If I say I'm "pro-left" do I at least get a token "you deserve what you should get"? Granted... I'm not a Democrat Congresswoman OR an nine-year-old girl but still... show me some proper hate.
Falsely accusing one side of violence, as the above mentioned did throughout 2010 election campaign, despite most of the actual incidents of violence coming from the left, is a 'veiled' invitation to respond in kind. How do you expect more extreme elements on the left to respond when they are constantly being told that about violent fascist and racist right-wingers are taking over in the form of Tea Party (which in reality is a peaceful and law-abiding movement if there ever was one). That is the impression one gets when listening to them and it is a form of incitement to violence.
I keep a copy of this post you made for whenever you come trolling by. It never gets old.
I'm actually *Bosnian - which means that I'm at least partially Muslim (even if I'm an atheist and regardless whether I feel like one or not - just because I'm not a Serb or Croat) and most definitely - stupid. That's our main national trait.
*Funny thing is, our constitution is perhaps the most racist one since Germans decided to pack all European Jews into concentration camps. We have THREE presidents (plus one more for Republika Srpska) - but they MUST be one from each major ethnic group. So... Unless you are Serb, Croat or Bosniak - you can't be a president.
To some degree, the term "Muslim state" is a misnomer.
In fact, it is silly to label any country that claims to have a democratic electoral system according to religious choices of its people. Freedom of choice is a cornerstone of every democracy. Having a "state religion" kinda limits that choice and that freedom.
One where there are many Muslims? Well, is a Germany a Muslim state? Plenty of Turkish Muslims there? How 'bout France with all them Algerians? Or all those Muslims don't really count, cause they are not TRUE Muslims?
Or let's turn that around... Which western countries (excluding Vatican) are Christian? And please, specify which denomination. Or how about simply - is America Catholic, Protestant or Mormon? Come on... we all know that all that secular bullshit is just for show. Come on... Who's their Cloud Daddy?
It's the other way around. Here's a hint - you can vote without paying money for that privilege.
You are also confusing democracy with capitalism and (among others) missing the prerequisites of "liberty" and "freedom" (slaves were almost always free to communicate with each other). Also, you seem to be confusing "education" to Tee-Vee shows.
And are you seriously suggesting Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and David Caruso as cultural ambassadors of USA and democracy in general?
*That’s* what they fear about us. Not that we’ll bomb them into oblivion, but that their own kids, raised on our pop culture, will vote them off the island.
Seriously. Read a book sometimes (one without pictures) and watch a foreign movie (one with subtitles, in non-English language) now and then.
All Americans are fat and stupid. There. Can I please have my post modded up again now? Or do I have to make a stupid generalization about someone else? Like Chinese? Brits? Zie Germans?
COME ON! I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.
*caricatures are like an exaggerated cartoon of someone, where he looks funny... and then we laugh at him cause he is funny looking.
They could patch into a Gibson, use that uplink to tunnel into the global GPS satellite network and then beam the (enhanced) signal down into the internet and thus successfully hack the plant.
Parent poster is handing out two, that's TWO generalizations for the price of one. If you comment now, he'll throw in FIIIIIVE unfounded accusations of your choice - PLUS "the works". Where else are you gonna get a deal like that?
Coming up next - all Catholics are secretly pedophiles, Jews are stingy, blacks are lazy and women can't drive.
The singer said that “Nearly everything I do involves processors and computers, and when I see an Intel chip I think of all the creative minds involved that help to amplify my own creativity,” before adding that “Teaming up with the scientists, researchers and computer programmers at Intel to collaborate and co-develop new ways to communicate, create, inform and entertain is going to be amazing.”
That "...and when I see 'X' I think of all the creative minds involved that help to amplify my own 'Y' "-line is totally meme-worthy.
But it doesn't. Escher makes plays on 3D cues, but only on a 2D space. Your eyes focus on the paper. Your lenses focus on the paper. Both eyes see the same picture. And yet, he tricks us. That is unrelated to the idea of feeding independent images to each eye with the images containing conflicting information about the focus point and composure. Any comparison of the two seems silly. They share zero features in common, aside from they are both about the same general subject, though they address it in completely opposite ways.
It tricks the eye-brain system. Ergo, people's eyes-brain can be fooled - regardless of "not being evolved for 3D movies". Now go back and read my original comment. No, wait... I'll go get it.
