 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> > principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
> Or how about "I didn't enjoy watching it"?
> I mean, it's not like I *have* to like it. It's a free country, right?
You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".
If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
it. Just because something doesn't make sense to you (maybe because you
outright refuse to understand it) doesn't mean that nobody else understands
it either or finds it enjoyable.
> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
> it. Good for them...
Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
people didn't like it?
> >> So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
> >> in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
> >
> > What I wrote was not a constructed explanation. It's almost exactly what
> > the Architect is saying in the second movie. Just watch that scene again
> > and listen to what he is saying, keeping in mind what I wrote.
> For me, what you wrote is more like those people who try to "analyse"
> the lyrics of the Beatles. Like, they sing "it's raining outside" and
> some beardy professor goes "ah, yes, that's actually a reference to the
> Nazis". Um, WTF?
That's because you haven't watched that scene again, listening what the
Architect character is saying. It's quite straightforward. You are talking
as if my explanation was far-fetched interpretation of a vague philosophical
monologue, but it isn't: It's quite straightforward and clear once you start
listening to it.
(It also helps understanding it when you know the rest of the movies.
For example Smith's monologue when he speaks to Morpheus in the first
movie helps, as well as many things the Merovingian says.)
> Now, what you wrote isn't quite that crazy. The Architect clearly does
> talk about choice and about how the Matrix has been redesigned a few
> times. But he says everything extremely cryptically (for no obvious
> reason).
I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
> Besides, it's not like it's my *duty* to understand it or like it. It's
> entertainment. If I don't find it entertaining, why would I watch it
> again? That doesn't seem smart.
It can be rewarding if you come up with a realization, and you start
understanding the idea. You start appreciating the subtleties of the movie
more. What could be more rewarding?
I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went
>> on for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out
>> "I am CG!", then it loses my interest.
>
> The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by
> 2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are
> actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway
> through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys could
> do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks worse than
> some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
-- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
even with the help of wires.
Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
Really, smartass? What gave you that impression? The fact that there
are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that
realistic moving on screen?
I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are
not obvious. In particular, Neo's "super-man" flight in the night sky
right in the beginning is pure CG, no Keanu whatsoever. He could be
easily suspended in wires, but while movement is pretty smooth and
natural once he bursts into the clouds the abrupt change of pace between
actor and CG could go bad... so, pure CG all along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
> >
> > By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
> > Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
> > Architect couldn't control him any more.
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.
> >> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> >> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
> >
> > Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> > AFAICR.
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
>> very beginning.
>
> OK, that's interesting.
>
> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
> from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
This is actually BS if you ask me. No author is ever 100% sure of where
the work will lead them. This is valid to Lucas, Tolkien, Toriyama or
whomever claims a huge friggin work is all in their heads already in
pristine form.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
> Really, smartass? What gave you that impression? The fact that there
> are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that
> realistic moving on screen?
Actually, in Jurassic Park 3 they used both animatronic puppets and CGI
dinosaurs, and you *can't tell them apart* (at least not when they are
standing in place, as the puppets obviously cannot run). It's basically
impossible to tell from a given, standing velociraptor, whether it's a
puppet or CGI.
Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in
Hollywood. JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying
triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor
heads and feet...
That's really the bane of CG: with it you can do exactly what
animatronics can't, namely, realistic movements. Unfortunately, that
also means dinosaurs running, spider-man doing his super-powered jumps
and stunts etc... all of which are pretty obviously CG because you know
you can't have that for real, there are no super heroes nor dinosaurs
around.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> > being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
> No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in
> Hollywood. JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying
> triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor
> heads and feet...
My point was that in JP3 you really *can't* tell them apart. In JP1 you
could tell them apart if you watched carefully, but in JP3 the animatronics
are so well done that they look outright hyperrealistic and indistinguishable
from the CGI models. There are many scenes in which you could *swear* that
CGI was used but, wasn't.
Personally I appreciate movies which go the extra mile of using "real"
special effects rather than computer-generated ones. That's one of the major
reasons why I liked the Planet of Apes remake so much: There was practically
no CGI used there (the only CGI used was in some space scenes as well as to
create a few backgrounds). Whenever you see eg. a monkey outrunning a
galloping horse, there's zero CGI there. What you see is what the camera
saw.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
> -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
> even with the help of wires.
