Now that you say this, it appears that your problem has nothing to do with the special effects. You simply don't like the fact that not enough intellectual movies with an intricate story and rich characters are made. Another way to put it - you don't like that most people are stupid and like simplistic films. This is a very valid concern and I share it to some extent, but we must realise that it has nothing to do with the special effects.
Even if Congress passes a bill tomorrow prohibiting spending more than 15% of the budget on effects (special or traditional), do you seriously think that studios would suddenly start making movies that you consider very good. No, they would simply find another way to cater to the general public, by inviting more stars, dressing characters in fancy clothes, using more exotic locations, etc. They won't start making movies with excellent scripts and amazing characters, because... well, just because.;) Let's not blame the special effects for this.
I suggest we just stop worrying about this in terms of "robots with shotguns scare me, are we moving in the right direction". I mean, yeah, sure, we won't see a 2nd Robotic Regiment or 5th Robotic Squadron being deployed to the war theatre at a click of a button, but let's just admit that this potential is here, it will inevitably be realised in a few decades and we better learn how to live with this right now. Denial is the most predictable human reaction, but it is also completely futile.
And also when we have a story about CGI movies, could you please stop saying "Oh, they looks so plastic/wooden/[insert your favourite material], that I want to throw up. Give me my money back, humans should never be animated by computers", because, as you can see in this convinient illustrated timeline, it took just 20 years to go from this to this, which is quite a feat.
People, the future is going to happen, stop acting so surprised.
I agree to some extent. Duke 3D was quite funny too, Far Cry had some humour, even Doom 3 had humour. I am definitely not saying that GTA is not funny, on the contrary, I think it's as funny as it gets. Humour in such games will always be delegated to the "window dressing" role, because the main activity is not that funny.
The main argument, as I said earlier, is that jokes very rarely emerge from the gameplay - you have to write them. And when you write them, you need to limit the free goalless gameplay, because otherwise the percentage of humour would drop.:) You can have a "funny" mission goal in GTA, and funny cut-scene, but the execution of this mission is anything but funny - you just drive, shoot, etc.
I consider them good for what they are - action-packed sci-fi, family-friendly adventure films, historical blockbusters and even oh-so-creative artsy indie Sky Captain.:) I am not saying that Van Helsing was very good (IMO it wasn't), but without the budget spent on the effects it would simply suck monkey balls. The point is that money spent on a film almost always improve it. With all those millions Van Helsing is a passable action flick that doesn't bore you and even entertains if you are not too picky. Verdict - worth 10$. Without the millions, it is stupid boring, stereotype-ridden crap, which is worth neither my money, nor time. It follows logically that spending lots of money on Van Helsing is correct.
I am not saying all those movies spent on digital effects, some simply spent money on old "no-so-special" effects. There isn't much difference in my view, CGI is simply a more cost-efficient (often) alternative. The point, again, is that with money spent on the effects the movie improves.
And even when you consider some sucky films, such as Armageddon or Star Wars I + II (personally I think SW2 was mostly good), without the money spent on effects they would be totally horrendous. Imagine the same Armageddon only with crappy effects. Does it become a better movie? I don't think so. The conclusion is that even though some movies turn up crappy, this rarely (or never) happens because too much was spent on the special effects.
If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content. And why is that? Is there a law somewhere saying that people should not have stuff unless they work hard for it? By the same logic I can say that lotteries are illegal and immoral.
If Joe stole a Ferarri he couldn't pay for... But what if Joe copies a Ferrari, or "stole" a crashed Ferrari from a junkyard, or took yours for a ride in the night, when he was 100% sure you won't need it and returned it in the same condition it was before (full tank of gas and not even a miniscule amount of wear or damage)?
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for? Perhaps, because it doesn't cost you (or anyone) anything? It's like arguing that people in Angola should not have the right to enjoy food and medicine Danes and Swedes are sending them as humanitarian aid. Why do you care? It's not like you are paying for their priviledge to eat that food? Movie studios don't pay for those pirated copies, so they have no right to complain.
stealing music Filesharers and pirates don't use it as justification either. Actually, they chose piracy precisely because it allows them to NOT steal music. They don't have to go into music stores and shoplift their favourite CDs, instead they can simply make a copy without depriving anyone of their property.
I like the sleight-of-hand he is pulling. This looks like a decent replacing for Valenti - we are bound to enjoy his lies and FUD in the years to come.
