So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.
Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.
It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose. The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.
I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence. I guess that makes me a nerd.
I read about how these movies suck all the time. I watch these movies, and I enjoy them quite a bit. I guess I'm easily entertained.
Yes, yes you are.
I'm sure glad I'm not like you, it must really suck to never find any good entertainment.:)
Nice troll. But you should see my DVD collection, just because I have high standards doesn't mean there aren,t great filmakers out there living up to them.
P.S. I deem Starship Troopers (break from the book aside) to be one of these excellent movies. Its story is completely consistent internally, its message is sarcastic, and so subtle it goes right over the head of most people who talk about it.
Function: noun Etymology: Italian novella 1 : an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events
Split in three volume
Pronunciation: 'väl-y&m, -(")yüm Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin volumen roll, scroll, from volvere to roll 1 a : a series of printed sheets bound typically in book form
T3 was a very consistent continuance of the T movies
It was not: It retconned Connor from an ubermensch to a lump of neuroses who cannot function without a woman to steer him through his life. For starters...
it featured a great villain
The villain was a rehash of the two previous villains, removing all the weaknesses of both (now it can shoot lasers111one!!!), and made into a =pointless= sexy pin-up. Why did it inflate it's boobs to distract the male cop if it's going to blantantly kill him anyway? There is no internal logic for this, this is only eye candy for teenagers who like to see inflating boobs on a big screen, nothing more.
filled with spectacular, plausible, well choreographed action sequences
Spectacular and well choreographed, yes. Plausible? Not in the least.
Notice the shape-shifter had assumed a form that lulled it's target into a false sense of security, but instead of using that shape to get 10 feet closer and killing the target at close range like it just did (for no reason) to the cops in the car, the robot proceeds to slowly turn it's arm into a fancy ray gun in full view of the target, who goes from running towards her would-be killer to realising she's in danger and evading the attack.
This was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a movie, and I've seen Plan 9 From Outer Space.
That summer everyone was talking about the car chase in MATRIX2, but T3's chase was much better.
I hate the Matrix sequels with a passion, but I keep my Reloaded DVD just for the scene with trinity on a bike, going against traffic on a highway. That was spectacular. But if "the car chase was t3h awesome" is your reason to call a movie "great", then we're not on the same wavelength.
T3 also had a very clever plot. *SPOILER* I loved the "Skynet is the internet" ending.
1- Overused clichés are NOT clever. See the equally horrible Lawnmoyer Man II for the exact same plot. 2- Another poster above has pointed out how fantastically stupid that move is: It makes the entire established premise of the series completelly unbelievable (SKYNET targetting humans now becomes SKYNET stupidly targetting itself).
The only thing I didn't like about T3 was the casting of John Conner
Well, one of the thousands of things wrong with that movie caught your attention. There's that.
T3 was good, and didn't do so hot at the box office. Hence, it was UNDER-rated.
T3 was so bad I was insulted that I was conned into giving them 10 bucks to see it, and yet it did well enough that it did not ankrupt it's owners. Therefore it's OVERrated. q.e.d.
That's it, hand it over. No more nerd badge for you until you complete basic training again... let's see you do the Vulcan salute, and then shine those d20s!
I think you missed out a bit on the significance of Tom's friend Old Man Willow and the Ents the hobbits later meet... Plus he smote a hundred orcs, he's hardcore, yo!
TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie.
T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.
It's got explosions, but you can only appreciate them if you check your brain at the door. Characters contradict themselves (one minute Arnold knows human psychology and can manipulate Connor to perk him up, the next he knows nothing about wimminz), Connors was dumbed down and turned into a bumbling idiot in order to prop up their new female grrl-power character (I really cold have done without the "my dad taught me to fly. it of dialog when they were running to the plane, we already know Connors was raised to ride or fly anything he can find, useless dialog to justify a character now turned useless).
The robots were called "it. until then, but the new, better terminator is called a "she" for no valid reason (she turns into men and women, just like the T1000 did in the previous movie. He was called an "it", she's a "she", no valid reason).
The "more intelligent" robot acts so incredibly stupidly throughout the movie it's painfull to watch, etc.
Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.
Well, T3, like Batman3, was a horrible piece of shit. Hopefully, the masses will treat T4 to as few viewings as they did "Batman 4: Nipple Suits", and the franchise will die there.
I'll be doing my part by not showing up, and I hope you do too.
ads in videos must be placed before, during, or after content
You know, I wouldn't mind ads after the content.
It's wen they get it in their minds that they should interfere with my access to, or enjoyment of the content that I turn into a crafty pirate and I go in full circumvention/tech-savyness mode.
But afterwards? Once I'm satisfied... I wouldn't mind. It would make avoidance of stupid/irrelevant/redundent/inconsequential ads easy (hence why they don't want to do it this way) but unnecessary, and I would probably let it run most of the time, while I'm mulling over the content in my head. But as their decision to abuse the "unskipable" flag demonstrate, they want to force us to watch ads, Clockwork Orange style. So the right way to do it is the least likely way these psychopaths will have it imlemented.