I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned
>> out from the beginning?
>
> I don't think so.
I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
three released were the middle group.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>>
>> By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
>> Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
>> Architect couldn't control him any more.
>
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
As someone else said, Smith wants out. Controlling the prison is the
best way to engineer an escape.
>> Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with.
>> They both got something they wanted.
>
> So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
> sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
> the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
> Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...
Because without the Matrix, the people who are the "batteries" for the
machines die. No batteries, no power for the machines.
>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make
>>> a sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>>
>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
>> AFAICR.
>
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
>
>> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come
>> out better than the original.
>
> But when it happens, it's very, very cool.
Yep.
> Shrek 1: Rather good.
> Shrek 2: Really good.
> Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?
Admittedly, the third Shrek film advanced the CG, so for me, it was worth
watching for that alone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
> three released were the middle group.
Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>
>> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
>> -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
>> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
>> even with the help of wires.
>
> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
see the fine details like this:
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
(which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
superpunch scene)
what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
with the super human movements it shows a bit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well
>>> done -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you
>>> notice they are CG is because they are moving like no human being
>>> could ever move, even with the help of wires.
>>
>> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
>> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
>> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
>
> I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
> there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
> see the fine details like this:
>
> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>
> (which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
> superpunch scene)
>
> what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
> with the super human movements it shows a bit.
That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the
one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not a
*lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that I
could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
"CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
That was a big part of the issue; I could see Hugo Weaving in the film as
a non-CG character, and as a CG character, and the differences between
the two were too obvious. That's one of the problems they had with this
film - if you didn't put the real actor up against it, then the model
looks really good. But having the actor as a reference in the film makes
it that much more apparent where the problems in the model are.
The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was
that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.
Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of
the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and
my brain registered it as "not real".
What constitutes outstanding VFX for me in a live action film is when you
can't tell what's live action and what's not. In these particular
scenes, it was clear what was and wasn't.
You of course may feel differently about it. My point of view isn't the
only valid one (nor is yours, I would remind you).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:18:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
>> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
>> three released were the middle group.
>
> Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I
> wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a major
part of that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>
> That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the
> one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not a
> *lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that I
> could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
> "CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
> long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
Exactly, which is a good thing that they are never on close up. Good
enough on a distance. And despite visible flaws, still miles of
distance from what one may find in any modern game, which don't have
subsurface scattering or real hair. That's why I call Andrew's
assumptions BS.
> The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was
> that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.
> Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of
> the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and
> my brain registered it as "not real".
Yes, but I can't imagine either how a super being with super strength
would look like by, say, walking and jumping on top of lots of people
underneath. Perhaps it'd look downright... unnatural and cartoonish.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
> empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a major
> part of that.
Why does that sound such a boring idea? The big evil has been defeated,
time to rebuild.
What would be the confrontation? Construction workers striking because of
poor working conditions?-)
(OTOH I'm sure some people would say that would be a much more enjoyable
trilogy than episodes 1-3...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, there's one thing I really can't understand.
Fans love Darth Vader. Fans want Darth Vader (some of the probably in the
double entendre way). But George Lucas outright refuses to give his fans
what they want. It's like Lucas has been infatuated by Anakin Skywalker, but
hates Darth Vader so much that he refuses to make anything related to him
anymore. But why? Why not give fans what they want?
If I were Lucas, I would try to redeem the negative hype episodes 1-3 got
by making an interquel movie placed between episodes 3 and 4. It would be
all about Darth Vader and it would *not* be a children's movie. Instead, it
would be dark, and Darth Vader would be portrayed as a total badass, just
like the fans want him.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:49:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>>
>> That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to,
>> the one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not
>> a *lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that
>> I could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
>> "CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
>> long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
>
> Exactly, which is a good thing that they are never on close up. Good
> enough on a distance. And despite visible flaws, still miles of
> distance from what one may find in any modern game, which don't have
> subsurface scattering or real hair. That's why I call Andrew's
> assumptions BS.
