What if there were an impending rock-slide and instead of maneuvering out of the way as mission control told it to, it decided to look at the shiny rocks instead and got crushed in the process?
Sorry I was not more specific - I was referring to this post.
The only reason I said anything was because this post simply stated that he didnt consider the new, revised DVDs a "must have" because he preferred the original versions of the films (as most people do). Just thought it was funny that some of the child posts were saying people were spazzing out about it, saying things like "Lucas is raping my childhood" - when in fact the parent post was simple, reasonable statement. Just didn't know why you guys were saying those things, thats all. Maybe it was more a response of a million other fanboys or something; surely it wasn't derived from this thread.
It's HIS movie, he can do as HE pleases with it. He is not screwing you. He is not raping your childhood. He is not having sex with your mother while you watch, helplessly duct-taped to a chair.
Did I miss something? I believe the parent poster simply stated that he probably won't be buying the revised DVDs...
Um, some people like viewing the movies they grew up with in their original state - not "enhanced" with bad CG dancing scenes or politically-correct changes that make no sense in the context of the scene.
In the grand scheme of things, Lucas f-ing up his original Trilogy is small potatoes... but in the context of a Star Wars article on Slashdot - you have to expect some bitching about the Greedo scene;)
People still use ICQ? Ever since Mirabilis was bought out by AOL, ICQ has been an overbloated piece of IM software with entirely too many useless features. It basically turned into AIM on crack.
The paranoid side of me sometimes suspects that they artificially throttle their shipping rate.
There is not a doubt in my mind that they are doing exactly that. The question then becomes, despite the slowed rate - are you still getting your money's worth? It seems from your 32-films-for-$42 per month, that you certainly are. Yes, it is annoying - but I still think Netflix cant be beat for current rental models.
The model that will eventually kill Netflix is on-demand, but for hardcare movie buffs it will take some time before there is an on-demand service with the vast and eclectic library of films that Netflix has today. For you average family that rents the lastest Spiderman and Adam Sandler vehicle plus another two films a month, on-demand would be more than sufficient.
First off, what video store costs only $2?! Its more like $4-5 here in Boston.
And second, I don't see how any of these models (rental, disposable for $6, etc) can compete with Netflix, other than if you happen to need the movie right away (and how often is that the case?) Right now I average about 12 movies per month on Netflix, all for $20! And the foreign and independent selections is *far* better than at local video stores.
I didn't see any similarity between Sparrow and the guy from Once Upon a Time in Mexico (aside from both Depp, of course). What I am talking about is certainly not "trademarks" -- I'm talking about a rehashing of a previous character of his to the degree that it made me lose respect for the role to some extent. These are the only two roles of his that I thought crossed too many lines with each other - I certainly do not feel this way about all of Depp's films. Yes, nowadays Pacino plays the same part over and over again and, of course, doesn't deserve awards for them (nor does he receive them).
And when I say "How difficult was the role to pull off?" I don't mean necessarily mean for the particular actor chosen for the role... If playing a part comes easier for a Bogart than it does for one of the guys in Friends - more power to Bogart. What I mean is, how far seperated is the act of playing this part successfully from the rank and file, poor actors in the world... better yet, how far away is this performance from *me* being able to play it? Is it the type of role that just about any actor could play? Or did this one actor pull something from someplace special and really show us something?
The first and main strike against Sparrow is not even Depp's fault per se, and that is the film's script. Sparrow quite simply did not have to show us anything complex. Ive always heard that what seperates good actors from bad ones is that good ones can "feel" (and therefore, show to the audience) two or more emotions at once... they show us the confliction. Conversely, bad actors tend to give polorized performances - when they are mad, they are clearly mad -- and then they turn clearly sad, etc... While I certainly think Depp belongs to the former (he is the only reason I saw Pirates in the first place, and the only reason I somewhat enjoyed it) I don't think this performance in particular is a showcase for his ability. The role was just too simple. Contrast this performance with Billy Bob's in Sling Blade, or Nick Cage's in Adaptation, or Sean Penn's in Mystic River. *Those* performances showed us something. In comparison, playing Sparrow was relative cakewalk. I'll be first in line behind Depp for an award when he shows me something other than being good-looking and rehashing old characters - I know he is capable of it. In the meantime, I'll just keep going to, and enjoying, his movies.