How do you like the answer to the growing revenues question? First, he pulls a number out of his ass and claims that they are losing $3.5 billion per year. Second, he tells us about cam copies, briefly mentions the online distribution and finishes the argument with a story about counterfeit DVDs sold in NY and LA. The implied conclusion is that 1) cam copies are killing the industry and 2) lawsuits against fileshares will stop the production and spread of cam copies. Brilliant!
His story about his son Jon is pure gold. I mean, the "what are you going to do about it, Dad?" is even better than the tired old "think of the children" and "starving artists" cliche. Now I know what the MPAA is paying this guy for, he's a genius!:)
Re:Misguided article
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I haven't played these ones, but I don't suppose they were very interactive, free-roaming do-what-you-like games like GTA, were they? You can make a traditional quest funny, that's right, but the truth is noone wants to play quests anymore (or so it appears from the sales charts).
Frankly, one could make a GTA with all cut-scenes remade as comedy, not gangsta/mob films, but they they would be so out of sync with the gameplay itself. Jokes are something you create, not something that emerges from the gameplay (unless you are talking about "once-in-a-while" accidental funny moments that could happen even in Quake).
So a comedy game requires that you script it from the beginning to the end and that no traditional gameplay is possible. Because if you allow driving a car in a comedy game, you need to make it funny too, regardless of where you go. If you don't, there will be conflicting expectations from the gamer - do I want the driving to be cool (then why do I need all the jokes) or do I want it to be funny (then someone needs to create a lot of them)?
A film is more than a script and the scenes. It also has the look and feel. I bet I can give you a couple of screenshots from different recent movies that don't have the actors, memorable locations and such, but you won't have a problem telling Paycheck from I, Robot from Immortel and Matrix from the Thirteenth Floor from Dark City.
There is a visual style that can be impossible or prohibitively expensive to recreate in reality. That's why filmmakers use different creative tools. Another reason is that they are exploring the frontiers of possible to deliver the best product, the best story, the best looking images, and blaming them for trying new things is essentially luddism, which is on of the worst crimes in my book.
I still think that your dislike for the film has more to do with your preconceptions than with the shortcoming of the film itself. Animation is even worse, with it's flat, wooden and emotionless blobs of paint trying to persuade me their are live human beings. But you don't have a problem with that because you grew up watching lots of it. Just open your eyes yet more and try to understand that "wooden" characters are not a big deal, just like "plastic" skin was not a big deal with Final Fantasy. Go to the theatre and try to watch The Polar Express without thinking that these CGI actors are unnatural, non-human, overexpensive and bad otherwise. Think about it as just yet another visual style for telling a story, accept its conventions and have fun. I am sure that it isn't much more difficult than learning to enjoy eating foreign food (BTW, grasshoppers are delicious).
I'm afraid I disagree. First, I don't think you can name many films (one or two at most) where big budget was obviously wasted. I am not a frequent movie goer, so I am sure there've been other big budget films this year that I missed, but all that I saw were justified in spending a fortune on FX. Van Helsing, I, Robot, Spiderman, Sky Captain, Pirates of the Carribean, Last Samurai, Bourne Supremacy, Paycheck, Timeline, Kill Bill, Harry Potter, Night Patrol, Troy - all these films could not be made without spending a lot on effects. And I don't remember a single film where I would say "The money was wasted, the film would be better without good special FX".
This should deal with your argument that film makers overuse the special effects. I don't think so and I certainly don't remember any such examples.
Second, I think your criticism of the "cram-packed" mentality is misguided. There are different genres and for different genre the approach is different. Spiderman 2 would not be the film it was without gratuitous special effects. Harry Potter would not be a blockbuster on par with the success of the book without a fortune spent on recreating Hogwarts. The truth is that some time ago the filmmakers simply could not afford using special effects in every shot. So don't mistake the lack of special effects in 1970s films for some Golden Age of Filmmaking creative vision. It's normal to use FX in every shot, there is nothing wrong with it per se. As for getting in the way of the story, again, I don't remember this happening with the films I saw in 2004. If you could give examples, that may be helpful, but I doubt that this problem is very widespread.
I mean, it's ok to criticise a particular film, but if you criticise ALL or MOST of the films for making a certain judgement error, you are implying that your are a better filmmaker than all those directors, producers, etc., with all their Oscars and stuff, which makes your comments kinda questionable...
because my hindbrain doesn't expect them to look like real people
I guess, you should have a hard talk with your hindbrain. Polar Express was not supposed to be photorealistic. It's an animated movie and if you don't understand it... well, it's rather stupid to not understand it, isn't it?
