Even a phone is better ergonomically than a 10" fondleslab.
Fondleslab? Oh, god, that's brilliant. It almost sounds like faux-German. Bravo, sir.
However, I own a 1st gen iPad, and I also own a good quality DSLR plus a small digital point-and-shoot -- for me, I can't imagine why anybody would *want* a camera in that device, but someone must because it's one of the things I see people bitching about the most. Then again, my cell phone is used only for, well, phone calls... and even then, not very often.
The device may not be what you want, but for the stuff I use it for, I actually find it to fit my needs quite well.
I'm interested in seeing the gen-2, but except for the dual processors there's very little in there I find overly compelling. And, even the dual processor isn't something which I particularly care about.
Even with great scripts, I doubt the production design would be up to much. Never before and never since had a I seen a sci-fi universe brought to life with such confidence, style and scope
I couldn't agree with you more on this... the visuals and overall grittiness of the world absolutely rocked and I'm hard-pressed to think of something which is even close.
I may need to re-watch my copy of this, it's been a while, and I've forgotten just how awesome it was.
The formula for making a 'successful' Hollywood movie is pretty generic. It doesn't matter if Sci fi fans don't like it. It only has to appeal to the masses to be a financial success. Pure sci-fi represents less of a market. Stick to reading novels.
Oh, I get that part, and Hollywood is in the business of making money after all, so they're gonna stick with what works. Or at least, what their focus group says works or worked for someone else.
But, if it's not geeky enough for the people who knew what it was, and if it's too geeky for everybody else, you can fall into that middle range where nobody wants to see it.
I know there was a movie within the last few years which did exactly that,and failed miserably. But, I've been wracking my brain and I can't remember which movie it is that I'm thinking of. Basically, the fans hated it, and the rest of the people didn't get it/like it -- so, they alienated everybody.
What are you talking about? Have you ever actually been to a movie?
No, I live in a cave without electricity or the internet and I am not aware of what happens in pop-culture. In fact, I'm not writing this now, this is purely a manifestation of your own angst.
Ninety percent of all movies are complete and total crap. Yet, they still sell billions of dollars worth of tickets every year.
Yes, I blame actors like Will Farrell, Ben Stiller, and Steve Carell for that. And the people who watch the movies, of course.
They'll have a pointless and derivitive screen play that has a big special effects budgets and fighting robots and glittery vampire replicants that do slow-motion karate agaist the werewolf cyborgs, and the CGI landscapes will be dull and artless.
Oh, man, now I'm gonna have to watch it. Is there a plucky side-kick and a moment of Great Personal Change (TM) for either the protagonist or an anti-hero? How about a love interest and a tragic backstory? Throw in a purely CGI character for comic relief, some henchmen, and I'm there, man.
Wow, ending every paragraph with "Yet, they still sell billions of dollars worth of tickets every year." makes you sound awfully clever. You're so awesome!
I say someone just grabs Chow Yun-Fat, gives him a bunch of guns, ten or twenty thousand rounds of ammo, and just shoot the longest running gun-battle in film history. If you're going to be shameless, do it large, and with an actor who can pull it off without blinking or flinching when he shoots the gun. Oh, and show me Mila Jovovich's tits.
I think they expect the people who didn't watch the original, but have heard of it to go see their generic, Sci-Fi action piece, with a whole bunch of explosions and shit. And there's a huge audience for mindless crap in the theatres, especially mindless crap with some sort of name recognition.
Yeah, but that can backfire on them... if they manage to annoy the fans, and confuse the rest of the people, they end up with a movie that neither group will watch.
Are Hollywood writers so creatively bankrupt that they have to leach off of a great movie from the past.
Of course they are, have been for quite some time now. That, and the companies that make movies have decided there's no point in trying to make something new/original/good... they'll just follow the Disney model of cranking out an endless series of sequels, prequels and remakes until everybody throws up their hands in disgust. They just take a story and run it into the ground.
Just come up with some new and interesting ideas for a change. Is that too much to ask ?
Likely, yes. And, I fear that if they did come up with something new and interesting, people wouldn't watch it since it was so far from what they want to see. Though, I'm skeptical they could actually come up with something new and interesting.
There are actors who basically get paid loads of money to repeatedly make what is essentially the exact same lousy movie -- change a few details, but essentially unleash the same zaniness as the last several movies, stick with what worked, and wait for the rubes to line up for tickets.
