We dont want Aragorn doubting if he wants to be king or not.
Guess what? The original non-doubting Aragorn is a static, almost development-free character for the majority of LOTR (everything after The Council, more or less). This can work in a novel, where you aren't constantly confronted by the presence of a static character. On film, however, a character's presence (and personality) becomes far more "concrete" due to the fact that we are seeing them constantly, even when they aren't necessarily doing much. The fact of this concrete presence creates the requirement for onscreen character development in any character with significant screen time (or haven't you noticed that Legolas is, frankly, kinda dull?).
This development could be handled in one of two ways: a) dive into flashbacks of Aragorn's youth based on the appendices, which doesn't entirely solve the fact that he becomes steadily less interesting in his "present time" scenes or b) transform his "Strider-Aragorn unveiling" from FOTR into an actual character arc. This second option makes for a more engaging film experience.
(Note: This is also why dialogue in a novel works well at longer lengths than onscreen dialogue - in the novel, we read the "essence" of the dialogue. In a visual medium, the dialogue is accompanied by every little motion of the actors and their environments, and so becomes "tiresome" more quickly.)
We dont want any more Dwarf-tossing jokes
I think that this is partially a matter of taste, and partially a technical issue. When put onscreen, the visual of a fighting, running dwarf is going to be somewhat humorous, no matter what one does (simply because he has to move his legs so much faster to keep up with the taller party members). I didn't mind seeing this inherent humor played up a bit (personal taste).
We dont want Faramir to be cruel and aloof.
Unfortunately, the original Faramir's character would become an on-screen liability. Faramir represents the second "Man of Gondor" encountered by the hobbits, and so must embody (in some ways) their struggle against Mordor (i.e. he needs to show the strain of battling against huge odds, and also continue the theme of temptation by the ring). While a "relaxed" characterization provides constrast to his brother Boromir (and ties into the concept of the Blood of Westernesse, etc.), the benefits of this contrast are outweighed by the audience confusion factor - i.e. if this guy is keeping it together, so maybe the ring isn't as temping as we thought...? Maybe Mordor isn't as big a threat...? These aren't issues that arise in the books, as Tolkien can pick and choose very precise language (and lots of it) to balance Faramir's goodness against the situation he's in. Onscreen, the visual impact of "nice guy Faramir" would overwhelm everything else, even if it was "explained away" in dialogue (always a mistake).
While Tolkien was able to make these potential conflicts clear in the books, filmic storytelling is generally not capable of "nuance on an epic scale"; I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a LOTR mini-series (with a much slower pace and structure) could gracefully translate Faramir's original character to the screen, but I don't see this working in (even a very long) movie.
We dont want any 10 minute long dreamy sequences of Liv Tyler...
All that flashback material is either straight out of, or implied by, material in the Appendices. I don't understand why people are complaining about getting more Tolkien onscreen than they probably expected - and amazingly enough (for Tolkien), with a female character!:)
The systems were in place, but they didn't communicate the problems effectively. That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11.
Unfortunately, the "PATRIOT" act, as manifested in actual legislation passed by Congress, actually does very little to address the actual problems which enabled 9/11 to happen, while providing a variety of windows for many different government agencies to abuse power without accountability.
While I have some symathy for your general remarks, the actual PATRIOT act is a poorly-reviewed (changes being made up to the last minute) rushed-into-the-law-books piece of legislation that shames even the "making law is like making sausage" school of thought. Very few of those who voted for it have strong knowledge of it's specifics, beyond the political expediency of passing it at that time. It's a faith-based initiative with poorly-defined goals and evern more poorly-defined processes, not an instruction manual.
Really, the thing is damn shame - noone disagrees with the goal of stopping terrorists, just the meanstaken to do so - and the Patirot act's means are frequently not accountable to even the legislators who approved them in the first place, let alone the general American citizenry. How can one oversee and improve something that one is not supposed to have any specific knowledge of?
A system of government fundamentally lacking accountability by the governed cannot insure it's working order; that's an element of truhth in Ben Franklin's argument which is true regardless of whether he's been dead for a minute, 200 years, or a thousand years.
Just a note that I'm hoping to see the BlackBoxVoting donation forms available soon - this is essential work that the/. community should actively support.
Also, extra thanks to Bev for her recent efforts to post notifications and address issues on this site; because of this I'll be purchasing a copy of her book. The publisher's iconogrpahy is unfortunate for promotion purposes, but ultimately irrelevant to the books' content.
I haven't read this book, but I'm fascinated by the moderation of the parent comment as "insightful"..."informative", perhaps... after all, it does confirm that the light nature of the writing style will turn off those who prefer dense technical writing... but it does so in a shallow manner that sheds no light on why such a writing style might be a bad thing. If anything, this post represents the opposite of insightful thinking.
While I may have a misunderstanding of Disney's market, I am under the impression that they primarily sell family entertainment, esp. movies for children.
Now, children's entertainment is a special category, in that kids watch movies OVER and OVER and OVER again - more often on VHS format than DVD, due to the relative durability of the former (though this may be changing). because of this, families tend to BUY disney movies (vs. renting); if they rent, it's to check something out before buying it.
Now what aspect of the above market does Disney hope to satisfy with downloadable movies? - these movies will have to be accessed on the computer (not as easy as VCR/VHS, let alone half as childproof) - these movies expires after 30 days (not as permanent - and kids will obsess over their shows for far longer than 30 days...) - the cost is $3-$5 dollars per download (cheaper than rental for the amount of time, but even considering an optimistic 1-hour download time, it's still going to be faster to drive to the store and back (for most US citizens) than to download - and (I believe) that there's still not much coverage for broadband in most rural areas... d) Also, for those who don't mind waiting (or lack broadband), Netflix (and its competitors) offer a similarly-priced, keep-as-long-as-you-feel rental system.
Now I realize that Disney is not just a kids' movie company, but I still don't see how this system makes much sense.
OTOH, I am pleasantly surprised to see (even this much) innovation from a company with such a draconian distribution history.
I won't contest that director's use the same visual idea over and over again; this is often considered a good practice, as it builds on the existing cinematic vocabulary understood by audiences.
Keep in mind that creativity with VFX does not necessarily result in effective storytelling; in many cases it makes far more sense to use a visual that is at least somewhat familiar to the viewer, so that he/she is not completely distracted from the film's storyline.
Any movie is a large collaborative effort; it's very easy for any of the subordinate collaborators to confuse prohibitions on self-indulgent personal exploration with frustrated artistic expression. If it doesn't best serve the project at hand, save it for personal projects and demo reels (which will be seen by, and inspire directors).
