Not that American Beauty is the best movie ever made, but I do have to chime in that you didn't really do it justice watching it on a 4" screen.
I don't really know where we've been sold the idea that content is just content and that the experience doesn't really matter. The difference between watching a great movie on a big screen and a small one is like the difference between hearing a symphony on an incredible stereo vs. a clock radio. The method does matter.
Yes, it's cold, fast, and heavy, and I'm sure there were pretty pictures, but could someone who actually got to the article mention how fast he got the thing going?
If you couldn't figure out something useful or exciting to do with a $10/lb. launch technology, then you really are as dumb as your post makes you sound.
Great, so we're in a situation so overpopulated that *everyone* should live like crap and feel the same - that they are expendable, are no better than any number of others at anything, and whose worth is no more than the cost of replacement...
This of course applies to everyone except those few who happen to be deemed "exceptional" in some way, either because they can monkey according to an arbitrary set of rules (sports) or because people find them most attractive (celebrity) or because they can be vicious and single-minded enough to screw everyone else over in favor of money.
Yay, that's the world I want to live in (maybe we already do)
Why would you lose enthusiasm for an OS because advocates of an operating system have *morals* and are expressing them?
It doesn't make sense. If the OS itself was somehow taking a moral stance that you didn't like, I could see it, but otherwise your reaction is totally illogical.
I sincerely hope his car works - I love the design, and the mpg claims are incredible (if suspicious)... but I have to say I'm afraid that he's just offering another delaying tactic...
I note that you, too, have retained an appropriate level of skepticism in your post - good show...
Not to mention that "personal sized" passenger airships could be incredibly useful (yeah, it was in some Hardy Boys or other).
Such airships are one of the few cases where the size to efficiency ratio might be good for a hybrid/solar or all-solar onboard power generator, which would make for killer range.
Solar or not, I can't figure out why someone hasn't started trying to market these - is it safety? If I were wealthy, I'd rather have one than a helicopter - it would be almost certainly safer, it would be quieter, and it would be just flat-out cooler to go drifting over a city or wilderness. What gives?
People are so scared of the geeks because of stupid sh!t like columbine (perpetrated by kids who weren't even very intelligent) that this is exactly what will happen, with the nerd getting slammed by anti-terrorism laws...
Thanks for the reply - I did read the rest of your posts and I figured you were thinking of the well being of your kid. In fact, I know that I can't really talk because I don't have a kid and I don't know the feeling of wanting to give *anything* for a bit of peace (I'm sure I'll be there at some point though).
What I've realized is that I do believe in the value of silence. It gives people time to think for themselves, to be with their own thoughts, and it allows them to realize that those thoughts are often more worth thinking than the ones pushed on them by people trying to sell advertising. And I remember that, sure, I did my share of griping on car trips along with my brother, but I think it probably only amounted to 20-30 minutes out of an 8 hour drive. The time not spent in conversation (you're right, one can only converse so much), was spent fantasizing, looking, watching, thinking... and I wouldn't now give that time for anything.
I remember deserts and mountains I've seen out the car window, Volkswagon Beetles with out of state plates (if you've ever played that game you know), laughing at other drivers, wondering who those other people are... and all the rest. And I think part of it was because my parents were able to convey the fact that driving was enjoyable (most of the time). I think it's about showing your child the enjoyment to be found in the world, in themselves, and in their perception of it - and if it takes some time listening to the little guys bitch, then I think it's worth it.
Hey, remember when being uncomfortable was *part of* the car trip? Remember when you had to look out the window and watch the rest of the world go by?
I'm not trying to be an old curmudgeon (I'm only 26), but geez - isn't it *good* for kids to see some of the outside world rather than the media-populated faux-real blitz? For some kids, car trips are the only time they DO see the world outside of their local living area, and I think it's important somehow...
Car trips are a lesson in patience, they're a lesson in using one's imagination to entertain oneself, and they're a lesson in how a small group of people can *deal with* each other in a cramped space (for a measly few hours or days, no less!).
