"I'm not sure I agree with your view of the BBC. Yes, it's funded in part through a form of taxation, but it's hardly a spokesobject for the administration"
An "administration" is only a small part of government. You get different parts of the government criticizing other parts of the government all the time.
1. The US has started (and "encouraged") more wars and murdered more
humans in a 50 year period than anyone else before in recorded
history.
Which period is this? Are you thinking of the period from 1850 to 1900, with the Civil War and the wars against the Indians? It certainly can't be 1950 to 1900, when the Soviets and Mao's Chinese killed many millions.
"2.The world constantly watches images of starving children whilst in
the US people are dying of over eating."
And guess which country gives the most in money and food aid to feed those children...
"3. The US boasts that it has spent billions on being able to bomb
anyone, anywhere on the planet. Meanwhile starvation, and premature
death continue to affect millions of people worldwide whose only crime
was being born where they were."
There might be a point there to discuss if you could connect the two unrelated sentences.
"4 The US makes virtuous speeches about fairness, liberty and justice
then continues to enact policies designed to keep a third of the world
in a state of constant starvation. For example, The US purposely
stopped the supply of cheap non-brand Aids drugs to Africa just to
placate the drugs industry. As a result millions will die who could
have been saved."
From 2000 to 2003, the amount given by the US government specifically for AIDS relief in Africa increased from $118 million to $285 million each year. How much is the country you live in giving on this?
"5. The continual support by the US of regimes that oppress their
people so that other US parties can gain an economic foothold."
We'll leave this for a time when you can provide specifics.
"6 The American belief that profit is all. People don't count."
Nice simplistic slogan. However, realize that all profits are made by people.
"7. American hypocrisy....."
"There isn't a continent on this planet that the US aren't killing
people directly or indirectly."
First, a grammar correction. The United States, as it is one country, is a singular entity. The correct grammar would be "...the US isn't...". To deal with the point, there are only two continents where this is going in: Asia (Iraq and Afghanistan) and North America (where the US applies the death penalty for convicts).
"the US.... is the only country to
have used nuclear weapons and poison gases to kill thousands of
people."
One correction here: several countries have used poison gas in warfare.
"8. The continual military support of Israel and it's attempted
genocide of the Palestinian people."
That is a GOOD THING. The only attempted genocide is that by the Palestinians and Arabs against Israel. Either you know little about the conflict, or you are antisemitic. So, basically, the US is "hated" because it refuses to stand by and let Hamas/etc carry out its planned extermination of the Israelis.
"9 The insane belief that most Americans in this NG..."
I wonder if they take into account such matters as government presence and control in media (since this is inversely proportional to how free the press and media are). It's kind of high in the UK (BBC) and kind of low in the US (as indicated by the low ratings of PBS and NPR, and how nobody really knows about VOA).
Finland, the #1 country, actually has strong government-controlled media (with government radio making up 61% of listening time).
"Just an FYI, Hitler used the "socialist" moniker for his party in an attempt to decieve the mass public"
That was actually a matter of honest labelling. The Nazis were rather socialist (i.e. wanting government control of the economy), and have only superficial differences with other socialist movements.
"Better register all the nicknames and pen-names we will use for our lifetime now"
Better hope the domain squatters are not reading this. You know.... the guys who register just about every available alphanumeric combination.net.com, etc and then put a useless search site to "hold the place".
Next thing you know, you'll go to register your blog under the name "ZapgunKing13" (out of your big interest in videogames) and then you find out that you have to pay some Hong Kong front company $39 in order to pry it out of their clutches.
"but there are many non-fascist states that do not allow free speech"
That's not a matter of "different values". It is a matter of government tyranny. In fact, such suppression of speech is one of the important "foundation stones" of fascism.
"I'd of thought the Hollywood guys would have got the message with Doom's amazing flop. It'd be a heck of a lot simpler for the lot of them to just chuck their money in a bin and set it alight."
They could have literally videotaped someone's Doom session, spent a few minutes inserting here and there the already-available 3d model of The Rock's face (used in Mummy 2), and put this in theatres. Would you have known the difference?
Thanks. Found it! Never heard of it before, but that is not surprising from living in a country where the main idea of French cinema is "we love Jerry Lewis", Girard Depardieu, and Pepe Le Pew.
"The Mario Bros. franchise itself isn't 'garbage'.. but turning a 2d (at the time) platformer with a very thin plot into a Hollywood production was, to term it lightly, a stretch."
I actually think it is less of a stretch to make Mario (back then) into a movie. The game itself was so primitive and abstracted that it was not much of a challenge to make something distinctive (movie-wise) from the game itself. There was no "This movie is too much like a videogame demo" back then. I don't think the "Super Mario Bros" movie was really terrible, even if it did not reach the level of "good". I think with a few tweaks, it could have been a good movie.
