No, that was an example of above average acting in a film that fills a similar role. Comparing the acting to, say, One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest or Shawshank wouldn't exactly be a fair comparison. Apples to oranges and all that.
when really the dialogue sucked, the plots were generic, and acting not up to scratch.
First, I disagree that the dialog sucked. It was at least no worse than the new movies. Second, I think a generic plot is better than a bad plot. Seriously, maybe the origionals did have a generic plot, but it was well done. The new movies have a bad plot and while rising above a mediocre plot isn't all that hard, rising above a bad plot is quite a trick.
But the acting comment I don't understand. Between the James Earl Jones, Harrisson Ford and Alec Guinness the movie had some good acting. Definately not any of their best performances, but those were all solid performances. Then you have Carrie Fisher,Billy Dee Williams and Frank Oz, who put up some decent performances. I mean, the acting will never be Braveheart quality, but it was far from sub-par.
[i]True, it helped that my expectations were low. Still, I found myself quite enjoying the first half of the film!
While I agreed with his overall response I completely disagree with most of his points. I didn't like the first half, except maybe the first scene where Obi-Wan jumps out the window. It was the second half that was enjoyable. While the plot held itself together better in the first half of this the dialog was painful.
I've found that I really dislike this guy, and the way he presents thing. But I often agree with his opinions. At least on movies.
I can't remember the details, my dad (a serious music collector and follower of music news) told me about just such a thing. They are still small, but it's a recording label that allows musicians to keep their copyrights and has more musician friendly contracts. If I can find some details I come post them later tonight.
I think this is a trap that people without competition fall into. They start to think that a problem they are having is a problem anyone else who tries to do what they do would have. Or whatever obstacle they are facing would be just as bad or worse for someone else.
In this case, they are suggesting that they couldn't do their job without wasting millions of dollars on failed artists. That seems rediculous to me, but I bet they (or at least some of them) believe it.
Something occured to me when reading the part of the article that talked about a small number of people buying a large percentage of music sold. Those incredibly valuable customers, for the most part, care about music. They like music and they like bands. And often they buy music as a pledge of support. I think a significant thing that's come out of all this is that the general public is starting to understand that buying a CD is a bad way to support an artist. The more the general public understands this the less guilty people are going to feel not paying for music.
I went to the Matrix in IMAX, and I seriously hope this survives the transition better. The Matrix came out with horrid color and degraded picture quality.
Also, I'm assuming that the IMAX media won't be showing it in digital format, so I hope that the larger size doesn't just enhance the fact that it wasn't made for the format. The movie looked good in the normal theatre, but considering the picture quality I don't expect it to look better when it's bigger.
I'm not sure if you'll see this, but just in case. I don't know what prompted you to respond to my post, but I'm confused. I've reread it, and I still don't see why you assumed I wasn't a Christian. I was simply pointing out a difference between science and religion, and how that applied to the post I was responding to.
Reagardless, I'm a Christian. Christian reformed, to be exact. Personally, I've found C S Lewis to have the best books to point people to, but that's mostly a matter of taste.
But core beliefs have been known to change in the realm of science, and certainly more frequently than such beliefs change in religion.
Actually, I think you're using the concept of a core belief quite differently between science and religion. Science is a system, not a set of beliefs. Science is, by itself, impartial to the facts involved. The things that define science are more along the lines of the scientific method, and are much harder to nail down than a religious belief.
"If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows...then we must starve eternally."
--The Problem of Pain
I think the Church does itself and it's message a disservice by presenting Hell wrong. Hell is the inevitable result of denying God. If you refuse to accept God then you cannot happily be with Him for eternity. I don't pretend to know exactly what Hell is, but from my study of the Bible I do know that it's not somewhere God wants people, and I know that it's not tourture for the sake of tourture.
I'm glad you understood that so well, but then you missed one of the points that was central to his explanation. God is an individual, not a set of rules or formulae (that's wrong, isn't it?). Humans, made in the image of God, understand how to make an exception where one is due. The ever present "letter vs. intention of the law" isn't a problem, because he wrote the letter, and enforces it based on the intention. And that's why he's suggesting that the details aren't as important as the center. Because the legalese of the Bible isn't important if you get the theme.
