I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.
In what timewarped, backwards place do you see these movies? All the newfnagled cinemas have a metric ton of ads. Around here it's more than 30 minutes, because they have ads running on screen before the lights dim, intermingled with movie trivia to keep our eyes pointed at the screen (if I go alone I bring a book and an iPod to ignore them, in groups you can chat).
While I admit that the trailers and ads are getting more pervasive, I think I'd notice if there were *28* consecutive 30-second spots, and a dozen 1-minute trailers shown before a movie.
That's why then. They have the 2 minute ads and 3 to 5 minutes trailers. They sneak in 5 ads when you expect 28.
Is the next frontier to commercialize transactions within families? Honey, a roll in the hay will be $500, and do take note of the Coca Cola logo (a licensing exclusive) on the bra before your remove it. If you want a hug from your kids, that will be $5 a hug.
Oh! I saw a japanese movie with that exact same plot about ten or fifteen years ago. Boy I wish I could remember the title (We need a google for vague descriptions...)
The bedroom scene was pretty funny: The husband paid a flat fee, but the wife wore one of those exercise step counters and had to pay him back an amount based on the number of thrusts he gave.
Then get with the list. You said hundreds of thousands of species are threatened with extiction by hydroelectric damns, prove it. Oh, right, you can't, because it's just something you made up to diss hydro.
claiming the current systems of generating electricity are somehow more ecologically damaging than the so-called "renewable" resources
So, what you're saying is that renewable ressources are not currently generating electricity? Funny, I have it on good authority that it's hydro that's providing me with the power to run this here computer.
And "so called", with quotation marks around "renewable"? That's quite a pathetic attempt at discrediting what you're attacking. Shame on you.
So, what, rain water isn't renewable? The water cycle is going to stop soon? There's only a limited amount of wind, and once we use it up it's all gone? How about solar, are we going to... soak up all the sun's rays and deplete them with our solar power stations?
Furthermore, the fuel-burning powerstations aren't "somehow" more damaging: They are more damaging in clear, well defined ways.
ALL systems are equally ecologically hazardous, they just affect different parts of the ecology. You don't like me calling that hypocrisy?
Well no, THAT is hypocrisy.
Strip mining for coal damages the landscape to a much greater extent than flooding a region. Then, on top of what is already worse, you release stored carbon into the atmoshphere: Greenhouse gasses, climate change. You also release sulphur compounds, which turn into sulphuric acid, which releases heavy metals in the soil. You also release radioactive isotopes, which aren't healthy. On top of all that, add traces of arsenic and mercury, and off course, particulate smoke. You like smog?
Calling that pile of negative impacts equal to the impact of a one-time flood is indeed the act of an hypocrite. So no, I don't mind that you call your own hypocrisy for what it is, I don't mind at all.
I'm trolling, and as soon as you posted it, I was suddenly moderated down. What was it
You were intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw. You became defensive when your argument was refuted, and continued the thread through the use of further flawed arguments. Apparently you think you're the first troll to try this, or that all the moderators are inatentive and ignorant and would therefore miss your trolling as they have done in the past. As luck would have it, you got caught.
There are limited number of types of stories (IIRC 14 types). If you try hard enough you will find a similar story told before. Movies share common traits not necessarily because they are derived from each other, but because they are derived from the same common archetype.
Well, yes, but there's a difference between sharing a common archetype and copying, ripping off, or being directly inspired by something.
Let's take Star Wars and Dune. Both sci-fi epics, but one copied elements from the other.
Tattoine is directly inspired from Arrakis: The sand people are the bastard SW version of the Fremen (both Fremen and sand people are reclusive desert dwellers native to their planet, technologically backwards, hostile to offworlders and colonists, and wear a suit including a cape, a face mask with an air filter and googles when venturing outside).
The worm-like ruler of Tattoine known as "Jabba the Hutt" comes from the worm-like Ruler of Arrakis known as "Leto II, the God Emperor" (both are said to be ruthless, both execute people in their palace, both are dark brown "worm centaurs", having their lower body made of a worm'd backside and their "upper" body being a humanoid head and small humanoid arms, and they are both approximatly the same size).
The Sarlack is the SW version of Dune's Shaitan (the worm god/demon, known for devouring people, and a covenient way to dispose of bodies).
So, not only are they derived from the same archetype, but one copies locations, societies and characters from the other. This example goes beyond simply having a similar story, and you don't have to try hard to see the ressemblance. You only need to be familiar with both works.