I *hate* that my niece gets "bored" all the time, when all she does is get stuck in front of a television. She has never learned to entertain herself, has forgotten the imagination that she had when she was too young for TV. I guess it just seems sad to me.
Umm... the load on power plants at night is drastically reduced - because all those houses don't use nearly as much as all those air-conditioned offices and industrial complexes. That's what peaker plants are for - they are turned on during the day when loads are highest... and solar is an ideal replacement.
Like the original poster, I don't think it makes sense to spend all the money on solar in space - it's just starting to get cost-effective on earth, and the price would go through the stratosphere (no pun intended) on the moon, even with the increase in efficiency that comes with a lack of atmosphere.
The point is that nowadays, even parking lots are constructed with a huge amount of night-lighting load, so that the full-time power plants aren't under loaded late at night. We need more solar during the day to keep us from using the more expensive, and wasteful, peaker plants.
It makes me sad, though, because it makes me realize one more time how much our current "leader" measures up. Will Bush's speeches ever be quoted in thirty years with any kind of reverence? I doubt it.
If there is any enduring historical significance to Bush's speeches, it will probably be because they were the signifiers of a self-righteous, ignorant, and greedy societal policy that was nearing its end...
How about interface for an application? I have done a lot of flash, and NONE of it was animation or intro-related. It was all coded and data driven, and I think it was absolutely the most effective data visualization tool I have seen.
Prototypes can be fast, going from the Illustrator design stage to functioning data-driven environments in weeks - these are apps that would take months to build in something like Java. And there are ways to view, process, and explore data that just can't be done with static graphics or with text.
Vector graphics are really useful, and just because the average flash "developer" is using the program to create fluff, or useless buttons and crap doesn't mean there is no worth to the program.
I agree with you about the CG in the 2nd film... but I think that's because every single scene escalates and ends *exactly like you think it will*. There is no shift during the scene, no sudden flip-flop (as there was in the first 10 minutes of the Matrix).
What repeatedly bummed me out so much as the Matrix progressed was the feeling of, "Oh, they're not going to do *that* old trick are they? Yup... yup... that's exactly what they're doing." It felt like they were always taking the most obvious route out of a situation, and for a movie that started out so smart, it was upsetting to me that it would then go for really generic hollywood moves.
Bound never does this. It keeps you rolling and twisting - that, and the suspense is almost all created visually, rather than through characters *telling* you something is dangerous. In Bound, or in a Hitchcock movie, you *see* that it is dangerous. The Matrix script is constantly resorting to stuff like, "Is he going to make it?" and, "Is he really The One?" to the point where it just makes me feel like the filmmakers treating their audience like morons.
I agree also that there's something to the coming of age story, the idea that we're rooting for a character to find out who they are... but I guess that's why I think it would have been such a great twist if Trinity had turned out to be The One instead of the more obvious (and more dull) Reeves.
C'est la vie. People like it. I guess I just don't think that the way the story is told in the Matrix ends up being very compelling.
Look, what I'm saying is this - to compare the kind of suspense in the Matrix to a Hitchcock movie is incredibly unfair.
In Psycho, for instance, the initial shock comes from the fact that the primary character, the one we've been shown that we should identify with, gets brutally killed. This was a revolution in filmmaking, and it leaves the audience hanging, not knowing what they are left with. The character they are forced to follow turns out to be two parts of a character that we've been set up to believe exist, but doesn't. There's suspense because we are unsure, because the whole film is set up to put us on edge.
Now admittedly, the Matrix is not shooting for terror or that kind of suspense, but what I was trying to say in my last post (I kind of flew off the handle there) was that the suspense in the Matrix is almost all lip service.
The characters in the movie tell us that maybe his isn't "The One," but did anyone for a second believe he might not be? Did you ever think he might really choose the blue pill (on that note, what kind of good philosophy is that simple?) Even though the characters in the movie think he might be dead, did you ever actually believe he wouldn't come back to life just like every other movie where that happens?
What amazes me about the Matrix is not that it followed the Joseph Campbell (lamely abridged by Joseph Vogler) structure, it was that it was so *obvious* at doing so. Check it, it's like chapter 8 in Vogler, we must question once again whether or not the character is going to make it - - - but that doesn't mean it has to be so *lame*.
