 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I really
didn't expect it to be boring. However, it resulted to be, at least in my
view, just a parade of famous actors, one after another, none of which
really had a good role which would have shown their acting prowess and
charisma, excellent but not really innovative CGI (I hate to admit it, but
nowadays CGI has become more or less vulgar in most modern movies) and a
really confusing plot, which felt like they wanted to fit a very thick
book into 1 and a half hours of movie (which is most probably the case,
in fact, although I have not read the book so I can't really tell).
It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read the
book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adaptations
of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a bit
confusing and boring.
It's not like movie adaptations of fantasy books couldn't be enjoyable.
I liked the Harry Potter movies even though I haven't read even a single
line of the books. However, The Golden Compass was just too erratic and
fast-paced for my liking. While it had its moments, overall it was more
boring than entertaining.
Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I really
> didn't expect it to be boring.
I've always found movies far more exciting in a reasonably-full movie
theater than at home. Jaws was downright tedious on video. :-)
> It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read the
> book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adaptations
> of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a bit
> confusing and boring.
It was fairly confusing an boring as a book, too. It was, however, a
fairly good adaptation, methinks.
I read all three books, out of curiousity and boredom. I'd say it was an
attempt at an epic story whose intention was to teach you that epic
stories aren't important. So it kind of got wrapped around its own axle.
It's a book about how not to believe in religion, full of evil people
who see the light, magic vague conciousnesses talking to prophesied
children, beings made from pure thought, inexplicable evil leaking into
the world when science goes awry, and heaven forbid don't believe in
religion.
> It's not like movie adaptations of fantasy books couldn't be enjoyable.
> I liked the Harry Potter movies even though I haven't read even a single
> line of the books.
FWIW, the first movie was pretty spot on with the book - if you saw the
movie, you'll be bored with the book. I think the later ones probably
had books too complex to really do complete justice to in a movie. And
of course the story was pretty puerile too, so it got pretty old after
the first book.
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books?
Well, the Golden Compass was written for exactly the opposite reason as
Narnia was written, so maybe they figured the success of Narnia would
make for a good Golden Compass. And of course, they're all kid's stories
(well, not LotR, but...) so it's easier to put on the screen than some
adult-oriented fantasies.
I think the ones with a specific catch to them (like the Forbidden
Kingdom being a Kung Fu movie) was an example of that.
I'm finding the same sentiment with lots of the animated films. Take a
completely normal story, put animated characters in it, and instant
blockbuster. Toy Story did this and it was excellent. So then you get
Bugs Life, Cars, whatever that one with the Sharks was, etc ad
infinitum, without any real story you couldn't have told without the
animation.
This one just cracked me up, tho:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YBM3j7x4Lcw
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm finding the same sentiment with lots of the animated films. Take a
> completely normal story, put animated characters in it, and instant
> blockbuster. Toy Story did this and it was excellent.
Pixar's success is largely due to their ability to weave a good story
together with good animation. Without good storytelling, all the special
effects and top-notch CG in the world won't help a movie succeed. Pixar,
therefore, places good storytelling at the same level of importance as
high-quality CG.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I really
> didn't expect it to be boring.
I saw it too, and yeah, it wasn't the best. I did not find the plot
confusing, but the ending left me wondering if they were going to
release a second or third installment.
I thought the focus on religion's habit of misdirecting the public for
personal gain was somewhat refreshing. There is obviously some truth in it.
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
> pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
> is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
It's not just you, I feel the same way. Hollywood movie-makers tend to
stick to winning formulas, to increase sales and reception. On the same
note, they also keep using tired music and mood harmonies, because they
work. An prime example of this is the soundtrack for the Matrix trilogy.
The mood harmonies for those movies have been around since the late 80s,
maybe even the 70s. You would think that for such a unique plot concept,
the movie producers would at least come up with an original soundtrack.
Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
series.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Hollywood movie-makers tend to
> stick to winning formulas, to increase sales and reception.