Oh, wait... you mean ANYTHING we do has an impact? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. We can't stand for this! We should all just kill ourselves right now so we no longer have an impact on the earth at all!
Are you mad? Do you have any idea of the ecological impact that would have? Billions of rotting carcases like that would surely...
Show us a list of hundreds of thousands of species that have been driven to extinction by hydroelectric damns. Go on.
I raise the same points as another commenter, he's modded "insightful" whereas I'm modded "troll".
"hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice." is not an insightfull point. It is a post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. You got moderated accordingly. You wanted karma for your trolling? Fortunatly, you didn't get any. Sometimes, the system works.
That was my first thought: "Holy fucking christ, it's Michael Jackson as Willy Wonka." That's scary: A guy who looks like that inviting five lucky children to tour his chocolate factory.
That's not so bad. It's when he's "visiting" their "chocolate factory" that it gets scary;-)
That's not because of the hydro damn, it's because of the lawns of Phoenix, draining the river to have some nice green lawns in the middle of the desert.
Good thing I said "And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining" - because looks like you said just that.
I didn't say just that. So there definatly is something wrong with your mind then. At least you have taste, so you're not a lost cause. I'm guessing you didn't even read what I wrote, you just launched into agressive reply mode, without giving it much thought. Go back and actually read and try to understand what I said, instead of stubbornly refusing to accept that you might be wrong.
First of all, I've written in a previous thread about the various sources from which Lucas lifted the material he used to populate the Star Wars universe, so I won't repeat it here (sample: Jabba is lifted from Leto II, God Emperor of Dune, both visually and thematically).
Secondly, you're completely missing the point. Spidy2 isn't unoriginal just because it's a sequel, I wrote in my previous post that it's a sequel to and ADAPTATION, do you understand that word? It means that it is based on something that already existed, which means it is not original, because it's an adaptation OF the original. Get it?
What movie, EXACTLY, did the incredibles copy?
I never said "movie". I never said "copied".
Incredibles is derived from many influences. Such as James Bond (car, government ties, music theme, Bond-villain). The Fantastic Four, Superman, the Flash, the X Men (IceMan), the greek myth of Heracles, and the real life ups and downs of the comic book industry in the middle of the 20th century in the U.S.A. Amongst other things.
So the Incredibles isn't original: it is not the origin of those ideas, concept, characters and stories. It's derived from existing original material. It is a new interpretation, a retelling, it doesn't make it bad, it's simply not original.
BTW, I'm writing an analysis of these various influences in my spare time, since I admire that movie and it's harmonious meshing of it's many original influences. I'll try to remember to send you a link when I put it online, you might learn something.
It is my opinion, and therefore indesputable
Oh great, since it's your opinion, you don't have to take reality into account. You just put up blinders and keep on believing your sacrosaint opinion no matter what the facts are. Super, just... super. That attitude is puerile and idiotic, your opinion is not the standard that defines reality. It is your opinion that a work is original because you are ignorant of the fact that it is derived from the original work it reinterprets, your opinion is not indisputable, it is wrong, and will change with a little education and maturity.
Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks that everything is copied from something?
No I'm not, I'm one of those people with enough general culture to recognise the influences in the works I see. If you're ignorant about these previous works, then you won't recognise them.
You, on the other hand, are one of those people who tink "original == good" and "not original == bad". Here's a tip: Learn what the word means, don't just go with the emotional baggage that the word has had tacked on to it. Movies don't have to be original to be good, and movies that are original are not necessarilly good. Incredibles was not original, but it was good.
Vocabulary enrichment:
Main Entry: derive Pronunciation: di-'rIv, dE- Function: verb Inflected Form(s): derived; deriving Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deriver, from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off (water), from de- + rivus stream -- more at RUN transitive senses 1 a : to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source
One thing about hydro that is little known is that in some cases the resevoirs can be massive produces of methane - one of the more potent greenhouse gases.
That is a one-time, "short" term production of methane. Once the flooded biomatter has been decomposed (thus releasing methane), it's over. It takes 10 to 20 years, IIRC. Then you keep on making hydroelectricity, without any new pollution. Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, realeases those gasses for as long as you're producing energy.
Off course, harvesting the trees in the region to be flooded before hand would cut a lot of that waste. Bringing the impact even further down (and would be an incentive for the wildlife to migrate out of the flood zone while it's invaded by monstrous tree-eating machines). Decomposing trees also release heavy metals, such as mercury, wich then go into the flooded ecosystem, making the flood lake fish unapetising. I say turn those trees into lumber or pulp, instead of letting them rot. They're gonna die anyway, might as well make mony from it.
