Books are better than movies when you are talking about the Lord of the Rings. The books are the genuine article. The films are a poor approximation of something a lot more powerful than them,
Thank you aweraw, for your reasoned and well argued criticism of the film. We could use more literacy around here.
I agree with you about the effects of continuity in the sequels.
I was well-pleased by the third film. I think that the primary dissatisfaction that people have is a reaction to hype. I heard that this was a terrible movie days before it was even released, when only jaded reviewers had seen it, people who love to hate things that are expected to be good. Hearing how bad it was, it is hard for people to shake their expectation of being pissed off at the outcome. I think that most people simply went in ready to hate it, and never stopped to actually digest the film. I especially think this of people whose primary argument is "No! ITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCK..." If you haven't put any thought into it, your opinion is worthless or worse: You clutter the headspace for people who are trying to think. Anyway, thanks again for using your words.
Mythic films are meant to be read allegorically. The whole point of The Hero as a plot element is that he can't be defeated. It is outside of his power to lose in the long run. If he lost, he wouldn't be the hero. Look at the pattern: Hulk, John Wayne, Superman, Neo, Spiderman, James Bond, many others. Heroes win. That is their power, by whatever specific explanation. Today we are asked to believe that every single cop on the street or every fireman or soldier is a hero. They aren't. Real people aren't heroes. Real people are people, and should not be mythologized. Myths, on the other hand, lose their value when we read them as we would real life. This is a major problem for our culture; the substitution of fantasy for reality. Each has its value, but should not be confused with the other. Read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces". It is a great work on reading myths of all ages.
I was really diassapointed with Peter Jackson's decision to change Faramir. The entire signifigance of Faramir in the book is that he is not Boromir. Where Boromir is unable to resist the pull of the ring, Faramir is unwilling to even consider taking the ring. "Not if I found this thing on the road would I take it up." Instead, his character is rolled in with every other power-grabber in the film, negating his only signifigant characterization in the narrative. He becomes irrelevant. There are too many important deviations to really go into, but the other one is the idea of Arwen giving Aragorn his sword. The whole trilogy is distorted by having a woman deliver Aragorn's power to him. He should have left Rivendell with it reforged, and should have been fighting with it all the way through the Trilogy, as in the books. Essentially, Arwen delivers Aragorn's manhood to him, when the whole point of the broken sword is his choice to eventuallu face his destiny and take his masculine role for himself. There was no need to change what they did, relating to the sword, other than to make women central to a narrative that is really intended to be about men, and not about women. Tolkien clearly did not intend Arwen to have control over Aragorn's masculinity.
The problem that was experienced with Revolutions is viewers who are unable to watch film critically. Revolutions was an excellent film, as was Hulk, and many others that people of low patience and poor education have hated, simply because they were unable to understand them. People who hated these films are simply not literate. Those who cannot read are prone to hating books. It is no different with film.
It is myth, with some sci-fi trappings. Star Wars is space opera. Matrix is myth and psychology. Star Trek isn't even sci fi, IMHO. It's space melodrama and morality play. Science fiction is different from these. It includes plausible extensions of technology and theoretical boundaries, and hopefully an interesting plot about people dealing with their changing world. Aliens is sci-fi, but only fails to be guilty of bad science because it doesn't bother to explain every detail. If they had tried to tell us why the Sulaco was able to make the journey to LV 426, it would have quickly gotten stupid. 2001 is sci-fi, as is A.I., as is Contact. Hulk is not sci-fi, although it does contain bad science. And yet it was a very good movie, I think.
I can see why some people didn't get the movie, or weren't into it, but it was very good. The effects were good, the plotline was great, the character development was great, the action scenes were inspiring. I am really glad that IM is being used to get the word out on films that are not worth seeing. I think that it is a great step forward for popular entertainment to know not to go see a bomb.But it is too bad that people are so lost when it comes to parsing the simplest, most straightforward of plots. The problem is that we may not get more quality film due to this ability to get early reviews from non-media sources. Instead, we may get more formulaic plots, designed to please the twitch-viewer crowd-leaders that go to the theaters before everyone else.