"If it would have been easy to make a good Mario movie, why didn't it happen, you ask?" I answer: look at all the other bad movies that came out that yet, that did not have "We were adapted from a videogame" as an excuse.
"in fact, that is a fool's errand on paper. especially given the mixed success of video game adaptations."
I think the success is going to be more and more mixed the more and more advanced the games get: the difference between a videogame film and the demo mode of the game itself is fast dwindling. Look for a "Halo" movie that, if placed as a long AVI clip in the intro sequence to the Halo 3 game (instead of in the theatres), nobody would really notice anything special.
"But take into account the original games used to make the adaptation: Super Mario Bros...."
I bet I'm not the only one here who definitely does NOT consider the Mario franchise to be "garbage".
"developed the game a lot like an actual Hollywood production, with...."
Yes, indeed. And, given that they have set the bar so high ALREADY and in a Hollywood-like fashion, is there really anything the movie experience can do other than be like sitting and watching someone else play a videogame on a big screen for 2 hours and 20 minutes?
I think he's already under contract for that forthcoming Rockstar game in which he does the voice of a lycanthropic ice-hockey player. With that name, he's already pre-typecast.
I'm holding out for Emerill Lagasse going BAM! every time he vaporizes a baddie.
"Yes, there is a bit of difference. Remember Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? "
Yes. Everyone had these inhumanly slow and fluid motions, especially of the head. As if each of the characters was suffering a horrible migraine during the whole picture. The "Spider-Man" digital cartoon that aired on MTV a few years ago had this exact same problem, even though the rest of the look was very different,
Slashdot Mirror
"Not sure about Finland but the BBC certainly isn't government controlled"
The BBC is 100% government controlled, being a branch of the government (under a special Crown charter), funded by a special tax.
" I would suggest that you look at BBC coverage yourself, and when you do you will realise that there is no state control of content."
I have looked. However, it is not relevant. Bias, lack of bias, or coverage details cannot undo the undenable facts of its organization.
"I'm not sure I agree with your view of the BBC. Yes, it's funded in part through a form of taxation, but it's hardly a spokesobject for the administration"
An "administration" is only a small part of government. You get different parts of the government criticizing other parts of the government all the time.
1. The US has started (and "encouraged") more wars and murdered more humans in a 50 year period than anyone else before in recorded history.
Which period is this? Are you thinking of the period from 1850 to 1900, with the Civil War and the wars against the Indians? It certainly can't be 1950 to 1900, when the Soviets and Mao's Chinese killed many millions.
"2.The world constantly watches images of starving children whilst in the US people are dying of over eating."
And guess which country gives the most in money and food aid to feed those children...
"3. The US boasts that it has spent billions on being able to bomb anyone, anywhere on the planet. Meanwhile starvation, and premature death continue to affect millions of people worldwide whose only crime was being born where they were."
There might be a point there to discuss if you could connect the two unrelated sentences.
"4 The US makes virtuous speeches about fairness, liberty and justice then continues to enact policies designed to keep a third of the world in a state of constant starvation. For example, The US purposely stopped the supply of cheap non-brand Aids drugs to Africa just to placate the drugs industry. As a result millions will die who could have been saved."
From 2000 to 2003, the amount given by the US government specifically for AIDS relief in Africa increased from $118 million to $285 million each year. How much is the country you live in giving on this?
"5. The continual support by the US of regimes that oppress their people so that other US parties can gain an economic foothold."
We'll leave this for a time when you can provide specifics.
"6 The American belief that profit is all. People don't count."
Nice simplistic slogan. However, realize that all profits are made by people.
"7. American hypocrisy....."
"There isn't a continent on this planet that the US aren't killing people directly or indirectly."
First, a grammar correction. The United States, as it is one country, is a singular entity. The correct grammar would be "...the US isn't...". To deal with the point, there are only two continents where this is going in: Asia (Iraq and Afghanistan) and North America (where the US applies the death penalty for convicts).
"the US.... is the only country to have used nuclear weapons and poison gases to kill thousands of people."
One correction here: several countries have used poison gas in warfare.
"8. The continual military support of Israel and it's attempted genocide of the Palestinian people."
That is a GOOD THING. The only attempted genocide is that by the Palestinians and Arabs against Israel. Either you know little about the conflict, or you are antisemitic. So, basically, the US is "hated" because it refuses to stand by and let Hamas/etc carry out its planned extermination of the Israelis.
"9 The insane belief that most Americans in this NG..."
I will leave this until you spell out NG.
I wonder if they take into account such matters as government presence and control in media (since this is inversely proportional to how free the press and media are). It's kind of high in the UK (BBC) and kind of low in the US (as indicated by the low ratings of PBS and NPR, and how nobody really knows about VOA).