As for Jackson't story originality...
> If there really was one gram of creativity... Jackson would write an original script instead of adapting an existing work.
First off, Jackson/ Fran Walsh (writing partner) have written 5 original (and very unique) screeplays previously:
Bad Taste
Meet the Feebles
Braindead
Heavenly Creatures (based on actual events, but not a traditional docudrama at all)
Forgotten Silver
Frighteners
So it's disingenuous to claim that Jackson/Walsh lack originality.
Furthermore, in several interviews (of the 5 million done around the LOTR movies) Jackson has stated that he and Fran Walsh (writing partner) considered writing their own story when they decided that they wished to shoot a fantasy epic, but decided that what they should do instead was to adapt LOTR; why bother writing a pale imitation when the original source is available, and there's much new creative ground to plow in "only" adapting?
? Pardon me, I'm confused; what are you addressing?
I was making a joke regarding Lucas's screenwriting abilities (i.e. that I felt optimism based on a misreading of the headline as Lucas seeking screenwriters for Ep 3, thus implicitly acknowledging his writing deficiencies).
Apparently the original joke wasn't all that clear (though at least one mod. found it funny).
I'm not making fun, I'm genuinely wondering how you interpreted the original post.
While I might be "drinking the kool-aid" here, I think Maxivision does address these issues, at least in part...
1. The cost in terms of film is going to be exorbitant.
Only for films running 48fps; existing films (and most non-blockbuster films) can be displayed in 24fps using Maxivision on significantly less film stock. Maxivision theaters would probably occupy a middle ground btwn standard 35mm (ubiquitous) and IMAX (still rare outside of major markets). Given the predominance of multiplexes with 2 "grand" screens out of 10, I think that there's an applicable market already in existence.
2....That will require better-quality mechanical components inside the camera... & 3....the projector will have be built to higher mechanical standards...
According to one paper I read, Maxivision can be added to existing cameras and projectors via special add-ons; while there will be cost associated with these, there is the significant cost savings (in terms of equipment, and esp. time and training) in not replacing film-based materials, equip. and skills outright with DLP-based materials, equip. and skills.
Also, as far as costs go, the push towards DLP is on the studio/distributor end; the theater chains don't (yet?) have significant financial interest in replacing their film projectors with (more expensive) DLP projectors that (they correctly suspect) will likely need to be replaced within a few years (due to tech progression as much as anything else). While the studios have been hyping digital for several years, it hasn;t caught on in general yet.
The newest theater in Boston added a DLP projector for Star Wars:AOTC, but the same screening room also has a film projector.
4. general wear and tear on the film itself. It doesn't solve the issues of film breakage, scratches, etc.
Partially true, partially not. Yes, MV48 is based on film; however it's also designed to treat the film with significantly higher precision and care (the tech is based on silicon transfer), thus greatly decreasing the per-view damage suffered by the print.
I don't see MV48 as a perfect solution, but I do see it as a clear improvement for the viewer - DLP -based projection is simply not there yet (based on viewing SW:AOTC 1x on film, 2x on 2 different digital screens, and 1X on IMAX; so far, it looked best to me played on: DVD).
Thanks for taking the time for an interesting and thought-provoking reply; I work in non-profit R&D, so it's very interesting to see what's happening on the other end of the market spectrum.
Maxivision48 is an interesting (and cheaper than current 35mm, and even more so than DLP) solution for projecting current 35MM film stock "jitter-free" (while preserving the print from scratches, wear).
http://www.maxivision48.com/
The advanced version of this format (which doubles the frame rate and expands the frame size w/o doubling the costs of current 35mm productions) appears to be more promising than IMAX-formatting films not shot with that format in mind from the beginning (standard movies are formatted as a window on a world, while IMAX is a more immersive format).
I can't claim to have seen MV48 in action myself, but Roger Ebert consistently testifies that it as a visual improvement over both current 35mm film and DLP. I may disagree with his taste in film, but I trust him to be an authority on the visual quality of film/video/projection formats.
Something that concerns me about the model you describe (which could be primarily a matter of my reading, or something that you glossed over to focus on your main point, so please correct me if necessary).
It would appear that combative individualism is very ingrained into the coporate culture at MS - what about balancing behaviors, such as cooperation, constructive compromise, and reflection/reconsideration?
My concern is that the "be smart and kick ass" culture you describe seems destined to find locally optimal solutions (by imposing win-all/lose-all decisions on the work process), versus driving (groups) towards globally optimal solutions that may require both sides in an argument to acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, in order to work towards the actual better answer.
Another way to look at this is - how does MS deal with failure, a the individual/group/corporate level? In partic., are failures seen as something to build on, or are they left behind?
I'd be very interested to hear about the MS culture/process in relation to these questions.
Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)
I'm not going to dispute that guns have their uses; but to deny that they are inherently dangerous is to deny why they are useful. Sure, a squirt gun is useful as a toy, but this is not why guns are useful.
A non-dangerous gun is a contradiction in terms.
Some technology bears inherent dangers; what is important is being able to take the balance of usefulness to dangerousness.
Even if something falls far on the side of useful (vs. dangerous), denying that it is dangerous is the first step to falling victom to those dangers.
I'm glad someone campaigned for this; we've only got 9 months (+ the DVDs) left of major Tolkien news. and I want it properly labelled!
(At least, until some movie studios get on the ball and decide to produce the Hobbit; fortunately the logo will still be approp. for that. Also, some sad, sad part of me hopes that the BBC/PBS/Sci-Fi will someday adapt the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Lost Tales/etc. My delusions know few bounds.)
In any case, this icon is _long_ overdue, movies aside: I've long considered Tolkien to be an unsung geek patron saint, in terms of his indirect influence on geeks' interest in creating large, unreal, self-consistent worlds. Yes, I mean computers + programming, and as much as that'd probably horrify Tolkien, he showed how one person could do this sort of thing. (In his spare time even, so this very much applies to the hobbyist/open source programmer esthetic).
And yes, from this perspective the continuity errors in Middle Earth may be considered bugs. Now shut up and go name some variables after elven forests.
I respectfully very much disagree; I can't recall a good thing about it with the exception of a young Jessica Lange.
Peter Jackson is well known as a huge fan of the original Kong, as well as of Harryhausen's work in particular. The LOTR:FOTR cave troll was in many ways a homage to both Harryhausen and Kong.