I just think that they're two different orders of filmmaking, and though I could see a comparison of the brother's earlier film "Bound" with Hitchcock, it seems completely demeaning to do the same with the Matrix.
P.S. I agree that the first fifteen minutes of the Matrix were very good. In fact, I think that the *reason* the rest of the movie pisses me off so much is that it *could have been* so good, instead of falling into formula.
Thank you. Anyone who thinks there was any genuine innovation after the first half hour of the first matrix is just fooling themselves. It's not even good hard SF.
Too bad, really, I had some hopes after the first ten minutes of it actually being a good SF movie, with some innovation in the plot, rather than pat-you-on-the-head stupid philosophy and structure.
Which one is he going to take, the red pill or the blue pill???
Is he going to pass the test??? I'm not sure! I've never seen a movie before!
Is he actually going to be "The One"??? Gee, lemme think...
Is he actually dead, or will he come back with the aid of a girl yelling at him??? (bet you never saw that one before *cough* Abyss *cough*)
After the first half hour of very promising filmmaking, the first matrix turned into a completely obvious, philosophically simplistic pile of crap. Amazingly, the second one went down hill from there... big surprise that the third is worse.
I mean, where do you get off even *thinking* that there was actual suspense in the first matrix? Did you really not know what was going to happen?
I am sorry if this seems like flaming (and sorry 'bout all those ? marks), but really, I just don't get how people see the first Matrix and see good filmmaking. If Trinity had turned out to be "The One," that at least would have been interesting... but instead is was the same ol' shlep, pretending to be sci-fi.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that American Beauty is the best movie ever made, but I do have to chime in that you didn't really do it justice watching it on a 4" screen.
I don't really know where we've been sold the idea that content is just content and that the experience doesn't really matter. The difference between watching a great movie on a big screen and a small one is like the difference between hearing a symphony on an incredible stereo vs. a clock radio. The method does matter.
Yes, it's cold, fast, and heavy, and I'm sure there were pretty pictures, but could someone who actually got to the article mention how fast he got the thing going?
Thanks.
If you couldn't figure out something useful or exciting to do with a $10/lb. launch technology, then you really are as dumb as your post makes you sound.
Nanotech.
That, or the Singularity
That was so funny.
BTW, which is the archaic system of measurment? SI?
*Pressure* keeps the inside of the planet molten, not nuclear. Do you think there's a steady fusion/fission reaction going on down there?
Great, so we're in a situation so overpopulated that *everyone* should live like crap and feel the same - that they are expendable, are no better than any number of others at anything, and whose worth is no more than the cost of replacement...
This of course applies to everyone except those few who happen to be deemed "exceptional" in some way, either because they can monkey according to an arbitrary set of rules (sports) or because people find them most attractive (celebrity) or because they can be vicious and single-minded enough to screw everyone else over in favor of money.
Yay, that's the world I want to live in (maybe we already do)
Why would you lose enthusiasm for an OS because advocates of an operating system have *morals* and are expressing them?
It doesn't make sense. If the OS itself was somehow taking a moral stance that you didn't like, I could see it, but otherwise your reaction is totally illogical.
I sincerely hope his car works - I love the design, and the mpg claims are incredible (if suspicious)... but I have to say I'm afraid that he's just offering another delaying tactic...
I note that you, too, have retained an appropriate level of skepticism in your post - good show...
Not to mention that "personal sized" passenger airships could be incredibly useful (yeah, it was in some Hardy Boys or other).
Such airships are one of the few cases where the size to efficiency ratio might be good for a hybrid/solar or all-solar onboard power generator, which would make for killer range.
Solar or not, I can't figure out why someone hasn't started trying to market these - is it safety? If I were wealthy, I'd rather have one than a helicopter - it would be almost certainly safer, it would be quieter, and it would be just flat-out cooler to go drifting over a city or wilderness. What gives?
People are so scared of the geeks because of stupid sh!t like columbine (perpetrated by kids who weren't even very intelligent) that this is exactly what will happen, with the nerd getting slammed by anti-terrorism laws...
