 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land! He teaches you how to line up pool
shots too. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> You mean "A Beautiful Mind".
yes!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> how about a mathematician? "A brilliant mind"?...
Which is only appealing due to his schizophrenia, and the drama (most
of it untrue) that it created.
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
> > other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
> > involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>
> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
you geek! :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato and
>>> other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun for a movie
>>> involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
>> Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land!
>
> you geek! :P
Hey, I was in third grade at the time. I was more impressed they were
showing 8-year-olds how to pool shark than I was by the math itself.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
Good Will Hunting?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
> If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
> commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
I have yet to see the movies in commentary mode (each movie has, IIRC,
at least 3 commentary tracks).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While I was stationed in Iceland, I did a business trip to the town of
> Thorshofn, and there I stayed at a very nice bed and breakfast. One night
> there was film on TV called "The Night is Dark on the Shores of the
> Baltic" or something like that. The movie was originally in Russian, and
> it had Icelandic subtitles. Having only the very slightest grasp of
> either language, the movie was a total mystery to me.
>
> The next day I was chatting with some Icelanders at a radar site that was
> the purpose of my visit, and I mentioned it to them. They replied that
> the subtitles didn't help; the movie was still inscrutable.
I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> I guess the thing is that technical details aren't very interesting in
>> a movie...
>
> It's not quite a counterexample, but I found that the anime Hikaru No Go
> was quite interesting despite going into at least a bit of technical
> detail about go. Can't think of any examples with mathematics though,
> but I bet it's possible. Perhaps part of the reason that it's easier to
> do in a TV series than a movie is that it takes a lot of time to explain
> even the basics of more technical subjects if you're audience isn't
> already familiar with it.
Go is a strange game - the rules are vastly simpler than Chess, and yet
the resulting game is vastly *more complicated*.
Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
> me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
> in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
Computer go is much easier to beat than computer chess. That's because
go cannot be played so well with brute-force searching.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Having said that, whether I play Chess or Go, the computer always beats
>> me, every single time. [Except that one time I found an algorithmic flaw
>> in the AI for Go. But that hardly seems like "winning"...]
>
> Computer go is much easier to beat than computer chess. That's because
> go cannot be played so well with brute-force searching.
Either way, I still get comprehensively thrashed every single time. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Can you name me one good full length movie *about* math?
>
> Good Will Hunting?
Math had little to do with it. It's about a young person who is
brilliant and has personal issues. Had he been a brilliant artist, the
story would still be the same.
--
Youthful Figure: What you get when you ask a woman her age.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
I really liked it. Don't recall it being at all obfuscated. Simple
story - nothing really hidden.
--
Youthful Figure: What you get when you ask a woman her age.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> I've seen quite a few, but I try to stay away from the bad ones.
>
> That's called "prejudice".
Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only rarely
see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to sort
away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
Is judging a movie you haven't seen a random shot in the dark? Of course
not. I think most people have seen movies they didn't want to see very much
because it was together with someone else who wanted to see it. In those
situation you most often find that you were right about your initial
prejudice and only very rarely is a movie you didn't think was good actually
a positive surprise. At least in my experience.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
> You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only rarely
> see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to sort
> away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
I have learned to not to judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case,
a movie.
I have been surprised in both directions. Movies which I was almost
certain would be mediocre (but I didn't have anything better to do than
to watch them) have surprised me for being unexpectedly enjoyable. Also
many movies which I was rather sure I would like have been disappointments.
It's just not possible to know in advance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
>> If you include the bonus features, it like 3 Days of stuff. The
>> commentary from the hobbit actors was priceless.
>
> I have yet to see the movies in commentary mode (each movie has, IIRC,
> at least 3 commentary tracks).
>
They're well worth making the time to watch.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> While I was stationed in Iceland, I did a business trip to the town of
>> Thorshofn, and there I stayed at a very nice bed and breakfast. One night
>> there was film on TV called "The Night is Dark on the Shores of the
>> Baltic" or something like that. The movie was originally in Russian, and
>> it had Icelandic subtitles. Having only the very slightest grasp of
>> either language, the movie was a total mystery to me.
>>
>> The next day I was chatting with some Icelanders at a radar site that was
>> the purpose of my visit, and I mentioned it to them. They replied that
>> the subtitles didn't help; the movie was still inscrutable.
>
> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
Really? I loved it. One of the best martial arts movies I've ever
seen, in fact.
The DVD has an English language track on it; maybe watching that would
make it easier for you. For me, seeing the actors mouths not match the
words come out is far more jarring than reading subtitles. I'm more
than willing to read what they're saying in order to have the spoken
dialog fit how their mouths move.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's just not possible to know in advance.
Not entirely, but it IS possible to make an educated guess. After all,
that's why we have trailers and reviews.
Of course, I use reviews the opposite way that most people do... I find
that many critics look down on films I enjoy, and praise films that I
find to be trash.
But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
movie, you can usually get a good idea of what the "feel" of the movie
is, which often is more important than other details anyway.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
>> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
>> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
>
> Really? I loved it. One of the best martial arts movies I've ever seen,
> in fact.
>
> The DVD has an English language track on it; maybe watching that would
> make it easier for you. For me, seeing the actors mouths not match the
> words come out is far more jarring than reading subtitles. I'm more than
> willing to read what they're saying in order to have the spoken dialog fit
> how their mouths move.
>
She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
> movie
... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
it again. That's my opinion.
There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
They spoil way too much.
Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
She's flying by the power of her Chi. That's how you fly when you're
using your Chi to do it. (At least, that's what my chinese-born wife
tells me.)
Chinese magic isn't a whole lot like western magic.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story
*at all*?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
>> movie
>
> ... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
> it again. That's my opinion.
>
> There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
> They spoil way too much.
>
> Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
> and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
> and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
> you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
>
A good movie is worth watching even if you know what's going to happen.
Or why else do people still go to see Shakespeare's plays?
"Romeo and Juliet? Why would I want to see that when I already know
they both die at the end?"
Case in point: The Sixth Sense. The ending was "spoiled" for me before
I ever saw it. Even so, I found it to be an excellent movie, and was
still able to appreciate it.
Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>> scenes.
>
> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>
> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
> all*?
What story? The one where they spy on people and
jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
instantly in the middle of the desert?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
I'm guessing that would be a "no", then. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>>> scenes.
>> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>>
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
Do yourself a favor, and watch the movie again (in English, if you have
to). This time, ignore the martial arts, and pay attention to what the
characters are thinking and feeling.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:22:40 -0000, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>
did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.t4ews0hkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
>>> news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>>>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>>>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>>>>
>>>> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what
>>>> the
>>>> chimps and the space baby were all about'
>>>
>>> I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better
>>> after the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???
>>
>> Well obviously some of us are more intelligent then others, and by some
>> of
>> us I mean you and by others I mean me :-)
>>
>>>> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
>>>> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some
>>>> of
>>>> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered
>>> the
>>> first one.
>>> Each to their own.
>>
>> Indeed. The third one does drag until Jacurutu, but the forth amused.
>>
>
> The first is great, I've read it atleast twice. I read the second twice
> as
> well, because I was planning on reading the third recently, and couldn't
> remember what happened in the second execpt for broad plotlines. I've
> heard
> that the third is better than the second, but still not as good as the
> first.
Well the second is really more an interlude linking the events between one
and three, so it would be unfair to judge it against the 'full' novels. As
Gail said though it's all down to a matter of each to their own.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