For (many) filmmakers, remakes are accepted as a way to pay tribute. The "new production of an existing play" analogy applies if you accept the fact that movie screenplays are (with incredibly rare exceptions) never re-used.
This is Peter Jackson (and Fran Walsh, his unsung partner + wife); it's completely unlikely that they're going to produce a story/personality-free yawner like Godzilla (US 1998).
Could it suck? Sure. But I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see do it.
Thanks for addressing your personal reaction to the performance; it's interesting to hear the reactions of people with well-thought out concepts of this work.
On a side note, it's gratifying to communicate with someone involved in 3-D animation who is also concerned with the craft of performance at an abstract, theoretical level; I hope that this is becoming much more common in the profession. (I studied traditional/experimental animation in the early 90s and keep an interest in the field, but did not continue professionally. At the time it seemed rare to encounter technically able animators with any non-technical concerns.)
I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance,
Well, I am...
Uh, now I think that you're misinterpreting my (admittedly vague) statement; and I don't disagree that, as humans, we read human gestures more effectively than non-human gestures - this is one of the reasons that we anthropomorphize everything in sight). And I would be foolish to dispute the importance of body language, vocalization, etc.
What I meant to convey was that I don't pre-judge a performance based on the general physical appearance of the actor's character; rather, I judge based on what the actor does within the constraints of that appearance, and how effective these choices are.
A talking animal, irrespective of complexities of character, will never be as well appreciated apart from the novelty and wonder factor.
In terms of creating a sense of "pure realism", I am forced to agree; this has been called (in the contexts) the "dancing bear" effect, a term used to denigrate things that barely work at all, but do something so cool/new/neat that we put up with their failures.
However, many modes of performance exploit artifice to great effect - as an intentional artistic choice. And while I won't expect you to agree with this, I think that these modes of performance deserve recognition as well (and they do, though less so in more westernized cultures).
Getting back to the original focus of the discussion, I believe that Andy Serkis - supported by the WETA FX team - pushed CGI characterization to a new plateau with his performance. While the general visual appearance of Gollum was not 100% convincingly "photo-real", the performance (i.e. motion, vocalizations, and expressions) drew me in to the point that I was experiencing an emotional reaction to something that I knew wasn't real; in other words, a visceral response despite my knowledge that I'm "watching a film". This is what I look for in any performance, and in this case I got it.
I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance? Or am I wildly off-base?
I agree that we're discussing two different things; you see "human in appearance or indistinguishable human appearance" as a prerequisite for recognizing an performance as "acting", based on the fact that we are hardwired in ways that make us most attentive to the appearance of other humans.
I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance, and instead judge based on how effectively and appropriately the performer leverages his/her tools (personal and/or technical) to create a compelling characterization.
The Academy (an inconstant arbiter, but relevant to this discussion) falls somewhere inbetween our views; they nominated John Hurt for his work in "The Elephant Man", despite the fact that his apperance was completely hidden behind makeup, thus removing his ability to access normal human expressions whatsoever.
The day they create a perfectly photorealistic human actor, that day their behind-the-scenes thespians will be unique and critical in their contributions.
I admit that this goal is technically interesting; however, outside of safer stunt work and the recreation of historical figures, it seems to me a mostly empty excercise driven by hyped-up technical goals (or desire for god-like control on the director/producer's parts), rather than artistic potential.
The use of film to tell stories opens up possibilities to realize and share our dreams; holding up the emulation of reality as the gold standard for this medium fails to recognize this potential.
While I don;t expect to change your mind, thank you very much for your replies, I find your comments very interesting!
They'll subconsciously accept more fleshed out expressions from a painted/3D face than they will from a real human, even if a human face is capable of the same contours.
While your statement is certainly true in general, I don't believe that it applies in context; Serkis's performance wasn't just driving Gollum in a cartoon world, but driving Gollum interacting with human actors in real(istic) environments. This is signifcantly more complex and difficult goal. In interviews, Serkis discusses the task of working with the animators to define the correct balance between exaggerated animation and more human subtlety; this isn't something that he had some sort of "free ride" with.
Furthermore, you seem to be focused on a fairly narrow definition of acting/performance (based on naturalist/realist styles?). There are many very effective styles of performance that are not based on emulating everyday behavior (which varies culture/time->culture/time in any case). You may be interested to check out Japanese Noh or Kabuki theater traditions (a wonderful influence to Kurasowa's film "Throne of Blood").
In any case, you thankfully move away from the idea that "difficulty of performance" is the main arbiter of performance quality...
the expressions provided by Serkis wouldn't be as effective if we're seeing him in person
But you're not seeing him in person, you're seeing it in "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"; in that same context, you are also not seeing Ian McKellan's real nose, or Elijah Wood at his normal height, or Christopher Lee in his street clothes, or Viggo Mortenstern's usual manner of speech. Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism", vs. the performance's effective leveraging of the artifice of the film in which it takes place?
A further point being, any other competent actor could substitute for Gollum... Gollum's unique execution of expressions aren't so endearing that a different actor would do injustice to the character.
In my previous post I pointed out how Peter Jackson & the FX crew were so impressed by Serkis's imagination of the character that they changed their approach (which was originally for Serkis to only supply the voice). Like the performance or not (and you are free to go either way), Serkis was the driving force behind this performance of Gollum; we know this because they changed what they would've done to accomodate his vision. Just as an assistant director works to support the director's vision, the FX team worked to support Serkis's vision.
While it is possible that the testimony of the director and members of the visual FX team are lies and hype, I'd rather not be so cynical. Besides, this is the first "digital" performance that any film critic has bothered to take serious, positive note of, despite the fact that mo-cap animation has been used for years to enable CGI character animation.
You have every right to dislike Serkis's performance, whether based on taste or for philosophical reasons. However, it is unnecessary to deny that he was the driving force behind this performance (good or bad), or that he has provided the first "digital" performance noteworthy for artistic reasons, in order to do so.
I disagree; in an earlier post I assembled a long argument to this end, and was modded down. This time I'm just going to point to references, and let them argue for themselves.
Here's the side-by-side Osocar poster referenced by other posters of Serkis/Gollum, which gives the general flavor of the process for creating Gollum. (however, I think this does a poor job of showing how important Serkis's performance was to creating the character).
Here's an interview from the LOTR website regarding the process of developing and executing the character of Gollum; click the "Gollum Video" link for an excellent overview of how the Serkis->Gollum process was done; lots of side-by-side video demonstrates just how exactly the gollum performance is based on Serkis's performance. The video also includes testimoney from the FX team as to how important Andy's performance was to their work.
