I get all of my tax stuff from work, school and everywhere else by the end of January and get my return by early to mid February. File early folks an you won't have this problem.
They're still formulaic, they just use a different, "more artsy" formula.
Not so sure about that. Good Night and Good Luck was an "independent" (Warner Bros. Independent division, produced by George Clooney and a few others) certainly wasn't following a formula. It all depends on the film. I've seen lots of "independent" films that just plain suck from where I sit, and others that are great. My point is the so-called "independent" films are where you find movies taking chances, trying to make something new or at least present for the audience -- in short they try to make a better product. Hollywood films take zero chances which is why they almost always suck. This is due largely to studio, media conglomerate and theater interference with the director. To many chefs in the kitchen and all that.
However, on the concept of "formula" its been said, by many a writer, that there are only a handful of stories in the world and they keep getting told over and over again. From that perspective all things that involve a story are formulaic. Its just that some stories are so good they keep getting re-told. In the case of Good Night and Good Luck, its the David vs. Goliath template.
Theaters often have a stake in the movie making process. So in a sense they feel they have a right to bitch and control the creation process. It was the theaters that requested the Bourne Identity to have three 'no dialogue' action sequences to appeal to the male teenager market after they got a look at the initial test cut of the film.
The whole Hollywood movie process is tainted from the top down, which is why many of the best films being made today are "independent" (usually a division of some super media conglomerate)
Didn't they try that already? They tried to enforce EULA agreements with anybody who had a PC, the theory being: If you had a PC then you had a copy of Windows. And if you had a copy of Windows then you have to pay for it.
Or maybe that happened in my Orwellian nightmares.
There are three distinct changes in-between what you've snipped from the AP article you've read and the article as I now see it. They are:
1) Nancy Hopkins' initial quote is dropped in the updated version. 2) The statistics of Harvard's tenured jobs are dropped as well 3) You state "mommy truck" and "daddy truck" instead of "baby truck" and "daddy truck" also in the current version of the AP.
Ah... yes more of the subtlety you mentioned. Kind of 'defanging' the article to make the Harvard seem less sexist, but the third change is a mystery. Which is the real quote? 'mommy truck' or 'baby truck' -- who knows.
It is true that "microsoft is mocrosoft," however, M$ is a super-giant in the corporate world. And as such, they help set the standard for the corporate culture. Much like Wal-Mart and their union busting. It sets a precident that it's OK to stifle competition -- by any means necessary -- rather than produce a better mouse trap than the other guy.
Other corporations will (and many have) picked up on this from other sectors and are doing the exact same thing. Corporations are like lemmings they can and will jump off a bridge if everybody else is doing it.
well, not really, the brush strokes are too predictable and don't always work. take a look at some of Van Gogh art and you will see that he did more than side to side brush work.
intresting points, however here are a few thoughts from someone not iniated in the laws of physics.
isn't it true that all the galaxy's and solar systems are moving? (expanding, shifting, whatever?) whouldn't that suggest that a plotted course of a given object might miss it's mark if you do not take in account for the over-all "shift" in our solar system.
now this may not have much of an effect on say planets close to us (the moon, mars etc)
in short, mabye the NASA guys made a mistake in thier calculations..... they are human beings after all...
Slashdot Mirror
I get all of my tax stuff from work, school and everywhere else by the end of January and get my return by early to mid February. File early folks an you won't have this problem.
They're still formulaic, they just use a different, "more artsy" formula.
Not so sure about that. Good Night and Good Luck was an "independent" (Warner Bros. Independent division, produced by George Clooney and a few others) certainly wasn't following a formula. It all depends on the film. I've seen lots of "independent" films that just plain suck from where I sit, and others that are great. My point is the so-called "independent" films are where you find movies taking chances, trying to make something new or at least present for the audience -- in short they try to make a better product. Hollywood films take zero chances which is why they almost always suck. This is due largely to studio, media conglomerate and theater interference with the director. To many chefs in the kitchen and all that.
However, on the concept of "formula" its been said, by many a writer, that there are only a handful of stories in the world and they keep getting told over and over again. From that perspective all things that involve a story are formulaic. Its just that some stories are so good they keep getting re-told. In the case of Good Night and Good Luck, its the David vs. Goliath template.
Theaters often have a stake in the movie making process. So in a sense they feel they have a right to bitch and control the creation process. It was the theaters that requested the Bourne Identity to have three 'no dialogue' action sequences to appeal to the male teenager market after they got a look at the initial test cut of the film.
The whole Hollywood movie process is tainted from the top down, which is why many of the best films being made today are "independent" (usually a division of some super media conglomerate)
Didn't they try that already? They tried to enforce EULA agreements with anybody who had a PC, the theory being: If you had a PC then you had a copy of Windows. And if you had a copy of Windows then you have to pay for it.
Or maybe that happened in my Orwellian nightmares.
There are three distinct changes in-between what you've snipped from the AP article you've read and the article as I now see it. They are:
1) Nancy Hopkins' initial quote is dropped in the updated version.
2) The statistics of Harvard's tenured jobs are dropped as well
3) You state "mommy truck" and "daddy truck" instead of "baby truck" and "daddy truck" also in the current version of the AP.
Ah... yes more of the subtlety you mentioned. Kind of 'defanging' the article to make the Harvard seem less sexist, but the third change is a mystery. Which is the real quote? 'mommy truck' or 'baby truck' -- who knows.
It is true that "microsoft is mocrosoft," however, M$ is a super-giant in the corporate world. And as such, they help set the standard for the corporate culture. Much like Wal-Mart and their union busting. It sets a precident that it's OK to stifle competition -- by any means necessary -- rather than produce a better mouse trap than the other guy.
Other corporations will (and many have) picked up on this from other sectors and are doing the exact same thing. Corporations are like lemmings they can and will jump off a bridge if everybody else is doing it.
They wouldn't understand it at all. Start talking anything "techie" to normal people and they go into a coma.
it's not just SF, here in Chicago as well. you can still see the faint image of Tux at the Jackson street subway entrance to the Blue line.
well, not really, the brush strokes are too predictable and don't always work. take a look at some of Van Gogh art and you will see that he did more than side to side brush work.
they do look very intersting though...
intresting points, however here are a few thoughts from someone not iniated in the laws of physics.
isn't it true that all the galaxy's and solar systems are moving? (expanding, shifting, whatever?) whouldn't that suggest that a plotted course of a given object might miss it's mark if you do not take in account for the over-all "shift" in our solar system.
now this may not have much of an effect on say planets close to us (the moon, mars etc)
in short, mabye the NASA guys made a mistake in thier calculations..... they are human beings after all...
of course, i'm probably wrong, i usually am.