Apparently, people didn't evolve to be fooled by 3D illusions. Quick! Someone call Escher and tell him he was wrong. And speak up - he's been dead since 1972, so he may not hear you at first.
Then so far, every 3D movie has been done wrong. And if we aren't arguing what is, but instead what might be, then I'll concede that there may at some time exist some 3D that won't cause discord in the brain. But if you want to argue what is now, then I'll happily assert that current 3D works as the result of sending conflicting signals that can damage people, leading to development issues in children and headaches and such in adults.
Listen, I'm really sorry about this, being rude and all but... go fuck yourself. OK? Pulling that "think of the children" shit puts you in the same book along with those stupid fucks that yelled the same shit about that vaccine and autism scare not so long ago. It is a load of bullshit, with zero cases, zero data or even zero urban legends reported. It has less credence than pop rocks and soda deaths.
As for headaches reported by adults - go see a doctor about that. Rest of the theater doesn't complain. You obviously have a health problem. But it sure as fuck wasn't caused by all those 3D movies you weren't watching as you grew up.
It's been shown that 3D is problematic for children as it can cause them to develop so that their eyes focus separately - something required for 3D effects to work.
No it hasn't. Go ahead... find me a study proving that. Or even an anecdotal case. It's bullshit.
As for me, 3D is a misnomer. It's a junky piece of technology that doesn't work that is very well overpriced. I'll be glad when they finally put it to rest. Holographic placards annoy me; but only a true Star-Trek like holographics system would be worth anything.
Well shit... So is flying then. A misnomer, that is. You have to get into a machine and all, plus they don't let you fly - someone else does that. A misnomer if I ever heard one.
As for not working... umm... It's not my fault you shot you eye out. You WERE warned.
This new interface is hard to look at as it is, without me having to guess when you are replying and when you are agreeing with me.
Point of 3D is that it exploits the same imperfections of our eyes/mind combo that Escher's optical illusions did. Just like our imperfect eye allows us to watch the movies in the first place - cause we can't catch every single frame so we see a moving image instead of a bunch of still ones.
So it isn't true that the movies are requiring your eyes to focus at a distance different from what the lenses need to focus? Or are you conceding that to be true but asserting that it isn't a problem that causes eye development problems in children and headaches in adults?
If the 3D movie is done right, it compensates for all the focusing problems you might experience and you don't develop "problems or headaches".
And 3D causing development problems is UTTER BULLSHIT! Probably even bigger than the idea that video games damage eyesight and development of this or that, when actually they improve eyesight and hand-eye coordination.
Also, it is pure guesswork bullshit, as there is no data, no study, not even anecdotal cases of "development problems in children". As for "I got a headache from watching 3D"... well... it is a combination of badly done 3D (some older 3D shooters had similar effects) and your own health problems. It is YOU who are defective - not the 3D. Fix it if you can, or simply don't watch 3D movies. You wouldn't try to run with a broken leg, now would you? Same thing.
It's how Frodo was made to look so small compared to Gandalf, for example. Frodo was further from the camera and thus appeared smaller than he would have standing next to Gandalf. The lack of 3D convergence made it appear that both actors were standing next to each other, and our brains told us that Frodo must be smaller.
Actually, that was done with computers whenever they were supposed to be together in the same shot. Cause you can't really keep the Hobbits in the background ALL of the time. Or they simply had actors who played Hobbits and Dwarfs kneel during the shot. That is why here Frodo's head appears HUGE next to Galadriel's - when a Hobbit is supposed to be child-sized next to an Elf.
Apparently, people didn't evolve to be fooled by 3D illusions. Quick! Someone call Escher and tell him he was wrong. And speak up - he's been dead since 1972, so he may not hear you at first.
And that "no immersion for 3D" is utter nonsense. That "kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space" when watching anything is called BEING BORED TO SLEEP - not "immersion".
WTF! I'm supposed to be immersed into 2D movies due to its superior qualities? Where is all that immersive porn then? Wouldn't that be the first genre we noticed the effect with? It sure as fuck grabs everyone's attention.
Come on, raise your hand if you have ever thought you are actually IN THE MOVIE while watching it. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hold on... wait... I once got up to answer a phone that was ringing on the screen - CAUSE I WAS FALLING ASLEEP WHILE WATCHING THE FUCKING MOVIE!
