Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Did they really need that jealous guy, for example? 

I suspect he comes up in the part of the story that was cut from shooting 
because the movie was already too long. :-)

> It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.

Indeed. There's *always* a rejected and hence jealous boyfriend, even when 
completely unnecessary.

>     I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better 
> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.

I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth 
motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the marines, 
marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember), etc etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?

It doesn't count because you don't understand it?

That's kinda like asking:

When's the last time you counted to 10 and didn't use odd numbers?  Oh, 
and you can't use even numbers, because they don't count.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/22/10 09:23, Darren New wrote:
> I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something
> *really* original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would
> have been a pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I
> don't think you'll find too many people spending $200million on a
> completely new and untested story.

	Timely. I was just watching the Fawlty Towers DVD's, and in the 
interview section, John Cleese said that a marketing person told him the 
most difficult thing to sell is something original. People are too 
worried it will fail. Cleese's perspective was that original material 
takes time to become popular (Fawlty Towers wasn't a great hit until its 
reruns), so it's better for TV series than movies.


-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/22/10 09:30, Darren New wrote:
>> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
>> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
>
> I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
> motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the
> marines, marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember),
> etc etc.

	Sigh. Guess I'll suspend judgment till the director's cut comes out.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd 
> have liked the movie more.

  Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
character". I assume it's something related to character development,
but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
"non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
considered such) could help understanding better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >         And if they hadn't made the characters so one
dimensional, then I'd
> > have liked the movie more.
>
>   Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by
"one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character
development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional"
characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why
they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.- Warp

Pretty good article here:
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=10109

~db

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

  I think it's sad if the only thing people care about you is that you pay.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:

> >   Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> > form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> > art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?

> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?

  No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.

  I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:47:30 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
>> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into
>> > any form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious
>> > incomprehensible cheap art films don't count because that's not
>> > storytelling, it's randomness)?
> 
>> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
> 
>   No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.

Just because you aren't seeing a story doesn't mean there isn't one 
there.  It just means that for you, the method by which the story is 
being told is incomprehensible.  Doesn't mean it's that way for everyone.

>   I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
> and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
> might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.

But what you're saying is in fact a true statement.

What you're doing is constraining a set using a subjective definition 
(that subjectiveness is "if I don't understand it, then it doesn't 
count", and is implied in the way you stated the condition).

You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned 
it.  My example of counting to 10 was taking it to an absurd level to 
make a point about it.

In other news, did you know that no resistor has an orange band, if you 
exclude resistors that have orange bands?  Wow, that's amazing isn't 
it! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
>
>  Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.

In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two 
dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no 
depth", all referring to the same thing. When I see a performance (and it's 
fifty fifty whether it's the actor's fault or the writer's fault) and the 
character doesn't change or always reacts the same way to differing stimuli, 
I use one of those terms. Real people act in different ways at different 
times, and performances by an actor should show that, unless the character 
is intended to be ignored or lack of depth is a stylistic choice for some 
reason (for example, cartoons targeted at children are usually populated 
with characters with no depth, although they're often brightly colored and 
say, "Zowie!" a lot).

Sometimes what is considered "depth" is a matter of opinion, and sometimes 
the depth of a character is subtle (as in real life). Back to the topic, I 
think the character of Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar has a great deal of 
depth, although I know lots of people who disagree. The character has an 
incredibly rich back story, but it's revealed in such an undertone that it 
takes some thought to see it.

A lot of people look at characters who are so focused on a goal or obsessed 
with something and say the character lacks depth. Quaritch is suffering from 
an obsession and a fear of losing control, and he is on the verge of sinking 
in to madness, but his own obstinance won't let him. What we see in this 
film is the tip of an awfully big iceberg, and it's hard to see past it, but 
it's there.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message