joke. I was just having a conversation. You 
shouldn't need to feel offended. I wasn't talking about 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

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> it's one of the 
>> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.
> 
>   Then you haven't seen many movies, have you?
> 

I've seen quite a few, but I try to stay away from the bad ones.

Even "Amazon Women from the Avocado Jungle of Death" was better than 
Advent Children!

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

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Seriously though, it's not just incomprehensible... it's one of the
>> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.
> 
> yes, but the CG was top-notch! :)
> 
> and if you were a fan of the game, that final battle between Cloud and Sephiroh
> was well worth it!

I *was* a fan of the game.

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

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
> ....
>> Speaking of which, did you get the feeling that the Dwarves were only
>> used in the movie for comic relief?  I found it quite disrespectful.
>>
> ....
> Not NEARLY as disrespectful as this little song form "Mr. Frito"
> in Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings":

Yes, I'm aware of the book (and found it funny, though I don't remember 
much anymore).

The difference is, BotR was *trying* to be both stupid and funny.

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

Post a reply to this message