quote:But Whedon's original casting – Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye...
Johansson and Renner come from Iron Man and Thor respectively. Did Whedon have anything to do with casting them? It sounds like OSC saw Iron Man 2 (and hated it), so I wonder why he doesn't remember that.
quote:The scene does not come from the book – very few of the scenes in this movie do – so it was amusing when others asked me how it felt to have my book brought to life.
Uh oh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I really even understand his critique of The Avengers. He spends so much time calling it stupid, from the plot to the very premise, and yet commends it at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar with the awesomely bad concept, but this wasn't it. It sounds like he's just applying the wrong criteria, and then he's shocked that even without his criteria, it still managed to be enjoyable.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
The scene he describes in the article sounds suspiciously like the scene in the book in which Graff and Ender are on their way to command school and Graff makes an affectionate gesture. Ender is shocked at first, but then cynically dismisses it as yet more manipulation.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Card himself forgot about that scene?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Xavier, what OSC said in the article actually makes me look forward to the movie more. We knew they were going to have to cut and trim and compress and age up the film to do it right, so most scenes won't be carbon-copied from the book. But all the little details he mentioned, about the actors, the sets, how they are doing zero g, all sounds great. Looking past his "It's not really MY movie" defense mechanism snark, of course.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The one thing OSC and I used to agree on, movie reviews, he's also gone sideways on in recent years.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
What I'm taking away from this is that:
1) The actors, especially Asa and Harrison, know how to act together, and can deliver their lines and actions with subtlety and nuance.
2) The Battle Room scenes are going to be convincing.
3) The movie takes some liberties in adapting the original novel (OSC ranted in a previous column about "hack-adapters" trying to shoehorn a story into a "three-act structure," which may or may not be a hint at his opinion of the direction of the Ender's Game movie), but the people on board seem to have utmost respect for the novel.
Keep in mind that OSC has always maintained that every book-to-movie adaptation is and should be the artwork of the adapter (i.e. the directors/writers/actors/etc.), and not a strict pantomime of the action from the book. The Ender's Game movie is not Orson Scott Card's artwork – it's Gavin Hood's et al. In the past, OSC has cited good movies that were adapted from bad books, and vice-versa. His quip that there are very few scenes in the movie from the book tells me that they're not trying to make a 100% faithful adaptation, but at the same time, the congruity between the scene that OSC describes and the one BandoCommando pointed out from the book hints that they haven't changed so much that the story will be completely unfamiliar.
I am a little apprehensive about this "three-act structure" business, though. It might turn out to be a good, if not the best, way to adapt Ender's Game, but so much of the latter part of Ender's Game will have to be changed to fit that structure that the core of the book's power will be compromised, at least by my understanding of how the three-act structure is supposed to work.
Then again, OSC may not have been talking about Ender's Game when he was ranting about hack writers conforming to the Hollywood standard story structure. Or just not this rendition. Time will tell.
Either way, I've learned that there will be enough good things in this movie to merit at least seeing it once: the zero-G Battle Room scenes done not with CGI, but with the actual suspended actors using gynmastic techniques to make it look like there's no gravity? I'm really interested in seeing how they pull that off.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually pretty much agree with his review of the Avengers - something is allowed to be stupid but also be masterfully good along other axis.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Looking past his "It's not really MY movie" defense mechanism snark, of course.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing to emphasize from someone in his position.
They're going to take his work and rebuild it from the bottom up to tell it in an entirely new and different way. It won't really be just his any more, it will be someone else's. In the same way I think it was fair for the creators of the Last Airbender to say "Hey, that's Shyamalan's movie, not ours," I think it's fair for him to say it's not his. I don't think he's being catty about it, he gets how adaptations work. He's just saying not to blame him if it goes wrong, and I think that's fair.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I havent' seen Avengers so I can't comment on that. But I'll say I lovedHot Tub Time Machine and yet if I tell anyone that I feel the need to add a series of qualifications. If I were writing a review all the moreso. I mean if he spent the whole time praising the writing and wit of the screenplay it'd be perfectly reasonable to walk out of it and say: "It was a bunch of absurd charecters punching each other for two hours, I was expecting to see My Dinner with Andre in superhero form". That's the way I read his review: "I liked it, but it's not emotional or powerful, it's escapist fun."