These laws apply to you only if you submit to them, whether you democratically voted for them or not. You vote for these laws each time that you obey them, helping to create a system of submission favoring the idea of that particular form of control.
People do not usually come to a complete stop at stop signs, particularly when they can see that nothing is coming. This is because people have realized that in general they will not be caught for only slowing, and that there is a limited increase in hazard when creeping a stop sign. This creates an environment in which it becomes essentially legal to run stop signs, in that there is little fear of that particular law.
It is less legal to run stop lights, although they are covered by the same law, because there has been more enforcement, and because safety dictates that more caution be used at those intersections with lights. But whether those laws pertain to you in a given instance depends entirely on whether you obey and whether a gunman is present to enforce his will on you.
Bill Gates is attempting to propagate the perception that OSS is breaking the law. That this is immoral, innacurate or irrelevant is not likely to be important to him in his situation. He and SCO are writing future laws into the perceptions of ill-informed politicians and citizens.
These laws apply to you only if you submit to them, whether you democratically voted for them or not. You vote for these laws each time that you obey them, helping to create a system of submission favoring the idea of that particular form of control.
People do not usually come to a complete stop at stop signs, particularly when they can see that nothing is coming. This is because people have realized that in general they will not be caught for only slowing, and that there is a limited increase in hazard when creeping a stop sign. This creates an environment in which it becomes essentially legal to run stop signs, in that there is little fear of that particular law.
It is less legal to run stop lights, although they are covered by the same law, because there has been more enforcement, and because safety dictates that more caution be used at those intersections with lights. But whether those laws pertain to you in a given instance depends entirely on whether you obey and whether a gunman is present to enforce his will on you.
Bill Gates is attempting to propagate the perception that OSS is breaking the law. That this is immoral, innacurate or irrelevant is not likely to be important to him in his situation. He and SCO are writing future laws into the perceptions of ill-informed politicians and citizens.
A friend's old Powerbook (500 series) became a hive. They didn't know it, but all of the ants that had been infesting their kitchen were roosting in their laptop set up on the kitchen counter. When the machine finally died from the generations of life that had lived in their machine, they had another friend open it up and discovered that it was packed full of ant-hive. The ants themselves had moved on by the time they had the machine looked at, as it had been turned off since it began to malfunction.
Further, I myself have a power supply for my speaker system that from time to time becomes infested with the tenacious little bastards. This thing is packed with them, I tell you. To get rid of them, I always just unplug the power supply for a few days.
Watch and see if we ever get back a right that we lose. I doubt it, personally. I am willing to wait through longer lines and whatnot to get through enhanced airport security, but I am not happy at the concept that every minute of my life may be scrutinized. But hey, they say that if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear...
Exactly. Nobody does jack shit in whatever office they are working, at least not very much compared to the amount of time they spend there. I seriously doubt if there is much difference from the productivity standpoint.
If RAM buffering is upheld as a violation of the DMCA, then that will make most people criminals, wil it not? Very convenient way to simply arrest anyone whom you consider to be a threat. Very convenient.
I like suits. They are a lot of fun to play dress up and feel important for a day. But you are not actually smarter in a suit. Likewise for any type of clothing. Also, I need not show respect for my company. I give them work instead, off of which they make a lot more money than they give me. In return they give me some of the money that I have earned for them. Clothes have nothing to do with it, and if they did, I would find someplace else to work where management is smarter than that.
You should consider how you would have felt to have this perpetrated on you. I have been under that yoke, and I did not take it lightly. Consider how you would feel right now if an authority were to do this to you... But then, we won't have to wait long for you to have firsthand experience; due to attitudes like yours, we can all experience it firsthand in another ten years.
You may have the right legally, but you do not have that right ethically, IMHO. Let me point something out to you: You will make your child hate you with this. I know well of what I speak. In my childhood, I was at one point forced due to parental instability to live with my grandmother, who until that point had always been a kindly old lady to me, and I loved her for it. However, the reason that I had to live there is that my mother had fallen into drugs and had been put in prison. My grandmother feared the same for me, and so tenaciously and aggressively tracked my whereabouts via the phone all day for the entire time that I lived with her. By the time I went back to live with my mother (which my grandmother tried very hard to keep from heppening), I hated fiercely that old lady and would have liked nothing more than to see her dead. I still have not gotten over that, and I believe that it has much to do with my personal insecurities, and I know that it was the driving factor in my withdrawal from school. In later speaking with my mother, I discovered that the same methods were employed with her as a girl.