Only single point that is sorta true is about 3D being more expensive. So? Colored pictures used to be more expensive too. Just like CGI. Hey... Remember when a computer would cost tens of thousands of dollars - and it wasn't even an Apple?
Two Thumbs, Two Dimensions Roger Ebert is done talking about 3-D movies. Thank goodness. By Daniel EngberPosted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 12:00 PM ET
As far as Roger Ebert is concerned, the discussion about 3-D is over. "The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous," he wrote in his blog Sunday. "The case is closed."
If that means Ebert will stop complaining about the medium, so much the better. For years now, the venerable critic has been griping that 3-D cinema is dim, distracting, and useless. And I mean for years: Even at the age of 10, young Ebert turned up his nose at Arch Oboler's stereo jungle adventure, Bwana Devil. (Deeply unmoved, was he, by the hails of spears.) That was back in 1952; more than a half-century later, he's still shaking his fist at the silver screen—I hate 3-D and you should, too! Professional obligations notwithstanding, Ebert doesn't want to see another movie in three dimensions. Ever.
I've had enough of this persnickety crusade, marching, as it does, under the banner of pseudoscience. "Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion," Ebert writes, in an attempt to explain why movies like Clash of the Titans totally suck:
But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.
OK, let's not quibble with the idea that human beings might have evolved to jump away from oncoming automobiles on the prehistoric savannah. I'm more interested in the two notions that follow from this dubious logic. First, that we ought not consume any form of entertainment that doesn't derive from a selected biological trait; and, second, that standard flat-screen cinema is somehow better suited to our genetic makeup—more natural, I guess—than 3-D.
I wonder if Ebert really believes that the arts should cater to our Darwinian design, or that we're incapable of enjoying anything for which our brain wasn't delicately prewired. But in the event that he does, I'd only point out that such gimmicky and distracting art forms as, say, music, may very well be fiddling with our cortex in ways that have nothing to do with the fight-or-flight demands of a saber-toothed tiger attack.
It's just as silly to presume that viewing a film in 3-D is any less natural—from an evolutionary perspective or otherwise—than watching it flat. For starters, the human eye did not evolve to see elephants stomping across the Serengeti at 24 frames per second. Nor are we biologically attuned to jump cuts, or focus pulls, or the world seen through a rectangular box the sides of which happen to form a ratio of 1.85 to 1. Nor indeed was man designed to gaze at any image while having no control over which objects are in focus and which are blurry. If all those distinctly unnatural aspects of standard, two-dimensional cinema seem unobtrusive, it's only because we've had 125 years to get used to them.
According to Ebert, the 3-D effect brings in an "artificial" third dimension, which doesn't serve to make a movie any more realistic. In fact, he says, it makes an image seem less real, since under normal circumstances "we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us." Here he appears to be confusing cheesy, pop-out effects (which are used judiciously in the better—and more recent—films) with the medium as a whole. Yes, some 3-D movies do contain these gimmicks, but others do not.
There is this scene with Julia Roberts pretending to be a woman who is pretending to be Julia Roberts WHILE talking on a phone to another instance of Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts. Kinda like this scene only a level or two more fucked up. Granted, Bruce Willis showing up and pretending to be JUST Bruce Willis is a bit of a letdown, but the movie makes it up in utter lack of entertainment (in the classic meaning of the word).
Clearly, Ocean's 12 was envisioned as a critique of the entire summer blockbuster genre (they even satirized that by releasing it in December), with its overdose of stars and utter lack of coherence or meaningful plot - but apparently people failed to get the joke. So, they said "What the hell, let's at least make a shitload of money" and reused that same formula and made Ocean's 13.
Slashdot Mirror
But that doesn't mean that babies have a rich sexual life.
What kind of generalization are those? Way too specific.
Next you're gonna say only SOME Irish are drunks.
If I say I'm "pro-left" do I at least get a token "you deserve what you should get"?
Granted... I'm not a Democrat Congresswoman OR an nine-year-old girl but still... show me some proper hate.
Falsely accusing one side of violence, as the above mentioned did throughout 2010 election campaign, despite most of the actual incidents of violence coming from the left, is a 'veiled' invitation to respond in kind. How do you expect more extreme elements on the left to respond when they are constantly being told that about violent fascist and racist right-wingers are taking over in the form of Tea Party (which in reality is a peaceful and law-abiding movement if there ever was one). That is the impression one gets when listening to them and it is a form of incitement to violence.