Where I disagree is that I feel the bulk of this character was created not for Pirates, but for another of his films, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. For that film I have no doubt that Depp contributed greatly to the creation of the character - and after having seen a behind the scenes DVD on the film, I can still stand by that. Contrastly, with his Pirates film, I'll agree with the parent poster and say that all Depp "really did with the pirate was Raul Duke with an accent and more 'savvy's." Depp's pirate was a fun character and like Brando, I will remember him - I just don't think that makes its a "great" or award worthy performance.
I think a much better gauge to determine the worthiness of a performance is to ask yourself, "How difficult was it to accomplish?" In the case of Depp's pirate, I don't think it was all that difficult. The quirky walk, the speech pattern, the "fidgetiness" - he's done this before, and in a far better film to boot. So what is left? He added some sexual-orientation questions into his pirate character, which I admit was hilarious... oh, and he had fake teeth...
...and Johnny Depp was the one who designed his costume... and (I assume) the teeth.
Great - then nominate him for costume design. Fake teeth shouldn't contribute to a "best performance" category, nor should dieting (Tom Hanks, Cast Away) or a fake nose (Nicole Kidman, The Hours).
Yes, Depp made the film, but really that is only because the rest of the film didn't have much going for it beyond his character. Depp was the only breath of fresh air in it. (ok, the girl was hot, but aside from that...)
And even then a lot of the quarkiness of his pirate character was already exhibited by his Raoul character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Pirates was a decent popcorn flick, but it doesn't deserve consideration in terms of awards based on performances... then again, after seeing Russell Crowe win for that roman movie, I guess I am out of touch.
Honestly, people. We're talking about the White House, for Pete's sake, not Joe's Tavern. Do you really think that they don't pay people to keep track of important events being reported as they happen?
I think they pay people to be on top of certain issues, yes. I also think they disregard other issues almost entirely - issues that are much more important to people in other places, and receive a lot more news coverage there. Only good can come of receiving a diverse selection of news and opinions on a given subject.
and we're talking several papers, then the President would be doing pretty much nothing all day but read newspapers!
Perhaps I came across as a bit overzealous, but honestly it does not take that long to read the more substantive articles and opeds from a given news source. I certainly do not expect Mr. Bush to sit down and read 8 newspapers start to finish every morning - but yes, I think it would do him a world of good to read selections from varied news sources. Perhaps he could better guage the feelings of the French by reading Le Monde, rather than renaming french fries, is all I'm saying.
And for someone that doesn't have time to read newspapers, Mr. Bush sure takes a lot of vacations...
I cannot believe you equate reading the newspaper with a CEO signing off on paperclips. Though there is no good reason for a CEO to sign off purchases for paperclips, there is every reason that our President should read the newspaper every single day -- better yet, several newspapers... better still, several from the U.S. and several from Europe.
Just by looking at his policies you can tell that Bush is out of touch on many issues - this is probably a huge reason why. Also, as another poster has said, this vests a lot of power in the one or two people that summarize the news for him. What makes it truly horrifying is that Bush seems to take pride in his choice to not read newspapers.
I had accidentily cut myself short by hitting the Submit button instead of Preview;) But what I intended to say was simply that I feel its naive to disregard the influence of culture on a person.
I know its romantic to think that we are all independant, free-thinking and self-determining people but in truth we are all products of our cultures. Geeks from the United States and geeks from Saudi Arabia do share one common trait - a presumed love of technology, computers, what have you - but there are no doubt *significant* differences between a typical individual (geeks or not) on each side. Such being the case, I felt the article might have something interesting/important to say, whereas the poster that I responded to stated an essentially "we are all just geeks, whats the difference?" position.
how exactly are they different from geeks everywhere above the robes?
