Doctor Submarine wrote:

I just saw on Twitter that the deadline for nomination ballots is tonight. So how can the bake-off be tomorrow?

The bake-offs (although not every category calls them that, and not every category has a bake-off event) are ongoing - there's usually one every night at the Academy at this time. 

Some categories have had their bakeoff already, so their ballots are in.  But VFX is tomorrow.

I'm planning to attend as usual... anybody know the actual start time on Thursday?

278

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Look up the "Black Sea Theory" for an interesting possible explanation of the prevalence of flood myths.

And bear in mind that any ancient tale about "the whole world" being flooded is being told by people whose entire world was extremely small :-)

279

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hadn't occurred to me until now that more proof of existence is required to post here than some believers ask of God.

So if any gods are lurking and reading this - first one of ya to pass a Captcha test, I will worship you.

And... go!

280

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh lord and now there's this which I don't even.

“Authorship Is Censorship” – Bleeding Cool In Conversation With Shia LaBeouf

Hell with it.  I'm gonna go to Texas for the weekend.

281

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

To me it reeks more of Jr. High where there's that girl you really really like but you're being creepy about it so you scare her off and then you become super-extra-desperate creepy trying to win her back.

Er, I mean... I hear that can happen.

282

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I... but... what...

sigh.

Shia LaBeouf Apologizes to Daniel Clowes Via Skywriting

283

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Interesting to contemplate that if you could just magnify that image far enough, at some point it would turn into porn.    Weird alien porn.  A couple billion times over.

So maybe that's what God's worked up about - he can't survey one iota of his Creation without seeing somebody doin' it.

http://www.pinkfive.com/images/post/grilgzar.jpg

284

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman wrote:

Sure, but then what's the point of trying to please it or argue about it?

That WAS my point.  That there's no point to arguing the morality of a thing like that.

But arguing whether there's evidence of its existence at all, that's where the ground is much more solid. smile

EDIT: As for pleasing it, I started by saying Let's assume it is the Christian God.  Which would make Sam and pastormacman right, that He made rules for us and wants us to follow them.  And I sure as hell would, and never mind whether they make sense to ME.    No more haircuts and where can I get some slaves, let's DO this!

Like Ricky Gervais said when asked "What would you do if someone gave you absolute proof there is a God?"  I'd worship him.

However, that actually has to happen.  Until then, I'm gonna go about my bidness. smile

285

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

See, THIS part of Christian belief I have no argument with at all.   

Let's assume there IS a God.  Let's even assume that it's the Christian God, who really did do all that stuff in the books.   So, we're talking about a being that is capable of creating universes.  How the hell can we know what that thing is thinking, and why?  It's just like Dr. Manhattan - it lives an existence that we can't comprehend.  Who the hell knows how it defines "morality"?

If we could poll ten housecats I bet we'd find they believe that humans are all-powerful, but immoral. Because humans can put food in the dish but they don't always put food in the dish and that is totally fucked up.

So if God is real, then I am completely on board with the argument "you can't comprehend what he wants or why he does the things he does".    But in the end, so what?  Because I don't think he is real.

286

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

pastormacman wrote:

And in life, experience usually trumps reason. You can think, and reason, and calculate all you want, but in the end the real world is what you experience.

And this is fascinating to me, because I believe the exact opposite.  As some folks (and I) like to say "The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".   And any prosecutor would trade ten eyewitness testimonies for one solid DNA result or clear fingerprint.

If I chose my beliefs based on experience, then - for example - I would believe Henry Cavill can fly.  Because I SAW HIM DO IT.   But reason tells me that he probably can't fly, because that contradicts every bit of relevant knowledge that we humans have accumulated thus far.    It's not "truth" unless it's true for everyone.   And the consensus is that Cavill doesn't actually fly, it was an illusion.  And there's actually a plausible real-world explanation for what I experienced - one that fits with the rest of the reality we all share.

Although I suppose I could then argue that all this talk about "visual effects" is merely an attempt by Satan to test my faith.   Spare me your "logic".  I saw the man fly, end of story!    And I am entitled to that belief in our society. 

But how much stock would you put in my decision-making abilities then?    Here, have a cookie.  ELVES MAKE THEM!

287

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman wrote:

In the way that Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill have all played the "same" character, sure. Ultimately they are not the same religions and consider the others to be wrong/mistaken in a fundamental way.

