- This topic has 45 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I feel compelled to see the latest “Star Bores” even though I know it will be bad…The movie got a terrifically bad review in the NyTimes.. But somehow I feel that seeing it is INEVITABLE
I bet G.L. is using all Brit actors because if we americans hear a british accent in a movie we are automatically conditioned to think we are seeing something high class!
Excuse me! George Lucus at this very moment has unleashed his seven foot tall golden robots on you. Seriously thought Episode II was so kick ass. It had a great story, lots of action, incredible FX and a Yoda I wouldn’t want to challenge. It was a very awsome film and anyone who doesn’t agree I will challenge to a light saber duel at 20 paces.
-SM
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: Slopmaster ]
WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AOTC contains, as I’ve said before, the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a major motion picture. The performances of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are so incredibly wooden that I was afraid of termite infestation. Now, Natalie Portman can act. She’s a decent actress, and has done some good work. Here, her entire performance hinges on elaborate costume changes and looking vaguely concerned at all times. Hayden Christensen, not for one moment, convinced me that he has one iota of acting talent in his entire being. There’s a certain scene in the film in which you sense the first steps into the Dark Side of his character. He is supposed to be filled with anger, grief and blind fury. Instead, he comes across like a 16-year-old kid who has just been told that he can’t use the car Saturday night. The romance between the two of them is, therefore, rendered completely unbelievable because the two characters never *once* seem to actually be capable of emotions of this magnitude.On top of that, the film contains some of the worst dialogue in any SW film. I have to give Lucas props for coming up with the best approximation of an unintentionally funny, Ed Wood-esque romantic scene, though, when Anakin tells Amidala something like “I hate sand. It’s irritating and gets everywhere. It’s not like you. You’re everything that’s smooth.” C3P0 has been reduced to making nothing but bad puns — and bad puns based on 20th century Earth slang, at that. His head gets dragged around by R2, and he says “This is such a drag.” Oh, Lucas, yer a funny man. It’s almost as amusing as when Jar-Jar gets farted on in Episode 1.
On top of that, the way the story is told is completely idiotic. They show the development of Anakin’s and Amidala’s romance by showing them traipsing through meadows and fields, and resting beside a waterfall (oh, no cliche is too obvious for *this* film, nosirreebob). Anakin’s journey into the Dark Side is instigated by giving his mother the worst death scene in the history of film. She’s been held hostage by Tuscan Raiders for months, it seems, and lives *just* long enough for Anakin to show up and untie her, so she can spit out a couple of phrases and come *this close* to telling him that she loves him. No, finding her dead body would have been too *vague*. It was effective enough for Luke to find his uncle and aunt’s dead, charred bodies, but no…
It’s a bad movie. It’s a really bad movie. It’s marginally better than The Phantom Menace, but not by much. It’s got some decent points: Christopher Lee is great, though the name Lucas gave him is pathetic, there is a chase sequence (that really serves no dramatic purpose except to have a chase scene) in the beginning that’s exciting, and the saber battle at the end is done really well, but the entire mid-section bogs down terribly in swamps of lousy acting, lousy dialogue, lousy direction (and no, special effects do not equal direction), and lousy editing.
–Aleck
Wow! I didn’t think it was THAT bad! Attack of the Clones is no Chariots of Fire, but it was a hell of alot of fun!
I wouldn’t spend $8 on it! Go see the cheaper matinee.
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW
The performances of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are so incredibly wooden that I was afraid of termite infestation. Now, Natalie Portman can act. She’s a decent actress, and has done some good work. Here, her entire performance hinges on elaborate costume changes and looking vaguely concerned at all times. Hayden Christensen, not for one moment, convinced me that he has one iota of acting talent in his entire being. There’s a certain scene in the film in which you sense the first steps into the Dark Side of his character. He is supposed to be filled with anger, grief and blind fury.
