My first experience with THE HOBBIT will be in 2D at 24fps, because it's a movie.

If I enjoy the movie enough to see it again, I'll check a 3D 48fps screening for the novelty.

602

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

As I said in the Wiki thread, there is no positive benefit to using the word explicitly and plenty of negativity associated with it. It's not a "mixed bag" of a word, and using it would be being offensive and potentially hurtful just for the sake of asserting my power to do so. At best, nothing is gained by it. I don't think it's going to an extreme, I think it's showing exactly the right amount of respect and social responsibility.

EDIT: It's apropo to this discussion, though, because this is a belief and a lesson I've come to after previously making the mistake, and needing to have it pointed out to me why I was wrong.

603

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

YOUR FACT IS LAME AND YOU SHOULD FEEL LAME

...sorry, I got caught up thinking this was that other thread.

604

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

I should say this: my dad actually supports copyright reform and thinks we ought to have a more robust public domain, and that draconian anti-piracy measures are beyond foolish when the industries could embrace the digital revolution as a path to profit rather than a danger to it. But his view (and one I share) of what the situation ought to be doesn't change what the situation is.

605

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Actually, I missed it at the bottom of the page, but I agree with what you said about the difference between offensive and hurtful.

If you're offended someone said "fuck," well, walk it off. It's not a malicious word, we're just taught it's impolite.

On the other hand, if you're hurt because someone said the n-word -- well, that's come part and parcel with some real pain for real people, and I think the negative reaction easily goes beyond just being "offended."

606

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I mean, it's not like I've never said anything potentially offensive on the show in pursuit of a laugh. But I do try to think, if only very briefly, whether the laugh outweighs the possible offense. If it does, then I'll say it and risk the criticism, but I acknowledge (if only to myself) I'm risking it. And I'm sure I've made the wrong call from time to time -- but like Eddie says, I think anyone who looks at my pattern of statements and actions over the course of the show knows when I'm saying something I believe and when a joke has gone awry.

Perhaps we should also think more about contextualizing ourselves. A sound bite or blog post can travel around the world in an instant but the broader context often takes familiarity.

Which reminds me rather of our lord Joss Whedon! /topic

607

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:

Sounds precariously like intolerance to me

I am completely intolerant of racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.

Intolerance of ideas =/= intolerance of people.

Dave wrote:

But there's potentially offence in *everything*. What's the solution - stop all topical conversation, stop telling jokes?

No. Stop believing you can say anything you (general "you," not you specifically) want without having to face criticism or pushback. Maybe stop speaking without thinking at least a little bit about the consequences of your words.

I agree that nobody has the right not to be offended. But nobody has the right to offend without consequence, either.

608

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:

No, I'm sorry, but you cannot own an intangible good like the execution of an idea, at least not under US law. That's simply not 'how it works'.

You clearly have no idea "how it works." This is entirely "how it works." My father is a copyright attorney who has literally written the book on "how it works" in the digital realm and I have spoken with him extensively about "how it works." I'm not wasting any more of my time with someone who has decided to reject reality and substitute his own just to salve his conscience about pirating music and movies.

609

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:

The fact is that you cannot own an idea.

You're right. But you can own the execution of an idea.

You and I can both come up with the idea of a raunchy puppet show. But if I produce Avenue Q, that's not the idea, that's the execution. That is a tangible thing that I put effort into creating. I have created an experience which is mine to share on my terms. If you want to experience it you need to agree to those terms. If you are not willing to do so then the experience was not worth the trade to you. That's how it works.

TheGreg wrote:

Content creators do not own the content they create

Yes, they do. You apparently don't like it because you've decided you should get what you want when you want it and fuck everyone else. But that's a problem with you, not the system.

TheGreg wrote:

and they are not guaranteed a living from it, no matter how much they might want one.

This is true. If you don't want to pay whatever cost I've determined is fair to experience what I've created, then you won't. And if enough people are like you and feel the content is not worth the cost, I don't make a living.

But to decide the content is not worth the cost but you deserve it anyway? That's just being an asshole.

TheGreg wrote:

Ideas are publicly owned

We're not talking about ideas. We're talking about tangible execution of ideas.

610

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Allison wrote:

That Patrice O'Neal thing was, to use the best adjective I have, gross.  But it brings up an interesting point. He thinks joking about rape is okay because he has diabetes and jokes about it. I agree with this parallel. If you know what it is like to suffer from rape or assault, yeah, you can totally joke about it. If you are one of the 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) who have been brutally hurt, you do you. Whatever helps you heal, right? But I don't think it's funny for someone who has never known what rape or assault is like to make light of it.

Yes. This.

redxavier wrote:

Most of the time, people get offended over the tiniest of things that have little to no bearing on them

Except that they do, because every instance of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. is another drop in the bucket creating a culture where people think that these things are okay. Big things only happen after enough tiny things accrue. The most effective solution is not to let any of it slide.