...if this decision is upheld in higher court.
Thanks, that gave me a great mental image of my (MS-based) IT department as a bunch of fruit bats poking at their mice...
it's pretty true actually.
Thanks for the reply - I did read the rest of your posts and I figured you were thinking of the well being of your kid. In fact, I know that I can't really talk because I don't have a kid and I don't know the feeling of wanting to give *anything* for a bit of peace (I'm sure I'll be there at some point though).
What I've realized is that I do believe in the value of silence. It gives people time to think for themselves, to be with their own thoughts, and it allows them to realize that those thoughts are often more worth thinking than the ones pushed on them by people trying to sell advertising. And I remember that, sure, I did my share of griping on car trips along with my brother, but I think it probably only amounted to 20-30 minutes out of an 8 hour drive. The time not spent in conversation (you're right, one can only converse so much), was spent fantasizing, looking, watching, thinking... and I wouldn't now give that time for anything.
I remember deserts and mountains I've seen out the car window, Volkswagon Beetles with out of state plates (if you've ever played that game you know), laughing at other drivers, wondering who those other people are... and all the rest. And I think part of it was because my parents were able to convey the fact that driving was enjoyable (most of the time). I think it's about showing your child the enjoyment to be found in the world, in themselves, and in their perception of it - and if it takes some time listening to the little guys bitch, then I think it's worth it.
Hey, remember when being uncomfortable was *part of* the car trip? Remember when you had to look out the window and watch the rest of the world go by?
I'm not trying to be an old curmudgeon (I'm only 26), but geez - isn't it *good* for kids to see some of the outside world rather than the media-populated faux-real blitz? For some kids, car trips are the only time they DO see the world outside of their local living area, and I think it's important somehow...
Car trips are a lesson in patience, they're a lesson in using one's imagination to entertain oneself, and they're a lesson in how a small group of people can *deal with* each other in a cramped space (for a measly few hours or days, no less!).
I *hate* that my niece gets "bored" all the time, when all she does is get stuck in front of a television. She has never learned to entertain herself, has forgotten the imagination that she had when she was too young for TV. I guess it just seems sad to me.
Umm... the load on power plants at night is drastically reduced - because all those houses don't use nearly as much as all those air-conditioned offices and industrial complexes. That's what peaker plants are for - they are turned on during the day when loads are highest... and solar is an ideal replacement.
Like the original poster, I don't think it makes sense to spend all the money on solar in space - it's just starting to get cost-effective on earth, and the price would go through the stratosphere (no pun intended) on the moon, even with the increase in efficiency that comes with a lack of atmosphere.
The point is that nowadays, even parking lots are constructed with a huge amount of night-lighting load, so that the full-time power plants aren't under loaded late at night. We need more solar during the day to keep us from using the more expensive, and wasteful, peaker plants.
I had never read that speech. Thank you.
It makes me sad, though, because it makes me realize one more time how much our current "leader" measures up. Will Bush's speeches ever be quoted in thirty years with any kind of reverence? I doubt it.
If there is any enduring historical significance to Bush's speeches, it will probably be because they were the signifiers of a self-righteous, ignorant, and greedy societal policy that was nearing its end...
How about interface for an application? I have done a lot of flash, and NONE of it was animation or intro-related. It was all coded and data driven, and I think it was absolutely the most effective data visualization tool I have seen.
Prototypes can be fast, going from the Illustrator design stage to functioning data-driven environments in weeks - these are apps that would take months to build in something like Java. And there are ways to view, process, and explore data that just can't be done with static graphics or with text.
Vector graphics are really useful, and just because the average flash "developer" is using the program to create fluff, or useless buttons and crap doesn't mean there is no worth to the program.
I agree with you about the CG in the 2nd film... but I think that's because every single scene escalates and ends *exactly like you think it will*. There is no shift during the scene, no sudden flip-flop (as there was in the first 10 minutes of the Matrix).