I have to disagree with you completely; there are facts disputing your assessment.
Andy Serkis's movements + facial expressions were motion captured as a basis for the CGI-generated Gollum (who had to be CGI, or at least animated, in order to accomodate the character's inhuman, unhealthy proportions and features).
Furthermore, the director and VFX staff are on record as saying that while the original plan was to only use Serkis's voice, they made the model _more_ like Serkis in order to better accomodate his facial expressions, and overhauled the production process to accomodate "mo-cap". This involved Serkis shooting each scene multiple times; once on set (w/ other actors), once in the mo-cap studio (to capture his bodily movements), and once in mo-cap "close-up" (to capture the nuances of his facial expressions/movements).
Oh yes, and he created multiple sets of motions/expressions (and voices!), each with a particular range, to provide for the Gollum/Smeagol character's multiple personalities.
It sounds to me like his performance made an complex, inhuman character compelling - in other words, he really brought this thing convincingly to life (which, one should note, has not been effectively done before), while pushing the production far beyond the original limits of where they thought that they could go.
I will not dispute that the animators were able to enhance his performance (especially in regards to inhuman movements, such as some of the climbing and jumping performed by the character). However, all of the evidence points to Serkis providing a true vision for the character, as well as the vast majority of the "raw material" for achieving that vision. Also, many animators are on record talking about how Serkis provided feedback throughout the post-production animation process.
You say:
Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces.
This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in - an actor who simply uses every expression they have available is not creating a performance; practicing, maybe, but not performing.
While VFX tools and processes have advanced very far (and create more choices for the animators), most professional animators (especially those on the 3D end of the industry) do _not_ have the acting training to pull off such a character (i.e. be able to consistently make the right choices as to how to use their animation tools to create a performance); now imagine spreading the challenge of maintaining the vision for such a character across (even a well-led) team.
I agree that the Gollum character has his cartoonish aspects; this does not reflect poorly on the performance, however - the character was drawn this way in the original book. Again, the fact that the character comes across as compelling and complex despite the sheer number of handicaps (repulsive appearance, unsympathetic actions, irritating behaviors) is additional proof of the value of Serkis's performance.
In any case, Serkis's work added to the final product _and_ demonstrated the importance of the actor to the process. While I'm not an academy member, this sounds to me like the sort of thing that the Academy should be rewarding.
For reference, check out http://www.lordoftherings.net for some nehind-the-scenes info (incl. QT movies) of the motion capture process. The 4-DVD special edition (yes, its rentable) also includes a long feature describing this process, as well.
Another interesting thing to consider in regards to misleading tech support call metrics: regardless of what this article says, MS's attitude towards software design seems (to me) to be: "if the software was deliberately made to work the way that the end user is complaining about, then the problem can't be a bug, but rather end user error".
This attitude foolishly moves a huge class of bugs (poor interaction design decisions) out of the class of "bug" and into the lower-priority class of "feature request", or worse "RTFM".
The reality is that for the majority of software "end-users", design and implementation bugs are often the same thing. Software design errors can and do cause as many problems as errors in the coded implementation of that design; while the dividing line between design failure and user error can seem pretty gray in comparison to coding errors, it's just as important to debug program design as it is to debug program code.
This is not to say that end users cannot make stupid errors when using software, but rather that software can include stupid design decisions. In one case, the user should RTFM; in the other, the software needs to be rethought.
Figuring out which case applies is the tricky part; I've certainly made the wrong decision in this regard on many, many occasions.
I would absolutely _love_ to go through the future-office part of the tour:
Gruver leads us down a darkened hallway of the office of the future while he sets the scene for the tour. I'm now an employee of Contoso, widget maker extraordinaire. To reinforce the point, Gruver motions to a computer display with several names listed on it, including my own. It's kind of scary. I have no idea how much a widget maker earns and I've got a family to support.
As we watch a video message from a fellow employee, dramatic lighting and sound effects punctuate a high-speed storyline of corporate intrigue.
Another ficticious firm, Fabricam, has announced the Widget Plus. It's better than the widget we have on the market and it could crush or financial dreams if we don't act fast.
I feel my hatred for Fabricam bubbling up. I must defeat them!
...
I get a message from another co-worker that Contoso's big cheese is slated to go on TV in two hours. He'd like to announce a new line of widgets too, one that's faster and cheaper than silly Fabricam's. We have such a widget in development but I'll have to find out if we have the facilities to speed up production so we can beat Fabricam to market.
...
Just when we've solved the problem, a helpful employee chimes in with a video message telling us they don't have the right robots to get the job done on time.
But wait, we've got enough time to sign contracts with other production facilities, with a few seconds left over to relay this info to our boss. A video window appears on the big screen. It's our boss on TV telling the world about our new line of better, cheaper widgets.
Whew! We sure showed those guys at Fabricam!
While the reporter certainly played up this aspect of the tour, the impression I get is that there's no aspect of MS's corporate culture that isn't touched by a hyper-competitive worldview. The fact that this shows up in the marketing of their "office of the future" would indicate that they feel this is something that anyone might identify with... which feels like a corporate-level unconscious manifestation, similar to automatic writing / free association.
(smile already, I'm only part-serious.)
What I can't decide whether this section of the tour is an amazing instance of idealized projection by MS's marketing staff, or an example of how a good marketing team can identify with situations completely unfamiliar to them (i.e. being genuinely threatened by a competitor).
(yes, that was sarcasm...)
Sure, I'm overstating the situation, and sure, their target audience for this tour is really high-level execs who - to some extent - are paid to view the world this way.
Still, it's a pretty sad when even in the magical future the CEO schedules press conferences without having a clue as to what he's going to say; maybe MS should look into building futuristic, non-stupid executives.
Oh well... here's hoping those fictional robots go on a fictional killing spree!
Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 2
Your objection makes much more sense to me than it did in your original post (which focused on the sense of betrayal more than on the reasons for this sense), thanks for the clarification.
I posted the following in another thread:
> Why did we need to turn Faramir in to an exact clone of his brother, Boromir...OK, so not a lot happens with them, that translates well to the screen
You just answered your own question; I can't imagine a worse way to undermine the drama of a debate between Faramir and Frodo than to cut between that and Helm's Deep; or a worse way to undermine the action of Helm's Deep, for that matter (the entmoot barely managed to balance out is leisurely pace with amazing visuals). The other choice would've to make the meeting so short as to seem superfluous, and Faramir an unrealistic goody-two-shoes.