That's exactly what I was going to say. I know this post is kind of pointless, but considering you didn't get modded up I had to at least recognise a good joke.
Well, it all does come down to preference. I personally really like resource driven RTS games, and get sick of hack n slash RPGs much more easily.
To me though, the thing is SC had extrememly well thought out details. The details of D2 were rather sloppy, and the coding was abysmal. If you want to disagree, take a look at the patch changes list, and remember that many ballance changes that happened were not included. And then consider how efficiently the program runs after all that. And the origional D2 runs in the same resolution as SC, too.
Regardless, I can't argue that you should or shouldn't like one more than the other. I'm just saying one was a good idea further developed and excecuted well, and the other was a good idea that was done not nearly so well.
Well, I wish I had some useful reference or proof, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of that if you simply go to the patent section of slashdots history. I seem to remember some good ones.
Anyhoo, a useful way of illustrating the problem that patents cause. Immagine if the screw were patentable. Everything sold with screws in it had to pay royalties to someone. Now the 2x4 is patented, same deal. Next the nail. Then dozens of different types of glue and staples. It's not long before only a small minority of already well-off companies can afford to produce things at industry standard. Ok, not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Software patents (unless perfectly regulated) deny programmers neccessary tools to build competitive programs.
If you've designed your game with lots of boring repetitious stuff which is well-suited for a machine, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
If your idea of making certain events rare is a spawn-rate measured in hours or days, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
If you think of your paying customers as gerbils who will do anything, especially hitting the spacebar or attack key every ten seconds, for eight hours at a stretch, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
Yup, I agree. I know you're talking about MMORPGs, but it applies here too. And I think the problem is the same as the ones we complain about in the business world as well. Making a quality product and making a successful product are often different. (see Blizzard vs Blizzard North)
Too many Americans are content with the status quo, because they figure the NEA and the national political parties know best.
I don't think that's quite it. I think too many Americans are content with the status quo because they don't know how to change it. I agree that the NEA is messed up, and that wide scale reform to the public education system is needed. But a lot of things need change, and people have very little time nowdays. And everything that needs to be changed has so many roadblocks set up that it would take many, many people a lot of time to do anything at all.
I think before a change like that could happen two things are required. First, some organization to the reform. Ideas, information, people willing to work, all together. (hopefully it goes without saying that said group can actually make things better) Second, normal people need to know about this group, so that anyone with the interest in the subject can get involved.
Only stupid people are more concerned with the fact that they were made to look bad than with the underlying truth. Instead of getting offended they should have put the kid in touch with their IT team. Or put him on it.
It doesn't have any of the above and has the popup blocker UI.
I consider both of those things pluses. I haven't downloaded 7, so I don't know if those frills are optional, but I won't use any of them.
Actually, I'm an American computer tech. I live in Chicago and administer databases for a small college. And I find the general ethics of American culture disgusting.
Actually, I know nothing about Japanese economics. I AM fully aware that big companies in Japan are not out for the common good, but that's another issue. Regardless, I was speaking in terms of culture. American culture is 99% about "me." I'm fairly sure that the East is still better on that than we are.
Politics are complicated. It takes a lot of effort to be an informed voter in the US right now. If we could set up some kind of central government site that has listings for upcoming elections and a small section for each candidate, and maybe links to some good political comentary, it would make being an informed voter that much easier. And it would change the current "buying the votes" situation a tiny bit.
But I have to agree with the cynical guy above. It's just too good to be true. It's something that would greatly help the voters and the underdogs, two things that no politician wants, because he wants an easy re-election, not a fair contest.
Doesn't the music industry get paid for all those blank cd's? I don't remember the details, but they get a certain amount of money per cd sold, regardless of the use of that cd. That's infuriating enough, but then people are still going to act like blank cd's cut in on music sales? That's just plain assinine.
With all the rampant speculation, FUD and vapor already out there, I think this does a lot of good. It's a much more realistic and mature speculation, and it's much more nutral than most of what is already being said. Granted, he can't clear everything up by telling people the way things are, but a lot of people are already saying a lot of things about Palladium, and it's good to have people saying intelligent things.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that was an example of above average acting in a film that fills a similar role. Comparing the acting to, say, One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest or Shawshank wouldn't exactly be a fair comparison. Apples to oranges and all that.
when really the dialogue sucked, the plots were generic, and acting not up to scratch.