In other news, I didn't realize they were so far along on Ender's Game; very exciting.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:They're going to take his work and rebuild it from the bottom up to tell it in an entirely new and different way. It won't really be just his any more, it will be someone else's. In the same way I think it was fair for the creators of the Last Airbender to say "Hey, that's Shyamalan's movie, not ours," I think it's fair for him to say it's not his. I don't think he's being catty about it, he gets how adaptations work. He's just saying not to blame him if it goes wrong, and I think that's fair.
I'm pretty sure he's also honest enough to say: "I'm glad you liked it, it was the work of these people, not me."
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Looking past his "It's not really MY movie" defense mechanism snark, of course.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing to emphasize from someone in his position.
They're going to take his work and rebuild it from the bottom up to tell it in an entirely new and different way. It won't really be just his any more, it will be someone else's. In the same way I think it was fair for the creators of the Last Airbender to say "Hey, that's Shyamalan's movie, not ours," I think it's fair for him to say it's not his. I don't think he's being catty about it, he gets how adaptations work. He's just saying not to blame him if it goes wrong, and I think that's fair.
It read to me more as though he was generously giving credit where it was due.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It cuts both ways.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We loved The Avengers, and just about everything he said about it rang true for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really?
"The fundamental situation in the movie is so utterly unbelievable that it boggles the mind."
Yeah, see, it's a COMIC BOOK movie. Aliens invading from outer space being fought by super heroes isn't supposed to be realistic.
And yeah, the flying aircraft carrier was ridiculous, but not because of its power source. Remember we're living in a world where a teeny tiny device in Stark's chest can power his entire super suit without apparently ever being recharged. Why can't there be a larger arc reactor powering the entire ship?
And he's questioning the fundamental nature of the Hulk and Thor existing together?
Come on. It's the Avengers! It's the Marvel Comic book world! That's like saying vampire movies are stupid because vampires don't exist.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I am not the jake who wrote that first comment, by the way. I thought that the airborn aircraft carrier was kind of stupid too.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:That's like saying vampire movies are stupid because vampires don't exist.
No. It's like saying that one of the flaws of Buffy is that that the idea of vampires is stupid.
And that's only true if the idea of vampires and their abilities is as stupid as The Hulk's. Which it isn't.
I've got to say, the flying aircraft carrier really did rip me out of the movie when I watched it. "It really happened that way" is no excuse for unbelievability. "It was that way in a comic book" is no better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you are not going to use the original material, don't bother paying to be allowed to use the original material, just make up your own action movie with super powers in it.
Otherwise, read those comics like it is the script and follow it. If it weren't for stories found in comic books Christopher Nolin's Dark Knight would have looked a lot like Batman Forever. It doesn't matter that it is kinda silly, the fat rebel pilot in Star Wars is silly, but you just look past it and enjoy the fiction.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dudes, its called the Anthropic Principle, you have to accept as the price of entry that superheroes will fight aliens, that there is a secret flying carrier SHIELD uses etc. If you cant accept it, too effing bad you are wrong; and your opinion is wrong.
This is at its heart what a comic book movie is. Taking out the helicarrier is like adding midiclorians to Star Wars.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Master Bradley sir... I heard you talking earlier about "mediclorians?" What are... "mediclorians?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....It's certainly A principle, but it's not the Anthropic Principle.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Hmmm... one could instead of compare midiclorains to altering the state of the helicarrier, like making it a fleet of smaller aircraft.
Taking it completely out would more like just breaking the fouth wall and having Obi-Wan saying "the force is mitochondria, Lucas couldn't come up with a space word so we are just calling it mitochondria, because midiclorians don't exist."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If you cant accept it, too effing bad you are wrong; and your opinion is wrong.