So, while "goody-two-shoes" overstates the situation, I do think that the Faramir scenes as written by Tolkien would come across as a superfluous encounter (with little chance for the character of Faramir to demonstrate why he's earned your respect) without using more or less the entire dialogue(s) between Frodo and Faramir; unf., incorporating that into the movie would have destroyed the pacing, as the ent scenes threatened to do.
It's not a matter of it being bad material (far from it, I love those scenes int the books), it's a matter of them being unusable in the context of a visual translation of the material.
In addition, I see one of Jackson's (and Walsh and Boyens') aims with these films as showing humans _growing_ into their role as the masters of Middle Earth, versus already being as such (consider the treatment of both Aragorn and Theoden as struggling with what they must do). So, I'm confident that Faramir will become more respectable and sympathetic in ROTK (film) than he is in TTT (film).
So again, sorry to come across as so dismissive of your reaction, yet I had a very different experience with the film than you did. I hope that the next film (if you choose to see it) satisfies some of your concerns with Faramir (and know that I'll also be disappointed if he gets short shrift in ROTK).
my goal in using a dismissive tone in regards to the term "canon" was to point out the futility of maintaining pure fidelity to textual canon when translating (virtually any) text to another medium.
Apparently this wasn't clear, and came across as flamebait. Whoops...
Furthermore, because Nermal stated:
...I am not one of those "it differed from the book by a sentence and is therefore crap" people. But there are limits to how much one can change before such changes become audacious
and it matters whether or not the changes are improvements [emphasis added]...
Thus it was perfectly reasonable for me to rebut his points with reasons for why I thought that, in the context of translating the text to film, Jackson's major textual changes were improvements, or at least well-reasoned compromises, that were better choices for film than staying closer to the text. In some cases his points were based on innacurate or a lack of information, and I responded to those as well.
And in any case, since when does entertaining, well-written (if I may say so) flamebait _not_ get modded up on/. ?
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what? The original non-doubting Aragorn is a static, almost development-free character for the majority of LOTR (everything after The Council, more or less). This can work in a novel, where you aren't constantly confronted by the presence of a static character. On film, however, a character's presence (and personality) becomes far more "concrete" due to the fact that we are seeing them constantly, even when they aren't necessarily doing much. The fact of this concrete presence creates the requirement for onscreen character development in any character with significant screen time (or haven't you noticed that Legolas is, frankly, kinda dull?).
This development could be handled in one of two ways: a) dive into flashbacks of Aragorn's youth based on the appendices, which doesn't entirely solve the fact that he becomes steadily less interesting in his "present time" scenes or b) transform his "Strider-Aragorn unveiling" from FOTR into an actual character arc. This second option makes for a more engaging film experience.
(Note: This is also why dialogue in a novel works well at longer lengths than onscreen dialogue - in the novel, we read the "essence" of the dialogue. In a visual medium, the dialogue is accompanied by every little motion of the actors and their environments, and so becomes "tiresome" more quickly.)
I think that this is partially a matter of taste, and partially a technical issue. When put onscreen, the visual of a fighting, running dwarf is going to be somewhat humorous, no matter what one does (simply because he has to move his legs so much faster to keep up with the taller party members). I didn't mind seeing this inherent humor played up a bit (personal taste).
Unfortunately, the original Faramir's character would become an on-screen liability. Faramir represents the second "Man of Gondor" encountered by the hobbits, and so must embody (in some ways) their struggle against Mordor (i.e. he needs to show the strain of battling against huge odds, and also continue the theme of temptation by the ring). While a "relaxed" characterization provides constrast to his brother Boromir (and ties into the concept of the Blood of Westernesse, etc.), the benefits of this contrast are outweighed by the audience confusion factor - i.e. if this guy is keeping it together, so maybe the ring isn't as temping as we thought...? Maybe Mordor isn't as big a threat...? These aren't issues that arise in the books, as Tolkien can pick and choose very precise language (and lots of it) to balance Faramir's goodness against the situation he's in. Onscreen, the visual impact of "nice guy Faramir" would overwhelm everything else, even if it was "explained away" in dialogue (always a mistake).
While Tolkien was able to make these potential conflicts clear in the books, filmic storytelling is generally not capable of "nuance on an epic scale"; I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a LOTR mini-series (with a much slower pace and structure) could gracefully translate Faramir's original character to the screen, but I don't see this working in (even a very long) movie.
All that flashback material is either straight out of, or implied by, material in the Appendices. I don't understand why people are complaining about getting more Tolkien onscreen than they probably expected - and amazingly enough (for Tolkien), with a female character!
The systems were in place, but they didn't communicate the problems effectively. That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11.
Unfortunately, the "PATRIOT" act, as manifested in actual legislation passed by Congress, actually does very little to address the actual problems which enabled 9/11 to happen, while providing a variety of windows for many different government agencies to abuse power without accountability.
While I have some symathy for your general remarks, the actual PATRIOT act is a poorly-reviewed (changes being made up to the last minute) rushed-into-the-law-books piece of legislation that shames even the "making law is like making sausage" school of thought. Very few of those who voted for it have strong knowledge of it's specifics, beyond the political expediency of passing it at that time. It's a faith-based initiative with poorly-defined goals and evern more poorly-defined processes, not an instruction manual.
Really, the thing is damn shame - noone disagrees with the goal of stopping terrorists, just the meanstaken to do so - and the Patirot act's means are frequently not accountable to even the legislators who approved them in the first place, let alone the general American citizenry. How can one oversee and improve something that one is not supposed to have any specific knowledge of?
A system of government fundamentally lacking accountability by the governed cannot insure it's working order; that's an element of truhth in Ben Franklin's argument which is true regardless of whether he's been dead for a minute, 200 years, or a thousand years.
Just a note that I'm hoping to see the BlackBoxVoting donation forms available soon - this is essential work that the /. community should actively support.
Also, extra thanks to Bev for her recent efforts to post notifications and address issues on this site; because of this I'll be purchasing a copy of her book. The publisher's iconogrpahy is unfortunate for promotion purposes, but ultimately irrelevant to the books' content.
I haven't read this book, but I'm fascinated by the moderation of the parent comment as "insightful"..."informative", perhaps... after all, it does confirm that the light nature of the writing style will turn off those who prefer dense technical writing... but it does so in a shallow manner that sheds no light on why such a writing style might be a bad thing. If anything, this post represents the opposite of insightful thinking.