First, I disagree that the dialog sucked. It was at least no worse than the new movies. Second, I think a generic plot is better than a bad plot. Seriously, maybe the origionals did have a generic plot, but it was well done. The new movies have a bad plot and while rising above a mediocre plot isn't all that hard, rising above a bad plot is quite a trick.
But the acting comment I don't understand. Between the James Earl Jones, Harrisson Ford and Alec Guinness the movie had some good acting. Definately not any of their best performances, but those were all solid performances. Then you have Carrie Fisher,Billy Dee Williams and Frank Oz, who put up some decent performances. I mean, the acting will never be Braveheart quality, but it was far from sub-par.
[i]True, it helped that my expectations were low. Still, I found myself quite enjoying the first half of the film!
While I agreed with his overall response I completely disagree with most of his points. I didn't like the first half, except maybe the first scene where Obi-Wan jumps out the window. It was the second half that was enjoyable. While the plot held itself together better in the first half of this the dialog was painful.
I've found that I really dislike this guy, and the way he presents thing. But I often agree with his opinions. At least on movies.
I can't remember the details, my dad (a serious music collector and follower of music news) told me about just such a thing. They are still small, but it's a recording label that allows musicians to keep their copyrights and has more musician friendly contracts. If I can find some details I come post them later tonight.
I think this is a trap that people without competition fall into. They start to think that a problem they are having is a problem anyone else who tries to do what they do would have. Or whatever obstacle they are facing would be just as bad or worse for someone else.
In this case, they are suggesting that they couldn't do their job without wasting millions of dollars on failed artists. That seems rediculous to me, but I bet they (or at least some of them) believe it.
Something occured to me when reading the part of the article that talked about a small number of people buying a large percentage of music sold. Those incredibly valuable customers, for the most part, care about music. They like music and they like bands. And often they buy music as a pledge of support. I think a significant thing that's come out of all this is that the general public is starting to understand that buying a CD is a bad way to support an artist. The more the general public understands this the less guilty people are going to feel not paying for music.
I went to the Matrix in IMAX, and I seriously hope this survives the transition better. The Matrix came out with horrid color and degraded picture quality.
Also, I'm assuming that the IMAX media won't be showing it in digital format, so I hope that the larger size doesn't just enhance the fact that it wasn't made for the format. The movie looked good in the normal theatre, but considering the picture quality I don't expect it to look better when it's bigger.
I'm not sure if you'll see this, but just in case. I don't know what prompted you to respond to my post, but I'm confused. I've reread it, and I still don't see why you assumed I wasn't a Christian. I was simply pointing out a difference between science and religion, and how that applied to the post I was responding to.
Reagardless, I'm a Christian. Christian reformed, to be exact. Personally, I've found C S Lewis to have the best books to point people to, but that's mostly a matter of taste.
But core beliefs have been known to change in the realm of science, and certainly more frequently than such beliefs change in religion.
Actually, I think you're using the concept of a core belief quite differently between science and religion. Science is a system, not a set of beliefs. Science is, by itself, impartial to the facts involved. The things that define science are more along the lines of the scientific method, and are much harder to nail down than a religious belief.
"If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows...then we must starve eternally."
--The Problem of Pain
I think the Church does itself and it's message a disservice by presenting Hell wrong. Hell is the inevitable result of denying God. If you refuse to accept God then you cannot happily be with Him for eternity. I don't pretend to know exactly what Hell is, but from my study of the Bible I do know that it's not somewhere God wants people, and I know that it's not tourture for the sake of tourture.
I'm glad you understood that so well, but then you missed one of the points that was central to his explanation. God is an individual, not a set of rules or formulae (that's wrong, isn't it?). Humans, made in the image of God, understand how to make an exception where one is due. The ever present "letter vs. intention of the law" isn't a problem, because he wrote the letter, and enforces it based on the intention. And that's why he's suggesting that the details aren't as important as the center. Because the legalese of the Bible isn't important if you get the theme.
That's exactly what I was going to say. I know this post is kind of pointless, but considering you didn't get modded up I had to at least recognise a good joke.
