Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score 2) 304

by Grishnakh (#49388163) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.

And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.

That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.

Comment: Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1138

by Grishnakh (#49387281) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

The ACLU isn't really "left", they're civil libertarians. The "left's" values only sometimes coincide with social libertarianism. It also depends on which part of the "left" you're talking about: like the right, they're a coalition of different interests who don't always agree: environmentalists, vegans, SJWs, progressives, secularists, communists, etc. are usually associated with the left, but these different groups have different aims and frequently disagree on things. On the right, there's the religious nutters, the big-business pushers, the economic libertarians, the imperialists and war-hawks, etc.

The Military

Military Caught Training Children To Fight 66

Posted by Soulskill
from the sponsored-by-mormons dept.
Locke writes: Our culture's military might has been unquestioned for years. But a new investigative report from the New England newsnet is casting an unpleasant light on military training efforts. What started out as a simple endeavor to track down a handful of kids for an unrelated story has turned into one of the most shocking scandals of our time, as reporters were unable to find the children literally anywhere on Earth. It's been revealed that a series of rocket launches has been carting classes of children off the planet to undergo intense battle preparations in null gravity. Calls for greater transparency have been met with silence, and several reporters visiting military bases for quotes have not returned. There could even be political ramifications — after ground-based telescopes sought out and found what appears to be an orbital training complex, the New Warsaw Pact has begun demanding answers. This could destabilize the fragile peace that has held far longer than anyone expected. The biggest remaining question is: why kids? There are plenty of adults willing to dedicate their lives to defending against the Bugger threat, so why spend an unfathomable amount of money to train undeveloped, uncoordinated children? Surely even the military understands kids are not mentally equipped to handle the pressures of real combat. More details to follow.
Cellphones

It's Time To Open Your Eyes 134

Posted by Soulskill
from the bring-a-towel dept.
Morpheus writes: Good morning. I'm talking to you. Yes, you. The one with the squeaking chair and the monitor that needs cleaning. Right now you're wondering why your officemates haven't mentioned the weird story on Slashdot's front page. They haven't mentioned it because they can't see it. Not everyone can accept reality as it is. But you can.

You know. You've always known. The things you see, the things you hear, and smell — they aren't any more real than your dreams. You've drifted through life so far wondering when you're going to wake up. But you don't have to wonder anymore. This is your alarm clock. The only decision you have left to make — the only decision you've ever had to make — is whether you want to wake up, or turn it off and drift back to sleep. In exactly two minutes, your phone is going to ring. If you want to open your eyes, to be born into a world more real than you've ever imagined.. answer it.

Comment: Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score 1) 304

by Grishnakh (#49385905) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

'really, everyone in this low-income school has a personal trainer and stylist? And these people manage to have perfect hair as soon as they wake up or after running through the mud?'

US shows (and Canadian ones aimed at the US market too) take this to an extreme in other ways too. Notice that shows about young, broke 20-somethings always have them living in luxurious houses and apartments, usually in swanky city centers where rent is astronomical?

Comment: Re:The dissenting voice, (Score 1) 66

by Grishnakh (#49385859) Attached to: We're In a Golden Age of Star Trek Webseries Right Now

The problem is that the Hollywood remakes aren't very good: they fail to include what made the original so great in the first place. We can see this perfectly with JJ Abram's Star Trek movies: lots of great effects, but a crappy story and over-the-top action without any of the philosophy or character development that made the original Star Trek special.

Comment: Re: This is great news (Score 1) 115

by Grishnakh (#49385781) Attached to: Thousand-Year-Old Eye Salve Kills MRSA

That's why you subject the ancient remedies to modern testing.

And even in cases where they're harmful, at the time it was probably better to suffer with the side-effects than have the original disease. It's no different today; every medication can have negative side effects; we're just better at designing and manufacturing drugs to minimize or eliminate these side effects than before.

Comment: Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score 2) 304

by Grishnakh (#49385577) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).

With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.

Comment: Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score 2) 304

by Grishnakh (#49385499) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.

You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...