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
You fucking troll. It's renewable, not magical. Every action causes a reaction, our energy needs aren't going away, but there are ways to minimise the impact of our actions. Hydroelectric damns cause dammage, but the impact of a local flood is not in the same ballpark as the impact that the floods from melting the artic and antartic with greenhouse gases would have.
If we could find a way to remove pure hydrogen from coal then that would be a green energy,wouldn't it ?
Ah, I see you're in possession of the philosopher's stone, with wich you will alchemically transmute coal into pure hydrogen without any byproducts! You are a lucky man.
wind power isn't advantageous; it is renewable. But it's unsightly, can be costly (suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive), and is noisy.
Ah, yes, unsightly.
As opposed to those decorative smoke stask or cooling towers, and those ever so pretty charcoal strip mines. Wind power is screwing everything up! Oh how we'll miss the gentle sounds of industrial mining equipment tearing the land appart and the gigantic, whisper-quiet trucks hauling their massive loads of ore.
Slashdot Mirror
Spamming search results is not the same thing as having an ad next to the search results.
MSN search only comes up with Redhat related ad results when you search in it.
But... why would you??
if I search for a specific brand, all the other brands saying "me too" piss me off.
So long as they are in their little pen on the side and not in the actual search results, I don't mind at all.
The ones polluting searches with their worthless spam, however, are a different matter.
he is extremely familiar with both beer and water
Preposterous! No man has ever been aquainted with both liquids!
30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it
Including the trailers, I second the observation.
I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.
In what timewarped, backwards place do you see these movies?
All the newfnagled cinemas have a metric ton of ads. Around here it's more than 30 minutes, because they have ads running on screen before the lights dim, intermingled with movie trivia to keep our eyes pointed at the screen (if I go alone I bring a book and an iPod to ignore them, in groups you can chat).
While I admit that the trailers and ads are getting more pervasive, I think I'd notice if there were *28* consecutive 30-second spots, and a dozen 1-minute trailers shown before a movie.
That's why then. They have the 2 minute ads and 3 to 5 minutes trailers. They sneak in 5 ads when you expect 28.
Like the old Usenet rule -- The first one to compare the other to a Nazi, automatically loses the argument.
And Son of Godwin: Terrorists.
Is the next frontier to commercialize transactions within families? Honey, a roll in the hay will be $500, and do take note of the Coca Cola logo (a licensing exclusive) on the bra before your remove it. If you want a hug from your kids, that will be $5 a hug.
Oh!
I saw a japanese movie with that exact same plot about ten or fifteen years ago. Boy I wish I could remember the title (We need a google for vague descriptions...)
The bedroom scene was pretty funny: The husband paid a flat fee, but the wife wore one of those exercise step counters and had to pay him back an amount based on the number of thrusts he gave.
I've never known a worker who got taken advantage of who didn't consent to it, either by their silence or their signiture.
Hey, she was asking for it!
As for the hours, that's the games industry; love it or get out.
Neat, so they only are taken advantage of because they agreed to, and if they don't: get out.
Super, just... super.
CANADIAN Football League!? What next -- hockey in the United States?
You know, everytime I read about the hockey teams of Florida or California, I die a little inside.
I just tell the truth
Then get with the list. You said hundreds of thousands of species are threatened with extiction by hydroelectric damns, prove it.
Oh, right, you can't, because it's just something you made up to diss hydro.
claiming the current systems of generating electricity are somehow more ecologically damaging than the so-called "renewable" resources
So, what you're saying is that renewable ressources are not currently generating electricity? Funny, I have it on good authority that it's hydro that's providing me with the power to run this here computer.
And "so called", with quotation marks around "renewable"? That's quite a pathetic attempt at discrediting what you're attacking. Shame on you.
So, what, rain water isn't renewable? The water cycle is going to stop soon? There's only a limited amount of wind, and once we use it up it's all gone? How about solar, are we going to... soak up all the sun's rays and deplete them with our solar power stations?
Furthermore, the fuel-burning powerstations aren't "somehow" more damaging: They are more damaging in clear, well defined ways.
ALL systems are equally ecologically hazardous, they just affect different parts of the ecology. You don't like me calling that hypocrisy?
Well no, THAT is hypocrisy.
Strip mining for coal damages the landscape to a much greater extent than flooding a region.