What repeatedly bummed me out so much as the Matrix progressed was the feeling of, "Oh, they're not going to do *that* old trick are they? Yup... yup... that's exactly what they're doing." It felt like they were always taking the most obvious route out of a situation, and for a movie that started out so smart, it was upsetting to me that it would then go for really generic hollywood moves.
Bound never does this. It keeps you rolling and twisting - that, and the suspense is almost all created visually, rather than through characters *telling* you something is dangerous. In Bound, or in a Hitchcock movie, you *see* that it is dangerous. The Matrix script is constantly resorting to stuff like, "Is he going to make it?" and, "Is he really The One?" to the point where it just makes me feel like the filmmakers treating their audience like morons.
I agree also that there's something to the coming of age story, the idea that we're rooting for a character to find out who they are... but I guess that's why I think it would have been such a great twist if Trinity had turned out to be The One instead of the more obvious (and more dull) Reeves.
C'est la vie. People like it. I guess I just don't think that the way the story is told in the Matrix ends up being very compelling.
Look, what I'm saying is this - to compare the kind of suspense in the Matrix to a Hitchcock movie is incredibly unfair.
In Psycho, for instance, the initial shock comes from the fact that the primary character, the one we've been shown that we should identify with, gets brutally killed. This was a revolution in filmmaking, and it leaves the audience hanging, not knowing what they are left with. The character they are forced to follow turns out to be two parts of a character that we've been set up to believe exist, but doesn't. There's suspense because we are unsure, because the whole film is set up to put us on edge.
Now admittedly, the Matrix is not shooting for terror or that kind of suspense, but what I was trying to say in my last post (I kind of flew off the handle there) was that the suspense in the Matrix is almost all lip service.
The characters in the movie tell us that maybe his isn't "The One," but did anyone for a second believe he might not be? Did you ever think he might really choose the blue pill (on that note, what kind of good philosophy is that simple?) Even though the characters in the movie think he might be dead, did you ever actually believe he wouldn't come back to life just like every other movie where that happens?
What amazes me about the Matrix is not that it followed the Joseph Campbell (lamely abridged by Joseph Vogler) structure, it was that it was so *obvious* at doing so. Check it, it's like chapter 8 in Vogler, we must question once again whether or not the character is going to make it - - - but that doesn't mean it has to be so *lame*.
I just think that they're two different orders of filmmaking, and though I could see a comparison of the brother's earlier film "Bound" with Hitchcock, it seems completely demeaning to do the same with the Matrix.
P.S. I agree that the first fifteen minutes of the Matrix were very good. In fact, I think that the *reason* the rest of the movie pisses me off so much is that it *could have been* so good, instead of falling into formula.
Thank you. Anyone who thinks there was any genuine innovation after the first half hour of the first matrix is just fooling themselves. It's not even good hard SF.
Too bad, really, I had some hopes after the first ten minutes of it actually being a good SF movie, with some innovation in the plot, rather than pat-you-on-the-head stupid philosophy and structure.
That's three years of production and post-production... it does NOT include preproduction (scripting, scouting, planning).
Very. Important.
SUSPENSE??? In the first one???
Which one is he going to take, the red pill or the blue pill???
Is he going to pass the test??? I'm not sure! I've never seen a movie before!
Is he actually going to be "The One"??? Gee, lemme think...
Is he actually dead, or will he come back with the aid of a girl yelling at him??? (bet you never saw that one before *cough* Abyss *cough*)
After the first half hour of very promising filmmaking, the first matrix turned into a completely obvious, philosophically simplistic pile of crap. Amazingly, the second one went down hill from there... big surprise that the third is worse.
I mean, where do you get off even *thinking* that there was actual suspense in the first matrix? Did you really not know what was going to happen?
I am sorry if this seems like flaming (and sorry 'bout all those ? marks), but really, I just don't get how people see the first Matrix and see good filmmaking. If Trinity had turned out to be "The One," that at least would have been interesting... but instead is was the same ol' shlep, pretending to be sci-fi.
NPR?
I think your parent poster's statement stands.
Unfortunately.
WTF? I really dislike bush (an understatement), but this is ridiculous - especially after someone pointed out the true quote.