I keep a copy of this post you made for whenever you come trolling by. It never gets old.
I'm actually *Bosnian - which means that I'm at least partially Muslim (even if I'm an atheist and regardless whether I feel like one or not - just because I'm not a Serb or Croat) and most definitely - stupid.
That's our main national trait.
*Funny thing is, our constitution is perhaps the most racist one since Germans decided to pack all European Jews into concentration camps.
We have THREE presidents (plus one more for Republika Srpska) - but they MUST be one from each major ethnic group.
So... Unless you are Serb, Croat or Bosniak - you can't be a president.
To some degree, the term "Muslim state" is a misnomer.
In fact, it is silly to label any country that claims to have a democratic electoral system according to religious choices of its people.
Freedom of choice is a cornerstone of every democracy. Having a "state religion" kinda limits that choice and that freedom.
One where there are many Muslims?
Well, is a Germany a Muslim state? Plenty of Turkish Muslims there? How 'bout France with all them Algerians?
Or all those Muslims don't really count, cause they are not TRUE Muslims?
Or are you talking about countries run by sharia law?
Egypt is a "semi-presidential republic" where religious parties are illegal.
Or let's turn that around... Which western countries (excluding Vatican) are Christian? And please, specify which denomination.
Or how about simply - is America Catholic, Protestant or Mormon? Come on... we all know that all that secular bullshit is just for show.
Come on... Who's their Cloud Daddy?
It's the other way around. Here's a hint - you can vote without paying money for that privilege.
You are also confusing democracy with capitalism and (among others) missing the prerequisites of "liberty" and "freedom" (slaves were almost always free to communicate with each other).
Also, you seem to be confusing "education" to Tee-Vee shows.
And are you seriously suggesting Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and David Caruso as cultural ambassadors of USA and democracy in general?
*That’s* what they fear about us. Not that we’ll bomb them into oblivion, but that their own kids, raised on our pop culture, will vote them off the island.
Seriously.
Read a book sometimes (one without pictures) and watch a foreign movie (one with subtitles, in non-English language) now and then.
Or go to Wikipedia and look up words like despotims and dictatorship.
Also, oligarchy, plutocracy and tyranny.
Here's a teaser. In most of those regimes - PEOPLE DON'T GET TO VOTE AT ALL! Really! Look it up.
Sorry... an 'e' got away from me.
You don't need all that to hack a plant. You can hack a plant simply by hitting it repeatedly with an axe.
All Americans are fat and stupid. There. Can I please have my post modded up again now?
Or do I have to make a stupid generalization about someone else? Like Chinese? Brits? Zie Germans?
COME ON!
I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.
*caricatures are like an exaggerated cartoon of someone, where he looks funny... and then we laugh at him cause he is funny looking.
They could patch into a Gibson, use that uplink to tunnel into the global GPS satellite network and then beam the (enhanced) signal down into the internet and thus successfully hack the plant.
Parent poster is handing out two, that's TWO generalizations for the price of one.
If you comment now, he'll throw in FIIIIIVE unfounded accusations of your choice - PLUS "the works". Where else are you gonna get a deal like that?
Coming up next - all Catholics are secretly pedophiles, Jews are stingy, blacks are lazy and women can't drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gEjxzsVAE4
Or simply jerks.
Check out his ACTUAL statement:
The singer said that “Nearly everything I do involves processors and computers, and when I see an Intel chip I think of all the creative minds involved that help to amplify my own creativity,” before adding that “Teaming up with the scientists, researchers and computer programmers at Intel to collaborate and co-develop new ways to communicate, create, inform and entertain is going to be amazing.”
That "...and when I see 'X' I think of all the creative minds involved that help to amplify my own 'Y' "-line is totally meme-worthy.
But it doesn't. Escher makes plays on 3D cues, but only on a 2D space. Your eyes focus on the paper. Your lenses focus on the paper. Both eyes see the same picture. And yet, he tricks us. That is unrelated to the idea of feeding independent images to each eye with the images containing conflicting information about the focus point and composure. Any comparison of the two seems silly. They share zero features in common, aside from they are both about the same general subject, though they address it in completely opposite ways.
It tricks the eye-brain system.
Ergo, people's eyes-brain can be fooled - regardless of "not being evolved for 3D movies". Now go back and read my original comment.