The sad thing is, these are the movies people go to see. Otherwise, they'd have stopped it by now.
I'll give you nightmares: imagine if they get George Lucas to do these.
Then we'll all know up-front not to watch it.
And, seriously, except for re-hashing Star Wars, has Lucas actually been directly involved in making anything lately? IMDB shows his producer credits as mostly related to Star Wars/Indiana Jones re-hashes.
Thankfully, as a film-maker, Lucas seems to be more or less done doing anything besides collecting royalties.
Sequels and Prequels of Blade Runner, and Ridley Scott may or may not be involved???
So, they're going to make generic sci-fi movies that loosely relate to Blade Runner, and that none of the fans of the original will care about seeing... and people who didn't like/didn't see the original won't care about seeing.
Who do they expect to be watching this? They better have damned good screen plays for this, or they're throwing money down a hole trying to capitalize on the legacy of a good movie only to find out they don't have an audience.
This has all the potential to become a complete flop. I'll stick with my director's cut of the original unless I hear some really compelling reasons that this isn't going to be crap.
...of course, Tarkin did wind up ordering a genocide. So, maybe we should be seeking a somewhat different strategy than the one Leah tried...
Well, if you wanted to run Linux on your Playstation, Sony has already done the equivalent by disabling that. Sadly, Sony increasingly acts like the empire in that regards -- it's their toy, and you can only play with it the way they say you can.
And, really, no matter what strategy Leah chose, they were going to blow it up anyway just because they hadn't fired it yet and it would be fun. Had she given in, the planet will still have been destroyed, and the rebels would have been compromised.
Normal helium can leak out of a seamless glass sphere
Really? What, it just seeps out through the actual glass? Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?
I continue to be awed by all of the wacky shit that is apparently everyday physics.
It's not a commonly known grammar fact, but it is an important one.
Sadly, some of us know this, but apparently even grammar experts seem to think it doesn't apply anymore. I actually disagreed out loud to my copy of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves when she said to not do it that way.
Given how thoroughly drilled into my be rather stern old teachers, I still cringe when I see it used wrong.
When expanding beyond three dimensions, you have to prefix the word "hyper" onto all objects.So you would add "hyper-lettuce," "hyper-tomato," and "hyper-cheese." Or if you really want to be exact, "six-dimensional hyper-lettuce," etc.
Six-dimensional hyper-ham... I know people who would weep tears of joy at those words.
Slashdot Mirror
Fondleslab? Oh, god, that's brilliant. It almost sounds like faux-German. Bravo, sir.
However, I own a 1st gen iPad, and I also own a good quality DSLR plus a small digital point-and-shoot -- for me, I can't imagine why anybody would *want* a camera in that device, but someone must because it's one of the things I see people bitching about the most. Then again, my cell phone is used only for, well, phone calls ... and even then, not very often.
The device may not be what you want, but for the stuff I use it for, I actually find it to fit my needs quite well.
I'm interested in seeing the gen-2, but except for the dual processors there's very little in there I find overly compelling. And, even the dual processor isn't something which I particularly care about.
I couldn't agree with you more on this ... the visuals and overall grittiness of the world absolutely rocked and I'm hard-pressed to think of something which is even close.
I may need to re-watch my copy of this, it's been a while, and I've forgotten just how awesome it was.
Oh, I get that part, and Hollywood is in the business of making money after all, so they're gonna stick with what works. Or at least, what their focus group says works or worked for someone else.
But, if it's not geeky enough for the people who knew what it was, and if it's too geeky for everybody else, you can fall into that middle range where nobody wants to see it.
I know there was a movie within the last few years which did exactly that,and failed miserably. But, I've been wracking my brain and I can't remember which movie it is that I'm thinking of. Basically, the fans hated it, and the rest of the people didn't get it/like it -- so, they alienated everybody.
'Real' engineers won't be deterred by a custom screw head.
It was designed by an engineer, it's not like it's alien technology we couldn't even begin to figure out how to get into.
No, I live in a cave without electricity or the internet and I am not aware of what happens in pop-culture. In fact, I'm not writing this now, this is purely a manifestation of your own angst.
Yes, I blame actors like Will Farrell, Ben Stiller, and Steve Carell for that. And the people who watch the movies, of course.
Oh, man, now I'm gonna have to watch it. Is there a plucky side-kick and a moment of Great Personal Change (TM) for either the protagonist or an anti-hero? How about a love interest and a tragic backstory? Throw in a purely CGI character for comic relief, some henchmen, and I'm there, man.
