You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by avatar
Her, how it ended could have been...
And the bizarre sex scene is right out of Being John Malkovich.
What a utopian future. Everyone leads a hipster retro creative lifestyle, and loads of beautiful women throw themselves at this loser.
bullet3 wrote:... he was pretty liberal on social issues.
Well, seems to me he was pretty liberal on most issues
She was by Boyens to add more feminine presence to the fill.
Gotta tick those four main demographic boxes if you want to reach around a $1 billion.
A couple of Hobbit 2 VFX podcasts here... http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/
And a soundtrack podcast here... http://tracksounds.com/specialfeatures/ … /index.htm
And here... http://www.talltaleradio.com/episode-193-doug-adams/
And these clowns... http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b … -of-smaug/
There's a Deepak Chopra Woo-Woo generator here...
Sam F wrote:Diogo Morgado as Jesus is looking even prettier than Jim Caviezel.
Oh come on now film-makers of Son Of God, nobody back then was that pretty, regardless of who their father is!
Californian '70s hippy or actual resident of 1st century AD Israel?
Here in England, just about every child gets a low dose of moderate religion in school. And it seems to "inoculate" them for life, as only about 5% become actively religious as adults, and almost none of them are foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists.
So atheist campaigners that want to ban all religion in schools may be undermining their own cause. Vaccinate the kids early against the nasty stuff later on.
It's a very common assumption people of faith have that the only reason I'm an atheist is because I'm "mad" about something that happened to me which soured me on religion, or which I blame on God. I can see why that appeals -- then the problem is something about me, not something about religion. But I'm afraid that's not the case at all. Looking back from the outside I have found a lot to be mad about in retrospect, but that's not the core of my non-belief, nor does it form the core of most atheists' positions
But, but, what other reason could you possibly have for rejecting the story about the cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree? [courtesy of urban dictionary]
avatar wrote:Question: Why is there a Best Actress category? Shouldn't women compete equally with men? After all, there's no Best Female Director, or Best Female Composer Award.
So they can give away two awards.
Remember, the Academy Awards only exist as PR tools. They started so studios could say to the public, "hey, we're also doing art here!". By having four acting categories, they can highlight four different actors, two of each gender. A year in which no women are nominated would be horrible PR, hence the two female categories.
Sometimes there are FIVE acting awards, if you include their Special Award or Honorary Award or Lifetime Achievement Award or Whatever the Fuck it's Called Award.
avatar wrote:Tomahawk wrote:Equal or not, some roles are really only playable by women, and vice versa. Whereas a female director could do as good a job as a male, some actresses could easily portray a better woman than most men.
You can see where this line of argument ends, though.... If you're adapting Othello or a biopic of Muhammad Ali, only a black actor can play it. But you're not going create an award category only open to black actors, are you? Some roles can only be played by children, but we don't have a Child Actor Oscar.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that it's entirely equivalent.
Why not? If women get their own category because only women can play women, then why don't blacks get their own category because only blacks can play blacks?
Of course, there's Tootsie. And Lawrence of Arabia - where Obi Wan blacked himself up.
Shakespeare in Love: Gwyneth plays a woman playing a man playing a woman. And getting an Oscar for it, universally regarded as a weak, undeserved, performance, precisely what you were talking about in your post.
Yeah, lots of arguments for and against, and no one solution feels entirely satisfactory, as Teague elegantly said.
Equal or not, some roles are really only playable by women, and vice versa. Whereas a female director could do as good a job as a male, some actresses could easily portray a better woman than most men.
You can see where this line of argument ends, though.... If you're adapting Othello or a biopic of Muhammad Ali, only a black actor can play it. But you're not going to create an award category only open to black actors, are you? Some roles can only be played by children, but we don't have a child actor Academy Award.
I'd thought I'd ask you guys to kick this one round, with Award Season coming up...
Question: Why is there a Best Actress category? Shouldn't women compete equally with men? After all, there's no Best Female Director, or Best Female Composer Award.
Book awards that are just for women are controversial, with many arguments for and against. But the standard feminist response is that women are equal and therefore women authors should compete equally with male authors. It's somewhat patronising that they have to have their own separate category, like the Paralympics.
So what do you guys reckon?
Should there just be a Best Actor category, open to all? Let Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench slug it out with Daniel Day Lewis and Philip Seymour Hoffman? After all, there are already too many award shows and award categories e.g. Best Kiss FFS.
Or keep things the way they are? It's the way it's always been, so leave it alone.
Or create even more categories? Best Child actor. Best geriatric. Best Hispanic Dwarf Amputee in a Transgender Role?
It has a billion flaws but it's hard for me to hate on Alexander.
I've written two full length scripts about Alexander. It's not easy material to translate for the screen. You're dealing with an entirely different world from ours. For all intents and purposes it's fantasy. I think one of the reasons Gladiator clicked with so many people is because many of the roadblocks audiences encounter (e.g. language, baseline understanding of how the society works, poor grounding in antiquity - sorta like a 7th grader reading Shakespeare for the first time) don't matter; Dude A must kill Dude B or be killed himself. That's pretty universal and doesn't require much beyond a basic awareness of the slave system.