I would like to point out that when I was in school, we were assigned to read 1984. Why would we be asked to read such a paranoid polemic against human surveillance? Because there is good reason to fear the consequences of a freedomless environment. People need to feel as though they are free to do as they will within reason, and creatures of all sorts wither and become antisocial under constant observation. How could one of these schools assign that reading to these kids with a straight face?
This will lead to MORE school violence, MORE insecure people, and less quality of life. It is good to have your parents pay attention to you. It is not good to have your parents watching you at all times through one-way glass. No good can come of this.
Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality
on
Qt for Mac
·
· Score: 1
Here is some reality for you, actually:
Apple claims 9 percent of the personal computer OS market. That leaves 91 percent, not 95 percent for Windows, right?
Wrong.
That claim is based on very skewed data. All non-Apple personal computers are shipped with Windows. However, some unknown but clearly substantial number of those machines are then wiped to put other operating systems on. Further, a large portion of open source operating system users buy their computers piecemeal to be assembled personally, and those sales typically would not be included in market demographic research, because of the difficulty in tracking down and questioning the purchasers. There is simply no way that you can be certain what percentage of the market is actually using *nux.
To be fair, MS does have the bulk of the market at this time, but that is rapidly changing, with MacOS gaining fairly steadily on WIN, and *nux making leaps and bounds. I think that you will find that the personal computing landscape is going to be a very different place in a very short period of time, and you would do well to learn to use tools that will be worthwhile if your preferred platform tanks.
Just my.02.
Hrrm. I think that this will not protect anyone. The CD puts out stereo sound, yes? So all that someone has to do is to put the CD into a conventional player, run a stereo cable to the back of their computer, and do as they will with the data from there. These guys just spent a lot of R&D time for nothing. Although why someone would go to all that effort for a Charley Pride album is beyond me...
Slashdot Mirror
ff
Books are better than movies when you are talking about the Lord of the Rings. The books are the genuine article. The films are a poor approximation of something a lot more powerful than them,
I know. ::sigh:: ::flies away::
There is no use fighting dittoheads. You could do it all day long.
Thank you aweraw, for your reasoned and well argued criticism of the film. We could use more literacy around here.
I agree with you about the effects of continuity in the sequels.
I was well-pleased by the third film. I think that the primary dissatisfaction that people have is a reaction to hype. I heard that this was a terrible movie days before it was even released, when only jaded reviewers had seen it, people who love to hate things that are expected to be good. Hearing how bad it was, it is hard for people to shake their expectation of being pissed off at the outcome. I think that most people simply went in ready to hate it, and never stopped to actually digest the film. I especially think this of people whose primary argument is "No! ITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCKEDITSUCK..."
If you haven't put any thought into it, your opinion is worthless or worse: You clutter the headspace for people who are trying to think. Anyway, thanks again for using your words.
Learn to swim.
There is a lot more out there than you can see.
Mythic films are meant to be read allegorically. The whole point of The Hero as a plot element is that he can't be defeated. It is outside of his power to lose in the long run. If he lost, he wouldn't be the hero. Look at the pattern: Hulk, John Wayne, Superman, Neo, Spiderman, James Bond, many others. Heroes win. That is their power, by whatever specific explanation. Today we are asked to believe that every single cop on the street or every fireman or soldier is a hero. They aren't. Real people aren't heroes. Real people are people, and should not be mythologized. Myths, on the other hand, lose their value when we read them as we would real life. This is a major problem for our culture; the substitution of fantasy for reality. Each has its value, but should not be confused with the other.
Read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces". It is a great work on reading myths of all ages.