They may be for you, but for him and me they're not, they're reasonable
assumptions. Good for you that they're good enough to support the
suspension of disbelief; they're not for me. <shrug>
>> The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note)
>> was that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to
>> them. Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain
>> aspects of the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe
>> exactly) and my brain registered it as "not real".
>
> Yes, but I can't imagine either how a super being with super strength
> would look like by, say, walking and jumping on top of lots of people
> underneath. Perhaps it'd look downright... unnatural and cartoonish.
Well, your lack of imagination in that matter doesn't impact my brain's
interpretation of the events, which I found to be not in line with what
reality would look like in my mind.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:11:56 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Btw, there's one thing I really can't understand.
>
> Fans love Darth Vader. Fans want Darth Vader (some of the probably in
> the
> double entendre way). But George Lucas outright refuses to give his fans
> what they want. It's like Lucas has been infatuated by Anakin Skywalker,
> but hates Darth Vader so much that he refuses to make anything related
> to him anymore. But why? Why not give fans what they want?
>
> If I were Lucas, I would try to redeem the negative hype episodes 1-3
> got
> by making an interquel movie placed between episodes 3 and 4. It would
> be all about Darth Vader and it would *not* be a children's movie.
> Instead, it would be dark, and Darth Vader would be portrayed as a total
> badass, just like the fans want him.
Depending on how it was done, I'd be interested in that as well. Though
by the time we get to the end of ep3, the transformation has completely
taken place. I have to admit that of the three prequel movies, that part
was a part that did not disappoint from a story standpoint.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
>> empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a
>> major part of that.
>
> Why does that sound such a boring idea? The big evil has been
> defeated,
> time to rebuild.
Well, I didn't say it wasn't boring - who knows, maybe a new evil menace
tries to destroy the Jedi from within during the reconstruction.
> What would be the confrontation? Construction workers striking because
> of
> poor working conditions?-)
>
> (OTOH I'm sure some people would say that would be a much more
> enjoyable
> trilogy than episodes 1-3...)
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
>> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
>> three released were the middle group.
>
> Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
>
Those would likely have been some variation on what appeared in the
games Jedi Knight, Jedi Knight Mysteries of the Sith, and Jedi Academy.
I.e., the rebuilding of the Jedi order, and its continued conflict with
trying to prevent the reawakening of the Sith in the process.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Why people don't like Star Wars I
Date: 19 Dec 2009 20:24:55
Message: <4b2d7ce7@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:55:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Nowadays when you
>> can control absolutely everything and have whatever you might want show
>> up on screen, no matter how crazy, it easily derails the directing. The
>> director might get so enthralled by his own omnipotence to get whatever
>> he wants on screen that he forgets that he should actually be filming a
>> story, not a computer graphics demonstration.
>
> Well said; one of the things I really like is when the effects are
> invisible. We just watched the first and second Bourne movies again, and
> I was quite amazed watching the credits to see ILM credited with VFX
> work. I couldn't name a scene with ILM VFX in it, that's how well done
> the effects were - they didn't jump out and scream "I'm CGI! I'm a
> special effect, look at me!" - they helped tell a very well-written story.
>
> Jim
This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:24:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
> Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
> the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
> problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
> amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
> story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
> we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
Interesting. I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's
got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the
central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you
couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you
could do something that made you not be disabled.
Needless to say, my wife's friends who are disabled are fiercely
independent and find that premise to be quite offensive.
I may rent it on Netflix once just to see the effects, but I don't have
high hopes for the story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh, BTW, just found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQyuIQmVelA&NR=1
the rest of the series is far more fun, though. Like the LOTR one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
>> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
>
> They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
> and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
>
> The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.
Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
>>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
>>>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
>>> AFAICR.
>
>> Yeah, that's puzzling.
>
> It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?
No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned
>> out from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode
>> IV.) And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the
>> prequals are all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
>
> This is actually BS if you ask me. No author is ever 100% sure of where
> the work will lead them. This is valid to Lucas, Tolkien, Toriyama or
> whomever claims a huge friggin work is all in their heads already in
> pristine form.
Oh say, I'm just saying what Lucas claimed to have, not what he
*actually* had. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the
>> Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
>
> Wouldn't it be slightly easier to escape if you control the prison
> completely?
