Messages

Well, as it is the Academy term, I borrowed it here.

First, if it isn't obvious, "foreign" means Non-American (and to some degree British).

I have just seen Vidocq, a French thriller starring Gérard Depardieu. Vidocq boasts a decent plot with a nice twist in the end, but that is not what makes this movie a very interesting piece of cinema. What is really special here is the directing.
Firstly, the pace of the movie is so fast that it is hard for the viewer to properly analyze the current scene. There is almost no prologue, you are thrown into action immediately.
Secondly, the camera work is amazing. It consists of larger-than-life close-ups of that characters faces (and sometimes, parts of faces), and constant sharp camera movement. The former (extreme close-ups) creates a very special presentation of the characters, almost cartoon like. The latter creates a feeling of being inside the action and adds to the entertainment factor. Another thing to notice is that the color wasn't the popular technicolor, but duboicolor. All of these techniques are rarely seen in American cinema, surely not as exessively as in this movie.
Such things are what makes European (mostly) cinema, generally, more interesting in my eyes than American. I am not saying that I am a big enthusiast of European cinema, or that I watch more European movies than American. I am saying that had I an American and an European movie, the latter would be the one from which I would expect something special. Movies such as Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain or La Vita e Bella often offer a fresh and much-needed break from the uniform Hollywood style.
Is the American audience so simple? Can it not accept the European style? Or is the audience ready, but the studios aren't willing to take the risk? I'd like to see your thoughts on the topic.

As much as I have read, they only got Asimov in there for commercial reasons. It isn't an adapation of I, Robot (how can one be done?), and at first it wasn't planned to have anything to do with it.

There's the plot outline from IMDB.com:

Set in a future Earth (2035 A.D.) where robots are common assistants and workers for their human owners, this is the story of "robotophobic" Chicago Police Detective Del Spooner's (Smith) investigation into the murder of Dr. Miles Hogenmiller, who works at U.S. Robotics (run by Greenwood), in which a robot, Sonny (Tudyk), appears to be implicated, even though that would mean the robot had violated the Laws of Robotics, which is apparently impossible. It seems impossible because.. if robots can break those laws, there's nothing to stop them from taking over the world, as humans have grown to become completely dependent upon their robots. Or maybe... they already have? Aiding Spooner in his investigation is a psychologist, Dr. Susan Calvin (Moynahan), who specializes in the psyches of robots...

So, basically, the only thing that makes it Asimov-related is the use of US Robotics, for commercian reasons purely.

None of you will ever reach the West!  

A little side note: Return of the King hit #3 on the IMDB Top 250 list, and although it is bound to drop a little later, damn, that's one strong entrance.

RE, I think it is a little hard to give you tips this way, outta-the-blue. I think that it would work much better if you actually show us something you have written and we will criticize it.

Christmas? What's that?

I'm halfway through the game (well, probably less), and so far, I am impressed. This game has done what almost no other Star Wars game managed to do - it caught the correct atmoshpere of Star Wars.

Barcik:
You misunderstood me.

I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.

But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.

In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.

Could you even describe it as an epic?

Yes, most defiently.

I can't quite see how the Wheel of Time is a rip off. Good vs. Evil? If that's your premise Lord of the Rings is a rip off of many books. Is it youth going off into an adventure and thus growing? Been done before LOTR, as well. I won't argue they don't share similarities. They're both fantasy. The hero's are both young, and have the power to destroy the evil. I think the ring wraiths (or whatever they're called), share some similarities with the Morgul(Or something similar)? It's really not a rip off at all, it just shares some similarities. The only problem with Jordan, is he keeps inventing new enemies and not ending the series. I believe someone told me Jordan planned on it only being four books. So I give Tolkien props for finishing LOTR. I just enjoyed Jordans earlier works more. And I think it's a book that shows I'm not against rich detail, as those books average anywhere from 500 to 1200 pages. But I think Zelazny's work is my favorite fantasy, I'd suggest it to anyone. He also didn't finish his work (mainly because he died), but there is an end (so in other words, he still had a few loose ends that he was probably going to work out, but he finished most of it before his death, and his last book ended well enough to consider it finished enough, although you crave for more).

