 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocain freeservecouk> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [12 monkeys] 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 ...
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
No, they didn't send him back to *avert* the catastrophe. This isn't possible as
it has already happend. That is being said very often in the movie. If you
didn't get that it's pretty obvious why you find that the movie doesn't make
sense.
In this movie the past (and thus the presence) can't be changed by traveling
back in time. That's what makes the whole thing interesting and keeps the film
coherent. He only tries to collect info which could help to find an antidote
for the virus.
The imho most interesting part of the whole story is, that the hints from the
past he is following turn out to be actually bred by him when he was there
trying to follow them.
Yes that makes sense. Just read it a couple of times :)
Regards Roman
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> I've seen quite a few, but I try to stay away from the bad ones.
That's called "prejudice".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 11:33:42
Message: <477fb166$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen. If I remember
> correctly, I have seen it 4 times, and each time I have got something
> new from it.
Agreed (except for the 4 times bit - I may have seen it even more).
It's a movie where it seems every action and every line of dialog
served some purpose - nothing was wasted.
One flaw in the movie, though. Those who have not seen the movie may
want to skip the rest of this message.
The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she has seen him
before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)
>
> It was a special-effects movie.The book makes more sense.
Yes - he had to make up for the movie.<G>
For those who don't know, the script for the movie was written first.
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
It's a great movie. Dark, though. And I don't just mean the print quality.
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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." :-)
Conversely, I get tired of hearing, "God has problems, so it must be
evolution."
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> You mean 12 Monkeys. It's not supposed to make sense til the end.
>
> It didn't make sense even at the end.
>
> But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd
> given up *trying* to understand it.
I wish I had a life where 12 Monkeys was one of the most depressing
things I had seen...
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 11:56:51
Message: <477fb6d3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she has seen him
> before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
Maybe that was not the first time he was in the past?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 12:35:33
Message: <477fbfe5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she has seen him
>> before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
>
> Maybe that was not the first time he was in the past?-)
Or maybe thats just a basic, human error humans sometime make?
I haven't seent the movie though, so maybe I'm guessing wrong. ;-)
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 13:29:47
Message: <477fcc9b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias <JUS### [at] gmxnetware> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >> The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she has seen him
> >> before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
> >
> > Maybe that was not the first time he was in the past?-)
> Or maybe thats just a basic, human error humans sometime make?
What's wrong with retconning?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Vincent Le Chevalier
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 13:44:55
Message: <477fd027$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she has seen him
>> before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
>
> Maybe that was not the first time he was in the past?-)
>
I think that's it. The first time he landed in the middle of WWI, and
she had seen him on a photo from this period. Well, that's how I
remember the story, could be totally wrong...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
>
> Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
> >
> > Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>
> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
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... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever... *12 Monkeys SPOILER*
Date: 5 Jan 2008 15:25:14
Message: <477fe7aa$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Warp a écrit :
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> The psychologist keeps saying (in 1994) that she feels she
>>> has seen him
>>> before. That made no sense, whatsoever. She hadn't.
>>
>> Maybe that was not the first time he was in the past?-)
>>
>
> I think that's it. The first time he landed in the middle of WWI, and
> she had seen him on a photo from this period. Well, that's how I
> remember the story, could be totally wrong...
That may be it, actually. We don't know she was working on that work in
'94 (she talks about it in '97) - but perhaps she had.
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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... ;)
I love math, but that thing bored me a great deal.
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
>>
>> Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>
> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
--
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ 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:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >> Invisible wrote:
> >>> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
> >>
> >> Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
> >
> > I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
>
> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
how about a mathematician? "A brilliant mind"?...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>>> Invisible wrote:
>>>>> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that
>>>> Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>>> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> how about a mathematician? "A brilliant mind"?...
>
>
You mean "A Beautiful Mind".
And anyway, the problem with finding a "good" full length movie about
Math, is that I don't know of *any* full length movies about math.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
>
> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
Actually... no.
Indeed, I can't even name a short one. I presume this is because
everybody things that maths is boring.
On the other hand, can you think of any movies about music? I mean, that
go into any vague level of technical detail about music? I guess the
thing is that technical details aren't very interesting in a movie...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
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...
>
Very apt too. I loved that movie, though I doubt you would.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