I was really diassapointed with Peter Jackson's decision to change Faramir. The entire signifigance of Faramir in the book is that he is not Boromir. Where Boromir is unable to resist the pull of the ring, Faramir is unwilling to even consider taking the ring. "Not if I found this thing on the road would I take it up." Instead, his character is rolled in with every other power-grabber in the film, negating his only signifigant characterization in the narrative. He becomes irrelevant. There are too many important deviations to really go into, but the other one is the idea of Arwen giving Aragorn his sword. The whole trilogy is distorted by having a woman deliver Aragorn's power to him. He should have left Rivendell with it reforged, and should have been fighting with it all the way through the Trilogy, as in the books. Essentially, Arwen delivers Aragorn's manhood to him, when the whole point of the broken sword is his choice to eventuallu face his destiny and take his masculine role for himself. There was no need to change what they did, relating to the sword, other than to make women central to a narrative that is really intended to be about men, and not about women. Tolkien clearly did not intend Arwen to have control over Aragorn's masculinity.
The problem that was experienced with Revolutions is viewers who are unable to watch film critically. Revolutions was an excellent film, as was Hulk, and many others that people of low patience and poor education have hated, simply because they were unable to understand them. People who hated these films are simply not literate. Those who cannot read are prone to hating books. It is no different with film.
It is myth, with some sci-fi trappings. Star Wars is space opera. Matrix is myth and psychology. Star Trek isn't even sci fi, IMHO. It's space melodrama and morality play. Science fiction is different from these. It includes plausible extensions of technology and theoretical boundaries, and hopefully an interesting plot about people dealing with their changing world. Aliens is sci-fi, but only fails to be guilty of bad science because it doesn't bother to explain every detail. If they had tried to tell us why the Sulaco was able to make the journey to LV 426, it would have quickly gotten stupid. 2001 is sci-fi, as is A.I., as is Contact. Hulk is not sci-fi, although it does contain bad science. And yet it was a very good movie, I think.
I can see why some people didn't get the movie, or weren't into it, but it was very good. The effects were good, the plotline was great, the character development was great, the action scenes were inspiring.
I am really glad that IM is being used to get the word out on films that are not worth seeing. I think that it is a great step forward for popular entertainment to know not to go see a bomb.But it is too bad that people are so lost when it comes to parsing the simplest, most straightforward of plots. The problem is that we may not get more quality film due to this ability to get early reviews from non-media sources. Instead, we may get more formulaic plots, designed to please the twitch-viewer crowd-leaders that go to the theaters before everyone else.
These laws apply to you only if you submit to them, whether you democratically voted for them or not. You vote for these laws each time that you obey them, helping to create a system of submission favoring the idea of that particular form of control.
People do not usually come to a complete stop at stop signs, particularly when they can see that nothing is coming. This is because people have realized that in general they will not be caught for only slowing, and that there is a limited increase in hazard when creeping a stop sign. This creates an environment in which it becomes essentially legal to run stop signs, in that there is little fear of that particular law.
It is less legal to run stop lights, although they are covered by the same law, because there has been more enforcement, and because safety dictates that more caution be used at those intersections with lights. But whether those laws pertain to you in a given instance depends entirely on whether you obey and whether a gunman is present to enforce his will on you.
Bill Gates is attempting to propagate the perception that OSS is breaking the law. That this is immoral, innacurate or irrelevant is not likely to be important to him in his situation. He and SCO are writing future laws into the perceptions of ill-informed politicians and citizens.
People do not usually come to a complete stop at stop signs, particularly when they can see that nothing is coming. This is because people have realized that in general they will not be caught for only slowing, and that there is a limited increase in hazard when creeping a stop sign. This creates an environment in which it becomes essentially legal to run stop signs, in that there is little fear of that particular law.
It is less legal to run stop lights, although they are covered by the same law, because there has been more enforcement, and because safety dictates that more caution be used at those intersections with lights. But whether those laws pertain to you in a given instance depends entirely on whether you obey and whether a gunman is present to enforce his will on you.
Bill Gates is attempting to propagate the perception that OSS is breaking the law. That this is immoral, innacurate or irrelevant is not likely to be important to him in his situation. He and SCO are writing future laws into the perceptions of ill-informed politicians and citizens.
A friend's old Powerbook (500 series) became a hive. They didn't know it, but all of the ants that had been infesting their kitchen were roosting in their laptop set up on the kitchen counter. When the machine finally died from the generations of life that had lived in their machine, they had another friend open it up and discovered that it was packed full of ant-hive. The ants themselves had moved on by the time they had the machine looked at, as it had been turned off since it began to malfunction.