Well, perhaps...
> Besides, he really hates humans, so it's a bonus.
This didn't come across all that strongly. Certainly he enjoys killing
them, but I didn't get the impression that he's that hell-bend on
eliminating them all.
>> (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
>
> It was renamed in retrospect. The original title was simply "Star Wars".
> It might even be possible Lucas hadn't plotted even the two sequels to
> that yet.
No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said
"Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember
wondering why...
>> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
>> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
>
> There's a thing called nostalgia filter.
So you disagree with every point made in that review then?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by
>> 2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are
>> actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway
>> through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys
>> could do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks
>> worse than some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
>
> You are obviously full of BS.
Look who's talking.
> Models and renders are friggin' well done
> -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
> even with the help of wires.
Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
I thought JP was actually pretty good, mostly. (Some of the big "oh
look, it's a dinosaur" shots were a bit over-detailed, but that's about
all.)
> I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are
> not obvious.
Probably not. But in the Swarm of Smiths, I did, and it looked tacky.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
> since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
> chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
> start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
> always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".
You realise I've watched it several times, right?
It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
a clearer idea.
I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
the sequal looked great... but the actual film wasn't very good. Having
been disappointed with that, I was reluctant to bother watching the
final film. It turns out that it's slightly better - although still
nowhere near as good as the first.
> If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
> prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
> it.
Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
sense.
Oh, wait... yes it is.
>> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
>> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
>> it. Good for them...
>
> Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
> people didn't like it?
I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
> I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
> I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
I don't mind films that require some thinking. (Certain film producers
seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be
popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is
films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people
apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience
is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the
world?" I really hate that.
I also hate films where everybody dies at the end. Or almost everybody.
I really enjoyed the Final Fantasy film, but the ending was
disappointing. (My collegue remarked that this is apparently *the exact
plot* of the computer games - which I've never really played.)
Thinking about it, the subsequent Matrix films tick both boxes: At the
end of the final film, almost everybody I was actually interested in is
dead, and with the sun rising on a new day in an apparently unchanged
Matrix, we're left wondering what the hell has happened. Is this just
the start of another cycle? Or has the world actually changed?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
videogame character in real-time. Then, take your time to also show me how they
are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
perfect curves.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>
> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> videogame character in real-time.
Oh how tedious...
> Then, take your time to also show me how they
> are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> perfect curves.
You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
known technology, right? I mean, I can't render one with a computer, I
can't draw one with a pencil, I can't sculpt one out of clay... The
human form is *far* too complex. The people who do this stuff for a
living get paid hansomly _for a reason_.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.
You don't make sense in your criticisms of things you don't know. But ok, this
is art -- or mere entertainment, your choice -- not knowledge, so it's really up
to your taste.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> >
> > Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> > videogame character in real-time.
>
> Oh how tedious...
BS that. You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
reasoning.
> > Then, take your time to also show me how they
> > are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> > perfect curves.
>
> You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
> known technology, right?
That's ok, you can just show me that squarish SDL phone of yours.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> >> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
> >
> > There's a thing called nostalgia filter.
> So you disagree with every point made in that review then?
Every point in the review dealt with the original trilogy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> >> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> >
> > They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
> > and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
> >
> > The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.
> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
You mean:
The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."
And that would make sense to you?
> >>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> >>>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
> >>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> >>> AFAICR.
> >
> >> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> >
> > It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?
> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
I see no variation in quality.
Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
> > since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
> > chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
> > start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
> > always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".
> You realise I've watched it several times, right?
> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
> a clearer idea.
The review wasn't about The Matrix.
> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
> the sequal looked great...
How hard is it to write "sequel"?
> > If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
> > prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
> > it.
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.
> Oh, wait... yes it is.
You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
sense or not?
If the movie makes sense to me, that's completely inconsequential? The
movie is still not good because it doesn't make sense to *you*?
> >> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
> >> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
> >> it. Good for them...
> >
> > Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
> > people didn't like it?
> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
principle of yours.
How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
else would" (and really mean it)?
> > I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
> Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
Is that a statement that you outright refuse to even try to make sense
of the plot? That someone else understanding it is just "an opinion"?