Wow, ending every paragraph with "Yet, they still sell billions of dollars worth of tickets every year." makes you sound awfully clever. You're so awesome!
I say someone just grabs Chow Yun-Fat, gives him a bunch of guns, ten or twenty thousand rounds of ammo, and just shoot the longest running gun-battle in film history. If you're going to be shameless, do it large, and with an actor who can pull it off without blinking or flinching when he shoots the gun. Oh, and show me Mila Jovovich's tits.
Actually, I'm not sure Ridley Scott would be much of a help ... apparently, he's busy making prequels to Alien, in 3D no less.
I'd like them to not suck, but I fear they might. :(
No, but it's a good start. ;-)
Ah, an entire series of movies I can say quite happily that I have never seen.
After the original, nothing could have possibly compared. There can be only one.
Yeah, but that can backfire on them ... if they manage to annoy the fans, and confuse the rest of the people, they end up with a movie that neither group will watch.
I predict this to be the more likely outcome.
Of course they are, have been for quite some time now. That, and the companies that make movies have decided there's no point in trying to make something new/original/good ... they'll just follow the Disney model of cranking out an endless series of sequels, prequels and remakes until everybody throws up their hands in disgust. They just take a story and run it into the ground.
Likely, yes. And, I fear that if they did come up with something new and interesting, people wouldn't watch it since it was so far from what they want to see. Though, I'm skeptical they could actually come up with something new and interesting.
There are actors who basically get paid loads of money to repeatedly make what is essentially the exact same lousy movie -- change a few details, but essentially unleash the same zaniness as the last several movies, stick with what worked, and wait for the rubes to line up for tickets.
The sad thing is, these are the movies people go to see. Otherwise, they'd have stopped it by now.
Then we'll all know up-front not to watch it.
And, seriously, except for re-hashing Star Wars, has Lucas actually been directly involved in making anything lately? IMDB shows his producer credits as mostly related to Star Wars/Indiana Jones re-hashes.
Thankfully, as a film-maker, Lucas seems to be more or less done doing anything besides collecting royalties.
Sequels and Prequels of Blade Runner, and Ridley Scott may or may not be involved???
So, they're going to make generic sci-fi movies that loosely relate to Blade Runner, and that none of the fans of the original will care about seeing ... and people who didn't like/didn't see the original won't care about seeing.
Who do they expect to be watching this? They better have damned good screen plays for this, or they're throwing money down a hole trying to capitalize on the legacy of a good movie only to find out they don't have an audience.
This has all the potential to become a complete flop. I'll stick with my director's cut of the original unless I hear some really compelling reasons that this isn't going to be crap.
Well, GNU stands for Gnu's Not UNIX
I'm pretty sure a ballistic trajectory isn't technically "flying". :-P
Well, if you wanted to run Linux on your Playstation, Sony has already done the equivalent by disabling that. Sadly, Sony increasingly acts like the empire in that regards -- it's their toy, and you can only play with it the way they say you can.
And, really, no matter what strategy Leah chose, they were going to blow it up anyway just because they hadn't fired it yet and it would be fun. Had she given in, the planet will still have been destroyed, and the rebels would have been compromised.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Sorry, but I think that might open up a rift in the pork-time continuum.
Not hard enough apparently ... besides, it would have to be an Astroglide joke in this context.
Really? What, it just seeps out through the actual glass? Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?
I continue to be awed by all of the wacky shit that is apparently everyday physics.
Dude, it's astrophysics ... to the layman, it all sounds like it's a stretch.
I'm told the cosmologists are even more vague (with apologies to any cosmologists ;-)
And, if you all go for the hot blond, get shot down, and then go for her friends ... they'll all know they were second choices and be unhappy about it.
Pretty much what the poster meant when he said the Nash theorem.
Wow, that just gives "Jane! Get me off this crazy thing! " an entirely new meaning.
That's just so wrong. Now I feel dirty.
That's not alcohol ... that's something out of a Hunter S. Thompson novel. :-P
Sadly, some of us know this, but apparently even grammar experts seem to think it doesn't apply anymore. I actually disagreed out loud to my copy of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves when she said to not do it that way.
Given how thoroughly drilled into my be rather stern old teachers, I still cringe when I see it used wrong.
Six-dimensional hyper-ham ... I know people who would weep tears of joy at those words.