No, wait... I'll go get it.
Apparently, people didn't evolve to be fooled by 3D illusions.
Quick! Someone call Escher and tell him he was wrong.
And speak up - he's been dead since 1972, so he may not hear you at first.
Then so far, every 3D movie has been done wrong. And if we aren't arguing what is, but instead what might be, then I'll concede that there may at some time exist some 3D that won't cause discord in the brain. But if you want to argue what is now, then I'll happily assert that current 3D works as the result of sending conflicting signals that can damage people, leading to development issues in children and headaches and such in adults.
Listen, I'm really sorry about this, being rude and all but... go fuck yourself. OK?
Pulling that "think of the children" shit puts you in the same book along with those stupid fucks that yelled the same shit about that vaccine and autism scare not so long ago.
It is a load of bullshit, with zero cases, zero data or even zero urban legends reported.
It has less credence than pop rocks and soda deaths.
As for headaches reported by adults - go see a doctor about that. Rest of the theater doesn't complain. You obviously have a health problem.
But it sure as fuck wasn't caused by all those 3D movies you weren't watching as you grew up.
It's been shown that 3D is problematic for children as it can cause them to develop so that their eyes focus separately - something required for 3D effects to work.
No it hasn't. Go ahead... find me a study proving that. Or even an anecdotal case. It's bullshit.
As for me, 3D is a misnomer. It's a junky piece of technology that doesn't work that is very well overpriced. I'll be glad when they finally put it to rest. Holographic placards annoy me; but only a true Star-Trek like holographics system would be worth anything.
Well shit... So is flying then. A misnomer, that is.
You have to get into a machine and all, plus they don't let you fly - someone else does that. A misnomer if I ever heard one.
As for not working... umm... It's not my fault you shot you eye out. You WERE warned.
n/t
This new interface is hard to look at as it is, without me having to guess when you are replying and when you are agreeing with me.
Point of 3D is that it exploits the same imperfections of our eyes/mind combo that Escher's optical illusions did.
Just like our imperfect eye allows us to watch the movies in the first place - cause we can't catch every single frame so we see a moving image instead of a bunch of still ones.
So it isn't true that the movies are requiring your eyes to focus at a distance different from what the lenses need to focus? Or are you conceding that to be true but asserting that it isn't a problem that causes eye development problems in children and headaches in adults?
If the 3D movie is done right, it compensates for all the focusing problems you might experience and you don't develop "problems or headaches".
And 3D causing development problems is UTTER BULLSHIT!
Probably even bigger than the idea that video games damage eyesight and development of this or that, when actually they improve eyesight and hand-eye coordination.
Also, it is pure guesswork bullshit, as there is no data, no study, not even anecdotal cases of "development problems in children".
As for "I got a headache from watching 3D"... well... it is a combination of badly done 3D (some older 3D shooters had similar effects) and your own health problems.
It is YOU who are defective - not the 3D. Fix it if you can, or simply don't watch 3D movies.
You wouldn't try to run with a broken leg, now would you? Same thing.
See that "From:" part.
And the link.
And the quote marks.
And that "By Daniel Engber Posted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 12:00 PM ET".
Granted, with this New Slash interface, I can't tell which the fuck is which either.
It's how Frodo was made to look so small compared to Gandalf, for example. Frodo was further from the camera and thus appeared smaller than he would have standing next to Gandalf. The lack of 3D convergence made it appear that both actors were standing next to each other, and our brains told us that Frodo must be smaller.
Actually, that was done with computers whenever they were supposed to be together in the same shot.
Cause you can't really keep the Hobbits in the background ALL of the time.
Or they simply had actors who played Hobbits and Dwarfs kneel during the shot.
That is why here Frodo's head appears HUGE next to Galadriel's - when a Hobbit is supposed to be child-sized next to an Elf.
Or a still photo. And yet people make movies.
All those "points" are pure bullshit.
Apparently, people didn't evolve to be fooled by 3D illusions.
Quick! Someone call Escher and tell him he was wrong.
And speak up - he's been dead since 1972, so he may not hear you at first.
And that "no immersion for 3D" is utter nonsense.
That "kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space" when watching anything is called BEING BORED TO SLEEP - not "immersion".
WTF! I'm supposed to be immersed into 2D movies due to its superior qualities? Where is all that immersive porn then?