Finland, the #1 country, actually has strong government-controlled media (with government radio making up 61% of listening time).
"Standard neocon bullshit"
How did the statement you referred to have anything to do with neoconservativism?
"We'll just substitute some frog DNA into the mix. What's the worst that could happen?"
Hmmm.... this could go TOO far. Maybe even lawyers could be eaten!!!!
"Just an FYI, Hitler used the "socialist" moniker for his party in an attempt to decieve the mass public"
That was actually a matter of honest labelling. The Nazis were rather socialist (i.e. wanting government control of the economy), and have only superficial differences with other socialist movements.
"Better register all the nicknames and pen-names we will use for our lifetime now"
.net .com, etc and then put a useless search site to "hold the place".
Better hope the domain squatters are not reading this. You know.... the guys who register just about every available alphanumeric combination
Next thing you know, you'll go to register your blog under the name "ZapgunKing13" (out of your big interest in videogames) and then you find out that you have to pay some Hong Kong front company $39 in order to pry it out of their clutches.
"but there are many non-fascist states that do not allow free speech"
That's not a matter of "different values". It is a matter of government tyranny. In fact, such suppression of speech is one of the important "foundation stones" of fascism.
Fascists who quote Marx tend to be called socialists or communists. The difference is really very superficial.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a major proponent of stem-cell research, has already issued a denial.
"I'd of thought the Hollywood guys would have got the message with Doom's amazing flop. It'd be a heck of a lot simpler for the lot of them to just chuck their money in a bin and set it alight."
They could have literally videotaped someone's Doom session, spent a few minutes inserting here and there the already-available 3d model of The Rock's face (used in Mummy 2), and put this in theatres. Would you have known the difference?
"I was thinking more along the lines of Isaac Hayes..."
Chocolate Salty Spaceballs, natch.
Thanks. Found it! Never heard of it before, but that is not surprising from living in a country where the main idea of French cinema is "we love Jerry Lewis", Girard Depardieu, and Pepe Le Pew.
What movies were these? Even Google turned up nothing.
"The Mario Bros. franchise itself isn't 'garbage' .. but turning a 2d (at the time) platformer with a very thin plot into a Hollywood production was, to term it lightly, a stretch."
I actually think it is less of a stretch to make Mario (back then) into a movie. The game itself was so primitive and abstracted that it was not much of a challenge to make something distinctive (movie-wise) from the game itself. There was no "This movie is too much like a videogame demo" back then. I don't think the "Super Mario Bros" movie was really terrible, even if it did not reach the level of "good". I think with a few tweaks, it could have been a good movie.
"If it would have been easy to make a good Mario movie, why didn't it happen, you ask?" I answer: look at all the other bad movies that came out that yet, that did not have "We were adapted from a videogame" as an excuse.
"in fact, that is a fool's errand on paper. especially given the mixed success of video game adaptations."
I think the success is going to be more and more mixed the more and more advanced the games get: the difference between a videogame film and the demo mode of the game itself is fast dwindling. Look for a "Halo" movie that, if placed as a long AVI clip in the intro sequence to the Halo 3 game (instead of in the theatres), nobody would really notice anything special.
"But take into account the original games used to make the adaptation: Super Mario Bros...."
I bet I'm not the only one here who definitely does NOT consider the Mario franchise to be "garbage".
"developed the game a lot like an actual Hollywood production, with...."
Yes, indeed. And, given that they have set the bar so high ALREADY and in a Hollywood-like fashion, is there really anything the movie experience can do other than be like sitting and watching someone else play a videogame on a big screen for 2 hours and 20 minutes?
"Or maybe Wolfgang Puck [wikipedia.org]."
I think he's already under contract for that forthcoming Rockstar game in which he does the voice of a lycanthropic ice-hockey player. With that name, he's already pre-typecast.
I'm holding out for Emerill Lagasse going BAM! every time he vaporizes a baddie.
"Or maybe (as I suspected from the AC's post) much of /. doesn't realize that creating one person takes TWO contributions"
No need for any of that ancient stuff. Two persons: a slashdotter and T'Pol.
"Yes, there is a bit of difference. Remember Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? "
Yes. Everyone had these inhumanly slow and fluid motions, especially of the head. As if each of the characters was suffering a horrible migraine during the whole picture. The "Spider-Man" digital cartoon that aired on MTV a few years ago had this exact same problem, even though the rest of the look was very different,
Any idea who is going to play him?
"but the CIA didn't exist to invent crack cocaine back in Washington's day..."
However, they did have time machines to ensure that the Freemason plans were continuing as planned. Muahahahah!
"It would be extremely interesting if a jar of ancient human semen were to be discovered."
Too lazy to scrape the floor at your favorite theatre?
"crack dental team"
Ouch. I don't think they'll use that term in adverts.