Further, I myself have a power supply for my speaker system that from time to time becomes infested with the tenacious little bastards. This thing is packed with them, I tell you. To get rid of them, I always just unplug the power supply for a few days.
Watch and see if we ever get back a right that we lose. I doubt it, personally. I am willing to wait through longer lines and whatnot to get through enhanced airport security, but I am not happy at the concept that every minute of my life may be scrutinized. But hey, they say that if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear...
Exactly. Nobody does jack shit in whatever office they are working, at least not very much compared to the amount of time they spend there. I seriously doubt if there is much difference from the productivity standpoint.
If RAM buffering is upheld as a violation of the DMCA, then that will make most people criminals, wil it not? Very convenient way to simply arrest anyone whom you consider to be a threat. Very convenient.
I like suits. They are a lot of fun to play dress up and feel important for a day. But you are not actually smarter in a suit. Likewise for any type of clothing. Also, I need not show respect for my company. I give them work instead, off of which they make a lot more money than they give me. In return they give me some of the money that I have earned for them. Clothes have nothing to do with it, and if they did, I would find someplace else to work where management is smarter than that.
Amen, brother. I had similar treatment by authoritarian figures. People who are for this 'solution' apparently do not understand how it feels.
You should consider how you would have felt to have this perpetrated on you. I have been under that yoke, and I did not take it lightly. Consider how you would feel right now if an authority were to do this to you... But then, we won't have to wait long for you to have firsthand experience; due to attitudes like yours, we can all experience it firsthand in another ten years.
You may have the right legally, but you do not have that right ethically, IMHO. Let me point something out to you: You will make your child hate you with this. I know well of what I speak. In my childhood, I was at one point forced due to parental instability to live with my grandmother, who until that point had always been a kindly old lady to me, and I loved her for it. However, the reason that I had to live there is that my mother had fallen into drugs and had been put in prison. My grandmother feared the same for me, and so tenaciously and aggressively tracked my whereabouts via the phone all day for the entire time that I lived with her. By the time I went back to live with my mother (which my grandmother tried very hard to keep from heppening), I hated fiercely that old lady and would have liked nothing more than to see her dead. I still have not gotten over that, and I believe that it has much to do with my personal insecurities, and I know that it was the driving factor in my withdrawal from school. In later speaking with my mother, I discovered that the same methods were employed with her as a girl.
I would like to point out that when I was in school, we were assigned to read 1984. Why would we be asked to read such a paranoid polemic against human surveillance? Because there is good reason to fear the consequences of a freedomless environment. People need to feel as though they are free to do as they will within reason, and creatures of all sorts wither and become antisocial under constant observation. How could one of these schools assign that reading to these kids with a straight face? This will lead to MORE school violence, MORE insecure people, and less quality of life. It is good to have your parents pay attention to you. It is not good to have your parents watching you at all times through one-way glass. No good can come of this.
Here is some reality for you, actually: Apple claims 9 percent of the personal computer OS market. That leaves 91 percent, not 95 percent for Windows, right? Wrong. That claim is based on very skewed data. All non-Apple personal computers are shipped with Windows. However, some unknown but clearly substantial number of those machines are then wiped to put other operating systems on. Further, a large portion of open source operating system users buy their computers piecemeal to be assembled personally, and those sales typically would not be included in market demographic research, because of the difficulty in tracking down and questioning the purchasers. There is simply no way that you can be certain what percentage of the market is actually using *nux. To be fair, MS does have the bulk of the market at this time, but that is rapidly changing, with MacOS gaining fairly steadily on WIN, and *nux making leaps and bounds. I think that you will find that the personal computing landscape is going to be a very different place in a very short period of time, and you would do well to learn to use tools that will be worthwhile if your preferred platform tanks. Just my .02.
Hrrm. I think that this will not protect anyone. The CD puts out stereo sound, yes? So all that someone has to do is to put the CD into a conventional player, run a stereo cable to the back of their computer, and do as they will with the data from there. These guys just spent a lot of R&D time for nothing. Although why someone would go to all that effort for a Charley Pride album is beyond me...