By contrast, not a lot about Alexander lends itself to simple, contextless story telling. It's tempting to do a full biography but I think focusing on a single event or two is probably the best course. Alexander needs to be approached like Lincoln rather than Citizen Kane. An entire movie spent on, like, the effort it took to defeat Porus... and then giving it back to him.
Just saw a webcast with Oliver Stone at the Princeton IAS, and guess what, he's releasing a FOURTH cut of Alexander in 2014, this time 8 minutes shorter than the 3.5 hour Revisted Final Cut.
It's going to be called the Ultimate Cut (after the Theatrical Cut, Directors Cut, and Final Cut). Should be called 'The Whatever Cut'. He's going all Lucas on Alexander's ass.
hey - great shot, Ben. Nice camera too. I have a Nikon 7100 but would love to go full-frame one day.
Most impressive. Well done. What I normally do in Chrome is highlight the text and then right-click 'Search Google For...' but this is way better. What happens if two or more movies have the same title?
avatar wrote:No one knows who burned down the two libraries of Alexandria: the Romans, the Christians, the Muslims. Sources are vague and contradictory.
I'm in the Umar Did It camp - but that's a different discussion for a different thread.
Carl Sagan keeps the blame vague in Cosmos... 'an angry mob'. In the movie AGORA, the second library is depicted as being pillaged by an inflamed up-and-rising Christian mob, out to destroy heretical pagan texts. The wiki page cites several culprits.
If there's a photocopier in the Tardis, the Doctor should get to work.
Talk about a god with an inflated view of himself!
Anyhow, this is how I picture heaven. Funny how all our imagination can conjur is "white".
Here's another good Hell sketch...
What I said was Christianity wasn't responsible for the fall of Rome or the start of the dark ages. Second, you keep talking about Christianity as if it was the worst possible institution for people to channel their fear and superstition into. When, in 600 AD, you have Umar burning the Library of Alexandria with the reasoning: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them. And if they're opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
You had mongol hordes who places no emphasis on anything but tribute, the goths feared Odin, the vikings had an economy based on plunder, etc. It was a goddamn mess. So while Christianity was the dominant form of religious repression, religious oppression wasn't because of Christianity. That's my point.
No one knows who burned down the two libraries of Alexandria: the Romans, the Christians, the Muslims. Sources are vague and contradictory.
I agree with you that the fall of Rome wasn't due to Christianity. I merely said that Christianity was responsible for the ensuing dark ages being so protracted, due to shunning all forms of engagement with the world. Scholasticism in the early universities was primarily concerned with esoteric Biblical questions such as the nature of the Trinity, what happens to babies who die young, reconciling Plato & Aristotle with the Bible, etc.
I agree with you that Christianity wasn't the only repressive religion around. After an all-too-brief "golden age" in Baghdad around 1000 years ago, the Islamic 'House of Wisdom' was also shut down, just like the Platonic Academies were shut down by Justinian. And Islam is still in a dark age - look at Saudi Arabia now (a snapshot of what Europe was like 1000 years ago). Give any religion or political ideology too much power, and all hell breaks loose.
WAIT. I'm totally changing my position. There IS a God.
Of course there's a God. I've seen his Angels. They couldn't have just happened by chance.
Battle of Five Armies would be a good title, though.
Hobbit 3: Okay, Let's Get This Over With would be an even better title, which was also the title Lucas should have used for Revenge of the Sith.
Alternative titles: Hobbit 3: The Final Milking, Hobbit 3: Battle of the CG Armies, Hobbit 3: Jumps the Shark
Ask a dozen regular Christian churchgoers their understanding of Satan, demons, Hell, and judgment, and you'll likely get a dozen different answers, most of which come from pop culture.
Floor #9: People who like the Star Wars Prequels, Transformers 2, and Prometheus.
avatar wrote:Dave wrote:I'm not positive that what you appear to define as Christian morality is valid for everyone. Charitable work, care for the homeless and under privileged, and much of the private healthcare is frequently performed by organisations with a "Christian" orientation.
Oh for fucks sake, now even the Onion is subscription based?
Learn to love Chrome's Incognito mode 
I'm not positive that what you appear to define as Christian morality is valid for everyone. Charitable work, care for the homeless and under privileged, and much of the private healthcare is frequently performed by organisations with a "Christian" orientation.
Umm...
Jack Paglen is gonna feel the 'Prometheus Trap' now that his agent has signed him up to write the sequel and he has to somehow salvage something coherent from that mess. I'd rather watch the movie about how he attempts to write the sequel than the sequel itself.
The idea of Satan always confused me. So he's a fallen angel, and he rules over Hell...wherein he punishes people who don't obey God? Huh?
I'm always amazed how casually believers treat all this. I mean, if it WAS actually true, and the choices you made in life made the difference between eternity in paradise and eternity being tortured, wouldn't you do your utmost to get the fine print right? e.g. To make sure whether it's beef or fish or pork you're supposed to avoid, or whatever, etc. What does it precisely mean to keep the Sabbath holy?
But almost all Christians just seem to do what they want anyway, trusting that the rules (schmules), have a lot of flexibility.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by avatar
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