611

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

As was pointed out this summer over the Daniel Tosh kerfuffle, if you can pull off comedy about a touchy subject, then great. Many people pointed to the outrage over Tosh's bit and went "WTF, Louis CK does jokes about rape and the n-word and stuff and people love him!" To which the response was: a) when Louis CK does it, rape or the n-word are the butt of the joke, not the engine of it, and b) when Louis CK does it, he's funny.

612

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

When the capitalist model of society has been replaced, the capitalist model of media production will be on the table. Until then, content creators need to eat and pay their rent, and I can assure you nobody takes YouTube hits or download stats as currency.

And there are also alternatives to the entitlement culture that says you deserve to have anything just because you want it.

613

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jimmy B wrote:

The Island was powered by, essentially, electromagnetic energy underground. This energy, when utilised properly could send people off the Island. and also travel in time. The gears were built to control this and the polar bears were bred on the island to push the gears.  There was a fuck up with the energy when Locke left and that is when the time slipping happened.

Which again, mostly makes sense ("sense," anyway) in terms of an alien ship, and none in terms of

SPOILER Show
the whole thing being purgatory.

If I had an objection to the idea of LOST's big reveal being an alien spacecraft, it'd be that just based on what I know peripherally, it's too obviously the answer, not that it seems out of left field.

614

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

I dunno, there was a room full of gears or some shit. Like I said, I didn't watch the show.

And just because they retconned an answer doesn't mean that was the answer they had in mind when they started. Have you learned nothing from DIF?!

615

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

Marty J wrote:

I don't mind spaceships/aliens, but in the case of Lost it would have been an ass pull of the worst kind.

You think so? I never watched it, but I did watch a YouTube compilation of unanswered questions after the finale. An unmapped island, animals that don't belong there, hatches that lead to ancient machinery, smoke monsters, and time-slipping? That's a crashed alien ship leaking quantum phlebotinum if I ever heard of one.

616

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

Really? You think it was only just here?

617

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

Gangnam Style was more productive.

618

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Interesting. Chris Braak wrote about what James Gunn could say on his blog just yesterday, and it's not far off Gunn's actual statement.

619

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:

I'm sorry that people in 'the industry' are wound up

No you're not.

620

(261 replies, posted in Episodes)

Somehow I missed all of this.

Ugh. I can't even.

I won't be satisfied until we have binders full of them.

622

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

Hansen wrote:

On topic of unpopular opinions: I think having a big detailed plan for where your story is gonna go beyond what you're writng right now is vastly overrated. By this I don't mean that you shouldn't think ahead, you should just be wary of locking yourself in too much. Especially when writing television.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not having a long-term plan -- BREAKING BAD never did -- unless the whole thing about your show is laying down clues for a big mystery to eventually be revealed. That's a case where you need to know the answer before you just start asking questions willy-nilly.

Allison wrote:

What did you guys do before a teenage girl joined this forum?

They waited for me to make these kinds of corrections.

Allison wrote:

Don't answer that.

Oh.

624

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

I could easily be proven wrong, but I think Ep7 needs someone who isn't going to Style all over it. I love filmmakers like Cuaron and Blomkamp but I feel like it'd be jarring. They need a good filmmaker who can make a movie with flair but isn't a style unto himself.

...Or herself. Duuuude. I'm gonna contradict what I just said a little bit and propose Kathryn Bigelow. If she walked it back from the shakycam look? Ooooooo.

625

(28 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Academic writing can often become obtuse, since they're immersed in jargon for so long they forget that's not how people speak. Out of context it's especially bad -- I'm guessing as part of an historical case she's making, those terms would be more clearly defined in advance of that sentence.

First and foremost, I think good writing is clarity. The trouble with Thesaurus-thumpers who want to impress you with their erudition is that they are more concerned with using impressive words than with using the correct word to express their meaning. I can't stand these writers because they're frauds -- they're NOT erudite, they're using a Thesaurus to supply themselves with words they've possibly never heard of before, which is why the words are often incorrect or have unintended connotations, and confuse rather than enhance the point they're attempting to make. I'm much more impressed by writers who convey complex thoughts with simple words than the ones who cloak simple thoughts in complex words. The ones, in other words, who aren't trying to impress above all else.

Many would-be writers stumble at the point of just trying to be clear without being obnoxious. If you can do that, in my book you're already a good writer. If you can be clear and do it with style, that's when something becomes really well-written.

Can you be clear in your meaning and funny? Can you be clear with your meaning and write with a pleasing rhythm to your prose, by the words you choose and how you arrange them? Can you be clear with your meaning and convey additional subtextual meaning simultaneously? Can you be clear and evocative, or emotional, or highly technical?

Better yet: can you be clearer because you are doing these things?

Good writing doesn't inherently mean long sentences or short ones, big words or small ones, simple grammar or complex. It can mean any or all of these things. A good writer is the one who has a sizeable toolkit of skills and knows enough about them to use the proper tools for a given job (i.e. each idea she's trying to convey).

EDIT: This is of course in regards to a work that's actually intended to be read as the final product -- a book, article, etc. -- and the experience of the written word. We also refer to movies as being well-/poorly-written, but we're talking about something different in that case.