While I may have a misunderstanding of Disney's market, I am under the impression that they primarily sell family entertainment, esp. movies for children.
Now, children's entertainment is a special category, in that kids watch movies OVER and OVER and OVER again - more often on VHS format than DVD, due to the relative durability of the former (though this may be changing). because of this, families tend to BUY disney movies (vs. renting); if they rent, it's to check something out before buying it.
Now what aspect of the above market does Disney hope to satisfy with downloadable movies?
- these movies will have to be accessed on the computer (not as easy as VCR/VHS, let alone half as childproof)
- these movies expires after 30 days
(not as permanent - and kids will obsess over their shows for far longer than 30 days...)
- the cost is $3-$5 dollars per download (cheaper than rental for the amount of time, but even considering an optimistic 1-hour download time, it's still going to be faster to drive to the store and back (for most US citizens) than to download - and (I believe) that there's still not much coverage for broadband in most rural areas...
d) Also, for those who don't mind waiting (or lack broadband), Netflix (and its competitors) offer a similarly-priced, keep-as-long-as-you-feel rental system.
Now I realize that Disney is not just a kids' movie company, but I still don't see how this system makes much sense.
OTOH, I am pleasantly surprised to see (even this much) innovation from a company with such a draconian distribution history.
I won't contest that director's use the same visual idea over and over again; this is often considered a good practice, as it builds on the existing cinematic vocabulary understood by audiences.
Keep in mind that creativity with VFX does not necessarily result in effective storytelling; in many cases it makes far more sense to use a visual that is at least somewhat familiar to the viewer, so that he/she is not completely distracted from the film's storyline.
Any movie is a large collaborative effort; it's very easy for any of the subordinate collaborators to confuse prohibitions on self-indulgent personal exploration with frustrated artistic expression. If it doesn't best serve the project at hand, save it for personal projects and demo reels (which will be seen by, and inspire directors).
As for Jackson't story originality...
> If there really was one gram of creativity... Jackson would write an original script instead of adapting an existing work.
First off, Jackson/ Fran Walsh (writing partner) have written 5 original (and very unique) screeplays previously:
So it's disingenuous to claim that Jackson/Walsh lack originality.
Furthermore, in several interviews (of the 5 million done around the LOTR movies) Jackson has stated that he and Fran Walsh (writing partner) considered writing their own story when they decided that they wished to shoot a fantasy epic, but decided that what they should do instead was to adapt LOTR; why bother writing a pale imitation when the original source is available, and there's much new creative ground to plow in "only" adapting?
? Pardon me, I'm confused; what are you addressing?
I was making a joke regarding Lucas's screenwriting abilities (i.e. that I felt optimism based on a misreading of the headline as Lucas seeking screenwriters for Ep 3, thus implicitly acknowledging his writing deficiencies).
Apparently the original joke wasn't all that clear (though at least one mod. found it funny).
I'm not making fun, I'm genuinely wondering how you interpreted the original post.
...that so quickly vanished; I thought the headline was "Star Wars Screenwriters" Needed...
While I might be "drinking the kool-aid" here, I think Maxivision does address these issues, at least in part...
...That will require better-quality mechanical components inside the camera... ...the projector will have be built to higher mechanical standards...
1. The cost in terms of film is going to be exorbitant.
Only for films running 48fps; existing films (and most non-blockbuster films) can be displayed in 24fps using Maxivision on significantly less film stock. Maxivision theaters would probably occupy a middle ground btwn standard 35mm (ubiquitous) and IMAX (still rare outside of major markets). Given the predominance of multiplexes with 2 "grand" screens out of 10, I think that there's an applicable market already in existence.
2.
&
3.
According to one paper I read, Maxivision can be added to existing cameras and projectors via special add-ons; while there will be cost associated with these, there is the significant cost savings (in terms of equipment, and esp. time and training) in not replacing film-based materials, equip. and skills outright with DLP-based materials, equip. and skills.
Also, as far as costs go, the push towards DLP is on the studio/distributor end; the theater chains don't (yet?) have significant financial interest in replacing their film projectors with (more expensive) DLP projectors that (they correctly suspect) will likely need to be replaced within a few years (due to tech progression as much as anything else). While the studios have been hyping digital for several years, it hasn;t caught on in general yet.
The newest theater in Boston added a DLP projector for Star Wars:AOTC, but the same screening room also has a film projector.
4. general wear and tear on the film itself. It doesn't solve the issues of film breakage, scratches, etc.
Partially true, partially not. Yes, MV48 is based on film; however it's also designed to treat the film with significantly higher precision and care (the tech is based on silicon transfer), thus greatly decreasing the per-view damage suffered by the print.
I don't see MV48 as a perfect solution, but I do see it as a clear improvement for the viewer - DLP -based projection is simply not there yet (based on viewing SW:AOTC 1x on film, 2x on 2 different digital screens, and 1X on IMAX; so far, it looked best to me played on: DVD).
Thanks for taking the time for an interesting and thought-provoking reply; I work in non-profit R&D, so it's very interesting to see what's happening on the other end of the market spectrum.
Maxivision48 is an interesting (and cheaper than current 35mm, and even more so than DLP) solution for projecting current 35MM film stock "jitter-free" (while preserving the print from scratches, wear).
http://www.maxivision48.com/
The advanced version of this format (which doubles the frame rate and expands the frame size w/o doubling the costs of current 35mm productions) appears to be more promising than IMAX-formatting films not shot with that format in mind from the beginning (standard movies are formatted as a window on a world, while IMAX is a more immersive format).
I can't claim to have seen MV48 in action myself, but Roger Ebert consistently testifies that it as a visual improvement over both current 35mm film and DLP. I may disagree with his taste in film, but I trust him to be an authority on the visual quality of film/video/projection formats.
Something that concerns me about the model you describe (which could be primarily a matter of my reading, or something that you glossed over to focus on your main point, so please correct me if necessary).
It would appear that combative individualism is very ingrained into the coporate culture at MS - what about balancing behaviors, such as cooperation, constructive compromise, and reflection/reconsideration?
My concern is that the "be smart and kick ass" culture you describe seems destined to find locally optimal solutions (by imposing win-all/lose-all decisions on the work process), versus driving (groups) towards globally optimal solutions that may require both sides in an argument to acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, in order to work towards the actual better answer.
Another way to look at this is - how does MS deal with failure, a the individual/group/corporate level? In partic., are failures seen as something to build on, or are they left behind?
I'd be very interested to hear about the MS culture/process in relation to these questions.