Um, because their culture is completely different than ours. Different cultures have differnet values, instill differnet types and levels of education, emphasize different skills and trails, etc etc...
Yeah, I'd be horrified at the lies, distortions and half-truths he uses to vilify my country. Plus, there's that whole "Pol Pot wasn't REALLY so bad" thing he does.
Please... *please* reference such statements with facts or quotations. I bet you can't.
So our buddy gassed a mutual enemy... big deal. Previous American administrations have always supported the use of such weapons when they fall within its own interest, and America continues to use such weapons today in support of the "War on Drugs."
Turn off Fox News for a second and read something by Noam Chomsky. You would be surprised/horrified.
Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.
To quote Bill Maher - "We can't stop doing coke, so you have to die."
You have no idea what you're talking about. Our foreign policy is largely responsible for farmers in places like Columbia resorting to coca farming in the first place. Columbia was a wheat-producer forty years ago, but wheat production was undermined by the US under the Food for Peace program in the 50s, which flooded Columbia with subsidized agricultural products. Of course, regardless of the name of the program, it is clear we were not really after peace in Columbia. Take one look at our history in the region, including the various banana republics of South America. The U.S. has been a huge force of opposition against democracy. By propping up and supported corrupt dictators, and by giving them immense military aid (Columbia was the largest receiver of US military aid) to fight pro-democracy rebels, many of these countries have been at war for decades. Out of desperation, these farmers plant the one crop that will guarantee food on their tables - and you want to kill them for it.
Now that's not so? When will it be again? When it's convenient rhetoric?
Is that the best you could come up with to respond to my post? First off, I'm not quoting or paraphrasig Nader... those were my words - Nader may have said something similar, but so have a lot of other writers/speakers.
I do not believe I was contradicting myself in the slightest. Yes, I believe that a free-market is the backbone of a free society. All things being equal, I prefer a hands-off approach to government, and I think the free-market is a reasonable way to handle most exchanges. The free-market handles 90% of transactions without problem. It is our backbone. --- However, it is not without flaw in some markets, and *definitely* needs government intervention in some arenas (specifically, when there are third parties at stake - unspecifed losses, such as damages to the environment, etc). If you truly think the free-market is an inherently good idea in all situations, please read Sinclair's "The Jungle," or even the new book "Fast Food Nation."
I tend to think of the free-market as the "default." By default, things should be left to the free-market. When problems arise, I then like to see government step in and level the playing field, or force companies to respect third-parties that they otherwise would not because it has no effect on their bottom line. (the minimum MPG for cars is a good example of this, as well as requiring cars to have seatbelts and airbags).
I'm sure that I will not be alone in contending that a Free Market is an inherent part of Freedom.
Who advocated that it wasn't?
A Free Market is NOT simply a tool.
Yes it is. Like all things, a free-market has no inherent positive or negative attributes. It is all in the implementation and the cirumstances of the market you are talking about. It could be argued that what is ever more becoming a media monopoly is a product of a free market - the successful are buying and acquiring more and more. However, this has negative consequences for our citizens. Microsoft got to its position because of the free market - but would you not agree it would be better if we had open standards, and MS was just one of many companies producing software for these stanards?
Again, the free-market is the backbone of any free society... This should not change. However, it is not without flaw, and there can definitely be corruption. Media is one of those fields that is tainted by competition - not enhanced. When BMW and Mercedes compete to make better and better cars, the consumers win. When Fox and CNN compete to grab headlines, consumers lose because impartiality goes out the window. Again, I dont want only one news source - but I do want at least one news source that exists outside the realm of competing markets. Media is at its best, most pure form when it doesn't have to skew its reports to meet any agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
What if there were an impending rock-slide and instead of maneuvering out of the way as mission control told it to, it decided to look at the shiny rocks instead and got crushed in the process?
;)
You have been watching too many SUV commercials
These booth girls... if i'm new to Linux, will they 'mount' my 'hard drive'?
;)
Oh come on - you weren't even trying with that one.
Sorry I was not more specific - I was referring to this post.
