Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Ampoliros wrote:You forgot to add

Actually getting a pic: PRICELESS!

Just compiling more evidence for RMQ that she chose the right lifestyle, aren't we...

Pig's in Zen...

lotek wrote:

SandRider wrote:

lotek wrote:
And is that landoverbaptist a joke?

that would depend on your point of view ......

that means they're serious then...

Loonies anyone?

keep forgetting English ain't always the First Language round here,
and good ol boy bullshittin ain't always understood, neither ....

then again, if you read around the landover site, you'd be hard-pressed to
not recognize the satire, which is why I didn't point it out - but on the
'about landoverbaptist' page, down at the bottom is a hidden message that
according to the instruction should be moused over - however, in my browser,
you have to highlight the hidden text - that is the only "disclaimer" of satire/parody
I've ever found anywhere on the site - every now & then, I'll send my idiot brother
and his friends a link to one of their stories - get responses like "great article !
I done tole ya Obama's mama was a Wiccan" &etc.

For reference: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hmmm

Wonder what Cameron will do.

SandRider wrote:

lotek wrote:

SandRider wrote:

lotek wrote:
And is that landoverbaptist a joke?

that would depend on your point of view ......

that means they're serious then...

Loonies anyone?

keep forgetting English ain't always the First Language round here,
and good ol boy bullshittin ain't always understood, neither ....

then again, if you read around the landover site, you'd be hard-pressed to
not recognize the satire, which is why I didn't point it out - but on the
'about landoverbaptist' page, down at the bottom is a hidden message that
according to the instruction should be moused over - however, in my browser,
you have to highlight the hidden text - that is the only "disclaimer" of satire/parody
I've ever found anywhere on the site - every now & then, I'll send my idiot brother
and his friends a link to one of their stories - get responses like "great article !
I done tole ya Obama's mama was a Wiccan" &etc.

Owned by Sandrider I was. Shoulda paid more notice to the italics.

inhuien wrote:

SandRider wrote:

lotek wrote:

SandRider wrote:

lotek wrote:
And is that landoverbaptist a joke?

that would depend on your point of view ......

that means they're serious then...

Loonies anyone?

keep forgetting English ain't always the First Language round here,
and good ol boy bullshittin ain't always understood, neither ....

then again, if you read around the landover site, you'd be hard-pressed to
not recognize the satire, which is why I didn't point it out - but on the
'about landoverbaptist' page, down at the bottom is a hidden message that
according to the instruction should be moused over - however, in my browser,
you have to highlight the hidden text - that is the only "disclaimer" of satire/parody
I've ever found anywhere on the site - every now & then, I'll send my idiot brother
and his friends a link to one of their stories - get responses like "great article !
I done tole ya Obama's mama was a Wiccan" &etc.

Owned by Sandrider I was. Shoulda paid more notice to the italics.

fuck yeah

Don't you hate when you get that "I knew it!! I fuckin' knew it! ... then why didn't you say so? ..." feeling?

I dunno I probably wanted it to be true, and I must confess I got them confused with the Methodists...
Still doesn't change the fact I got owned>>>

... Shit

I jumped in as well...

Actually I'm gonna go watch the movie nexr monday...in 3d. The company pays. Otherwise I'd never pay to see it.

Hey, then you'll have a reason to take a sick day the day after!

I saw it last weekend and really liked it.

HBJ

Hunchback Jack wrote:I saw it last weekend and really liked it.

HBJ

don't be ashamed now !

I don't think anyone said it was shit, just slightly overrated

If I was not such a lazy bastard I'd have gone to see it in 3D(and drunk for good measure! 4d or bust lol)

oh yeah, as a movie it wasn't bad at all - and the technological advances and the visuals
are probably as important to space and fantasy movies as anything that's come before

as a film, it's simple-minded & derivative, not deserving any Academy notice beyond
the technical awards - certainly not deserving of a "Best Picture" nomination -
not when important films like "The Hurt Locker" are in the field ....

as a fanboy franchise, well, it's a fucking goldmine ....




huh - damn near the exact same thing I was saying about StarWars in 77 ....

SandRider wrote:huh - damn near the exact same thing I was saying about StarWars in 77 ....

ow crap...

Like I said earlier, Star Wars is essentially the same thing, a bunch of feel-good science-fantasy with fairly simple plotting and really stock characters, nothing extraordinarily deep to say, and really just a patchwork of peices easily identifiable from other more serious works - but it tugged on the heart strings in just the right way and became a classic.

Am i being pedantic in expecting people to understand the difference between "3D" and "2D stereoscopic" cinematography?

