And yet it's currently exclusively got the new entries in the Resident Evil franchise, as well as the superlatively-rated Eternal Darkness.
Just because the flagship titles are bright and colorful doesn't mean the entire library is. It's not like the "mature" platforms like the XBox don't have some cutesy titles themselves (like, say, Blinx), but chances are no one's played them because they've convinced themselves that image is more important that gameplay.
I heard recently that the Gameboy Advance recently outsold the PS2. I have no idea if that was monthly figures, or actual total units shipped, but the point is that Nintendo has another significant revenue stream besides the home gaming console.
The Trackpoint is also a far superior interface to the mouse wheel even if it weren't capable of operating in two dimensions, since instead of having to repeatedly move your fingertip to turn the mouse wheel, you could simply push and hold it in the direction you wanted to scroll.
I should probably see if I can snag a few more of those off of eBay before the inventory completely disappears.
...that they're going to create an animatronic dinosaur based on the Dinosaur movie they made a few years back.
Re:Soderberg's Film a Total Failure
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 1
I will now prejudice all readers against my comments by mentioning that I have not read the original Lem work, nor was I able to remain conscious through the Tarkovsky version.
The ending again finds Kris remaining on Solaris. But this isn't the real Kris. We never learn what happened to the real Kris. What we do learn is that this Kris is another of the ocean's replicants, a visitor with nobody to visit. Soderberg prepares us for this revelation by introducing a second plot twist. Just before the end we learn that Snow, one of the other two living scientists on the space station, is really a replicant. He killed the real Snow before Kris arrived. We thus know that the ocean creates replicants not only of shame-inducing persons from the scientists' pasts (those monsters from the id) but replicants of the scientists themselves.
I think there is sufficient evidence in the movie to suggest that those who die in the presence of Solaris become part of it (after all, Gibarian returns as a visitor following his alleged suicide). In addition, there's a second interpretation of Snow's murder/suicide that seems to be overlooked -- Snow is an identical twin, and his visitor is actually his brother (he says so in the movie, unless he was lying).
The issue that so many people seem to have with Soderbergh's Solaris is the lack of science in the science-fiction. But this film is clearly not supposed to be a science-fiction film (unless you're among the legions of Star Wars or Star Trek fans who insist that Clarkean "magical" technology means science); it's a thinly-veiled parable about man and his interaction with God (which lends some symbolic evidence to the interpretation that Snow actually killed his brother: he's a Cain and Abel figure), and I suspect people find that more offensive than anything related to plotting, direction, lack of action, or George Clooney's naked butt.
Incase you haven't noticed, retro-games seem to be what is "in" at the moment.
It's called franchise-building, and it's not limited to video games (I believe that 2002 was the most sequel-laden year at the box office in history). Why bother to come up with new character designs and backstory when you can pick an arcade classic with name recognition that a generation of quarter-pushers who now have disposable income and yearning nostalgia can enjoy?
Lower cost of distribution also levels the playing field, making it easier for independents to compete.
Good in theory, but I doubt it is in practice. While there's a lessened barrier to entry in terms of distribution of the medium (electronic versus physical delivery), there's still a scarcity in the amount of venue real estate -- the theatre screens themselves.
While multiplexes could devote one or two of their screens to "those wacky arthouse movies", chances are they're still going to see more attendance for mainstream films at the end of their theatrical run, and since revenue from those ticket sales goes to the theatre in increasing percentage the later in the run (revenues are divided between exhibitor and studio on a sliding scale based on the number of weeks in release, with the bulk of the percentage accruing to the studio in the first few weeks of release), they're going to be loathe to give up those places where tickets actually give them revenue.
Even worse, you won't see arthouses benefiting from the increased ease of distribution, because very few, if any, of them will be able to afford the upgrade to digital equipment.
Assuming that you're showing twice as many exposed frames, this suggests that the prints need to be twice as long (or that you need twice as many reels), and I don't think that will fly at all.
The primary driver for digital projection is not audience experience or image quality (surprise!), but reduction in distribution costs for print reels, which are costly to produce and incredibly costly to ship to theatres due to both bulk and weight (particularly since movies require one set of reels for each screen it will be showing on, plus replacement reels for prints that scratch/burn/snap).
That being said, he didn't seem to be doing much in the way of deflecting Dooku's saber and attacking a more vulnerable spot, which happens a lot in real fencing. That was a bit dissapointing. That and yoda not winning. It's not like Dooku wasn't expendible.
He is expendable, but not until Episode III. Who doesn't think that Anakin will kill him?
Seems like every time a new list of top n movies (as the AFI top 100 films) or television shows (as the TV Guide top comedies) or whatever shows up, there's invariably a hue and a cry from folks who don't appreciate the rankings, or the content, or a series of egregious omissions.
It's a whole lot easier to stomach these things if you take them as a signpost and not a destination. In fact, the debate here about what does and doesn't get included and why (the why is the particularly important part, IMO) pretty much validates the creation of the list, even if I don't agree with its contents or its order. Fortunately, there's even a means of redress:
The most unfortunate part of the article as presented is that it explains the three ranking criteria, but does not provide any evaluation as to how the movie satisfies them (for example, I imagine that it's nigh-universally agreed that The Matrix is an "adrenaline" movie, but probably much less so that it's a "precision" movie, owing to some spotty scientific principles).
(I also have my reservations about the breadth of knowledge of films that the panel has, but the article did say "fans" and not "experts")
I'll also echo the sentiments of some of the other Gattaca sympathizers that it's probably the most "science-y" science-fiction that I've seen in recent memory, but that's the age-old argument between the "hard" and "soft" views of whether the science or the fiction part of science fiction is what gets the emphasis.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet it's currently exclusively got the new entries in the Resident Evil franchise, as well as the superlatively-rated Eternal Darkness.