The whole problem with poor CGI is mostly made up by people who want to look smart and pretend their taste is too good for us mere mortals. People like you, David.
The truth is that us, humans, have a hundred or so muscles in our face. Disney's Winnie the Pooh has two or three of them, if even that. Computer animation is an attempt to fill the void between traditional animation and live action films. As such, every CGI animation is bound to have some drawbacks, compared with both extreme cases, but it will also have some advantages.
If they made Polar Express a live action, it would not be truly faithful to the book, would not agree with director's vision and would not present a sufficiently compelling story that people would enjoy. If they made it cel animation, the same would happen. But when they combine the principles of animation and live action, add some new technology and use their creativity, the end result is almost exactly what everyone needs. Everyone, except for those people, who are averse to change and will badmouth everything unless it looks exactly like everything they saw before. People like you, David.
My advice to everyone who goes to see the Polar Express would be to watch it with open eyes, so to speak. Enjoy the story that is being told, enjoy the images that you see, and don't turn your nose away because this film is not something else. Don't ruin your viewing with preconceptions and luddite attitude.
Yeah, and I hope that Dell will not ruin my new PC by concentrating on using latest AMD processors and ATI video cards. Are you a luddite or just stupid? Special effects and large budget can never take away anything from the real story. Crappy acting, poor script and piss-poor special effects, on the other hand, can and do ruin many potentially interesting films every year.
I mean, I can certainly understand a critical attitude towards Holliwood, its reliance on sequels and oft mentioned lack of creativity, but for fuck's sake, stop this crap about big budgets ruining movies. This starts getting ridiculous.
Let me tell you about this from experience. When making a transition of that magnitude, the government absolutely must maintain a very strong grip on things. Or the country would be royally fucked. I live in Russia and in late 1980s China was regarded as a hopeless nobody, while Russia was believed (at least in Russia and China) to become a democratic capitalist powerhouse. What happened next is that Russian government lost control and the country went down the shitter.
In the meantime, China maintained political control, relinquished the economic controls only gradually and didn't let anyone fuck with the order by stopping violent uprisals such as the Tiananmen square (it wasn't a student protest, as many were led to believe by Western propaganda).
So today China is booming and blooming, while Russia lies in ruins. And the main reason for that is that the Chinese managed to maintain the order. I would happily trade my ability to use unfiltered Internet and ability to criticise the government (which doesn't change anything anyway) for living in a powerful country that I can be proud of.
P.S. A lot of things Chinese government does make perfect sense, such as prosecuting Falun Gong (which actually is a totalitarian sect, just like Scientology, only it's also opposed to the current government).
Well, may be AOL dial-up is a cash cow. Unless their cost structure is absolutely fucked up so that it COSTS them 20$ to provide the service, it's much better to have 20 million customers at 25$ per month than it is to have 30 million at 10$/month.
Actually, the lies and distortions are on the site for everyone to see. I started writing my post, then decided to do a whois search, then search for the guy's name and found the article on indimedia, which said it all well.
The myths listed are bullshit. No sane person would say most of those things, he intentionally distorts the actual real world complaints about the war to sound like they come from some evil Iraq-haters.
1) The Americans are not "forcing democracy on the Iraqis", in fact they just jailed innocents, limited freedom of press, placed a puppet government, killed tens of thousands and committed countless others crimes. 2) It's not that all Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy, it's just that some Iraqis want to establish it and some Iranians, Afgans and others want to help establish it. Meanwhile, the only guy, who could unite the hostile tribes of Iraq and oppose the cleriks, is in the prison. 3) It's not whether anyone wants the impossible - to get them out, it's just that noone ever wanted them in. 4) The site twists the facts as it was the United Nations that killed those kids who died from malnutrition. And it masquerades Iraqis opinion as fact. Reportedly Iraqis don't support UN, so this proves that UN would not help. And this is despite the fact that UN was successfully humanitarian and peace-keeping operations all over the world for decades. 5) First, the US supported Saddam when he was killing Kurds. Second, Saddam didn't kill as many people as some claim. Third, that was a pretty fucked up country and much more would die if there wasn't a strong leader such as Saddam (and they wouldn't remain a civilized secular state, as under Saddam). Fourth, Saddam didn't threaten anyone and, fifth, there were no WMD, which were cited as the only reason to invade. 6) Iraqis had decent life under Saddam, especially before the sanctions. Furthermore, this isn't really important. Americans are being killed, Iraqis are being killed. 7) There is hope, but it's not terribly likely that the United States would manage to win it.