> > I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
> (Certain film producers
> seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be
> popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is
> films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people
> apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience
> is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the
> world?" I really hate that.
But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
be filled by deduction?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>>> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
>>> videogame character in real-time.
>> Oh how tedious...
>
> BS that. You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
> reasoning.
Right. So I'm going to load up the DVD, figure out how to take
screenshots from the film, and shuffle back and forward to the right
part of the movie to try to find a single still frame which illustrates
the point I'm trying to make, just because one random guy on the
Internet accuses me of being a liar?
...or I could just let you continue thinking I'm a liar, and go do
something more productive.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
>> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
>
> You mean:
>
> The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
> Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."
>
> And that would make sense to you?
It's not clear to me that Smith has the *ability* to destroy the Matrix
itself. If he does, then clearly that's a problem. (And I guess being
able to transcend the Matrix itself and take control of people outside
it implies that maybe he can...)
>> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
>
> I see no variation in quality.
>
> Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?
Well, understanding the plot is kind of prerequisit to enjoying the
film. But I could also mention cut density, for example.
In the first film, how long does Neo spend waiting to see the Oracle?
The whole journey there, the waiting room, etc. They could have cut that
much shorter and make the fight scenes in other parts of the movie
longer. But they didn't.
In the following two films, they did. (How many seconds does Neo spend
at the deserted apartment saying "where are you?") It had the feel of
"OK, how many fight scenes can we cram in?"
Don't get my wrong - some of the fight scenes in the sequals are *even
better* than in the original. You *want* to like it... but the rest of
the film is so drab, it's kind of hard to.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
>> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
>> a clearer idea.
>
> The review wasn't about The Matrix.
No. But it makes some interesting points about what makes a film work,
and what makes a film not work.
>> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
>> the sequal looked great...
>
> How hard is it to write "sequel"?
How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for
toffee. I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something.
I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in
20 minutes.
>> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
>> sense.
>
>> Oh, wait... yes it is.
>
> You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
> sense or not?
Last time I checked, I'm not the only person claiming the film wasn't
very good. (Although admittedly that's not an infalible measurement
either...)
>> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
>> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
>
> Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
> principle of yours.
>
> How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
> else would" (and really mean it)?
I just meant that I'm not sure what it is about it that made other
people enjoy it. Clearly there was something, but I don't know what that
something was.
>> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
>
> You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at
all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)
> But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
> be filled by deduction?
There's deduction, and there's guessing.
But sure, different people like different things. I was just saying what
*I* happen to like.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > How hard is it to write "sequel"?
> How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for
> toffee.
At this point it feels like you are doing it deliberately.
If you have learned to write words like "how" and "hard", it should be
quite easy to also learn to write words like "sequel". It's not that
difficult.
> I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something.
> I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in
> 20 minutes.
Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.
> >> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
> >
> > You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.
> Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at
> all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)
I don't see much to be deduced in that movie. It's pretty straightforward.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.
It's not like *I* would always write perfect English, but at least I'm
willing to learn from my mistakes.
For instance, for a long time I wrote "piratism" until someone pointe out
to me that it's actually "piracy" (the former could be classified as
Finglish). Likewise for a very long time I wrote sentences in the form
"I wonder what does this do", when the better way of writing it is
"I wonder what this does".
One of the latest mistakes I have noticed is that I have been writing
for years "truely" when the proper word is "truly". Another is that I have
been writing "substraction" instead of "subtraction" (the former I have
"mislearned" from Spanish).
Oh, and the latest one has been using "cursive" instead of "italic"
(again, Finglish).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:24:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
>> Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
>> the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
>> problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
>> amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
>> story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
>> we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
>
> Interesting. I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's
> got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the
> central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you
> couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you
> could do something that made you not be disabled.
>
> Needless to say, my wife's friends who are disabled are fiercely
> independent and find that premise to be quite offensive.
>
> I may rent it on Netflix once just to see the effects, but I don't have
> high hopes for the story.