Ha, ha, ha, YES! Someone finally agrees with me, and doesn’t follow blindly into the perception of, its Star Wars fo ofcourse it was good! Hayden Christensen did the worst acting I’ve ever seen, from a non-child performer. Not once was I convinced of anything he said.
I would have to disagree with you on one point Aleck:quote
Instead, he comes across like a 16-year-old kid who has just been told that he can’t use the car Saturday night.
Now I’m 19 and when my car (see Adam Sandler’s Ode to my Car for more details) is in the shop, or I’m going on a long trip and I want something a little more reliable and I’m told I can’t take a real working car, I act way more emotionally then that. I’d say his reaction was closer to that of someone beign told to not to something they don’t want to do anyway, but put on a fake show for appearances sake.
I agree with everythign else except:
quote
It’s a bad movie. It’s a really bad movie.
I wouldn’t say its very bad, just not that good. I was entertained by it. But it didn’t give me the same feelings that iv-vi gave me. I didn’t mind paying the 4.50 (gotta love student tickets) to see it. I feel that if this weren’t a Star Wars film not nearly as many people would have gone to see it.
Finally they could have done almost every seen with a Yoda muppet. Well except for that last one obviously. In a few years the cgi will look fake and we’ll see right through the computer image. Muppets look more real, both at the tiem and in the long run.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: Headgehog ]
There is a joint near me where you can sit at a table and eat pizza while watching..maybe I will see it there.
Everybody says the same thing..that the fight scene between yoda and C.Lee is the only thing good! But I’d like to go to see the special effects. i do agree that things have gotten really bad since the the emp. strikes back! Salon mag. likens the love scenes to a douche commercial!
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
[/qb] I wouldn’t say its very bad, just not that good.
Oh, okay, I concede that I’m being pretty harsh. There are some decent aspects to it. The perfs from Lee and Ewan MacGregor are fine, Ian MacDiarmid as Palpatine does some decent work with what he has to work *with*, and the depiction of landscapes, planetary terrains, atmospheres and cityscapes are visually stunning. I’d also add that I’m a big fan of the retro-futuristic look of the ships (and their propeller-like sound effects) in the film. The story, in and of itself, is engaging if you can watch it without focusing on the *way* it’s told and the dialogue involved in the telling. It’s like a really good joke being told by someone who *really sucks* at telling jokes. But it’s not *all* bad. It’s worth *seeing*, I suppose, but it’s definitely not worth shelling out more than matinee prices for.
–Aleck
With the exception of the Love Story; in which they tried to capture the cheesy Han Solo/Leia dialog, and the Video game marketing in the action scenes this was the best Star Wars since the original series. Possibly better than 1 or 2 of them. ESB still the best. And of course Jar-Jar is for all intensive purposes the creator of the Empire, who could ask for more?
I loved it.
So Star Wars is now an art film and just has to have good acting on par with Laurence Oliver to be successful.
Well thankfully, most of the critics out there pour scorn on films like Star Wars because it’s not shakespeare or some other god damn boring play like The Piano.
The film was brilliant, and I for one wasn’t expecting a masterpiece, I just wanted to be entertained…and it does that in bundles.
If you look at Star Wars A New Beginning, then you’d realise that it didn’t depend on it’s actors ability to act, it was fun and lively, just like AOTC, anyone expecting anything more needs their heads checked.
The only criticism I had AOTC (and it’s minor), was the slushy love scenes, but I’m in no doubt that Mr Lucas has delievered, and I for one was glad to give my money to see the film.
Regardless of what a small minority will say, people will go to see it in droves, and I want to tell those people to ignore the snipers, it’s well worth it…go see it, you won’t regret it.
Squishyquote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
So Star Wars is now an art film and just has to have good acting on par with Laurence Oliver to be successful.