It's been a while since I read it, but I remember than even that I noticed how much alike the two books were. I think it's more than just similarites. Look at the following:
1. Rand, Perrin and Mat - The Hobbits. Both are taken away from their nice rural country, knowing nothing about the big world.
2. Min - Galadriel. The all essential lady with visions.
3. Trollocs - Orcs. The stupid corrupted creatures whose strength lies in their numbers.
4. The statues in the chapter "Flight Down the Arinelle" - The Argonath. Both are by a river.
5. The Forsaken - The Nazgul. Group of cursed men, serving the dark master forever.
6. The Dark One - Sauron. The all powerful lord of all evil, wanting to control the land.
7. Moiraine - Gandalf. The smart magic-wielder leading the party.
8. Lan - Aragorn. Both are uncrowned kings (however, Lan doesn't, at least for now, fulfill his destiny).
9. Shayol Ghul - Mount Doom. The very home of evil, where the party must venture.
10. Leaving Two Rivers - Leaving the Shire. The party must leave their home because their presence puts it in danger.

I think this is more than just innocent coincedences.

Yes, anyone who grew up around people playing D&D knows that dwarves carry big axes and don't like elves. But there must be more to a character than that.

After Tolkien started the new wave of modern fantasy, such creature quickly became sterotypes, default characters without any depth. In due time, even the original was deemed as shallow. However, you must remember that Tolkien had no basic character too copy. Today's cliche falsy veils Tolkien's rich characters. Gimli and Legolas are much more than that. They are two people who are at first hostile to each other, but learn to accept, and later love one another. They are two people prejudiced against the other's race, but learn that there is more than their initial racist view.

I've just returned from the Return of the King premiere. What more can I say that hasn't been said before? Not much, so I'll just repeat. Amazing! Specatacular! Epic! Absorbing! This is a true masterpiece, and it won't matched soon. This trilogy is the ultimate cinematic experience.

After a rather long exposition (interestingly, it ends in Gandalf saying "The board is set, the pieces are moving") it begins. Trust me, you have never seen anything such as "it" before. Eliphants (or, oliphaunts, if my memory doesn't deceive me), eagles, ring-wraiths, trolls, orcs, humans, ghosts - all is to mixed to create the best action scene ever. Its spectacularity is enhanced by the fantastic camera work. Often, it is hard to believe that men managed to create something of such sheer scale.

I liked Jackson's interpretation of the novel. Frodo's struggle against the burden of the Ring was very well conveyed, even is somewhat late. Sam's devotion to his master was truly touching. I was really impressed how Jackson managed to emphasise Eowyn's desire for equality in the spider-web of sub-plots he had to handle. He also stayed true to most of the "longish" moments of the book, ignoring the crowd's wish for blood. Peter Jackson really understood the characters, although I still dislike his choice of making Gimli the movie's clown.

However, there is a major setback. I think the soundtrack of this part was worse than the those of the previous two. It lacked the thrilling and moving touch of the former ones. I especially missed "Amon Hen".

Personally, I am not disappointed Jackson chose to remove the Scouring of the Shire. It would have just made the movie considerably longer with a segement that isn't particulary important. I am much more bothered by the abscence of smaller moments from the book, such as the conversation with the Mouth of Sauron, the conversation with Saruman in Isengard and the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King, as they were much more relevant to the story.

The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)

I've read all of the books in the series, except the last one which I didn't finish because it was just too bad. I did like the first two, but I think that they are no match to the Lord of the Rings, mostly for one reason - it's a total rip-off. There are several boys who leave their village and discover the world, guided by a magic wielder, and go to the very homeland of all evil. In many ways, The Eye of the World is the Lord of the Rings Lite, without the detail and the language.

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?

I do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.


Overall, this is one of the greats of modern cinema. When the hobbit's cry when Frodo leaves them, so does the viewer cry when this amzing, two-year, 10-hours epic trilogy come to an end.

Metallica of the 80s!

Arrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

You can continue, but it will be irrelevent. Because, were it a lie (and I still believe it isn't, and I there is plenty of counter evidence), it will still be a different kind of lie from telling that the US found them when they really didn't.

With all due respect, this is not something they can lie about. Firstly, I don't believe the WMD accusation is a lie. There think there are Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hidden in arab states such as Syria and Lebanon. And the problem is that since the search hasn't ended yet this can't be called a "lie". However, if a nosy reported writes that the Saddam the Americans caught is a double Bush is over.

To make the point more clear - let's take two situations with the WMDs.
1) Bush invented a story about Iraq having WMDs, and is now running a phoney search for them.
2) Bush announced he found the WMDs, when in fact all he has is a rocket-shaped.

