Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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 1) 180

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 1) 180

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.

Comment: Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score 1) 180

by Grishnakh (#49385459) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

Schwarzenegger can't act but was perfect in the role of an emotionless machine that can't act.

Schwarzenegger was a good fit for several of his parts only because of his body, nothing else. His thick Austrian accent (esp. on a time-traveling robot) didn't exactly add to the realism.

Comment: Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score 1) 180

by Grishnakh (#49385441) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

From what I've seen in recent years on TV and in Hollywood movies, getting a part seems to require not so much talent, but a LOT of $$$ for dental work. Getting all your teeth re-capped and made perfectly shaped and white like that isn't cheap. And you'll need that to get any major part on even a low-budget TV show.

Pay attention when you're watching some TV show at the actors' teeth. Then look around you at the teeth on everyone you know.

Comment: Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is (Score 1) 136

by shutdown -p now (#49384375) Attached to: Firefox 37 Released

What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.

The problem is that it still ended up with an overbearing dominant beast, just a different one - Chrome (or rather WebKit/Blink, but Chrome is the lion's share of that). The good part is that we're still in the stage where stagnation is not a thing yet. The bad part is that it could change literally overnight.

Comment: Re:Grossly Over-o's Here (Score 1) 119

by fyngyrz (#49384087) Attached to: Amazon Launches 'Home Services' For Repair, Installation, and Other Work

If you know of grammar errors or other writing problems / errors on my page(s), I will be delighted to fix them, and also to learn how to do better. Because doing the best one can is important. Better to strive to paint like an actual painter than to be satisfied with finger-painting like an addled child. So fire away. :)

Comment: Re:Yes, it's free. Also, the patent system sucks (Score 1) 178

The room of litigation is always there, obviously. But how can the language be worse than the default, unless it somehow explicitly overrides and rescinds some provisions of the original license under which the code is released?

If true, the next obvious question: can the same be done to GPL(v2)?

Comment: Re:Lies, damn lies and half-truths. (Score 1) 61

by Will.Woodhull (#49383831) Attached to: We're In a Golden Age of Star Trek Webseries Right Now

I'm holding out for the gold-pressed latinum age.

I remember that TOS was so cool because it was showing what the world could be like if we somehow were able to get past the major crises of that day. Which were (in descending order of impact on a white middle class male teen): 1) women entrusted with chain of command positions; 2) tolerance of the rights of people who did not look like everyone in my home town; 3) resolving major disagreements with foreigners without throwing nukes around.

How could Star Trek be relevant today like it was back then? I can't imagine a Star Trek episode with Spock and Kirk, or even Data and Picard, dealing rationally with terrorism.

TOS and TNG were fantastically great myths born of that age. But that age is now in our history, and today's problems of terrorism, ecological brinksmanship, and the 99% vs the 1% do not lend themselves to the same kind of myth making.

Live free or die.

Working...