 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the
Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:
* Added a second dimension to the characters;
* Added a second dimension to the plot;
* Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/01/2012 08:34 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the
> Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:
>
> * Added a second dimension to the characters;
> * Added a second dimension to the plot;
> * Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.
Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 30/01/2012 08:34 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the
> > Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:
> >
> > * Added a second dimension to the characters;
> > * Added a second dimension to the plot;
> > * Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.
>
> Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
It was relaunched as a 3D movie. I love these, but not conversions, let alone
from bad movies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
>
> It was relaunched as a 3D movie.
Yeah, I gathered. I'm just wondering how come so many people appear to
know about this...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
> >
> > It was relaunched as a 3D movie.
>
> Yeah, I gathered. I'm just wondering how come so many people appear to
> know about this...
By reading news or watching trailers in the cinema...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/01/2012 02:03 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
>>>
>>> It was relaunched as a 3D movie.
>>
>> Yeah, I gathered. I'm just wondering how come so many people appear to
>> know about this...
>
> By reading news or watching trailers in the cinema...
Oh, yeah, that's a point. I haven't been to a cinema in months. Yeah, I
guess that'll be why.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the
> Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:
> * Added a second dimension to the characters;
> * Added a second dimension to the plot;
> * Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.
Why has "one-dimensional" become what was previously referred to as
"two-dimensional" when talking about characterization and personality?
In fact, the former has replaced the latter so much that the latter is
not used *at all* anymore.
The figure of speech (ie. "two-dimensional" vs. "three-dimensional"
character) has to do with the figurative depth of a character's personality.
A well-developed character has depth to it, while a very straightforward
and superficial characters is "flat" (iow. "two-dimensional").
Where did the "one-dimensional" come from? It does not describe a "flat"
character.
Why is this rant relevant? Because your suggestion to "add a second
dimension to the characters" is ironic. If you make them "two-dimensional"
they are still flat, without any depth to them. In other words, it wouldn't
help at all.
It should have been "add a third dimension to the characters" for it
to make sense.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the
>> Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:
>
>> * Added a second dimension to the characters;
>> * Added a second dimension to the plot;
>> * Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.
>
> Why has "one-dimensional" become what was previously referred to as
> "two-dimensional" when talking about characterization and personality?
> In fact, the former has replaced the latter so much that the latter is
> not used *at all* anymore.
>
> The figure of speech (ie. "two-dimensional" vs. "three-dimensional"
> character) has to do with the figurative depth of a character's personality.
> A well-developed character has depth to it, while a very straightforward
> and superficial characters is "flat" (iow. "two-dimensional").
>
> Where did the "one-dimensional" come from? It does not describe a "flat"
> character.
possibly from the same source that calls everything cool "sick". i.e.
stupidity...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 30/01/2012 17:12, Warp nous fit lire :
> Where did the "one-dimensional" come from? It does not describe a "flat"
> character.
>
> Why is this rant relevant? Because your suggestion to "add a second
> dimension to the characters" is ironic. If you make them "two-dimensional"
> they are still flat, without any depth to them. In other words, it wouldn't
> help at all.
>
> It should have been "add a third dimension to the characters" for it
> to make sense.
Well, the characters in the movie are not even flat. I even wonder if
they have any dimension at all... well, a dialog qualify them for a
single dimension. It's OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2012 9:06 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 30/01/2012 02:03 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> Apparently everybody else knows something I don't...
>>>>
>>>> It was relaunched as a 3D movie.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I gathered. I'm just wondering how come so many people appear to
>>> know about this...
>>
>> By reading news or watching trailers in the cinema...
>
> Oh, yeah, that's a point. I haven't been to a cinema in months. Yeah, I
> guess that'll be why.
I haven't been to a cinema since the lamentable _Cars 2_ came out, but I
heard about it from just my usual skim of news from blog sites.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