If a movie has lousy acting, then it’s failing on at least one level. I’m not saying that it has to be Shakespeare or “some other god damn boring play like The Piano,” I’m saying that George Lucas can’t direct living actors. Attack of the Clones is *all* about CGI and visual effects, and attention to the actors and characters has been sacrificed. The film’s editing is sluggish when it should be kinetic. His use of montage is severely flawed. His dialogue is lousy. While it’s entertaining to *look at*, to actually enjoy the movie as a whole is to *really* work out one’s ability to forgive.
quote
Well thankfully, most of the critics out there pour scorn on films like Star Wars because it’s not shakespeare or some other god damn boring play like The Piano.
Why is that fortunate? That makes no sense.
Besides, critics fell all over themselves praising the first Star Wars film. Like I’ve mentioned before, it was nominated for handfuls of Academy Awards, including Best Picture — a rarity for a genre picture. And as for critics pouring scorn on films like Star Wars, and only respecting “art” films, what about the heaps of lavish praise that’ve been given to Spider-Man? The critics have essentially unanimously given stellar marks to this movie, when it’s (a) just an action flick, (b) it’s based on a comic book, and (c) it’s not “arty” in any way, shape or form. Why? Because (a) the stars of the film can actually *act*, (b) the director, Sam Raimi, knows how to work with actors *and* special effects, (c) the screenplay was well-done, (d) the pace was consitent and exciting, as opposed to the middle third-or-more of AOTC which bogs down horribly, (e) the film focused more of its attention on characters than effects.quote
If you look at Star Wars A New Beginning,
I’m gonna assume you mean Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope, the revisionist re-titling of Star Wars.
quote
then you’d realise that it didn’t depend on it’s actors ability to act,
No, it didn’t have to depend on it, because the actors *could act to begin with*. Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, they’re all good, instinctive actors that, for the most part, don’t need a lot of instruction from the director. I think it’s telling, though, that the best performances coaxed from them came in the later 2 films, films that *weren’t directed by George Lucas.*
I really find the whole knee-jerk “Attack of the Clones is a great movie because it’s a Star Wars movie, and George Lucas is a genius” stance objectionable. Among SW fans, there’s a ridiculous tendency to say that *any* criticisms are invalid, that a Star Wars film can’t be held to standards like acceptable acting, believable characters and well-written dialogue, because “it’s just entertainment.” Well, you know, you can be entertaining *without* populating a film with poorly-defined characters spouting idiotic dialogue and performed by people that can’t act (or at least directed by a director that doesn’t know how to work with humans to elicit a good performance). Like Spider-Man has shown, you can have the best of both, and still garner favor from both the critics *and* the public (without being “arty”).
–Aleck
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: Aleck ]
Well in totally opposite in opinion to you on this, the acting was no better or no worse than any Star Wars film i’ve seen, sure there are moments that are not brilliant, but on the whole it certainly did not degrade the film.
I’m not a follower of Lucas in the respect of just worshipping him for the sake of it, and I don’t believe that the film should get high praise because it’s an SW flick.
What really annoys me is that some people go to great lengths to bite huge chunks out of a film because they are looking at a film in a way that shouldn’t really matter.
Like I said, the acting and performance is not what really matters, if people come out of the cinema feeling that they enjoyed it, then that’s what’s important.
What’s the point of being overly critical, well for places like here it serves a purpose, but on the whole it’s people showing they have the ability to disagree with the masses.
SW2 met all of the criteria of what it set out to do…entertain.
If you want to see a film that is weighed down by someone’s acting ability, then you are most definitely looking in the wrong place, but then you should know that.
This film has the troublesome task of appealing to all ages, which is never going to be simple, so it’s got to get a balance of staying within the realms of being understood.
Spiderman is a film I’m looking forward to, but it’s going to win because of the fact that Spidey has never been on the big screen, that alone will attract mass interest.
As for the critics, well most are more inclined to choose a movie that does not grab the attention of the general public, but when something comes along that just wants to entertain it’s rubbished.