It's too late and I am too tired to compose a more coherent reply, so I hope this would suffice. As a finishing note, I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias. One only needs to remember the last year to realise it. There are very few journalists who managed to voice dissent loudly enough during that time inside the US.
Steven Moore is a dirty scum, don't succumb to his lies.
Re:Bush has brought meaningful change...
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This site does not represent all Iraqis. It's just a site set up by an American guy called Steven Moore (he worked for the American occupation administration). He clearly if not pro-Bush agenda, then clear job description as a USA-paid PR guy. So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts.
Well, what makes you think that a person who can't debate without prompting can chose a cabinet of advisors better than a random loon from the street?
Imagine two countries, let's call them Albania and Burundi. In Albania they elect a blundering moron for president and hope that he choses a good cabinet. But in Burundi they elect an intelligent, motivated, rational and educated president, then hope he choses a good cabinet.
Now which country is better off? What example do you think the USA should follow?
I just tried to imagine that and I can't.:( I know perfectly well how it should happen, but I can visualise a feather dropping down so fast, so heavily, so unfeatherishly.:-((( Please, someone post a link to a video.
I mean really, isn't the point of being outside to *GET AWAY* from computers and technology, and experience the real world? No, it isn't, thanks for asking. Unless you have a bad case of computer addiction and a prescription from doctor to go outside and not touch any, going outside doesn't mean going away from computers and technology.
And in case you are sincerely curious about the reasons to go outside, here is a small incomplete list:
To breath fresh air, especially in mountains, in the forest or around streams
To exercise by walking, running, biking, climbing, etc.
To see things that you can't see inside (this includes augmented reality in Pompeii)
To meet people face to face
To get to other places, including places with computers
To use some computers and/or technology that is not available inside
Haven't you seen Westworld? If not, let me tell you the answer - they will not necessarily like it. And if they don't like it, you better pray to Jupiter that there is no virus in the computer system controlling these guys.
We wouldn't associate Mengele's name with devil's incarnate if his research was useful for saving lifes. Turns out most of it was just sadism masqueraded as amateurish medicine.
However, the doctors and researchers all around the world has used some of his results for decades, because noone could reproduce them. The results concern people freezing to death and being warmed up using different methods.
After much deliberation the medical community has decided that it is ethical to use results that Mengele obtained while torturing concentration camp prisoners if that allows you to help people. Think about it.
(a) is irrelevant. Most people don't make a rational decision during elections, because most people are incapable of one if their life depended on it. And if you take only intelligent, educated and rational people, spent a week with them, presenting raw facts about Bush and the same about random decent people (that is intelligent, with some experience in any managerial job, with good education, etc.), I don't think Bush would get more than a few percent of votes. However, it turns out that almost everyone has a right to vote and politicians can easily dupe most people into thinking they are excellent.
The situation is worsened by the whole election system (from the electoral college to the traditional 50/50 split, to candidates being nominated by the Party) - like cocks are selected for having the largest and the reddest crest, so are candidates selected for having whatever characteristics are important for winning. And, since, as I said before, most people don't care about real facts about how good the candidates are, these characteristics have nothing to do with being a good president.
The difference are only significant if you compare them next to each other. When you compare them both with someone else, such as Nader, it becomes harder to tell Bush from Kerry. There was a story here on Slashdot about these three candidates interviewed by some youth organisation, and I got an impression (judging from that interview alone) that on a 0-10 scale Bush scored about -2, Kerry scored 1, while Nader was somewhere near 7. Yes, Bush is very bad and Kerry is obviously better (much better in some areas, a little better in other), but they both really suck. America needs a huge jolt to make sense of itself, let's hope it will receive one relatively soon.
Yes, what you write about paper being smart makes complete sense. Your business card should do it, an annual report should do it, the newspaper should do it. There are many ideas for their communications with the world that are so immediately obvious that I see no need to list them here.
But if we are thinking about "personal computing", which already includes browsing Internet, using e-mail, creating spreadsheets, editing movies, etc., we should not think about paper as the interface. Yes, smart paper could be used for browsing sometimes, for example, when an electronically printed document contains links, but this is an exception.
There is a place for computers and even if we could make smart paper today, computers would not disappear, just like creating a nanocarbon bow with titanium heat-seeking arrows does not mean we don't need pistols and shotguns.