I agree, but when most movies lose money can you blame them?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
> pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
> is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
Just about anything that is successful will be emulated. This is why
our politicians claim to be the next Kennedy or Reagan (depending on
their party affiliation).
The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films has led to a heap of
movies based on all manner of DC and Marvel superheroes, although some
of them have been quite good; since the characters are someone's IP, if
they're smart they'll ensure that the scripts are good.
There has also been a slew of computer animations, many of which are
boring and/or stupid. At first Pixar was the only real player in the
game, and then Dreamworks joined and had some success, and then there
were several from other studios that weren't very interesting.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48668b27@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tag povrayorg says...
> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I rea
lly
> didn't expect it to be boring. However, it resulted to be, at least in my
> view, just a parade of famous actors, one after another, none of which
> really had a good role which would have shown their acting prowess and
> charisma, excellent but not really innovative CGI (I hate to admit it, bu
t
> nowadays CGI has become more or less vulgar in most modern movies) and a
> really confusing plot, which felt like they wanted to fit a very thick
> book into 1 and a half hours of movie (which is most probably the case,
> in fact, although I have not read the book so I can't really tell).
>
> It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read the
> book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adaptat
ions
> of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a b
it
> confusing and boring.
> It's not like movie adaptations of fantasy books couldn't be enjoyable.
> I liked the Harry Potter movies even though I haven't read even a single
> line of the books. However, The Golden Compass was just too erratic and
> fast-paced for my liking. While it had its moments, overall it was more
> boring than entertaining.
>
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
> pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
> is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
>
>
Well, as someone that did read the book. Its missing some story line in
at the arctic lab, which got fudged in some place else as dialog, how
she gets to the lab is inaccurate, bits and pieces of other parts where
not "quite" as badly squashed together. The ending... Just ends before
the first chapter, probably because it would have required a next movie,
which didn't seem likely to start, given the fervor of religious
ignorance and sight unread insanity just making it induced in many
people. Not that the real end did anything more, really, than suggest
even more strongly than some bits of the surviving story, that a sequel
existed (it would have practically demanded one).
All in all, watching it a second time I felt it was *slightly* less bad
than I original thought, but its not the most horrible adaption I have
ever seen either.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4866909a$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read t
he
> > book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adapt
ations
> > of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a
bit
> > confusing and boring.
>
> It was fairly confusing an boring as a book, too. It was, however, a
> fairly good adaptation, methinks.
>
> I read all three books, out of curiousity and boredom. I'd say it was an
> attempt at an epic story whose intention was to teach you that epic
> stories aren't important. So it kind of got wrapped around its own axle.
>
> It's a book about how not to believe in religion, full of evil people
> who see the light, magic vague conciousnesses talking to prophesied
> children, beings made from pure thought, inexplicable evil leaking into
> the world when science goes awry, and heaven forbid don't believe in
> religion.
>
Umm. Its a "series" about not believing in organized religion. Some of
the later bits did annoy me a lot, since it simply replaced one type of
mysticism with another, but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't
follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they
can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact
opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be
telling you about." The is the magesterium. A group of people convinced
that, in this case, the one single force in the universe that "derives"
life is actually the thing creating corruption and chaos, and
simultaneously desperate to destory it, even as they are scared to death
that someone will figure out where it actually comes from and actually
bring "more" of it, instead of helping them destroy it.
It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out. They
would literally destroying creation itself by trying to "get rid of" the
perceived evil of sin, i.e., dust, which made people think for
themselves and act on adult ideas, instead of happily obeying the
authorities. The mess with the angels and stuff got a bit confusing,
but, in essense, it put god in the position of being a being so
disconnected from the world and so fragile from being disconnected, that
he literally "blew away" and dissolved back into the dust, the moment
someone opened the gilded cage his power hungry second in command made
for him. His second was so power mad that he spread the ideas the
Magesterium taught, because it made him more powerful, while, like the
morons following him, he had no clue it was destroying *everything* in
the process.