:)
The only reason I said anything was because this post simply stated that he didnt consider the new, revised DVDs a "must have" because he preferred the original versions of the films (as most people do). Just thought it was funny that some of the child posts were saying people were spazzing out about it, saying things like "Lucas is raping my childhood" - when in fact the parent post was simple, reasonable statement. Just didn't know why you guys were saying those things, thats all. Maybe it was more a response of a million other fanboys or something; surely it wasn't derived from this thread.
Ok, enough about Star Wars...
It's HIS movie, he can do as HE pleases with it. He is not screwing you. He is not raping your childhood. He is not having sex with your mother while you watch, helplessly duct-taped to a chair.
Did I miss something? I believe the parent poster simply stated that he probably won't be buying the revised DVDs...
Um, some people like viewing the movies they grew up with in their original state - not "enhanced" with bad CG dancing scenes or politically-correct changes that make no sense in the context of the scene.
;)
In the grand scheme of things, Lucas f-ing up his original Trilogy is small potatoes... but in the context of a Star Wars article on Slashdot - you have to expect some bitching about the Greedo scene
People still use ICQ? Ever since Mirabilis was bought out by AOL, ICQ has been an overbloated piece of IM software with entirely too many useless features. It basically turned into AIM on crack.
Yeah but, I have a really low number...
The paranoid side of me sometimes suspects that they artificially throttle their shipping rate.
There is not a doubt in my mind that they are doing exactly that. The question then becomes, despite the slowed rate - are you still getting your money's worth? It seems from your 32-films-for-$42 per month, that you certainly are. Yes, it is annoying - but I still think Netflix cant be beat for current rental models.
The model that will eventually kill Netflix is on-demand, but for hardcare movie buffs it will take some time before there is an on-demand service with the vast and eclectic library of films that Netflix has today. For you average family that rents the lastest Spiderman and Adam Sandler vehicle plus another two films a month, on-demand would be more than sufficient.
First off, what video store costs only $2?! Its more like $4-5 here in Boston.
And second, I don't see how any of these models (rental, disposable for $6, etc) can compete with Netflix, other than if you happen to need the movie right away (and how often is that the case?) Right now I average about 12 movies per month on Netflix, all for $20! And the foreign and independent selections is *far* better than at local video stores.
Ok, I'm a fanboy...
I didn't see any similarity between Sparrow and the guy from Once Upon a Time in Mexico (aside from both Depp, of course). What I am talking about is certainly not "trademarks" -- I'm talking about a rehashing of a previous character of his to the degree that it made me lose respect for the role to some extent. These are the only two roles of his that I thought crossed too many lines with each other - I certainly do not feel this way about all of Depp's films. Yes, nowadays Pacino plays the same part over and over again and, of course, doesn't deserve awards for them (nor does he receive them).
And when I say "How difficult was the role to pull off?" I don't mean necessarily mean for the particular actor chosen for the role... If playing a part comes easier for a Bogart than it does for one of the guys in Friends - more power to Bogart. What I mean is, how far seperated is the act of playing this part successfully from the rank and file, poor actors in the world... better yet, how far away is this performance from *me* being able to play it? Is it the type of role that just about any actor could play? Or did this one actor pull something from someplace special and really show us something?
The first and main strike against Sparrow is not even Depp's fault per se, and that is the film's script. Sparrow quite simply did not have to show us anything complex. Ive always heard that what seperates good actors from bad ones is that good ones can "feel" (and therefore, show to the audience) two or more emotions at once... they show us the confliction. Conversely, bad actors tend to give polorized performances - when they are mad, they are clearly mad -- and then they turn clearly sad, etc... While I certainly think Depp belongs to the former (he is the only reason I saw Pirates in the first place, and the only reason I somewhat enjoyed it) I don't think this performance in particular is a showcase for his ability. The role was just too simple. Contrast this performance with Billy Bob's in Sling Blade, or Nick Cage's in Adaptation, or Sean Penn's in Mystic River. *Those* performances showed us something. In comparison, playing Sparrow was relative cakewalk. I'll be first in line behind Depp for an award when he shows me something other than being good-looking and rehashing old characters - I know he is capable of it. In the meantime, I'll just keep going to, and enjoying, his movies.