It is NOT 3D. There is no true depth, only percieved. Perspective is fixed, moving my head to the left does not affect my view.

In simple terms - someone sitting on the far left of the screen looking "in" should have a different perspective of the action to someone on the far right, they dont. Like looking at the front or the back of someone's head. Hence 2D stereoscopic.

I don't like the commercialisation and dumbing-down of these things. Even for feel-good family films. If a concept is worth developing it's worth talking about accurately, yes 2D stereoscopic is less catchy, but as far as i`m concerned this is up alongside whoever named house "radiators" (they're convection heaters). It's like when i hear people talking about their weight. Where the fuck did "yellow" come from as a primary colour?

Sorry, I really enjoyed it, and i thought the visuals were stunning. Both aesthetically and technically impressive. A far more mature application of "3D" (i feel dirty) than previous attempts and tacky Florida-theme-park attractions. Pretty feel good romp which didnt feel like 2.5 hours and i feel great value for money.

In its most basic form sure, but I highly doubt that Avatar will have anywhere near the success that Star Wars has had. I think the difference, for lack of a better term is heart. Star Wars was a work of love made by a young dreamer filmmaker who benefitted from the struggle of crafting his film. Avatar was made with no questions asked (the same problem as the SW Prequels). Cameron was basically given a blank check to make X blockbuster and it was constructed to be a box office record breaker. That's where it's heart lies and no where else (The Plinkett review was dead on IMHO). Even in a universe without Star Wars, Avatar will be mostly forgotten 5 years from now, aside from any sequel successes.

Star Wars was a great example of visionary beginner's luck, Avatar is much more equivalent to the new Dune Prequels. X will sell, lets add Y name to it and throw a big budget at it and cram it down people's throats. Amazing visuals, no substance except said visuals (which I'm still not impressed with AT ALL in 2d, but I can't comment on the 3d).

I really don't care that it looks amazing. I find it offensive to my standards of taste that Avatar is getting the praise it is for the things it did not do. Does it deserve all its nominations? No doubt, it was a tough project and years of hard work went into it and it is a great movie experience. However just about every other film in the running used more creative grit and less pure capital to craft a better film, not just shut-off-your-brain eyeball porn. Every other Director and crew nominated were constrained by environment and/or budget; Cameron had only one concern, what he wanted on screen, and the result is Avatar.

I really hate the Star Wars/Avatar comparison though, because it basically assumes that the ONLY reason Star Wars was a success was because of the special effects. I still get excited by the Trench run, or the speeder bike chase, did Avatar have ANYTHING closely reminiscent of that at all? Did it have any moment that was anywhere near as finely tuned or powerful as the Duel on Cloud City? "You are beaten, it is useless to resist"

Ampoliros wrote:In its most basic form sure, but I highly doubt that Avatar will have anywhere near the success that Star Wars has had. I think the difference, for lack of a better term is heart. Star Wars was a work of love made by a young dreamer filmmaker who benefitted from the struggle of crafting his film. Avatar was made with no questions asked (the same problem as the SW Prequels). Cameron was basically given a blank check to make X blockbuster and it was constructed to be a box office record breaker. That's where it's heart lies and no where else (The Plinkett review was dead on IMHO). Even in a universe without Star Wars, Avatar will be mostly forgotten 5 years from now, aside from any sequel successes.

I'll agree with that.

I really hate the Star Wars/Avatar comparison though, because it basically assumes that the ONLY reason Star Wars was a success was because of the special effects. I still get excited by the Trench run, or the speeder bike chase, did Avatar have ANYTHING closely reminiscent of that at all? Did it have any moment that was anywhere near as finely tuned or powerful as the Duel on Cloud City? "You are beaten, it is useless to resist"

That's not why I make the comparison, I make the comparison because they're both shallow adventure stories with a fantasy element that make people wish they were there, and they both pull the heart strings.

The FX were only a small part of why I liked Avata, it was mostly because it was a well done piece of pop/pulp/whatever that made me feel something for a couple hours. It could have been a cartoon for all I cared. Same deal with Star Wars, though I agree with you that Star Wars was a much better work than Avatar.

loremaster wrote:Am i being pedantic in expecting people to understand the difference between "3D" and "2D stereoscopic" cinematography?
It is NOT 3D. There is no true depth, only percieved. Perspective is fixed, moving my head to the left does not affect my view.
In simple terms - someone sitting on the far left of the screen looking "in" should have a different perspective of the action to someone on the far right, they dont. Like looking at the front or the back of someone's head. Hence 2D stereoscopic.

