"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

An unusually positive review of the movie:

http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/12/19/avatar-review.aspx

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> 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.

  Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
character with no depth), after which some people started using an
exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?

  Do I understand correctly that when a character in a story exists basically
for one single purpose (eg. to be a jerk, a greedy executive, a naive
Mary Sue, or such) with no other personality traits or history, and when
this character maintains the role in its purest form throughout the entire
story, it's usually a bad case of two-dimensionality?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned 
> it.

  The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/22/10 12:41, Warp wrote:
> 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.

	One dimensional typically means that they're very simple.

	My use of the phrase is probably problematic/invalid. By 1-D, I meant 
so strongly stereotyped. People like the jealous friend, military 
commander, the corporate guy were all fairly simple characters, some of 
whom were taken to silly extremes. The romance was also fairly 
stereotyped, as was the response of the natives to the main character, etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:02:27 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
>> it.
> 
>   The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.

Well, I suspected it was. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message