Well, it all does come down to preference. I personally really like resource driven RTS games, and get sick of hack n slash RPGs much more easily.
To me though, the thing is SC had extrememly well thought out details. The details of D2 were rather sloppy, and the coding was abysmal. If you want to disagree, take a look at the patch changes list, and remember that many ballance changes that happened were not included. And then consider how efficiently the program runs after all that. And the origional D2 runs in the same resolution as SC, too.
Regardless, I can't argue that you should or shouldn't like one more than the other. I'm just saying one was a good idea further developed and excecuted well, and the other was a good idea that was done not nearly so well.
Well, I wish I had some useful reference or proof, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of that if you simply go to the patent section of slashdots history. I seem to remember some good ones. Anyhoo, a useful way of illustrating the problem that patents cause. Immagine if the screw were patentable. Everything sold with screws in it had to pay royalties to someone. Now the 2x4 is patented, same deal. Next the nail. Then dozens of different types of glue and staples. It's not long before only a small minority of already well-off companies can afford to produce things at industry standard. Ok, not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Software patents (unless perfectly regulated) deny programmers neccessary tools to build competitive programs.
If you've designed your game with lots of boring repetitious stuff which is well-suited for a machine, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
If your idea of making certain events rare is a spawn-rate measured in hours or days, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
If you think of your paying customers as gerbils who will do anything, especially hitting the spacebar or attack key every ten seconds, for eight hours at a stretch, then you've gone the wrong direction.
Diablo II, check.
Yup, I agree. I know you're talking about MMORPGs, but it applies here too. And I think the problem is the same as the ones we complain about in the business world as well. Making a quality product and making a successful product are often different. (see Blizzard vs Blizzard North)
Too many Americans are content with the status quo, because they figure the NEA and the national political parties know best.
I don't think that's quite it. I think too many Americans are content with the status quo because they don't know how to change it. I agree that the NEA is messed up, and that wide scale reform to the public education system is needed. But a lot of things need change, and people have very little time nowdays. And everything that needs to be changed has so many roadblocks set up that it would take many, many people a lot of time to do anything at all.
I think before a change like that could happen two things are required. First, some organization to the reform. Ideas, information, people willing to work, all together. (hopefully it goes without saying that said group can actually make things better) Second, normal people need to know about this group, so that anyone with the interest in the subject can get involved.
Only stupid people are more concerned with the fact that they were made to look bad than with the underlying truth. Instead of getting offended they should have put the kid in touch with their IT team. Or put him on it.
It doesn't have any of the above and has the popup blocker UI. I consider both of those things pluses. I haven't downloaded 7, so I don't know if those frills are optional, but I won't use any of them.
Actually, I'm an American computer tech. I live in Chicago and administer databases for a small college. And I find the general ethics of American culture disgusting.
Actually, I know nothing about Japanese economics. I AM fully aware that big companies in Japan are not out for the common good, but that's another issue. Regardless, I was speaking in terms of culture. American culture is 99% about "me." I'm fairly sure that the East is still better on that than we are.
You mean a country full of greedy individualist companies is technologically behind contries with a strong sense of the common good? Amazing.
Politics are complicated. It takes a lot of effort to be an informed voter in the US right now. If we could set up some kind of central government site that has listings for upcoming elections and a small section for each candidate, and maybe links to some good political comentary, it would make being an informed voter that much easier. And it would change the current "buying the votes" situation a tiny bit.
But I have to agree with the cynical guy above. It's just too good to be true. It's something that would greatly help the voters and the underdogs, two things that no politician wants, because he wants an easy re-election, not a fair contest.
Doesn't the music industry get paid for all those blank cd's? I don't remember the details, but they get a certain amount of money per cd sold, regardless of the use of that cd. That's infuriating enough, but then people are still going to act like blank cd's cut in on music sales? That's just plain assinine.
Response from the webmaster over at law.com "What, you mean all that legal talk actually means something?"
With all the rampant speculation, FUD and vapor already out there, I think this does a lot of good. It's a much more realistic and mature speculation, and it's much more nutral than most of what is already being said. Granted, he can't clear everything up by telling people the way things are, but a lot of people are already saying a lot of things about Palladium, and it's good to have people saying intelligent things.