Which, if you're an outsider like me, seems ridiculous because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are far more alike than they are different.   They would be, since they're all inter-related.   And really, moderate practitioners of all of the above DO realize that.    It's why they can and do co-exist most of the time, because they are able to see that there's not that much difference other than dress codes.

Fun Fact:  If you're going to do business in the Middle East and there's a chance you'll be exposed to risk of kidnapping by fundamentalist loonbats, some companies will actually give you an orientation about what to do if it happens.  Basically it's "So You're a Hostage, Now What?" I haven't had the pleasure myself, but a colleague has - and here's the 101 version.

He was issued a little pocket Bible and was told to always carry it with him.  If kidnapped, he was to read from it and pray a lot, and even to resist a bit if the kidnappers tried to take the Bible away. 

Why not a Koran?  Because unless you really have studied the Koran and can follow all the rituals, you're not going to pass as a Muslim.   But even the most fundie Muslim recognizes that Christianity may not be the True Religion... but it's pretty close.

What you don't want to be is a heretic with no faith at all.  That, your kidnappers will not like one damn bit.

To go back to the original analogy, most reasonable people can accept that you like Ledger's Joker more than Nicholson, even if they disagree.  But break into that conversation with a hearty "Who cares, Batman is bullshit anyway" and they will all hate you. smile

288

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:

If person A says God told him to hate Gays, and she over there says God told her to love Gays, then how are we supposed to reconcile disparate claims make privately by personal revelation?

Aaaaaand there's the problem.  smile  This is a particular issue in the Mormon church, which teaches that God (to this day) speaks to the President of the church, aka the prophet or seer.    Once in a while somebody from the ranks will say "Well, God is telling ME something different". 

And if he's charismatic enough, he can gain enough followers to break from the mainstream Church and go start his own enclave where they practice whatever beliefs the new "prophet" claims God wants.   Sometimes it's pretty crazy stuff - check out Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven for an example of one sect that turned murderous.

Now, what's the difference between that scenario and what Charles Manson did?  Or the Heaven's Gate cult, etc?   Seems like God's always telling nice people to do nice things, and crazy people to do crazy things.  If we divide by God, we can take Him out of the equation entirely and achieve the same result.

Zarban wrote:
Squiggly_P wrote:

I think he means that it's a cartoon, and the characters are obviously cartoony, so there's no point in trying to make the backgrounds look hyper realistic.

Exactly.

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/roger-rabbit.jpg

290

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just saw HER today as well.  It's a well-made unique piece of work, and like every other Jonze movie it left me feeling weird and sad.  Probably why I've never watched any Jonze movie more than once.

But if I were to make a Weirdest and Saddest of 2013 list, it'd be #1.  And #4.

http://www.pinkfive.com/images/post/high5.gif

I think avatar's #1 fits into the broader category of Teague's answer, really.

As for the low gravity thing, it has been done.  From The Earth To The Moon did it by hanging the actors from helium balloons. It can also be done with a wire rig - basically any rig that can make a human appear to fly by supporting all their weight can be used to support some of their weight instead. 

It's just rarely done for entire movies because it would require so much on-set rigging and post-production rig removal.

293

(64 replies, posted in Off Topic)

294

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I forget who, but just yesterday on Twitter somebody said (about the Duck Dynasty nonsense, I think) "But there's no such thing as bad press, right?" and someone else replied "Maybe before there was Twitter". smile

I think this is a pretty solid case of bad press, because what's the good upside to be had?  Everyone who knew of Shia now likes him less or is trying to defend him without any ammo. Anyone who never heard of him now knows he's some guy who did a bad thing.   The movie in question isn't in theaters or for sale, so there are no ticket sales for the controversy to boost.   And nobody can say anything good about the movie itself without adding "but it's really a shame the way it was stolen from that other guy".

So it's actual bad bad press, pretty much.  But will it ultimately matter?  Doubt it.  Shia's rich, and he's fucked up before and survived it.  He hasn't even killed anyone yet and many careers have survived THAT.

And I claim no special insight into his psyche, but I'm pretty sure the reason he hasn't just flat out admitted the plagiarism is due to advice of counsel.  Any attorney would have told him the same thing: "Play the batshit crazy card on Twitter if you want, but DO NOT ADMIT GUILT OR THAT'S THE BALLGAME."