Man, I think everyone knows that the objects aren't literally in 3D. But it looks 3D from the right angle (and of course only one angle works), that's not really dumbing down so much as simply miss-representing, they're not doing it because people won't understand it, they do it because as you said, it sounds better this way, and 3-D has been the terminology for decades, ever since people started doing drawings in red and blue ink.

I'm with you that it's cooler to call it as it is, but this isn't really "dumbing down" it's more "branding".

Ampoliros wrote:I think the difference, for lack of a better term is heart.

I think this is as close to the mark as it's possible to get in one sentence. (Not to mention one of the central reasons so many people loathe the fourth through sixth SW movies: lack of heart).

I'd also add that SW was the "right" movie for its time (a feel-good movie in an era of over-riding cynicism), benefitted from an absolute dead-perfect John Williams soundtrack, and, of course, was the first SF film that didn't look like you could see the wires hanging from the model ships.

But "heart" sums it up better.

I'll dissent - Star Wars was a dumbed-down myth-hero story, the only new thing was the effects -
again, great for kids, a good "movie", but nowhere fucking near deserving the "cultural touchstone" status
it gained when the kids who played with the action figures in the late 70s grew up and start writing the
history ....

(again, take it with that nasty grain of salt - I'm not a fan of SF, movies or books - I'll watch some BSG
or the Terminator movies - they're fun and interesting, but no real value to me or the society as I see it ....)

(in fact, the jingoist, JohnWayne shoot 'em up bullshit aspect of space operas may be detrimental,
given their primary target audience of young men ....)

Good point about the soundtrack Duke, the score in SW is above and beyond, probably my favourite ever, of any movie.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

loremaster wrote:Am i being pedantic in expecting people to understand the difference between "3D" and "2D stereoscopic" cinematography?
It is NOT 3D. There is no true depth, only percieved. Perspective is fixed, moving my head to the left does not affect my view.
In simple terms - someone sitting on the far left of the screen looking "in" should have a different perspective of the action to someone on the far right, they dont. Like looking at the front or the back of someone's head. Hence 2D stereoscopic.

Man, I think everyone knows that the objects aren't literally in 3D. But it looks 3D from the right angle (and of course only one angle works), that's not really dumbing down so much as simply miss-representing, they're not doing it because people won't understand it, they do it because as you said, it sounds better this way, and 3-D has been the terminology for decades, ever since people started doing drawings in red and blue ink.

I'm with you that it's cooler to call it as it is, but this isn't really "dumbing down" it's more "branding".

You may be right, maybe it's the circles i frequent most often. Maybe you're more optimistic than I am about the level of intelligence of humanity as a whole.

I still think a good 70% of my social circle wouldn't really know the difference.

Plus, when someone invents a GENUINE 3-d imager (which i firmly believe will happen)- what will they call that?

loremaster wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

loremaster wrote:Am i being pedantic in expecting people to understand the difference between "3D" and "2D stereoscopic" cinematography?
It is NOT 3D. There is no true depth, only percieved. Perspective is fixed, moving my head to the left does not affect my view.
In simple terms - someone sitting on the far left of the screen looking "in" should have a different perspective of the action to someone on the far right, they dont. Like looking at the front or the back of someone's head. Hence 2D stereoscopic.

Man, I think everyone knows that the objects aren't literally in 3D. But it looks 3D from the right angle (and of course only one angle works), that's not really dumbing down so much as simply miss-representing, they're not doing it because people won't understand it, they do it because as you said, it sounds better this way, and 3-D has been the terminology for decades, ever since people started doing drawings in red and blue ink.

I'm with you that it's cooler to call it as it is, but this isn't really "dumbing down" it's more "branding".

You may be right, maybe it's the circles i frequent most often. Maybe you're more optimistic than I am about the level of intelligence of humanity as a whole.

I still think a good 70% of my social circle wouldn't really know the difference.

Plus, when someone invents a GENUINE 3-d imager (which i firmly believe will happen)- what will they call that?

A hologram!

Seriously though, you're right that a lot of peoplewouldn't question it, but they wouldn't take the name to mean it "is" 3D, just thta it looks 3D... I hope...

Hunchback Jack wrote:I saw it last weekend and really liked it.

HBJ

I like the Resident Evil movies - I still think they are crappy films though

loremaster wrote:Plus, when someone invents a GENUINE 3-d imager (which i firmly believe will happen)- what will they call that?

4D?

nampigai wrote:I like the Resident Evil movies - I still think they are crappy films though

LOVES me some Alice!