Good to see you approaching this subject with the levity and good nature it probably deserves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
How droll.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I must say, if the flying aircraft carrier was what bothered you in the movie where rockets come out of Iron Man's back that *could not possibly have fit between the top of his armor and his skin*, then I think you really are missing the point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I only saw the film because some friends wanted to see it in IMAX 3d. I am personally constitutionally unable to enjoy Iron Man because of the laws of thermodynamics.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Do your personal constitutions restrict you from enjoying My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic? because I hear that show completely ignores the laws of physics.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
AH, if you're trying to insinuate that friendship isn't magic I'm going to have to have stern words with you outside.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which of them bothers you with respect to Iron Man?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Specifically the fact that Iron Man's suit relies on ejects that has no source of replenishment. Also the third law of motion: were it observed, Stark would be a stew of bone and muscle matter.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Outside... of the internet?
But the sun is out there, and I hear it isn't even air conditioned!
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Regarding Ender's Game... I love that an actor named Han Soto play's Colonel Graff's aide (Colonel Graff being played by Harrison Ford who was, of course Han Solo).
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread derail.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
My Beloved just went to urgent care there ( he had a cut on his foot he was afraid was getting infected) and saw the name "Sir Ben Kingsley" written on the sign-in sheet ahead of him.
At first he thought it was a joke, but it was actually Ben Kingsley. My Beloved was not aware that he was in Ender's Game, though I think he was vaguely aware of it being filmed around town.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you were knighted, would you sign your name Sir whatever everywhere you went?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not as long as people bowed to acknowledge my presence. Just a tiny bow, nothing ostentatious.
Probably a medical clerk/etc or a personal aide wrote the sign-in. Some physicians get very snarky when less-than-close-friends address them without the 'Doctor' in front of their last name. I can see a medical clerk/etc assuming the same about those with knighthoods, and extending the same courtesy. And personal aides exist to remind others of their employer's bona fides, whether or not their employer approves. Reflected glory and all that stuff.
Personally, I wouldn't begrudge a Kingsley or a McCartney their earned right to use an honorific bestowed to denote privilege. But then Americans don't have a history in which aristocratic titles convey much more than a sense of romanticism/fantasy. The Brits/etc have had to put up with the (too often grim) reality goin' way way back. So ya get weirdities such as Americans being fonder of, more admiring of the Monarchy than the Brits, the Aussies, the Canucks, the...
[ May 17, 2012, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Um....It's certainly A principle, but it's not the Anthropic Principle.
Maybe it spelt it wrong but it's similar sounding, but it's an actual thing. You can't criticise a work for say, having magic in the setting because the work takes it as a given that magic exists for the purpose of the narrative.
So it isn't valid to criticise say Harry Potter for having wizards and magic even if wizards and magic don't make sense in real life. We presume that in the work they exist, it's a part of the whole willing suspension of disbelief.
quote: This trope is surprisingly often defied by critics reviewing Comic Book film adaptations and Fantasy, when they dismiss an entire genre in its opening paragraph by pointing out that the very premise of the story is realistically impossible and rests upon childlike simplifications — and anyone who takes such stories seriously must by definition be irresponsible and childish themselves; see Complaining About Shows You Don't Like.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: My Beloved just went to urgent care there ( he had a cut on his foot he was afraid was getting infected) and saw the name "Sir Ben Kingsley" written on the sign-in sheet ahead of him.
At first he thought it was a joke, but it was actually Ben Kingsley. My Beloved was not aware that he was in Ender's Game, though I think he was vaguely aware of it being filmed around town.
HIPAA!! HIPAA!!
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: If you were knighted, would you sign your name Sir whatever everywhere you went?
Yes. Yes I would. AND i would correct people if they mistakenly called me "Mister David" instead of "Sir David"
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
They said that a lot of the people in town for movies use that particular after-hours clinic, and they just sign in and sit the waiting room along with everybody else. I had thought they might have some special arrangement, but they don't.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
That's how it is for most famous people at my hospital too. Political Figures excluded.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would also insist on my title, I earned it afterall darnit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But I thought we were close enough to transcend the need for titles to separate us from the driftwood of society Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Blayne, the Anthropic Principle is a well known philosophical term that has nothing to do with works of fiction.