I'm not going to dispute that guns have their uses; but to deny that they are inherently dangerous is to deny why they are useful. Sure, a squirt gun is useful as a toy, but this is not why guns are useful.
A non-dangerous gun is a contradiction in terms.
Some technology bears inherent dangers; what is important is being able to take the balance of usefulness to dangerousness.
Even if something falls far on the side of useful (vs. dangerous), denying that it is dangerous is the first step to falling victom to those dangers.
I'm glad someone campaigned for this; we've only got 9 months (+ the DVDs) left of major Tolkien news. and I want it properly labelled!
(At least, until some movie studios get on the ball and decide to produce the Hobbit; fortunately the logo will still be approp. for that. Also, some sad, sad part of me hopes that the BBC/PBS/Sci-Fi will someday adapt the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Lost Tales/etc. My delusions know few bounds.)
In any case, this icon is _long_ overdue, movies aside: I've long considered Tolkien to be an unsung geek patron saint, in terms of his indirect influence on geeks' interest in creating large, unreal, self-consistent worlds. Yes, I mean computers + programming, and as much as that'd probably horrify Tolkien, he showed how one person could do this sort of thing. (In his spare time even, so this very much applies to the hobbyist/open source programmer esthetic).
And yes, from this perspective the continuity errors in Middle Earth may be considered bugs. Now shut up and go name some variables after elven forests.
I respectfully very much disagree; I can't recall a good thing about it with the exception of a young Jessica Lange.
Could it suck? Sure. But I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see do it.
Thanks for addressing your personal reaction to the performance; it's interesting to hear the reactions of people with well-thought out concepts of this work.
On a side note, it's gratifying to communicate with someone involved in 3-D animation who is also concerned with the craft of performance at an abstract, theoretical level; I hope that this is becoming much more common in the profession. (I studied traditional/experimental animation in the early 90s and keep an interest in the field, but did not continue professionally. At the time it seemed rare to encounter technically able animators with any non-technical concerns.)
Uh, now I think that you're misinterpreting my (admittedly vague) statement; and I don't disagree that, as humans, we read human gestures more effectively than non-human gestures - this is one of the reasons that we anthropomorphize everything in sight). And I would be foolish to dispute the importance of body language, vocalization, etc.
What I meant to convey was that I don't pre-judge a performance based on the general physical appearance of the actor's character; rather, I judge based on what the actor does within the constraints of that appearance, and how effective these choices are.
In terms of creating a sense of "pure realism", I am forced to agree; this has been called (in the contexts) the "dancing bear" effect, a term used to denigrate things that barely work at all, but do something so cool/new/neat that we put up with their failures.
However, many modes of performance exploit artifice to great effect - as an intentional artistic choice. And while I won't expect you to agree with this, I think that these modes of performance deserve recognition as well (and they do, though less so in more westernized cultures).
Getting back to the original focus of the discussion, I believe that Andy Serkis - supported by the WETA FX team - pushed CGI characterization to a new plateau with his performance. While the general visual appearance of Gollum was not 100% convincingly "photo-real", the performance (i.e. motion, vocalizations, and expressions) drew me in to the point that I was experiencing an emotional reaction to something that I knew wasn't real; in other words, a visceral response despite my knowledge that I'm "watching a film". This is what I look for in any performance, and in this case I got it.
I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance? Or am I wildly off-base?
I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance, and instead judge based on how effectively and appropriately the performer leverages his/her tools (personal and/or technical) to create a compelling characterization.
The Academy (an inconstant arbiter, but relevant to this discussion) falls somewhere inbetween our views; they nominated John Hurt for his work in "The Elephant Man", despite the fact that his apperance was completely hidden behind makeup, thus removing his ability to access normal human expressions whatsoever.
I admit that this goal is technically interesting; however, outside of safer stunt work and the recreation of historical figures, it seems to me a mostly empty excercise driven by hyped-up technical goals (or desire for god-like control on the director/producer's parts), rather than artistic potential.
The use of film to tell stories opens up possibilities to realize and share our dreams; holding up the emulation of reality as the gold standard for this medium fails to recognize this potential.
While I don;t expect to change your mind, thank you very much for your replies, I find your comments very interesting!
While your statement is certainly true in general, I don't believe that it applies in context; Serkis's performance wasn't just driving Gollum in a cartoon world, but driving Gollum interacting with human actors in real(istic) environments. This is signifcantly more complex and difficult goal. In interviews, Serkis discusses the task of working with the animators to define the correct balance between exaggerated animation and more human subtlety; this isn't something that he had some sort of "free ride" with.
Furthermore, you seem to be focused on a fairly narrow definition of acting/performance (based on naturalist/realist styles?). There are many very effective styles of performance that are not based on emulating everyday behavior (which varies culture/time->culture/time in any case). You may be interested to check out Japanese Noh or Kabuki theater traditions (a wonderful influence to Kurasowa's film "Throne of Blood").
In any case, you thankfully move away from the idea that "difficulty of performance" is the main arbiter of performance quality...
But you're not seeing him in person, you're seeing it in "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"; in that same context, you are also not seeing Ian McKellan's real nose, or Elijah Wood at his normal height, or Christopher Lee in his street clothes, or Viggo Mortenstern's usual manner of speech. Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism", vs. the performance's effective leveraging of the artifice of the film in which it takes place?
In my previous post I pointed out how Peter Jackson & the FX crew were so impressed by Serkis's imagination of the character that they changed their approach (which was originally for Serkis to only supply the voice). Like the performance or not (and you are free to go either way), Serkis was the driving force behind this performance of Gollum; we know this because they changed what they would've done to accomodate his vision. Just as an assistant director works to support the director's vision, the FX team worked to support Serkis's vision.
While it is possible that the testimony of the director and members of the visual FX team are lies and hype, I'd rather not be so cynical. Besides, this is the first "digital" performance that any film critic has bothered to take serious, positive note of, despite the fact that mo-cap animation has been used for years to enable CGI character animation.
You have every right to dislike Serkis's performance, whether based on taste or for philosophical reasons. However, it is unnecessary to deny that he was the driving force behind this performance (good or bad), or that he has provided the first "digital" performance noteworthy for artistic reasons, in order to do so.
I disagree; in an earlier post I assembled a long argument to this end, and was modded down. This time I'm just going to point to references, and let them argue for themselves.