I agree that the WIMP style is outdated and has numerous flaws, and so it's quite stupid to laud a Linux desktop for doing a passable job at implementing it. Yes, a modern operating environment should be much more, it should have "advanced WIMP" features and even experiment with new interface styles (voice, device-independent applications, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Now that you say this, it appears that your problem has nothing to do with the special effects. You simply don't like the fact that not enough intellectual movies with an intricate story and rich characters are made. Another way to put it - you don't like that most people are stupid and like simplistic films. This is a very valid concern and I share it to some extent, but we must realise that it has nothing to do with the special effects.
;) Let's not blame the special effects for this.
Even if Congress passes a bill tomorrow prohibiting spending more than 15% of the budget on effects (special or traditional), do you seriously think that studios would suddenly start making movies that you consider very good. No, they would simply find another way to cater to the general public, by inviting more stars, dressing characters in fancy clothes, using more exotic locations, etc. They won't start making movies with excellent scripts and amazing characters, because... well, just because.
I suggest we just stop worrying about this in terms of "robots with shotguns scare me, are we moving in the right direction". I mean, yeah, sure, we won't see a 2nd Robotic Regiment or 5th Robotic Squadron being deployed to the war theatre at a click of a button, but let's just admit that this potential is here, it will inevitably be realised in a few decades and we better learn how to live with this right now. Denial is the most predictable human reaction, but it is also completely futile.
And also when we have a story about CGI movies, could you please stop saying "Oh, they looks so plastic/wooden/[insert your favourite material], that I want to throw up. Give me my money back, humans should never be animated by computers", because, as you can see in this convinient illustrated timeline, it took just 20 years to go from this to this, which is quite a feat.
People, the future is going to happen, stop acting so surprised.
I agree to some extent. Duke 3D was quite funny too, Far Cry had some humour, even Doom 3 had humour. I am definitely not saying that GTA is not funny, on the contrary, I think it's as funny as it gets. Humour in such games will always be delegated to the "window dressing" role, because the main activity is not that funny.
:) You can have a "funny" mission goal in GTA, and funny cut-scene, but the execution of this mission is anything but funny - you just drive, shoot, etc.
The main argument, as I said earlier, is that jokes very rarely emerge from the gameplay - you have to write them. And when you write them, you need to limit the free goalless gameplay, because otherwise the percentage of humour would drop.
I consider them good for what they are - action-packed sci-fi, family-friendly adventure films, historical blockbusters and even oh-so-creative artsy indie Sky Captain. :) I am not saying that Van Helsing was very good (IMO it wasn't), but without the budget spent on the effects it would simply suck monkey balls. The point is that money spent on a film almost always improve it. With all those millions Van Helsing is a passable action flick that doesn't bore you and even entertains if you are not too picky. Verdict - worth 10$. Without the millions, it is stupid boring, stereotype-ridden crap, which is worth neither my money, nor time. It follows logically that spending lots of money on Van Helsing is correct.
I am not saying all those movies spent on digital effects, some simply spent money on old "no-so-special" effects. There isn't much difference in my view, CGI is simply a more cost-efficient (often) alternative. The point, again, is that with money spent on the effects the movie improves.
And even when you consider some sucky films, such as Armageddon or Star Wars I + II (personally I think SW2 was mostly good), without the money spent on effects they would be totally horrendous. Imagine the same Armageddon only with crappy effects. Does it become a better movie? I don't think so. The conclusion is that even though some movies turn up crappy, this rarely (or never) happens because too much was spent on the special effects.
If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content.
And why is that? Is there a law somewhere saying that people should not have stuff unless they work hard for it? By the same logic I can say that lotteries are illegal and immoral.
If Joe stole a Ferarri he couldn't pay for...
But what if Joe copies a Ferrari, or "stole" a crashed Ferrari from a junkyard, or took yours for a ride in the night, when he was 100% sure you won't need it and returned it in the same condition it was before (full tank of gas and not even a miniscule amount of wear or damage)?
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for?
Perhaps, because it doesn't cost you (or anyone) anything? It's like arguing that people in Angola should not have the right to enjoy food and medicine Danes and Swedes are sending them as humanitarian aid. Why do you care? It's not like you are paying for their priviledge to eat that food? Movie studios don't pay for those pirated copies, so they have no right to complain.
stealing music
Filesharers and pirates don't use it as justification either. Actually, they chose piracy precisely because it allows them to NOT steal music. They don't have to go into music stores and shoplift their favourite CDs, instead they can simply make a copy without depriving anyone of their property.
I like the sleight-of-hand he is pulling. This looks like a decent replacing for Valenti - we are bound to enjoy his lies and FUD in the years to come.