>
> Jim
Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it
offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its
anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if
a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed,
treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down
their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though
they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be
excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that
they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a
chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with
someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"
With all respect to your wife's friends, some of these people are worse
assholes to "normal" people, than normal people have ever been to them,
and its a damn movie, in which the character *wanted* to have the
choice, as a means to work on the front lines, not some frakking
bunch of scientists picking people with missing legs out of a hospital
wards and beaming them into blue aliens without their bloody permission
or request. Not every attempt to solve basic malfunctions in the human
body is a conspiracy to destroy the "specialness" of people who, for
what ever reason, develop a damn stupid chip on their shoulder about not
wanting to even have the option, because it makes them feel somehow
better to be part of a group that where all mistreated by idiots years
earlier, as a result of their differences.
Yes, there are some that think they *need* fixing. But that just proves
that non-disabled people can be assholes too, not that the ones
protesting someone *choosing* to deny the holy writ of the disabled are
apostates for opting to try the alternative, especially of they are,
"*gasp*", restoring something they already had, not being asked to be
given sight, after being born without it, or some other situation, where
they *might* have a point about it being offensive to try to even offer it.
This is almost as absurd, forgive me saying so, as the protesters
against the film because they didn't pick **it** as some sort of soup
box for gay love stories, but went with what *most* other films always
have, and made the love interests male and female. Its just bloody
ridiculous.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> How hard is it to write "sequel"?
>
>> How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for
>> toffee.
>
> At this point it feels like you are doing it deliberately.
>
> If you have learned to write words like "how" and "hard", it should be
> quite easy to also learn to write words like "sequel". It's not that
> difficult.
>
>> I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something.
>> I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in
>> 20 minutes.
>
> Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.
>
You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion
phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and
there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a
point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a
spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion
> phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and
> there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a
> point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a
> spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)
Hey, if you can tell me how to make Thunderbird's spellchecker actually
work, I'm all ears.
(You'd *think* that just installing the right dictionary and turning on
spell checking would do it... but apparently not.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> You obviously don?t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion
> phrase word blindness is more descriptive.
I thought that dyslexia is a disorder which manifests as a difficulty
in reading. While this may increase the time which one nees to learn to
write properly, I don't see it described as an absolute impediment which
completely stops the sufferer from learning to write words correctly.
(Basically, if the dyslexic person has difficulties in reading a world
properly and associating letters with sounds, he might learn to write the
word improperly as well, but I don't see anything in the description of
dyslexia which would stop him from being able to correct his mistake and
learn the correct spelling, especially when specifically pointe out.)
I'm certainly not saying that Andrew is one of them, but I feel that many
people use things like dyslexia as a convenient excuse for laziness to
learn how to write properly.
Is it medically impossible for a dyslexic person to learn to write a
word like "sequel" correctly? Or is it a question of learning?
As I said, one word at a time, if nothing else helps.
(Naturally this requires willingness to learn and to better oneself.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it
> offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its
> anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if
> a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed,
> treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down
> their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though
> they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be
> excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that
> they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a
> chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with
> someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"
The attitude that many deaf people have towards people who can get their
deafness cured (even if only partially) has always baffled me. AFAIK deaf
people have a subculture of their own, but this is one part of it which
I think is total crap.
For example there was a newspaper article here about a small boy who was
born in a family which had a hereditary condition which induced deafness, and
hence a big part of the family consisted of deaf people, and this boy was
born deaf too. However, in this particular case doctors found out that they
could cure the boy's hearing (I don't know if totally or partially, but
cure it nonetheless).
Guess what, the other family members (except the boy's parents) strongly
opposed this (and this was the point of the newspaper article). They wanted
the boy to remain deaf because they felt he was being removed from the deaf
people subculture if he was cured. IIRC the parents didn't listen to them
and instead went with the operation, but nevertheless I think that strong
opposition from the family was a big bunch of BS. I really think that they
are protesting out of jealousy.
I'm sure that not all deaf people are like this, but some certainly are.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion. But I'll give those who are
actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a
bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the
film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the
problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole"
and feel inferior to fully-abled people.
The message that is being received by some in that community is "if
you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were
handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion. But I'll give those who are
> actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a
> bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the
> film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the
> problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole"
> and feel inferior to fully-abled people.
I haven't seen the movie, but is the premise really "*all* people who are
handicapped want to be made whole", or that some handicapped people do?