T wo_Towers/lotr10.html
t orial/becomegollum.html
Here's the side-by-side Osocar poster referenced by other posters of Serkis/Gollum, which gives the general flavor of the process for creating Gollum. (however, I think this does a poor job of showing how important Serkis's performance was to creating the character).
http://www.oscarwatch.100megs18.com/FYC/New_Line/
Here's an interview from the LOTR website regarding the process of developing and executing the character of Gollum; click the "Gollum Video" link for an excellent overview of how the Serkis->Gollum process was done; lots of side-by-side video demonstrates just how exactly the gollum performance is based on Serkis's performance. The video also includes testimoney from the FX team as to how important Andy's performance was to their work.
http://www.lordoftherings.net/film/exclusives/edi
Andy Serkis's movements + facial expressions were motion captured as a basis for the CGI-generated Gollum (who had to be CGI, or at least animated, in order to accomodate the character's inhuman, unhealthy proportions and features).
Furthermore, the director and VFX staff are on record as saying that while the original plan was to only use Serkis's voice, they made the model _more_ like Serkis in order to better accomodate his facial expressions, and overhauled the production process to accomodate "mo-cap". This involved Serkis shooting each scene multiple times; once on set (w/ other actors), once in the mo-cap studio (to capture his bodily movements), and once in mo-cap "close-up" (to capture the nuances of his facial expressions/movements).
Oh yes, and he created multiple sets of motions/expressions (and voices!), each with a particular range, to provide for the Gollum/Smeagol character's multiple personalities.
It sounds to me like his performance made an complex, inhuman character compelling - in other words, he really brought this thing convincingly to life (which, one should note, has not been effectively done before), while pushing the production far beyond the original limits of where they thought that they could go.
I will not dispute that the animators were able to enhance his performance (especially in regards to inhuman movements, such as some of the climbing and jumping performed by the character). However, all of the evidence points to Serkis providing a true vision for the character, as well as the vast majority of the "raw material" for achieving that vision. Also, many animators are on record talking about how Serkis provided feedback throughout the post-production animation process.
You say:
This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in - an actor who simply uses every expression they have available is not creating a performance; practicing, maybe, but not performing.
While VFX tools and processes have advanced very far (and create more choices for the animators), most professional animators (especially those on the 3D end of the industry) do _not_ have the acting training to pull off such a character (i.e. be able to consistently make the right choices as to how to use their animation tools to create a performance); now imagine spreading the challenge of maintaining the vision for such a character across (even a well-led) team.
I agree that the Gollum character has his cartoonish aspects; this does not reflect poorly on the performance, however - the character was drawn this way in the original book. Again, the fact that the character comes across as compelling and complex despite the sheer number of handicaps (repulsive appearance, unsympathetic actions, irritating behaviors) is additional proof of the value of Serkis's performance.
In any case, Serkis's work added to the final product _and_ demonstrated the importance of the actor to the process. While I'm not an academy member, this sounds to me like the sort of thing that the Academy should be rewarding.
For reference, check out http://www.lordoftherings.net for some nehind-the-scenes info (incl. QT movies) of the motion capture process. The 4-DVD special edition (yes, its rentable) also includes a long feature describing this process, as well.
Another interesting thing to consider in regards to misleading tech support call metrics: regardless of what this article says, MS's attitude towards software design seems (to me) to be: "if the software was deliberately made to work the way that the end user is complaining about, then the problem can't be a bug, but rather end user error".
This attitude foolishly moves a huge class of bugs (poor interaction design decisions) out of the class of "bug" and into the lower-priority class of "feature request", or worse "RTFM".
The reality is that for the majority of software "end-users", design and implementation bugs are often the same thing. Software design errors can and do cause as many problems as errors in the coded implementation of that design; while the dividing line between design failure and user error can seem pretty gray in comparison to coding errors, it's just as important to debug program design as it is to debug program code.
This is not to say that end users cannot make stupid errors when using software, but rather that software can include stupid design decisions. In one case, the user should RTFM; in the other, the software needs to be rethought.
Figuring out which case applies is the tricky part; I've certainly made the wrong decision in this regard on many, many occasions.
While the reporter certainly played up this aspect of the tour, the impression I get is that there's no aspect of MS's corporate culture that isn't touched by a hyper-competitive worldview. The fact that this shows up in the marketing of their "office of the future" would indicate that they feel this is something that anyone might identify with... which feels like a corporate-level unconscious manifestation, similar to automatic writing / free association.
(smile already, I'm only part-serious.)
What I can't decide whether this section of the tour is an amazing instance of idealized projection by MS's marketing staff, or an example of how a good marketing team can identify with situations completely unfamiliar to them (i.e. being genuinely threatened by a competitor).
(yes, that was sarcasm...)
Sure, I'm overstating the situation, and sure, their target audience for this tour is really high-level execs who - to some extent - are paid to view the world this way.
Still, it's a pretty sad when even in the magical future the CEO schedules press conferences without having a clue as to what he's going to say; maybe MS should look into building futuristic, non-stupid executives.
Oh well... here's hoping those fictional robots go on a fictional killing spree!
I posted the following in another thread:
So, while "goody-two-shoes" overstates the situation, I do think that the Faramir scenes as written by Tolkien would come across as a superfluous encounter (with little chance for the character of Faramir to demonstrate why he's earned your respect) without using more or less the entire dialogue(s) between Frodo and Faramir; unf., incorporating that into the movie would have destroyed the pacing, as the ent scenes threatened to do.
It's not a matter of it being bad material (far from it, I love those scenes int the books), it's a matter of them being unusable in the context of a visual translation of the material.
In addition, I see one of Jackson's (and Walsh and Boyens') aims with these films as showing humans _growing_ into their role as the masters of Middle Earth, versus already being as such (consider the treatment of both Aragorn and Theoden as struggling with what they must do). So, I'm confident that Faramir will become more respectable and sympathetic in ROTK (film) than he is in TTT (film).
So again, sorry to come across as so dismissive of your reaction, yet I had a very different experience with the film than you did. I hope that the next film (if you choose to see it) satisfies some of your concerns with Faramir (and know that I'll also be disappointed if he gets short shrift in ROTK).
Furthermore, because Nermal stated:
Thus it was perfectly reasonable for me to rebut his points with reasons for why I thought that, in the context of translating the text to film, Jackson's major textual changes were improvements, or at least well-reasoned compromises, that were better choices for film than staying closer to the text. In some cases his points were based on innacurate or a lack of information, and I responded to those as well.
And in any case, since when does entertaining, well-written (if I may say so) flamebait _not_ get modded up on