I think you have misread some of it quite a bit, not the least getting
what "dust" really was wrong. It wasn't evil spilling into the world, it
was renewal. The Magesterium simply couldn't abide those that refused to
"obey", therefor, anything the discouraged people obeying had to, in
their view, be "evil". Much like you see in the definitions of the same
among the nuts of real religions.
I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main
message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up
with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely
wrong about *everything*."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Its a "series" about not believing in organized religion.
True.
> Some of
> the later bits did annoy me a lot, since it simply replaced one type of
> mysticism with another,
That's kind of what I was saying, yes.
> but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't
> follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they
> can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact
> opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be
> telling you about."
Except the scientists who understood exactly what they were doing were
all evil as well. At least those from Laura's world.
> It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out.
I was referring the the monsters that only ate the adults that came in
from between the worlds. The invisible shades monsters. Not the dust.
> I think you have misread some of it quite a bit,
No, I think I was trying not to fill a whole message full of spoilers,
ya see. ;-)
> not the least getting what "dust" really was wrong.
I know what dust was. I wasn't talking about dust.
> I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main
> message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up
> with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely
> wrong about *everything*."
Yeah. Except the *author* said it's anti-religious, and indeed that was
his purpose in writing it. Just as the author of the Narnia stuff said
he explicitly wrote it to make children more credulous so they'd more
easily believe in the fantastic claims of religion without any proof.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
> series.
Didn't you see the party scene in the second movie?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films
The success of the Spiderman movie I can somewhat understand (although,
honestly, it still shows a bit of the chaotic quality of the collective
human mind why exactly that movie was so popular and not many other
equally good movies; and by the third movie the entire series has got
really, really tired, IMO), but the Fantastic 4 movie I really can't
understand. In my opinion it was dull, unimaginative, without any kind
of novelty, lacked good character development almost completely and its
script had the depth of a teaspoon. (And the coolest character in the
whole movie, Dr Doom, was shown in full costume for less than a minute,
which is something absolutely incomprehensible.)
Too many of these movies based on popular comics seem to be written
assuming that people already know the comics in question very well.
This inevitably causes the movies to feel kind of fast-forwarded, with
relevant character (and other) development compressed, if not even
completely skipped. It's like "everybody knows who character X is anyways,
so there's no need to spend a half an hour on showing his personality and
history." This usually results in a rather shallow and unimaginative
average action movie.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Pixar's success is largely due to their ability to weave a good story
> together with good animation. Without good storytelling, all the special
> effects and top-notch CG in the world won't help a movie succeed. Pixar,
> therefore, places good storytelling at the same level of importance as
> high-quality CG.
Agreed.
As Pixar themselves often say, "it has to be about characters, 100%".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films has led to a heap of
> movies based on all manner of DC and Marvel superheroes, although some
Fantastic 4 was successful?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (I hate to admit it, but
> nowadays CGI has become more or less vulgar in most modern movies)
By the way, it's curious that sometimes special effects which are too
good can be detrimental to the movie, while bad special effects can,
quite ironically, have the opposite effect. There's a rather curious
example of the latter:
The movie Jaws was originally intended by its director to have a lot
more of the shark itself. However, in 1975 animatronics were at a rather
lousy level, and post-production was also in its infancy (so that flaws
could not be removed or improved in post-production) so the shark looked
very unrealistic.
This caused the director to drastically change the contents of the
movie, and instead of concentrating so much on the shark, it concentrated
more on the human characters.
The end result was a movie which is considered one of the best of all
times.
(The sequels were all about the shark itself, and they are examples
of the worst movies ever.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Pixar's success is largely due to their ability to weave a good story
> together with good animation.
Went to see WALL-E yesterday. Delightful characters, completely original
story, incredible graphics, lots of in-jokes. I'll have to utterly
disagree in every way with John VanSickle on this one.