Then, on top of what is already worse, you release stored carbon into the atmoshphere: Greenhouse gasses, climate change.
You also release sulphur compounds, which turn into sulphuric acid, which releases heavy metals in the soil.
You also release radioactive isotopes, which aren't healthy.
On top of all that, add traces of arsenic and mercury, and off course, particulate smoke. You like smog?
Calling that pile of negative impacts equal to the impact of a one-time flood is indeed the act of an hypocrite. So no, I don't mind that you call your own hypocrisy for what it is, I don't mind at all.
I'm trolling, and as soon as you posted it, I was suddenly moderated down. What was it
You were intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw. You became defensive when your argument was refuted, and continued the thread through the use of further flawed arguments.
Apparently you think you're the first troll to try this, or that all the moderators are inatentive and ignorant and would therefore miss your trolling as they have done in the past. As luck would have it, you got caught.
There are limited number of types of stories (IIRC 14 types). If you try hard enough you will find a similar story told before. Movies share common traits not necessarily because they are derived from each other, but because they are derived from the same common archetype.
Well, yes, but there's a difference between sharing a common archetype and copying, ripping off, or being directly inspired by something.
Let's take Star Wars and Dune.
Both sci-fi epics, but one copied elements from the other.
Tattoine is directly inspired from Arrakis: The sand people are the bastard SW version of the Fremen (both Fremen and sand people are reclusive desert dwellers native to their planet, technologically backwards, hostile to offworlders and colonists, and wear a suit including a cape, a face mask with an air filter and googles when venturing outside).
The worm-like ruler of Tattoine known as "Jabba the Hutt" comes from the worm-like Ruler of Arrakis known as "Leto II, the God Emperor" (both are said to be ruthless, both execute people in their palace, both are dark brown "worm centaurs", having their lower body made of a worm'd backside and their "upper" body being a humanoid head and small humanoid arms, and they are both approximatly the same size).
The Sarlack is the SW version of Dune's Shaitan (the worm god/demon, known for devouring people, and a covenient way to dispose of bodies).
So, not only are they derived from the same archetype, but one copies locations, societies and characters from the other.
This example goes beyond simply having a similar story, and you don't have to try hard to see the ressemblance. You only need to be familiar with both works.
Oh, wait... you mean ANYTHING we do has an impact? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. We can't stand for this! We should all just kill ourselves right now so we no longer have an impact on the earth at all!
Are you mad? Do you have any idea of the ecological impact that would have? Billions of rotting carcases like that would surely...
(For the obtuse among us, that was sarcasm)
Oh! Right then, carry on : )
eradicate species by the hundreds or thousands
Show us a list of hundreds of thousands of species that have been driven to extinction by hydroelectric damns. Go on.
I raise the same points as another commenter, he's modded "insightful" whereas I'm modded "troll".
"hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice." is not an insightfull point. It is a post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. You got moderated accordingly. You wanted karma for your trolling? Fortunatly, you didn't get any. Sometimes, the system works.
You have a reading comphrehension problem.
Nope, always tested great on that.
What I have is a troll problem, so STFU and go die, it'll help.
That was my first thought: "Holy fucking christ, it's Michael Jackson as Willy Wonka."
;-)
That's scary: A guy who looks like that inviting five lucky children to tour his chocolate factory.
That's not so bad.
It's when he's "visiting" their "chocolate factory" that it gets scary
Though I applaud your use of the "saget" tag, the actual quote is this:
You might also like this other quote from that movie: "Marijuana affects the memory. "
That's not because of the hydro damn, it's because of the lawns of Phoenix, draining the river to have some nice green lawns in the middle of the desert.
the trailer for Jerry Seinfeld's comedian movie
I get a (fucking) image stream, but no sound.
I'm guessing the guy in the sound booth is the "In a world..." guy? Heck, I might have seen that trailer, in the distant past...
Good thing I said "And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining" - because looks like you said just that.
I didn't say just that. So there definatly is something wrong with your mind then. At least you have taste, so you're not a lost cause. I'm guessing you didn't even read what I wrote, you just launched into agressive reply mode, without giving it much thought. Go back and actually read and try to understand what I said, instead of stubbornly refusing to accept that you might be wrong.
First of all, I've written in a previous thread about the various sources from which Lucas lifted the material he used to populate the Star Wars universe, so I won't repeat it here (sample: Jabba is lifted from Leto II, God Emperor of Dune, both visually and thematically).