:)
How do you like the answer to the growing revenues question? First, he pulls a number out of his ass and claims that they are losing $3.5 billion per year. Second, he tells us about cam copies, briefly mentions the online distribution and finishes the argument with a story about counterfeit DVDs sold in NY and LA. The implied conclusion is that 1) cam copies are killing the industry and 2) lawsuits against fileshares will stop the production and spread of cam copies. Brilliant!
His story about his son Jon is pure gold. I mean, the "what are you going to do about it, Dad?" is even better than the tired old "think of the children" and "starving artists" cliche. Now I know what the MPAA is paying this guy for, he's a genius!
I haven't played these ones, but I don't suppose they were very interactive, free-roaming do-what-you-like games like GTA, were they? You can make a traditional quest funny, that's right, but the truth is noone wants to play quests anymore (or so it appears from the sales charts).
Frankly, one could make a GTA with all cut-scenes remade as comedy, not gangsta/mob films, but they they would be so out of sync with the gameplay itself. Jokes are something you create, not something that emerges from the gameplay (unless you are talking about "once-in-a-while" accidental funny moments that could happen even in Quake).
So a comedy game requires that you script it from the beginning to the end and that no traditional gameplay is possible. Because if you allow driving a car in a comedy game, you need to make it funny too, regardless of where you go. If you don't, there will be conflicting expectations from the gamer - do I want the driving to be cool (then why do I need all the jokes) or do I want it to be funny (then someone needs to create a lot of them)?
A film is more than a script and the scenes. It also has the look and feel. I bet I can give you a couple of screenshots from different recent movies that don't have the actors, memorable locations and such, but you won't have a problem telling Paycheck from I, Robot from Immortel and Matrix from the Thirteenth Floor from Dark City.
There is a visual style that can be impossible or prohibitively expensive to recreate in reality. That's why filmmakers use different creative tools. Another reason is that they are exploring the frontiers of possible to deliver the best product, the best story, the best looking images, and blaming them for trying new things is essentially luddism, which is on of the worst crimes in my book.
I still think that your dislike for the film has more to do with your preconceptions than with the shortcoming of the film itself. Animation is even worse, with it's flat, wooden and emotionless blobs of paint trying to persuade me their are live human beings. But you don't have a problem with that because you grew up watching lots of it. Just open your eyes yet more and try to understand that "wooden" characters are not a big deal, just like "plastic" skin was not a big deal with Final Fantasy. Go to the theatre and try to watch The Polar Express without thinking that these CGI actors are unnatural, non-human, overexpensive and bad otherwise. Think about it as just yet another visual style for telling a story, accept its conventions and have fun. I am sure that it isn't much more difficult than learning to enjoy eating foreign food (BTW, grasshoppers are delicious).
I'm afraid I disagree. First, I don't think you can name many films (one or two at most) where big budget was obviously wasted. I am not a frequent movie goer, so I am sure there've been other big budget films this year that I missed, but all that I saw were justified in spending a fortune on FX. Van Helsing, I, Robot, Spiderman, Sky Captain, Pirates of the Carribean, Last Samurai, Bourne Supremacy, Paycheck, Timeline, Kill Bill, Harry Potter, Night Patrol, Troy - all these films could not be made without spending a lot on effects. And I don't remember a single film where I would say "The money was wasted, the film would be better without good special FX".
This should deal with your argument that film makers overuse the special effects. I don't think so and I certainly don't remember any such examples.
Second, I think your criticism of the "cram-packed" mentality is misguided. There are different genres and for different genre the approach is different. Spiderman 2 would not be the film it was without gratuitous special effects. Harry Potter would not be a blockbuster on par with the success of the book without a fortune spent on recreating Hogwarts. The truth is that some time ago the filmmakers simply could not afford using special effects in every shot. So don't mistake the lack of special effects in 1970s films for some Golden Age of Filmmaking creative vision. It's normal to use FX in every shot, there is nothing wrong with it per se. As for getting in the way of the story, again, I don't remember this happening with the films I saw in 2004. If you could give examples, that may be helpful, but I doubt that this problem is very widespread.
I mean, it's ok to criticise a particular film, but if you criticise ALL or MOST of the films for making a certain judgement error, you are implying that your are a better filmmaker than all those directors, producers, etc., with all their Oscars and stuff, which makes your comments kinda questionable...
because my hindbrain doesn't expect them to look like real people
I guess, you should have a hard talk with your hindbrain. Polar Express was not supposed to be photorealistic. It's an animated movie and if you don't understand it... well, it's rather stupid to not understand it, isn't it?
The whole problem with poor CGI is mostly made up by people who want to look smart and pretend their taste is too good for us mere mortals. People like you, David.