Which lie is by far the worse from a public relations point of view?

Of course, there's plenty of other good reasons to dislike Bush, the whole "War on people we trained but don't like anymore Terror" aside.

You can't blame a person for correcting a mistake. Yes, you can blame him for making hte mistake at the first place, but in such a case the correction part is justified.


DG: I hope that was pure sarcasm and that you don't really think it's fake.

Ok, to make it all clear.
The quoted segment from Debka.com came in response to CJ's post. He said that Saddam was leading the guerilla fight from that hole of his. So, I brought up this theory that he really was being held captive in that hole.

Sorry but that's the second time the mighty CJ was referenced incorrectly.  He stated that Saddam was NOT orchestrating military actions from his hole.
"1) if Saddam has spent the last few months hiding in a hole in the ground without so much as a mobile phone, he has hardly been commanding the insurgency against the coalition troops; therefore, his arrest is unlikely to have an impact on the attacks, which are apparently largely committed by terrorists from neighbouring countries who have come into Iraq to destabilise it"

I would seem his point was that military actions by Iraqi factions would not decrease after Saddam's capture as Saddam must've had very little influence there.  

Onward!

So what I am trying to say is that Saddam wasn't in that hole all the time. Before being kidnapped, if that theory is correct, he could have had all the requirements to arrange the guerilla war. So, perhaps saying Saddam had little influence is incorrect. But, it's all just theories.

Oh, and I am sorry to be laughing at a person's spelling mistakes (I know I have my share), but Nostardamus' "Golf War" made me laugh hysterically.

btw, you know that Chernoybl translated to "Wormwood" in English?

Well I don't, and I wasn't born very far away from it. In fact, I was born just a bit before it happened. Maybe that's why I came out this way spikgjkldtjklreht9peqroewdvz.  

Then again, I never really learned Ukrainian.

I like it more when the left-click does the more default actions, and the right-click is used for more complicated tasks. In other words - left-click for look, right-click for the rest.

Yeah, that's a problem with voting in general. Las makes a good point too, in that I bet there have been some people who've voted for a game without having played it.

I think this makes ratings unnecessarily (or whatever it's spelled) complicated. The 10 points system should work fine, like in IMDB.

I'm not so sure about that. All movies have had millions of dollars spent on them, so they're easier to compare.

With AGS games, some people will find the graphics important, whereas other people don't mind bad graphics so long as the story and puzzles are good. Having seperate categories also makes people think a bit more before voting, rather than just charging in and voting 10 if they liked it and 1 if they didn't.

There are various movies as well - some of them had a huge budget and eye-popping visual effects. Other had a low budget and a strong story. That's where the IMDB top 250 list succeeded so well - it managed to create a top movies list which provided a good summary of the highest-quality movies, of all shapes and colours.

Also, breaking down the score that way fails to show how good the game is as a whole. It's hard to understand just how good a game is by seeing a bunch of numbers regarding to each of the game's aspects. One big rating for the game makes the whole thing less complicated, and, at least too me, tells more about the game as a single piece of work than a rating broken down to parts.

Ok, to make it all clear.

The quoted segment from Debka.com came in response to CJ's post. He said that Saddam was leading the guerilla fight from that hole of his. So, I brought up this theory that he really was being held captive in that hole.

The comment in the end of it had nothing to do with my respone to CJ. It was a respone to people saying that the person shown on footage's is a double. I said that not to accept such a bold fact a person must be seriously prejudiced against the American administration's work. This is not something Bush can be lying about.

I've only seen a bit of it, as I gave my copy to a friend, but I can tell you that the voice acting is horrible.

I think this makes ratings unnecessarily (or whatever it's spelled) complicated. The 10 points system should work fine, like in IMDB. The problem with the current system is that we tend to ignore it. Most games have very little votes to their name. A very crude count brings me an average of about one vote per 60-70 downloads. I can see why the "outsiders" wouldn't vote, but I think that at least we, AGS Community Members should vote.
What will that give? For one, it will motivate people to vote. When I see that a game has 5 votes, I think that the rating isn't important. When I see 200 votes, I get another feeling, and I want to be a part of the people who voted. Also, when there are many votes it is harder to unfairly "alter" the average rating of one's game.
So, in other words, I think all that we need to do is take the rating system more seriously and start voting for all the games we play.