Where I disagree is that I feel the bulk of this character was created not for Pirates, but for another of his films, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. For that film I have no doubt that Depp contributed greatly to the creation of the character - and after having seen a behind the scenes DVD on the film, I can still stand by that. Contrastly, with his Pirates film, I'll agree with the parent poster and say that all Depp "really did with the pirate was Raul Duke with an accent and more 'savvy's." Depp's pirate was a fun character and like Brando, I will remember him - I just don't think that makes its a "great" or award worthy performance.
I think a much better gauge to determine the worthiness of a performance is to ask yourself, "How difficult was it to accomplish?" In the case of Depp's pirate, I don't think it was all that difficult. The quirky walk, the speech pattern, the "fidgetiness" - he's done this before, and in a far better film to boot. So what is left? He added some sexual-orientation questions into his pirate character, which I admit was hilarious... oh, and he had fake teeth...
That's "The Ghost and the Darkness". The original pair of what you call "crazy zombie lions" are stuffed and exibited in a museum in Britain still.
Thought it was the Field Museum in Chicago, no?
Great - then nominate him for costume design. Fake teeth shouldn't contribute to a "best performance" category, nor should dieting (Tom Hanks, Cast Away) or a fake nose (Nicole Kidman, The Hours).
I agree with you on the Raul Duke comparison... but as for the teeth - don't confuse "performance" with "costume design."
There's a general consensus that Crowe's award for Gladiator was to make up for not winning anything for L.A. Confidential and The Insider.
;)
Well, in that case maybe I was wrong... maybe Depp should get the nod because, I don't know... he gives a lot to charity, or something.
Yes, Depp made the film, but really that is only because the rest of the film didn't have much going for it beyond his character. Depp was the only breath of fresh air in it. (ok, the girl was hot, but aside from that...)
And even then a lot of the quarkiness of his pirate character was already exhibited by his Raoul character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Pirates was a decent popcorn flick, but it doesn't deserve consideration in terms of awards based on performances... then again, after seeing Russell Crowe win for that roman movie, I guess I am out of touch.
Honestly, people. We're talking about the White House, for Pete's sake, not Joe's Tavern. Do you really think that they don't pay people to keep track of important events being reported as they happen?
I think they pay people to be on top of certain issues, yes. I also think they disregard other issues almost entirely - issues that are much more important to people in other places, and receive a lot more news coverage there. Only good can come of receiving a diverse selection of news and opinions on a given subject.
and we're talking several papers, then the President would be doing pretty much nothing all day but read newspapers!
Perhaps I came across as a bit overzealous, but honestly it does not take that long to read the more substantive articles and opeds from a given news source. I certainly do not expect Mr. Bush to sit down and read 8 newspapers start to finish every morning - but yes, I think it would do him a world of good to read selections from varied news sources. Perhaps he could better guage the feelings of the French by reading Le Monde, rather than renaming french fries, is all I'm saying.
And for someone that doesn't have time to read newspapers, Mr. Bush sure takes a lot of vacations...
I cannot believe you equate reading the newspaper with a CEO signing off on paperclips. Though there is no good reason for a CEO to sign off purchases for paperclips, there is every reason that our President should read the newspaper every single day -- better yet, several newspapers... better still, several from the U.S. and several from Europe.
Just by looking at his policies you can tell that Bush is out of touch on many issues - this is probably a huge reason why. Also, as another poster has said, this vests a lot of power in the one or two people that summarize the news for him. What makes it truly horrifying is that Bush seems to take pride in his choice to not read newspapers.
I had accidentily cut myself short by hitting the Submit button instead of Preview ;) But what I intended to say was simply that I feel its naive to disregard the influence of culture on a person.