> The political element is out of the Green Book of Scary Futures
I think if you wanted to read politics into it, any story that starts
with the premise of an Earth that everyone has fled from is going to
have *some* "political" content. Whether it's pollution, nuclear wars,
biological disaster, etc, there's going to be a bad-guy involved.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
>> series.
>
> Didn't you see the party scene in the second movie?-)
I said *brilliant* techno/indie pieces. Something you remember easily
for its emotive qualities and technical genius.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
> >> series.
> >
> > Didn't you see the party scene in the second movie?-)
> I said *brilliant* techno/indie pieces. Something you remember easily
> for its emotive qualities and technical genius.
IMO the party scene was emotive enough. I think it was cool.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
>>>> series.
>>> Didn't you see the party scene in the second movie?-)
>
>> I said *brilliant* techno/indie pieces. Something you remember easily
>> for its emotive qualities and technical genius.
>
> IMO the party scene was emotive enough. I think it was cool.
The music was better in that scene than the rest of the movie, I'll
admit. Unfortunately such moments were rare, and the emotive harmonies
present during most of the film were... generic and uninspired :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <486706e3$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't
> > follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they
> > can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact
> > opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be
> > telling you about."
>
> Except the scientists who understood exactly what they were doing were
> all evil as well. At least those from Laura's world.
>
Hmm. Yes and no. There are always scientists that opt to side with the
lunatic fringe and only use the science when/if it helps that agenda. We
only really get to see that side in the books, since its connected to
the theme. However, you do get the hint that some, those working with
the college and in scholarly circles, where skirting the edge as much as
possible, trying to avoid helping people who would undermine the very
purpose of their existence. Someone had to make, for example, the
alethiometer, back before the Magesterium tried to destroy them all and
everyone the dared to challenge them directly. What sort of scientist do
you "expect" to find in such a world?
> > It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out.
>
> I was referring the the monsters that only ate the adults that came in
> from between the worlds. The invisible shades monsters. Not the dust.
>
Ah. Yes, those. But it does involve dust anyway, since there its "that"
which they feed on, in the end. And yeah, that was a bit of the sort of,
"Try at least to be cautious what you bring into the world.", sort of
message with that. The scientists that did that where no evil, they just
didn't recognize what they where doing. They made their pursuit of
knowledge "into" a sort of religion as well, denying consequence, and in
the end, they gave up one "everything" other than that pursuit.
> > I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main
> > message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up
> > with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely
> > wrong about *everything*."
>
> Yeah. Except the *author* said it's anti-religious, and indeed that was
> his purpose in writing it. Just as the author of the Narnia stuff said
> he explicitly wrote it to make children more credulous so they'd more
> easily believe in the fantastic claims of religion without any proof.
Oh, and it definitely is. But in a way that, despite the necessity of
introducing one fanciful other explanations for everything, to counter
all the "presumptions" the rest had about what was true, clearly says,
"The person that figures this out is going to be the one that keeps her
eyes open, thinks, and looks for answers, not the clown who thinks they
already have them." Its unclear how you show this, without "inventing" a
lot of silly fantasy elements to "replace" the existing silly ones.
Well, at least without making reaching anyone with it impossible. Its
one thing to say, "Angels could be real, but what if they are not what
you imagine them to be", and another entirely to say, flat out, to some
believer, "They just don't exist at all, and its all made up nonsense."
I think the intent was to make a story that was anti-religious, but in a
way that might be subtle enough, at least initially, to get people to
think, before making it absolutely clear what the message is. And, he
almost manages it. Unfortunately, the message is hinted at, for the far
gone, enough in the first book to keep them from reading it at all, it
gets "too" explicit about it in the second, and before you even open the
cover of the third you know that religion and blind faith in made up
ideas, where truth gets ignored or discounted, is the absolute enemy
running through the whole series. The knife simply wasn't subtle enough.