I don't see any problem with introducing revelant, inobtrusive text ads.
But advertisers, who never were able to differenciate btween a computer's cathode tube and a television's, are now going "ah-AH! We always knew it was just a complimacated teevee! Bring on the ads! At least 30 seconds! No skipping! And lame-lame-LAME to boot!".
Personally, I think every TV and movie studio executive should be executed, which would make the world a better place... Except for the ones that cancelled firefly, they should be made to recreate the War Stories episode, minus the heroic rescue.
I don't get this web 2.0 "problem" of more adds = angry community. [...] anyone expecting to get it for free should expect to be subjected to some form of advertising.
You don't get human nature: not wanting to be subjected to unpleasantness.
I like the idea of disaster prevention through reading hard disk vibration and all, but isn't this the sort of thing that professionals should be responsible for?
Ideally, in a Star Trek eutopia, yes. In the real world, one should compare the number of available hard drives to the number of available, fully equipped seismologists in order to determine which -should- be used.
they were, at least at one time, a real innovative and pioneering company.
Would that be when they were still under the control of their tech-savy founders? Perhaps as soon as they became a corpration controlled by suits, they started behaving with, as you say, the same sort of ethical standards as Sony, Enron, etc.
Do yourself a small favour: Go rent "The Corporation", you sound like you need enlightning about ethical standards:)
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas Geek refers to technically savvy people such as a hacker
;-)
Actually, geeks are really county fair performers who bite the heads off live chikens.
Which is probably why chicks don't like 'em
The term "book" can have two meanings:
A tad more than two, actually.
So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.
Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.
It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose.
The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.
I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence.
I guess that makes me a nerd.
I read about how these movies suck all the time. I watch these movies, and I enjoy them quite a bit. I guess I'm easily entertained.
:)
Yes, yes you are.
I'm sure glad I'm not like you, it must really suck to never find any good entertainment.
Nice troll.
But you should see my DVD collection, just because I have high standards doesn't mean there aren,t great filmakers out there living up to them.
P.S. I deem Starship Troopers (break from the book aside) to be one of these excellent movies. Its story is completely consistent internally, its message is sarcastic, and so subtle it goes right over the head of most people who talk about it.
Overrated by who?
By whoever is investing in a sequel.
Technically? Oh it's on now!
One of the definitions of book, and the one that applies here, is: a major division of a treatise or literary work.
The Lord Of The Ring is a novel
Split in three volume
Consisting of six books.
Point, set and match.
T3 was a very consistent continuance of the T movies
It was not: It retconned Connor from an ubermensch to a lump of neuroses who cannot function without a woman to steer him through his life. For starters...
it featured a great villain
The villain was a rehash of the two previous villains, removing all the weaknesses of both (now it can shoot lasers111one!!!), and made into a =pointless= sexy pin-up.
Why did it inflate it's boobs to distract the male cop if it's going to blantantly kill him anyway? There is no internal logic for this, this is only eye candy for teenagers who like to see inflating boobs on a big screen, nothing more.
filled with spectacular, plausible, well choreographed action sequences
Spectacular and well choreographed, yes.
Plausible? Not in the least.
Notice the shape-shifter had assumed a form that lulled it's target into a false sense of security, but instead of using that shape to get 10 feet closer and killing the target at close range like it just did (for no reason) to the cops in the car, the robot proceeds to slowly turn it's arm into a fancy ray gun in full view of the target, who goes from running towards her would-be killer to realising she's in danger and evading the attack.
This was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a movie, and I've seen Plan 9 From Outer Space.
That summer everyone was talking about the car chase in MATRIX2, but T3's chase was much better.
I hate the Matrix sequels with a passion, but I keep my Reloaded DVD just for the scene with trinity on a bike, going against traffic on a highway. That was spectacular.
But if "the car chase was t3h awesome" is your reason to call a movie "great", then we're not on the same wavelength.
T3 also had a very clever plot. *SPOILER* I loved the "Skynet is the internet" ending.
1- Overused clichés are NOT clever. See the equally horrible Lawnmoyer Man II for the exact same plot.
2- Another poster above has pointed out how fantastically stupid that move is: It makes the entire established premise of the series completelly unbelievable (SKYNET targetting humans now becomes SKYNET stupidly targetting itself).
The only thing I didn't like about T3 was the casting of John Conner
Well, one of the thousands of things wrong with that movie caught your attention. There's that.
T3 was good, and didn't do so hot at the box office. Hence, it was UNDER-rated.
T3 was so bad I was insulted that I was conned into giving them 10 bucks to see it, and yet it did well enough that it did not ankrupt it's owners. Therefore it's OVERrated.
q.e.d.
Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
Yes, but nothing says "easy writing" like a post-apocalyptic robot shoot 'em up.
It goes like this: Robots go boom! Preeeety asplosioooooons... ooooh. Shiny!
Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again?
He's just bashing $POPULAR_THING to define himself by rejecting what is popular.
It's much easier to define yourself by rejecting things other accomplished than by accomplishing things yourself, you know.