Just because the flagship titles are bright and colorful doesn't mean the entire library is. It's not like the "mature" platforms like the XBox don't have some cutesy titles themselves (like, say, Blinx), but chances are no one's played them because they've convinced themselves that image is more important that gameplay.
I heard recently that the Gameboy Advance recently outsold the PS2. I have no idea if that was monthly figures, or actual total units shipped, but the point is that Nintendo has another significant revenue stream besides the home gaming console.
The Trackpoint is also a far superior interface to the mouse wheel even if it weren't capable of operating in two dimensions, since instead of having to repeatedly move your fingertip to turn the mouse wheel, you could simply push and hold it in the direction you wanted to scroll. I should probably see if I can snag a few more of those off of eBay before the inventory completely disappears.
I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux
So, Darth McBride finds their lack of good faith discussions disturbing?
I seem to recall reading about this concept in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Has it been used elsewhere in sci-fi?
...that they're going to create an animatronic dinosaur based on the Dinosaur movie they made a few years back.
I will now prejudice all readers against my comments by mentioning that I have not read the original Lem work, nor was I able to remain conscious through the Tarkovsky version.
The ending again finds Kris remaining on Solaris. But this isn't the real Kris. We never learn what happened to the real Kris. What we do learn is that this Kris is another of the ocean's replicants, a visitor with nobody to visit. Soderberg prepares us for this revelation by introducing a second plot twist. Just before the end we learn that Snow, one of the other two living scientists on the space station, is really a replicant. He killed the real Snow before Kris arrived. We thus know that the ocean creates replicants not only of shame-inducing persons from the scientists' pasts (those monsters from the id) but replicants of the scientists themselves.
I think there is sufficient evidence in the movie to suggest that those who die in the presence of Solaris become part of it (after all, Gibarian returns as a visitor following his alleged suicide). In addition, there's a second interpretation of Snow's murder/suicide that seems to be overlooked -- Snow is an identical twin, and his visitor is actually his brother (he says so in the movie, unless he was lying).
The issue that so many people seem to have with Soderbergh's Solaris is the lack of science in the science-fiction. But this film is clearly not supposed to be a science-fiction film (unless you're among the legions of Star Wars or Star Trek fans who insist that Clarkean "magical" technology means science); it's a thinly-veiled parable about man and his interaction with God (which lends some symbolic evidence to the interpretation that Snow actually killed his brother: he's a Cain and Abel figure), and I suspect people find that more offensive than anything related to plotting, direction, lack of action, or George Clooney's naked butt.
Incase you haven't noticed, retro-games seem to be what is "in" at the moment.
It's called franchise-building, and it's not limited to video games (I believe that 2002 was the most sequel-laden year at the box office in history). Why bother to come up with new character designs and backstory when you can pick an arcade classic with name recognition that a generation of quarter-pushers who now have disposable income and yearning nostalgia can enjoy?So what's next? Moon Patrol Xtreme?
Dude, that would be awesome!Maybe you should consider getting a new system. I hear Intel just put out a 2.8GHz processor.
Perhaps you need to upgrade your CPU. I hear Intel has a 2.8 GHz processor out.
Lower cost of distribution also levels the playing field, making it easier for independents to compete.
Good in theory, but I doubt it is in practice. While there's a lessened barrier to entry in terms of distribution of the medium (electronic versus physical delivery), there's still a scarcity in the amount of venue real estate -- the theatre screens themselves.
While multiplexes could devote one or two of their screens to "those wacky arthouse movies", chances are they're still going to see more attendance for mainstream films at the end of their theatrical run, and since revenue from those ticket sales goes to the theatre in increasing percentage the later in the run (revenues are divided between exhibitor and studio on a sliding scale based on the number of weeks in release, with the bulk of the percentage accruing to the studio in the first few weeks of release), they're going to be loathe to give up those places where tickets actually give them revenue.
Even worse, you won't see arthouses benefiting from the increased ease of distribution, because very few, if any, of them will be able to afford the upgrade to digital equipment.
Assuming that you're showing twice as many exposed frames, this suggests that the prints need to be twice as long (or that you need twice as many reels), and I don't think that will fly at all. The primary driver for digital projection is not audience experience or image quality (surprise!), but reduction in distribution costs for print reels, which are costly to produce and incredibly costly to ship to theatres due to both bulk and weight (particularly since movies require one set of reels for each screen it will be showing on, plus replacement reels for prints that scratch/burn/snap).
He is expendable, but not until Episode III. Who doesn't think that Anakin will kill him?
Seems like every time a new list of top n movies (as the AFI top 100 films) or television shows (as the TV Guide top comedies) or whatever shows up, there's invariably a hue and a cry from folks who don't appreciate the rankings, or the content, or a series of egregious omissions.
It's a whole lot easier to stomach these things if you take them as a signpost and not a destination. In fact, the debate here about what does and doesn't get included and why (the why is the particularly important part, IMO) pretty much validates the creation of the list, even if I don't agree with its contents or its order. Fortunately, there's even a means of redress:
"Disagree? Send your own picks to movielist@wiredmag.com."
The most unfortunate part of the article as presented is that it explains the three ranking criteria, but does not provide any evaluation as to how the movie satisfies them (for example, I imagine that it's nigh-universally agreed that The Matrix is an "adrenaline" movie, but probably much less so that it's a "precision" movie, owing to some spotty scientific principles).
(I also have my reservations about the breadth of knowledge of films that the panel has, but the article did say "fans" and not "experts")
I'll also echo the sentiments of some of the other Gattaca sympathizers that it's probably the most "science-y" science-fiction that I've seen in recent memory, but that's the age-old argument between the "hard" and "soft" views of whether the science or the fiction part of science fiction is what gets the emphasis.