;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:04:07 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I
> really didn't expect it to be boring. However, it resulted to be, at
> least in my
> view, just a parade of famous actors, one after another, none of which
> really had a good role which would have shown their acting prowess and
> charisma,
Thought about seeing it when it came out, but I was put off by the promos
all making out that everyone was after the eponymous 'compass'. I thought
that if that was a true representation of the movie then they'd really
screwed with the plot compared to the books.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Yes and no. There are always scientists that opt to side with the
> lunatic fringe and only use the science when/if it helps that agenda.
Well, I was speaking of Laura's father. I suppose there were a number of
other "scientists" in the book that weren't so clear-cut.
> Someone had to make, for example, the alethiometer,
It just seemed very contrived to me, is all. Breaking willing suspension
of disbelief, that none of the scientists opposed to the Magesterium
actually knew how the magic worked either.
I'd like to see fictional books that pit science against religion
realistically, you know, where like science works reliably and people
know why, kind of thing.
> Ah. Yes, those. But it does involve dust anyway, since there its "that"
> which they feed on, in the end.
I couldn't figure out wtf they were feeding on, but now that you mention
it, yeah, makes perfect sense. Duh on me.
> Its unclear how you show this, without "inventing" a
> lot of silly fantasy elements to "replace" the existing silly ones.
Not while making it amusing for children, I suppose, yes.
> The knife simply wasn't subtle enough. ;)
Heh.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I
>> really
>> didn't expect it to be boring.
>
> I saw it too, and yeah, it wasn't the best. I did not find the plot
> confusing, but the ending left me wondering if they were going to
> release a second or third installment.
>
> Sam
If they had ended the movie where the book ended, there would have been
no doubt that there would be a second or third movie. That would have
committed them to the next movies and, you know those commercial
businesses, they don't like to make a second or third if the first fails
to sell.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <486918c2$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Hmm. Yes and no. There are always scientists that opt to side with the
> > lunatic fringe and only use the science when/if it helps that agenda.
>
> Well, I was speaking of Laura's father. I suppose there were a number of
> other "scientists" in the book that weren't so clear-cut.
>
> > Someone had to make, for example, the alethiometer,
>
> It just seemed very contrived to me, is all. Breaking willing suspension
> of disbelief, that none of the scientists opposed to the Magesterium
> actually knew how the magic worked either.
>
Tell that to people building gravity meters. I am sure they could
"test" for what ever made it work, even if they didn't get how. And, it
was suppressed technology, so its not impossible that they tried, and
given the power the Magesterium had in the book, actually succeeded, in
destroying knowledge of how it worked, even if they missed all the
devices.
> I'd like to see fictional books that pit science against religion
> realistically, you know, where like science works reliably and people
> know why, kind of thing.
>
True enough. Though, I don't mind some that try to give semi-plausible
reasons why some fantasy things do work, as long as those reasons in the
end are "effected" by science in some fashion, and thus really part of a
larger natural world. Its the ones that try to treat it as "separate",
then even dumber, try to use a lot of gibberish and BS that is debunked
to "show" how its untouchable/explanable/defies the laws of physics,
that I have a problem with it. GC takes the, "its part of the greater
natural world, just a lot of it is parts we normally don't, and can't,
see directly.", approach. Its not doing an astounding job of it, but its
dealing with trying to provide plausible reasons why some stupid stuff
people insist, due to lack of any clue how often they have been tested,
failed the test, and don't in fact work, *might* be there some place.
Its like the steps some parents take when trying to teach their kids
that the monsters on TV are not real, while sidestepping if Santa is or
not. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Tell that to people building gravity meters.
I'm not saying it's impossible for a world to have that happen. I'm
saying it felt counter-productive to the point I thought he was making.
Why have a book about "don't believe religious authorities" and then
have a widely-known (and true) prophesy about how you shouldn't believe
prophets?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <486b1475@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Tell that to people building gravity meters.
>
> I'm not saying it's impossible for a world to have that happen. I'm
> saying it felt counter-productive to the point I thought he was making.
> Why have a book about "don't believe religious authorities" and then
> have a widely-known (and true) prophesy about how you shouldn't believe
> prophets?
>
lol True enough.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