Wouldn't that be the first genre we noticed the effect with? It sure as fuck grabs everyone's attention.
Come on, raise your hand if you have ever thought you are actually IN THE MOVIE while watching it.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Hold on... wait... I once got up to answer a phone that was ringing on the screen - CAUSE I WAS FALLING ASLEEP WHILE WATCHING THE FUCKING MOVIE!
Only single point that is sorta true is about 3D being more expensive. So?
Colored pictures used to be more expensive too. Just like CGI.
Hey... Remember when a computer would cost tens of thousands of dollars - and it wasn't even an Apple?
From
http://www.slate.com/id/2282376/pagenum/all/#p2
Two Thumbs, Two Dimensions
Roger Ebert is done talking about 3-D movies. Thank goodness.
By Daniel EngberPosted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 12:00 PM ET
As far as Roger Ebert is concerned, the discussion about 3-D is over. "The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous," he wrote in his blog Sunday. "The case is closed."
If that means Ebert will stop complaining about the medium, so much the better. For years now, the venerable critic has been griping that 3-D cinema is dim, distracting, and useless. And I mean for years: Even at the age of 10, young Ebert turned up his nose at Arch Oboler's stereo jungle adventure, Bwana Devil. (Deeply unmoved, was he, by the hails of spears.) That was back in 1952; more than a half-century later, he's still shaking his fist at the silver screen—I hate 3-D and you should, too! Professional obligations notwithstanding, Ebert doesn't want to see another movie in three dimensions. Ever.
I've had enough of this persnickety crusade, marching, as it does, under the banner of pseudoscience. "Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion," Ebert writes, in an attempt to explain why movies like Clash of the Titans totally suck:
But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.
OK, let's not quibble with the idea that human beings might have evolved to jump away from oncoming automobiles on the prehistoric savannah. I'm more interested in the two notions that follow from this dubious logic. First, that we ought not consume any form of entertainment that doesn't derive from a selected biological trait; and, second, that standard flat-screen cinema is somehow better suited to our genetic makeup—more natural, I guess—than 3-D.
I wonder if Ebert really believes that the arts should cater to our Darwinian design, or that we're incapable of enjoying anything for which our brain wasn't delicately prewired. But in the event that he does, I'd only point out that such gimmicky and distracting art forms as, say, music, may very well be fiddling with our cortex in ways that have nothing to do with the fight-or-flight demands of a saber-toothed tiger attack.
It's just as silly to presume that viewing a film in 3-D is any less natural—from an evolutionary perspective or otherwise—than watching it flat. For starters, the human eye did not evolve to see elephants stomping across the Serengeti at 24 frames per second. Nor are we biologically attuned to jump cuts, or focus pulls, or the world seen through a rectangular box the sides of which happen to form a ratio of 1.85 to 1. Nor indeed was man designed to gaze at any image while having no control over which objects are in focus and which are blurry. If all those distinctly unnatural aspects of standard, two-dimensional cinema seem unobtrusive, it's only because we've had 125 years to get used to them.
According to Ebert, the 3-D effect brings in an "artificial" third dimension, which doesn't serve to make a movie any more realistic. In fact, he says, it makes an image seem less real, since under normal circumstances "we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us." Here he appears to be confusing cheesy, pop-out effects (which are used judiciously in the better—and more recent—films) with the medium as a whole. Yes, some 3-D movies do contain these gimmicks, but others do not.
In any case, it's not clear to me why one de
...from couple of years ago.
There is this scene with Julia Roberts pretending to be a woman who is pretending to be Julia Roberts WHILE talking on a phone to another instance of Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts.
Kinda like this scene only a level or two more fucked up.
Granted, Bruce Willis showing up and pretending to be JUST Bruce Willis is a bit of a letdown, but the movie makes it up in utter lack of entertainment (in the classic meaning of the word).
Clearly, Ocean's 12 was envisioned as a critique of the entire summer blockbuster genre (they even satirized that by releasing it in December), with its overdose of stars and utter lack of coherence or meaningful plot - but apparently people failed to get the joke.
So, they said "What the hell, let's at least make a shitload of money" and reused that same formula and made Ocean's 13.
At least my mom and dad are not also my brother and sister.
Say... how do you keep track of all that "who's who?"-stuff?
I sure as fuck would find that confusing.
...there sure exists strong evidence of absence of spoon.
Or perhaps the whole thing was just a glitch.