The truth is that us, humans, have a hundred or so muscles in our face. Disney's Winnie the Pooh has two or three of them, if even that. Computer animation is an attempt to fill the void between traditional animation and live action films. As such, every CGI animation is bound to have some drawbacks, compared with both extreme cases, but it will also have some advantages.
If they made Polar Express a live action, it would not be truly faithful to the book, would not agree with director's vision and would not present a sufficiently compelling story that people would enjoy. If they made it cel animation, the same would happen. But when they combine the principles of animation and live action, add some new technology and use their creativity, the end result is almost exactly what everyone needs. Everyone, except for those people, who are averse to change and will badmouth everything unless it looks exactly like everything they saw before. People like you, David.
My advice to everyone who goes to see the Polar Express would be to watch it with open eyes, so to speak. Enjoy the story that is being told, enjoy the images that you see, and don't turn your nose away because this film is not something else. Don't ruin your viewing with preconceptions and luddite attitude.
Yeah, and I hope that Dell will not ruin my new PC by concentrating on using latest AMD processors and ATI video cards. Are you a luddite or just stupid? Special effects and large budget can never take away anything from the real story. Crappy acting, poor script and piss-poor special effects, on the other hand, can and do ruin many potentially interesting films every year.
I mean, I can certainly understand a critical attitude towards Holliwood, its reliance on sequels and oft mentioned lack of creativity, but for fuck's sake, stop this crap about big budgets ruining movies. This starts getting ridiculous.
Let me tell you about this from experience. When making a transition of that magnitude, the government absolutely must maintain a very strong grip on things. Or the country would be royally fucked. I live in Russia and in late 1980s China was regarded as a hopeless nobody, while Russia was believed (at least in Russia and China) to become a democratic capitalist powerhouse. What happened next is that Russian government lost control and the country went down the shitter.
In the meantime, China maintained political control, relinquished the economic controls only gradually and didn't let anyone fuck with the order by stopping violent uprisals such as the Tiananmen square (it wasn't a student protest, as many were led to believe by Western propaganda).
So today China is booming and blooming, while Russia lies in ruins. And the main reason for that is that the Chinese managed to maintain the order. I would happily trade my ability to use unfiltered Internet and ability to criticise the government (which doesn't change anything anyway) for living in a powerful country that I can be proud of.
P.S. A lot of things Chinese government does make perfect sense, such as prosecuting Falun Gong (which actually is a totalitarian sect, just like Scientology, only it's also opposed to the current government).
Well, may be AOL dial-up is a cash cow. Unless their cost structure is absolutely fucked up so that it COSTS them 20$ to provide the service, it's much better to have 20 million customers at 25$ per month than it is to have 30 million at 10$/month.
Actually, the lies and distortions are on the site for everyone to see. I started writing my post, then decided to do a whois search, then search for the guy's name and found the article on indimedia, which said it all well.
The myths listed are bullshit. No sane person would say most of those things, he intentionally distorts the actual real world complaints about the war to sound like they come from some evil Iraq-haters.
1) The Americans are not "forcing democracy on the Iraqis", in fact they just jailed innocents, limited freedom of press, placed a puppet government, killed tens of thousands and committed countless others crimes.
2) It's not that all Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy, it's just that some Iraqis want to establish it and some Iranians, Afgans and others want to help establish it. Meanwhile, the only guy, who could unite the hostile tribes of Iraq and oppose the cleriks, is in the prison.
3) It's not whether anyone wants the impossible - to get them out, it's just that noone ever wanted them in.
4) The site twists the facts as it was the United Nations that killed those kids who died from malnutrition. And it masquerades Iraqis opinion as fact. Reportedly Iraqis don't support UN, so this proves that UN would not help. And this is despite the fact that UN was successfully humanitarian and peace-keeping operations all over the world for decades.
5) First, the US supported Saddam when he was killing Kurds. Second, Saddam didn't kill as many people as some claim. Third, that was a pretty fucked up country and much more would die if there wasn't a strong leader such as Saddam (and they wouldn't remain a civilized secular state, as under Saddam). Fourth, Saddam didn't threaten anyone and, fifth, there were no WMD, which were cited as the only reason to invade.
6) Iraqis had decent life under Saddam, especially before the sanctions. Furthermore, this isn't really important. Americans are being killed, Iraqis are being killed.
7) There is hope, but it's not terribly likely that the United States would manage to win it.