I know its romantic to think that we are all independant, free-thinking and self-determining people but in truth we are all products of our cultures. Geeks from the United States and geeks from Saudi Arabia do share one common trait - a presumed love of technology, computers, what have you - but there are no doubt *significant* differences between a typical individual (geeks or not) on each side. Such being the case, I felt the article might have something interesting/important to say, whereas the poster that I responded to stated an essentially "we are all just geeks, whats the difference?" position.
how exactly are they different from geeks everywhere above the robes?
Um, because their culture is completely different than ours. Different cultures have differnet values, instill differnet types and levels of education, emphasize different skills and trails, etc etc...
Yeah, I'd be horrified at the lies, distortions and half-truths he uses to vilify my country. Plus, there's that whole "Pol Pot wasn't REALLY so bad" thing he does.
Please... *please* reference such statements with facts or quotations. I bet you can't.
So our buddy gassed a mutual enemy... big deal. Previous American administrations have always supported the use of such weapons when they fall within its own interest, and America continues to use such weapons today in support of the "War on Drugs."
Turn off Fox News for a second and read something by Noam Chomsky. You would be surprised/horrified.
Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.
To quote Bill Maher - "We can't stop doing coke, so you have to die."
You have no idea what you're talking about. Our foreign policy is largely responsible for farmers in places like Columbia resorting to coca farming in the first place. Columbia was a wheat-producer forty years ago, but wheat production was undermined by the US under the Food for Peace program in the 50s, which flooded Columbia with subsidized agricultural products. Of course, regardless of the name of the program, it is clear we were not really after peace in Columbia. Take one look at our history in the region, including the various banana republics of South America. The U.S. has been a huge force of opposition against democracy. By propping up and supported corrupt dictators, and by giving them immense military aid (Columbia was the largest receiver of US military aid) to fight pro-democracy rebels, many of these countries have been at war for decades. Out of desperation, these farmers plant the one crop that will guarantee food on their tables - and you want to kill them for it.
Now that's not so? When will it be again? When it's convenient rhetoric?
Is that the best you could come up with to respond to my post? First off, I'm not quoting or paraphrasig Nader... those were my words - Nader may have said something similar, but so have a lot of other writers/speakers.
I do not believe I was contradicting myself in the slightest. Yes, I believe that a free-market is the backbone of a free society. All things being equal, I prefer a hands-off approach to government, and I think the free-market is a reasonable way to handle most exchanges. The free-market handles 90% of transactions without problem. It is our backbone. --- However, it is not without flaw in some markets, and *definitely* needs government intervention in some arenas (specifically, when there are third parties at stake - unspecifed losses, such as damages to the environment, etc). If you truly think the free-market is an inherently good idea in all situations, please read Sinclair's "The Jungle," or even the new book "Fast Food Nation."
I tend to think of the free-market as the "default." By default, things should be left to the free-market. When problems arise, I then like to see government step in and level the playing field, or force companies to respect third-parties that they otherwise would not because it has no effect on their bottom line. (the minimum MPG for cars is a good example of this, as well as requiring cars to have seatbelts and airbags).
I'm sure that I will not be alone in contending that a Free Market is an inherent part of Freedom.
Who advocated that it wasn't?
A Free Market is NOT simply a tool.
Yes it is. Like all things, a free-market has no inherent positive or negative attributes. It is all in the implementation and the cirumstances of the market you are talking about. It could be argued that what is ever more becoming a media monopoly is a product of a free market - the successful are buying and acquiring more and more. However, this has negative consequences for our citizens. Microsoft got to its position because of the free market - but would you not agree it would be better if we had open standards, and MS was just one of many companies producing software for these stanards?
Again, the free-market is the backbone of any free society... This should not change. However, it is not without flaw, and there can definitely be corruption. Media is one of those fields that is tainted by competition - not enhanced. When BMW and Mercedes compete to make better and better cars, the consumers win. When Fox and CNN compete to grab headlines, consumers lose because impartiality goes out the window. Again, I dont want only one news source - but I do want at least one news source that exists outside the realm of competing markets. Media is at its best, most pure form when it doesn't have to skew its reports to meet any agenda.
Freedom is NOT simply a tool.
I agree.