Just because there is a trope page that uses the same name does not mean that you can use the term in a non-TV-Trope context and expect people to not think you are referring to the well known principle.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Blayne, the Anthropic Principle is a well known philosophical term that has nothing to do with works of fiction.
Just because there is a trope page that uses the same name does not mean that you can use the term in a non-TV-Trope context and expect people to not think you are referring to the well known principle.
Except in that you are only half right and that it can be applied to fiction, I am aware of its etymoligical origins but they are not entirely relevant.*
*Or rather it is relevant that it can be applied to fiction and seems to be some amount of consensus to this fact, whats not relevant is whether you think it isn't just because of its origin. People able to be confused about something isnt new, Im certain plenty of Spanish people look at anime fans strangely when they mention "Laputa".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Blayne, which is more important to you: that you get to use TV tropes without explanation as part of incredibly smug posts, or that people stop making fun of you? Cause you seriously do not get to have both.
Serious question. There are things I do that I get made fun of for and I accept those consequences happily. Some things are worth being made fun of for. Just be aware of what you actually value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the only problem I have with TV Tropes abusing that word to come up with a new term, Blayne, is that the word "anthropic" means something specific. It is an actual philosophical principle already, so reusing the name to apply it more broadly -- and somewhat metaphorically -- seems obnoxious to me. I'd be perfectly okay with calling it something like the Diagetic Principle.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you sign all of your documents as such
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the only problem I have with TV Tropes abusing that word to come up with a new term, Blayne, is that the word "anthropic" means something specific. It is an actual philosophical principle already, so reusing the name to apply it more broadly -- and somewhat metaphorically -- seems obnoxious to me. I'd be perfectly okay with calling it something like the Diagetic Principle.
Something means something already so it can't be used for something else but still kinda similar do colour me surprised that I've never heard of such a rule before, oh right. Because it doesn't exist.
"Anthropic" seems to mean: "Of or pertaining to mankind or humans, or the period of humanity's existence" This seems sufficiently vague to be delegated down to things crafted by human hands or to existence in general.
quote: Blayne, which is more important to you: that you get to use TV tropes without explanation as part of incredibly smug posts, or that people stop making fun of you? Cause you seriously do not get to have both.
Serious question. There are things I do that I get made fun of for and I accept those consequences happily. Some things are worth being made fun of for. Just be aware of what you actually value.
I don't see why I should need to bow down to such a absurd dihictomy. Two groups of people encounter a concept, one gets there first and sees it as blue. Group two sees it later and accepts it as blue, but later decide that it could also be purple.
The first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: he first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
Why is there no crosseyed emoticon? There should be, for moments like this.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Two groups of people encounter a concept, one gets there first and sees it as blue. Group two sees it later and accepts it as blue, but later decide that it could also be purple.
The first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
You're close to something I'd agree with. If you mean "blue" as a descriptive term for some sensation of blueness, then I don't care if other people have different words for that sensation of blueness. In my studies, I'm quite used to authors using terms which have very different meanings to other authors. I don't worry about which term is correct, I care about how it's used. If I know what the author means with a term, I don't care what term they use. You know, the whole "rose by any other name" shebang.
The problem I have with your example is if another group comes forward and describes something I call "blue" as "purple," I'm going to be confused. When I use "purple," it is in reference to something that provides the sensation of purpleness. If someone describes something as "purple" but is just their term for blueness, that's fine. But I need to know that what they mean by "purple" is exactly what I mean by "blue."
If, on the other hand, when they say purple, it is because to them the object evokes purpleness, I am not forced to concede their term. I do not need to accept their perception of reality. Nor do I need to concede that purpleness is similar to blueness. I might (and probably would) concede the issue because I don't care about the difference, but there's nothing in the example that puts a constraint on what I can plausibly accept.
Likewise, I don't think that the other group would need to accept that it can be blue. If they perceive the object as something which creates the sensation of purpleness, they don't need to accept the "original and verifiable meaning." The original meaning does not pertain to their experience, and they may contest the claim of the "blue-sayers."