That's it, hand it over. No more nerd badge for you until you complete basic training again... let's see you do the Vulcan salute, and then shine those d20s!
Stop hatin' on Tom Bombadil, sucka.
I think you missed out a bit on the significance of Tom's friend Old Man Willow and the Ents the hobbits later meet...
Plus he smote a hundred orcs, he's hardcore, yo!
TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie.
T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.
It's got explosions, but you can only appreciate them if you check your brain at the door. Characters contradict themselves (one minute Arnold knows human psychology and can manipulate Connor to perk him up, the next he knows nothing about wimminz), Connors was dumbed down and turned into a bumbling idiot in order to prop up their new female grrl-power character (I really cold have done without the "my dad taught me to fly. it of dialog when they were running to the plane, we already know Connors was raised to ride or fly anything he can find, useless dialog to justify a character now turned useless).
The robots were called "it. until then, but the new, better terminator is called a "she" for no valid reason (she turns into men and women, just like the T1000 did in the previous movie. He was called an "it", she's a "she", no valid reason).
The "more intelligent" robot acts so incredibly stupidly throughout the movie it's painfull to watch, etc.
Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.
You're from Bizarro World, aren't you?
There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.
6, usually sold two by two in three volumes.
You're on notice, buster: One more show of geekish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!
NO MORE SEQUELS!!!
Well, T3, like Batman3, was a horrible piece of shit.
Hopefully, the masses will treat T4 to as few viewings as they did "Batman 4: Nipple Suits", and the franchise will die there.
I'll be doing my part by not showing up, and I hope you do too.
A blanket just keeps your metabolic waste energy trapped close to you as warmth.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
For your next trick, please explain that water is wet. This ought to keep you missing the point for another short while.
Sensationalist titles like this are why I still have my doubts about global warning.
Ok, ignore the JOURNALIST'S READER-BAIT title, and think for a moment about the fact at hand:
The permafrost is melting.
The layer of soil named after the fact that it is permanently frozen is melting.
Think about it.
The Guardian says "This means that a kilogram of methane warms the planet's atmosphere 23 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide."
A gas can not warm the planet.
So neither can a blanket warm you, then.
Any other sophistries you'd like to share?
If a comment has not been rated, adding "overrated" is OBVIOUSLY an abuse of the moderation system. Q.e.d.
ads in videos must be placed before, during, or after content
You know, I wouldn't mind ads after the content.
It's wen they get it in their minds that they should interfere with my access to, or enjoyment of the content that I turn into a crafty pirate and I go in full circumvention/tech-savyness mode.
But afterwards? Once I'm satisfied... I wouldn't mind. It would make avoidance of stupid/irrelevant/redundent/inconsequential ads easy (hence why they don't want to do it this way) but unnecessary, and I would probably let it run most of the time, while I'm mulling over the content in my head.
But as their decision to abuse the "unskipable" flag demonstrate, they want to force us to watch ads, Clockwork Orange style. So the right way to do it is the least likely way these psychopaths will have it imlemented.
I don't see any problem with introducing revelant, inobtrusive text ads.
But advertisers, who never were able to differenciate btween a computer's cathode tube and a television's, are now going "ah-AH! We always knew it was just a complimacated teevee! Bring on the ads! At least 30 seconds! No skipping! And lame-lame-LAME to boot!".
Personally, I think every TV and movie studio executive should be executed, which would make the world a better place... Except for the ones that cancelled firefly, they should be made to recreate the War Stories episode, minus the heroic rescue.
I don't get this web 2.0 "problem" of more adds = angry community. [...] anyone expecting to get it for free should expect to be subjected to some form of advertising.
You don't get human nature: not wanting to be subjected to unpleasantness.
I like the idea of disaster prevention through reading hard disk vibration and all, but isn't this the sort of thing that professionals should be responsible for?
Ideally, in a Star Trek eutopia, yes.
In the real world, one should compare the number of available hard drives to the number of available, fully equipped seismologists in order to determine which -should- be used.
Wouldn't be very effective in third world areas, though.
:(
Nothing is effective in 3rd world areas
But when we all get rid of our spinny HDs for solid state wonders, someone can start a recycling project where our old junk will save lives. Mebbe.
I don't think all earthquakes cause tsunamis. Seems like there may be a lot more false warnings than real tsunamis.
"Oh no, I have just hiked up the hill for nothing, again."
VS
"Oh no, a giant wave has, without warning, violently pushed an 18 wheeler through my wall and onto my head."
they were, at least at one time, a real innovative and pioneering company.
:)
Would that be when they were still under the control of their tech-savy founders?
Perhaps as soon as they became a corpration controlled by suits, they started behaving with, as you say, the same sort of ethical standards as Sony, Enron, etc.
Do yourself a small favour: Go rent "The Corporation", you sound like you need enlightning about ethical standards
Of course they want to do business with them.
That's how I see it: "Bill Gates is as rich as I want to be, and he uses windows. So I should too!"
Sheeps, the lot of 'em.