(Besides, I'm pretty certain that if a perfect cure for, let's say,
paraplegia was discovered, not many paraplegics would keep up with their
"I'm a normal, whole person, I can live a full life like I am" principle,
if they can be cured easily, and instead they would go and get cured. It
wouldn't make too much sense to keep up such appearances.)
> The message that is being received by some in that community is "if
> you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were
> handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.
I'm in no way severely handicapped myself, and such I'm not anybody to
talk. However, the worst thing I have is a diminished hearing in my left
ear due to a long history of cholesteatoma and later complications. For
quite many years I had some chronic infection in the middle ear due to
some recurrence of cholesteatoma-like tissue or something like that,
which appeared during my teen years. The chronic infection kept a
punctured whole in my tympanic membrane (not removing hearing completely,
but diminishing it significantly). The worst handicap this caused was that
any significant amount of humidity would trigger serious infectious
complications, requiring medical attention (antibiotics, etc). I had to
avoid going to any humid places without ear protection, and going underwater
when swimming was absolutely out of question.
I did not consider my condition "normal" or that I was completely "whole"
and healthy. It sometimes severely limited what I could do, and infections
requiring medical attention were common.
They made corrective surgery to me, removing that extraneous tissue and
repairing the eardrum. After recuperating I have had no infections whatsoever
and I'm fully able to dive without problems. My hearing has not recuperated
completely (which is normal and to be expected), but it's better than
before. While there are certain situations where the impaired hearing is
a bother, I can say that my quality of life has been significantly improved
after the surgery.
I really wouldn't want to offend any handicapped people, but I honestly
think that when people with incurable handicaps or diseases vehemently
state that they are "whole" and that they can live life to the fullest
regardless of their handicap, they are just denying the truth. If that
makes them happier, then good for them, but I really think that honesty
wouldn't hurt that much (especially when expressing to others about your
condition). Also getting offended because "healthy" people assume that
it would be the dream of the handicapped person to get cured, is a bit
too much. I really think that being offended by something like this is
just a symptom of denial of the truth. I don't think anybody *wants* to
be handicapped.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion
>> phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and
>> there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a
>> point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a
>> spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)
>
> Hey, if you can tell me how to make Thunderbird's spellchecker actually
> work, I'm all ears.
>
> (You'd *think* that just installing the right dictionary and turning on
> spell checking would do it... but apparently not.)
>
I only installed Thunderbird a couple of months ago and the spell
checking worked as default.:o But even so I still type everything in M$
Word.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > Interesting. I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's
> > got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the
> > central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you
> > couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you
> > could do something that made you not be disabled.
> > Jim
> Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it
> offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its
> anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if
> a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed,
> treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down
> their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though
> they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be
> excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that
> they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a
> chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with
> someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"
>
> With all respect to your wife's friends, some of these people are worse
> assholes to "normal" people, than normal people have ever been to them,
> and its a damn movie, in which the character *wanted* to have the
> choice, as a means to work on the front lines, not some frakking
> bunch of scientists picking people with missing legs out of a hospital
> wards and beaming them into blue aliens without their bloody permission
> or request. Not every attempt to solve basic malfunctions in the human
> body is a conspiracy to destroy the "specialness" of people who, for
> what ever reason, develop a damn stupid chip on their shoulder about not
> wanting to even have the option, because it makes them feel somehow
> better to be part of a group that where all mistreated by idiots years
> earlier, as a result of their differences.
>
> Yes, there are some that think they *need* fixing. But that just proves
> that non-disabled people can be assholes too, not that the ones
> protesting someone *choosing* to deny the holy writ of the disabled are
> apostates for opting to try the alternative, especially of they are,
> "*gasp*", restoring something they already had, not being asked to be
> given sight, after being born without it, or some other situation, where
> they *might* have a point about it being offensive to try to even offer it.
>
> This is almost as absurd, forgive me saying so, as the protesters
> against the film because they didn't pick **it** as some sort of soup
> box for gay love stories, but went with what *most* other films always
> have, and made the love interests male and female. Its just bloody
> ridiculous.
I would never find better wording for it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