I think I became more confusing than I intended to be, so I'll just stop while I'm behind.
ETA:
I agree with OSC's perspective on The Avengers. I also share his concern that studios will get the wrong message about its success and make movies that have The Avenger's shortcomings without its redeeming qualities.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Wow, that review of "The Avengers"!
It's as if Card didn't really like anything about the film other than the humor yet couldn't bring himself to call it a bad film given the its tremendous popularity. He goes on and on in the review about its negative qualities and his "BUT..." isn't strong enough to convince the reader that the film adequately overcomes those negative qualities. It's obvious he thinks it was a stupid movie, why doesn't he just call it as he sees it?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The *right* thing about The Avengers it that it will hopefully encourage Studio's to experiment with more intramovie continuality. If audiences really liked say an action movie with 2 characters in it, maybe if they decide to make a Romantic Comedy they can win over part of the action movie audience by having a cross over, maybe it's the brother of the character, or maybe the side kick who was a dark horse character etc.
Heck Spielberg is making a movie about Moses apparantly, wouldn't it be cool if the Arc of the Covenant there would be the same arc as in Indiana Jones? Then it becomes a prequel even if its entirely unrelated.
The possibilities are endless, it could be abused sure. But I feel the gain outweighs the cons.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The *right* thing about The Avengers it that it will hopefully encourage Studio's to experiment with more intramovie continuality. If audiences really liked say an action movie with 2 characters in it, maybe if they decide to make a Romantic Comedy they can win over part of the action movie audience by having a cross over, maybe it's the brother of the character, or maybe the side kick who was a dark horse character etc.
Heck Spielberg is making a movie about Moses apparantly, wouldn't it be cool if the Arc of the Covenant there would be the same arc as in Indiana Jones? Then it becomes a prequel even if its entirely unrelated.
The possibilities are endless, it could be abused sure. But I feel the gain outweighs the cons.
When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
An arc is a part of a circle. An ark is a box.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: An arc is a part of a circle. An ark is a box.
Blayne was referring to the lesser known event, when King Solomon had the Covenant launched by catapult to an undisclosed location for its own safety.
Blayne's suggestion, then, is that Spielberg include this hidden gem of history, and insinuate that the Covenant then lay in this location until 1936.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LO...it MUST be true, there is a trope named after it!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
I'm going to call you Twiddlegoot.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If you're an unmarried man, that's your correct title (‘Master’, not Scott’s thing). Admittedly the consensus on what's appropriate has fragmented in the last 100 years or so if there ever was a strong consensus to begin with. But if there's a plurality opinion that would be it.
Hobbes Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
I'm going to call you Twiddlegoot.
...Master Twiddlegoot?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you agree to call me "The Doctor Professor Rabbit". Bowing your head and genuflecting in my presence are considered appropriate thought not obligatory.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you agree to call me "The Doctor Professor Rabbit". Bowing your head and genuflecting in my presence are considered appropriate thought not obligatory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Bowing your head and genuflecting in my presence are considered appropriate thought not obligatory.
I do that whenever I post in your direction.
You just can't see it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
If you're going to cross universes, why do it to defeat a villian whose already been beat? Why not defeat Bella?
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: had the Covenant launched by catapult
>_<
"The Covenant" is not an object that can be launched.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
And yes, it was a typo I meant "ark" whatever man.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: had the Covenant launched by catapult
>_<
"The Covenant" is not an object that can be launched.
Are you doubting Blayne, Rivka? Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And yes, it was a typo I meant "ark" whatever man.
Psst! Don't back down now, man! We've almost got her!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rivka, since Dan didn't say what kind of catapault it was, perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty, hmm?
Maybe it was a conceptual catapult, able to catapault ideas and concepts and thoughts, how do you know? Sheesh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Are you doubting Blayne, Rivka?
No. I'm doubting you.
And Rakeesh, who has flown away to Conceptual Metaphor Land.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
I'm going to call you Twiddlegoot.
...Master Twiddlegoot?
Nope.
Wimmbabbager Twiddlegoot.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oooh, I like that Rakeesh. The arc of the Covenant was not a literal arc, it was the plot arc that took the Covenant from Moses to Solomon to Indiana Jones.
