On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>

Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D

John

Post a reply to this message

Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know 
how it ends).

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.

Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling, 
that's for sure.

>> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I
>> mean, the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was
>> clear, but as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really
>> as clear cut.
>>
>> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys
>> at all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>>
>>
> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
> bad has got to pay for it.

Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his 
crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It 
wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to 
wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had 
kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he 
deserved.

>> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
>> that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days,
>> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
>> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to
>> produce and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.
> 
> That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.

Yeah, sadly.

>> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
>> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows. 
>> WTF?
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)

Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object 
or not. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:33:36 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest?
> :-D
> 
> John

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 12:33 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D
>
> John
>

I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his 
kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 3:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know
> how it ends).
>

Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
>> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
>> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
>> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
>
> Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling,
> that's for sure.
>

Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on 
drama.


>> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
>> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
>> bad has got to pay for it.
>
> Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his
> crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It
> wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to
> wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had
> kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he
> deserved.
>

(How to put this without sounding overly critical, or personal?)
It is that attitude, the one that expects people (exclude politicians) 
to pay for their wrong doings, to the N th. degree, that disturbs me.
It is reflected in American literature and films. Which is where I came in.


>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>
> Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object
> or not. ;)
>

It is a collective noun.
The different branches are singular.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.12.2013 20:35, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
>> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> 
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.

You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
must fight against "terrorism"!

But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
a promised heaven?

It would be quite easy to stop all of this "terrorism" in a few years:

1) stop to support the preacers of hate with money and political patronage.

2) invest in education in the so-called "3rd world" countries.


But no-one really wants it. Educated people in these countries would be
a threat for our prosperity. But dumb people who shoot each other are a
solid customer for our arms and ammunition for decades.

Moreover: The vivid fear of abstract "terrorism" is a welcome reason to
degrade freedom, human rights and democracy in Western countries.

Hollywood does support this trend by its movies, so the people are
trained to accept "causeless evils" and not to ask "Why are they evil?"

Actually, it works. :-(


			Lars R.

Post a reply to this message

>> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
>
> Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.
>
> You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
> must fight against "terrorism"!
>
> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
> that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
> world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
> a promised heaven?

This is something I've never figured out.

It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't 
got the vaguest idea *why*.

(And of course, "the Muslims want us dead" is such a wild exaggeration 
that nobody should ever take such utter nonsense seriously.)

The best I can come up with is "somebody out there is really good at 
convincing impressionable young people to kill themselves in a way which 
they find profitable". Which isn't an especially convincing argument...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And absolutely nobody dies.

Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> > are not murderers.

> [Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to 
> know how it ends, don't read any further]

> That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.  

Well, at least they set it up so that clearly Superman didn't want to
kill him but had no other choice, and it caused him great pain.

I still disagree with the decision, though. Why can't they just follow
the principle in the comics? Bad guys are punished, not murdered. If for
no other reason, then for a pragmatic one: You can use the same badass
villain in a sequel, bringing more money in. If anybody, producers should
know this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 04:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> And absolutely nobody dies.
>
> Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

One could argue that Megamind is more than just a mere kids' movie.

On the other hand, The Incredibles is a film of a similar style, and 
actually a *hell* of a lot of people die in that... (Including the bad 
guy, predictably.)

Post a reply to this message