The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
A place to talk about your favorite movies, genres, actors and directors. Please try to keep one discussion per genre, actor or director.
Latest Activity: Oct 12
Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Idaho Spud Sep 1.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 12, 2013.
Started by Micah Johnson. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 1, 2013.
Started by Marc Draco. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013.
Started by Mark Vandebrake. Last reply by Napoleon Bonaparte Feb 2, 2013.
Started by Loren Miller Sep 7, 2012.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin Jul 29, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by TNT666 Feb 21, 2012.
Started by vondutch. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 24, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by TNT666 Sep 18, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by Will Faithless Sophia May 29, 2011.
Started by Edward Teach. Last reply by Gabriel Garcia May 29, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by TNT666 Mar 12, 2011.
Started by Loren Miller Jan 31, 2011.
Started by Ann. Last reply by A Former Member Sep 16, 2010.
Started by S.A. Alenthony. Last reply by A Former Member Sep 16, 2010.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by Tea Cup Jul 6, 2010.
I'll happily answer that charge, just as soon as you start answering the questions and stop quote mining out of context. For instance, the fact that what I've said is moderated by the phrase that's what comes across; and the evidence I have seen supports that assertion.You are the one who claimed to have, what was it, "1: my [sic] grammar is notoriously impeccable." Yet when it suits your purpose you dispense with ellipses to indicate that you've edited the phrase.Refusing to capitalise isn't eccentric, it's a way to show you're different from us; please correct me if I'm wrong. English evolved long before the US and Canada were invaded; and capitalisation is a requirement the very grammar you boast to perfection.It's a rule; not an option to be flouted on a whim. Correct capitalisation is required to convey information - you're not having to read your ejaculations without prior knowledge so you wouldn't see that. Capitalisation is not required on a board that supports HTML either - we can use bold and italics to indicate various stresses. Caps were an alternative when we only had 7 bits of information per char and a limited character set. This is before your time, of course.Since you think it's OK to drop capitals, why bother using punctuation, hell, why even bother with spacing? These things exist to make the text readable - to convey information often in context.Take this (made up phrase) in Eganspeeke. "when handing ram be careful to use an anti-static wrist strap." Which makes me wonder if this sheep is electric. Ah wait, that must have something to do with the wool. However, use the correct capitalisation and the meaning is clear.
Not at all, I was saying it's a poorly directed movie because you can see Eli's iris (clearly in the clip and film). I only zoomed this as a courtesy from the 360px. This lack of attention to detail (and many others) on a critical plot point is what makes this a bad movie. Diverting attention is one thing, getting it wrong is quite another.I had no trouble following, Inception or Usual Suspects which are far better from a directorial and writing standpoint, so I guess you'd be wrong again. Kaiser Soze, for example, is well exposed in the movie (and script) but few people guess it.
Your responses are typically narcissistic. You're never wrong; everyone else is and you're better than us: at least that's what comes across here and on Facebook - but that reveals even more about you some of which you might prefer people not to know.The people who inspire you include Carl Sagan - you might get further if you behaved more like him. Adams likewise, is a fantastic writer but he respected grammar and I doubt Stephen Fry would appreciate your petulance nor Master Kong your proclivity for rudeness.
My complaint is not just that Eli is a bad film, its that it tries to be something smart and fails: badly. Reading other people's views reinforces this and you're in a small minority made up largely of people who either missed the point completely or just enjoyed it as a harmless romp. So yeah, you are the narcissist - but watch your back because there's always another one coming up behind you.
Now you're just clutching at straws, Egan. Again.
As a writer/director, my job is to convince the audience what they are seeing is real: and that includes offering a visual explanation why not a single "shooter" is capable of hitting Eli is broad daylight and relatively close range.
Yes, this is an apocalyptic future, all the more reason that those who carry guns would be very good at using them since ammo is likely to be at a premium. It's just weak visual exposition and poor writing; hoping that we'd ignore it among all the VFX. You're expecting me to believe that of all the people Eli encounters, he is the only one who can shoot - and that he's blind?
Eli removes his goggles. Solara can't believe what she sees.His eyes are pale, milky-white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND.
As to your "impeccable grammar", that judgement I will leave to others - CraigArt is, I believe, better qualified than I am in this regard. You might want to what the word means as your naive grandiosity appears to be bordering on psychological narcissism; and yes, I do know what that diagnosis entails - it's an observation of your behavior on these boards and not an ad hominem.
1. You don't think the basic rules of grammar and syntax apply to you and so you leave them out? No wonder you can't see context.
2. I describe Eli as (and I'll quote here) "also virtually indestructible..."
4. Narnia (the film) is a religious metaphor; I didn't mention Aslan. I can't be clearer than that because I refuse to waste my time with this drudgery.
3 & 5. I have watched the movie and I have (as an indy writer/director myself) studied the shots I've cited here. I'm guessing you haven't had much experience with blind people, Egan. My father in law is almost blind and my Uncle in the 40 years I knew him.
Blind people use sounds as directional cues; but if you knew as much about sound as you think, you'd know that human hearing is only directional at higher frequencies; and only then in a direct line. Someone elsewhere observed that Eli regularly makes shots, under duress, that would be impossible for a blind Olympian. Humans don't echolocate; that required millions of years of evolution.
I've read bits of the script (which makes more sense than the movie, incidentally) the gunfight starting on page 60, for instance hints that the antagonists are lousy shots. This is not what comes over in the film, unfortunately. You can see it yourself here:http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Book-of-Eli,-The.html
Starting around page 83 though (in the run up to the confrontation in he house) we're presented with a padlocked gate which Eli cuts through with bolt cutters. Later in this section the scripted approach to the house is replaced with a fall into a pit. There's a major cockup here - Eli's eyes are clearly visible. I expect when someone notices, they'll CGI come shades on him later.
Thanks, Marc Draco. I am looking for a cheap upgrade to Win 7 or a way to wipe the laptop drive and go with a clean XP install.
Egan, incomplete education is not a euphemism; it's a judgment made by a college professor with a doctorate in literature reading some rather sophomoric comments. Certainty and rudeness are not exactly signs of maturity. You have told us in your last few posts that the vast majority of atheists are irrational and that people are stupid. You have also stated that people hold unpopular opinions only so they can feel good about themselves, so in a society full of Christians, those childish malcontents attack Christianity. Discounting someone's opinion by blasting his or her motives is a cheap trick, otherwise known as an argument ad hominem. It's also an attempt to poison the well. And, since you have no knowledge of why people on this board are atheists, it simply isn't true. The atheists I know have come to their lack of belief through study and thinking. So leave the petulant sweeping generalizations out of the discussion.
The viewer does have a role in determining meaning in a film. I'm still puzzled by the ending of Apocalypto. Knowing Mel Gibson's religious views, I wonder how he sees the arrival of the Spanish Catholics on the beach. I see it as the beginning of the end for millions of Native Americans. What the filmmaker intends is unknowable and irrelevant.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2016 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.