It's too late and I am too tired to compose a more coherent reply, so I hope this would suffice. As a finishing note, I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias. One only needs to remember the last year to realise it. There are very few journalists who managed to voice dissent loudly enough during that time inside the US.
Steven Moore is a dirty scum, don't succumb to his lies.
This site does not represent all Iraqis. It's just a site set up by an American guy called Steven Moore (he worked for the American occupation administration). He clearly if not pro-Bush agenda, then clear job description as a USA-paid PR guy. So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts.
Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".
Well, what makes you think that a person who can't debate without prompting can chose a cabinet of advisors better than a random loon from the street?
Imagine two countries, let's call them Albania and Burundi. In Albania they elect a blundering moron for president and hope that he choses a good cabinet. But in Burundi they elect an intelligent, motivated, rational and educated president, then hope he choses a good cabinet.
Now which country is better off? What example do you think the USA should follow?
I wonder if it's ok to download clips about virtual stuntsmen, though...
can't visualise, of course.
I just tried to imagine that and I can't. :( I know perfectly well how it should happen, but I can visualise a feather dropping down so fast, so heavily, so unfeatherishly. :-((( Please, someone post a link to a video.
No, it isn't, thanks for asking. Unless you have a bad case of computer addiction and a prescription from doctor to go outside and not touch any, going outside doesn't mean going away from computers and technology.
And in case you are sincerely curious about the reasons to go outside, here is a small incomplete list:
To breath fresh air, especially in mountains, in the forest or around streams
To exercise by walking, running, biking, climbing, etc.
To see things that you can't see inside (this includes augmented reality in Pompeii)
To meet people face to face
To get to other places, including places with computers
To use some computers and/or technology that is not available inside
To check your house from outside
Feel free to add more...
Haven't you seen Westworld? If not, let me tell you the answer - they will not necessarily like it. And if they don't like it, you better pray to Jupiter that there is no virus in the computer system controlling these guys.
We wouldn't associate Mengele's name with devil's incarnate if his research was useful for saving lifes. Turns out most of it was just sadism masqueraded as amateurish medicine.
However, the doctors and researchers all around the world has used some of his results for decades, because noone could reproduce them. The results concern people freezing to death and being warmed up using different methods.
After much deliberation the medical community has decided that it is ethical to use results that Mengele obtained while torturing concentration camp prisoners if that allows you to help people. Think about it.
(a) is irrelevant. Most people don't make a rational decision during elections, because most people are incapable of one if their life depended on it. And if you take only intelligent, educated and rational people, spent a week with them, presenting raw facts about Bush and the same about random decent people (that is intelligent, with some experience in any managerial job, with good education, etc.), I don't think Bush would get more than a few percent of votes. However, it turns out that almost everyone has a right to vote and politicians can easily dupe most people into thinking they are excellent.
The situation is worsened by the whole election system (from the electoral college to the traditional 50/50 split, to candidates being nominated by the Party) - like cocks are selected for having the largest and the reddest crest, so are candidates selected for having whatever characteristics are important for winning. And, since, as I said before, most people don't care about real facts about how good the candidates are, these characteristics have nothing to do with being a good president.
The difference are only significant if you compare them next to each other. When you compare them both with someone else, such as Nader, it becomes harder to tell Bush from Kerry. There was a story here on Slashdot about these three candidates interviewed by some youth organisation, and I got an impression (judging from that interview alone) that on a 0-10 scale Bush scored about -2, Kerry scored 1, while Nader was somewhere near 7. Yes, Bush is very bad and Kerry is obviously better (much better in some areas, a little better in other), but they both really suck. America needs a huge jolt to make sense of itself, let's hope it will receive one relatively soon.
Yes, what you write about paper being smart makes complete sense. Your business card should do it, an annual report should do it, the newspaper should do it. There are many ideas for their communications with the world that are so immediately obvious that I see no need to list them here.
But if we are thinking about "personal computing", which already includes browsing Internet, using e-mail, creating spreadsheets, editing movies, etc., we should not think about paper as the interface. Yes, smart paper could be used for browsing sometimes, for example, when an electronically printed document contains links, but this is an exception.
There is a place for computers and even if we could make smart paper today, computers would not disappear, just like creating a nanocarbon bow with titanium heat-seeking arrows does not mean we don't need pistols and shotguns.
I agree that the WIMP style is outdated and has numerous flaws, and so it's quite stupid to laud a Linux desktop for doing a passable job at implementing it. Yes, a modern operating environment should be much more, it should have "advanced WIMP" features and even experiment with new interface styles (voice, device-independent applications, etc.).