295

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well, I saw it last night.  And in full IMAX 3D HFR Kitchen-Sink-O-Vision, too.  Never seen a feature in IMAX or HFR before, figured what the hell.  Short answer, didn't hate it at all.  Very pretty. 

So just as with LOTR: never read the book, don't know what's supposed to happen, don't know or care what's been added or left out or "ruined" etc.  Just wanted to see a movie.   And that movie was... very busy.  Many things happened, but not all of them seemed to matter.   

Bear Guy served no function that I could see - which makes me suspect he must show up again in Movie 3.  If he doesn't then shame on you, PJ.  Fifteen years ago you decided (correctly) that Tom Bombadizzledoozzle didn't actually matter to the plot of LOTR and cut him out.  You better not have done the opposite with Bear Dude or I shall be very cross indeed.

There was an Elf King-person who proved that not all Elf rulers are as well-written or acted as Galadriel and Elrond.  He sneered and said stuff that probably wasn't important.

Then there was a theme park ride with barrels that was really fun and made me want to buy a beer for everyone in the WETA previs department.  Meanwhile Legolas and Lost Lilly killed enough orcs to fill a school district.  I wasn't sure why, but whatevs.

And then Surprise Stephen Fry as the Mayor of Bartertown-on-Thames - a lengthy sequence featuring another Aragorn wannabe and a lot of delightful art direction.  It was okay, but my favorite part was when it ended.

There was a very well-done dragon voiced by that actor who's in everything now.   His scene with Bilbo was the best part, and a nice reminder that Bilbo was in the movie. 

Then all six hundred dwarves ran around while the dragon chased them and not one of them died which makes me worry that we're gonna get through this entire saga without one goddam dwarf getting killed.  Because if that's the case then they should have cut about six of them in the first draft.

Meanwhile in another movie Legolas killed more orcs because he really really hates orcs. And Gandalf went off to look at rocks and visual effects but that didn't matter because we know he doesn't die.

Also there were spiders.  The spiders were cool.

Didn't hate it at all, it held my interest the whole time and at least the dwarves didn't do more musical numbers.

296

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hoo boy, you ain't kidding.  Also, the choice to make the Lone Ranger

SPOILER Show
a useless dandy who fumbles his way though the story did not work at all. The original Lone Ranger didn't have an ounce of irony in him, but I suppose they just couldn't bring themselves to play it straight for a modern audience.   

I will admit that the moment when he gets hit with an arrow and screams like a girl was hilarious, but in context of the entire movie, completely wrong.   

It's possible the Lone Ranger character simply IS too old-fashioned and quaint to work nowadays - but their attempt to make him wacky certainly didn't work either.

297

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well, it wasn't going to be just any Western, it was going to be a JERRY BRUCKHEIMER western.  This is a guy who probably couldn't make a romcom for less than 150 million.

I finally got around to watching Lone Ranger just last week, and after all the hate I found it wasn't AS bad as I was braced for.  Don't get me wrong, it's not GOOD either. smile 

btw, I'd been hearing a lot of talk about the awesome "train crash scene" and when it happened right at the very beginning I thought, yeah, pretty spectacular.   As anyone who has seen the movie already knows, that wasn't the big train crash scene, which comes at the finale.   

So it's not hard to see how the thing cost 250 million.  It's just hard to understand why.

298

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Not to mention the INSANE stupidity of

SPOILER Show
the shit with the Elysium source code.

SPOILER Show
Indeed.  My debit card has better fraud protection than that smile

299

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Wow.  That's like the selection at Hell's Triplex.

Coming next week:  After Earth

300

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, the movie made a fatal error right from the beginning by

SPOILER Show
establishing that medpods can do anything, instantly, with no apparent "cost" of any kind.    It only got worse at the end when it was revealed that Elysium is equipped with hundreds of the things in storage, ready to fly down to Earth on a moment's notice.

Which means that the "bad guys" literally are just being bad guys for the pure fuck of it because they have no reason to deny Earth people access to medpods.    I mean, why NOT let an occasional shuttle fly up to Elysium, in order to let some sick kids get their cancer cured in three minutes?   This is the worst kind of screenwriting, where the bad guys have no justification for what they do other than just being mean.

A lot of the stupid in the premise could have been fixed by establishing medpods as an extremely rare luxury.  Of course then the movie couldn't have its magic beany ending where suddenly everyone gets a medpod, yay.