Perfect!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Are you doubting Blayne, Rivka?
No. I'm doubting you.
And Rakeesh, who has flown away to Conceptual Metaphor Land.
*bonks you on the head with the covenant*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
It's too bad 'pretentious' isn't a topic over at tv tropes, so that you'd know what it means.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: *bonks you on the head with the covenant*
I had a really clever response to this, but it relies on a Hebrew pun, so no one will get it anyway.
But trust me, it's hilarious!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Are puns funnier in Hebrew?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yah...weh funnier.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're the worst.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
אני תוהה כמה טוב גוגל נמצאת לתרגם עברית
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You're the worst.
Lies. I'm your favorite and you know it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You're the worst.
Lies. I'm your favorite and you know it.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
The awkward period between the Masters and PhD can be difficult on family and friends, but I've found that with enough reminders, "Master" becomes pretty much a new first name.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: אני תוהה כמה טוב גוגל נמצאת לתרגם עברית
I think I figured out what you meant to say, but the grammar is all twisted. Certainly Google won't know how to translate a word that can mean two things.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was just reading Gavin Hood's Wikipedia page and found this:
quote: Gavin talked about the political undertones of the new Wolverine movie; "Any movie that is simply about good versus evil...is in my view putting out into the world and certainly into a mass audience and young audience's mind a rather dangerous philosophy, which is that there is good and evil in the simplistic and easily defined way... I think that for the last eight years, we've had that philosophy very much prevalent in the Bush administration that if you're on the side of good, at least as you perceive it, then you can do no evil.
I hope politics don't get brought up on the set while OSC is around. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think I figured out what you meant to say, but the grammar is all twisted. Certainly Google won't know how to translate a word that can mean two things.
What I had it translate was (I think): "I wonder how good google is at translating Hebrew"
In the context of a sentence that sort of thing (words that mean two things) can often be determined with some heuristic rules. I have no idea whether google employs such things. A simple dictionary based word substitution translator isn't very impressive. As someone who is mono-lingual, I can never know how well it did at a translation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
It's too bad 'pretentious' isn't a topic over at tv tropes, so that you'd know what it means.
Pretending your better than someone else because of rather arbitrary standards is pretty much the definition.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
If you're going to cross universes, why do it to defeat a villian whose already been beat? Why not defeat Bella?
:claphands:
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Stay away from my cat damn you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: In the context of a sentence that sort of thing (words that mean two things) can often be determined with some heuristic rules.
In my experience, Google Translate fails rather spectacularly at that -- at least with Hebrew and Spanish, the two languages (besides English) that I can read well enough to tell if a translation is any good.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The Czech is surprisingly good, considering the inherent difficulties. I would class it as better than the Spanish to English. Particularly in translating Czech into English, google is stunning at times. Partly this is helped by Czech having a larger common-use lexis than most languages, including Spanish.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Japanese is virtually impossible to google translate, even simple sentences.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
For example the above sentence:
quote: 日本人は、Google翻訳でも、簡単な文章には事実上不ࡤ 7;能です。
quote: Nihonjin wa, gūguru hon'yaku demo, kantan'na bunshō ni wa jijitsujō fukanōdesu.
1- It's not supposed to space it out like that. 2- Its translated "Japanese (language)" as "Japanese (people)" 3- I don't even.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I translated this lyric from English to Greek and back...ten points to the first one to name the song.
quote:Hell was their father slowly go by, And they eat your dreams The one he took, one will learn from.
Do not ask me anything because if I told you, you cry, So just look at them and sigh and know that you love.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Ooh La La"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Teach the Children Greek?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Teach the Children Greek?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Teach the Children Greek?
10 points.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I translated this lyric from English to Greek and back...ten points to the first one to name the song.
quote:Hell was their father slowly go by, And they eat your dreams The one he took, one will learn from.
Do not ask me anything because if I told you, you cry, So just look at them and sigh and know that you love.
This would make a great game in its own thread.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think there was one a long time ago...bablefish game or some such.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)