Secondly, you're completely missing the point. Spidy2 isn't unoriginal just because it's a sequel, I wrote in my previous post that it's a sequel to and ADAPTATION, do you understand that word? It means that it is based on something that already existed, which means it is not original, because it's an adaptation OF the original. Get it?
What movie, EXACTLY, did the incredibles copy?
I never said "movie". I never said "copied".
Incredibles is derived from many influences. Such as James Bond (car, government ties, music theme, Bond-villain). The Fantastic Four, Superman, the Flash, the X Men (IceMan), the greek myth of Heracles, and the real life ups and downs of the comic book industry in the middle of the 20th century in the U.S.A.
Amongst other things.
So the Incredibles isn't original: it is not the origin of those ideas, concept, characters and stories. It's derived from existing original material. It is a new interpretation, a retelling, it doesn't make it bad, it's simply not original.
BTW, I'm writing an analysis of these various influences in my spare time, since I admire that movie and it's harmonious meshing of it's many original influences. I'll try to remember to send you a link when I put it online, you might learn something.
It is my opinion, and therefore indesputable
Oh great, since it's your opinion, you don't have to take reality into account. You just put up blinders and keep on believing your sacrosaint opinion no matter what the facts are. Super, just... super.
That attitude is puerile and idiotic, your opinion is not the standard that defines reality. It is your opinion that a work is original because you are ignorant of the fact that it is derived from the original work it reinterprets, your opinion is not indisputable, it is wrong, and will change with a little education and maturity.
Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks that everything is copied from something?
No I'm not, I'm one of those people with enough general culture to recognise the influences in the works I see. If you're ignorant about these previous works, then you won't recognise them.
You, on the other hand, are one of those people who tink "original == good" and "not original == bad".
Here's a tip: Learn what the word means, don't just go with the emotional baggage that the word has had tacked on to it.
Movies don't have to be original to be good, and movies that are original are not necessarilly good. Incredibles was not original, but it was good.
Vocabulary enrichment:
Main Entry: derive
Pronunciation: di-'rIv, dE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): derived; deriving
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deriver, from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off (water), from de- + rivus stream -- more at RUN
transitive senses
1 a : to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source
One thing about hydro that is little known is that in some cases the resevoirs can be massive produces of methane - one of the more potent greenhouse gases.
That is a one-time, "short" term production of methane. Once the flooded biomatter has been decomposed (thus releasing methane), it's over. It takes 10 to 20 years, IIRC. Then you keep on making hydroelectricity, without any new pollution. Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, realeases those gasses for as long as you're producing energy.
Off course, harvesting the trees in the region to be flooded before hand would cut a lot of that waste. Bringing the impact even further down (and would be an incentive for the wildlife to migrate out of the flood zone while it's invaded by monstrous tree-eating machines).
Decomposing trees also release heavy metals, such as mercury, wich then go into the flooded ecosystem, making the flood lake fish unapetising. I say turn those trees into lumber or pulp, instead of letting them rot. They're gonna die anyway, might as well make mony from it.
So, where are all the dams going to go
There.
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
You fucking troll. It's renewable, not magical. Every action causes a reaction, our energy needs aren't going away, but there are ways to minimise the impact of our actions. Hydroelectric damns cause dammage, but the impact of a local flood is not in the same ballpark as the impact that the floods from melting the artic and antartic with greenhouse gases would have.
If we're talking about long term viable solutions nothing competes with nuclear energy.
Really? I must have missed the news that a magical, infinite supply of nuclear fuel had been discovered.
It's interresting that you think we'll somehow run out of sunlight, wind AND rain before we run out of uranium and plutonium.
If we could find a way to remove pure hydrogen from coal then that would be a green energy ,wouldn't it ?
Ah, I see you're in possession of the philosopher's stone, with wich you will alchemically transmute coal into pure hydrogen without any byproducts!
You are a lucky man.
why do 'greens' throw so much effort into things like wind, solar, and hydro, when the only real solution to replacing fossil fuels is nuclear power?
Replacing one polluting fuel with another polluting fuel is not a solution.
Wind, solar and hydro are renewable.
Nuclear fuel is not.
wind power isn't advantageous; it is renewable. But it's unsightly, can be costly (suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive), and is noisy.
Ah, yes, unsightly.
As opposed to those decorative smoke stask or cooling towers, and those ever so pretty charcoal strip mines.
Wind power is screwing everything up! Oh how we'll miss the gentle sounds of industrial mining equipment tearing the land appart and the gigantic, whisper-quiet trucks hauling their massive loads of ore.