Personally I could not see anything of what you said in this film, no it’s not the greatest movie of all time, but it’s acting was acceptable, the story was well told and left you with questions about what would happen next, and the CGI and action was top notch.
As for the story not showing enough of Anakin’s anger or contempt, well for starters it had to be tempered with his Jedi training, it was unlikely he was going to go completely mad, especially as it is Sidious that is pulling his strings. If he had done so then the game would have been given away, Yoda would have known that he was beginning to turn to the dark side, so it had to be subtle, which it was.
You couldn’t expect him to turn into Darth Vader in one outing, this was just to show that the seeds had been sowed, his very first brush with the dark side, it’s going to be several years before Palpatine/Sidious has turned him into a sith lord.
So with that it mind it was told well enough, I doubt very much that fine actors like Samual L Jackson and Christopher Lee would entertain acting in such a film if they felt as you do about the story, they have been around long enough to see a stinker.
Lucas is going to know that there are those who will be overly critical, moderate or will just enjoy the film for what it is, luckily there is more of the latter.
Certainly in this country we have so many critics who have their heads up their *****, yet most people cannot see what they are talking about.
I suppose most people just choose to be entertained with a good action flick, rather than a tedious melodrama which bores you to tears.
SquishyGeeze Aleck tell us how you really feel. Aside from that let me say again how incredible AOTC was. Hayden Christensen was excellent as Anikin. I mean I thought there were times when he was going to give Obi-wan a right hook.(hehe get it?) There was so much about this one that was great.
-SM
I really find the whole knee-jerk “Attack of the Clones is a great movie because it’s a Star Wars movie, and George Lucas is a genius” stance objectionable. Among SW fans, there’s a ridiculous tendency to say that *any* criticisms are invalid, that a Star Wars film can’t be held to standards like acceptable acting, believable characters and well-written dialogue, because “it’s just entertainment.” Well, you know, you can be entertaining *without* populating a film with poorly-defined characters spouting idiotic dialogue and performed by people that can’t act (or at least directed by a director that doesn’t know how to work with humans to elicit a good performance). Like Spider-Man has shown, you can have the best of both, and still garner favor from both the critics *and* the public (without being “arty”).
This is just your opinion, and I don’t agree with it at all, but I’m not saying that because SW2 needs to excused in some way, if it was as bad as you say it is then I would be inclined to agree, but as I simply cannot see any of what you mentioned relevant to the film, I could not disagree more heartily.
And why should the public be interested in what the critics say?, people are wise enough to realise that most critics have their own ideas of what makes a good film.
So SW2 has nothing to prove other than the film-going public.
You say that SW2 fans try to get round the issue of poor acting because of it being entertaining, well like it or not that’s true, the public are not going to the cinema to sit there and be critical or take notes of the acting ability, that’s not why they are there, they are there to enjoy themselves.
And for that alone they get their money’s worth, to expect more from a film like SW2 is laughable, it’s like going to watch a Pokemon movie and expect a serious drama, well written with excellent acting.
That said, the acting still has to meet a certain criteria, but for those who look at a film in too much depth, well they are never going to be satisfied.
The acting of some individuals aren’t amazing, but then simply put, they don’t need to be, we can all understand what they are trying to convey, and in SW2 they do it well enough for the story to work.
Squishyquote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
You say that SW2 fans try to get round the issue of poor acting because of it being entertaining, well like it or not that’s true, the public are not going to the cinema to sit there and be critical or take notes of the acting ability, that’s not why they are there, they are there to enjoy themselves.
And for that alone they get their money’s worth, to expect more from a film like SW2 is laughable, it’s like going to watch a Pokemon movie and expect a serious drama, well written with excellent acting.
That said, the acting still has to meet a certain criteria, but for those who look at a film in too much depth, well they are never going to be satisfied.
The acting of some individuals aren’t amazing, but then simply put, they don’t need to be, we can all understand what they are trying to convey, and in SW2 they do it well enough for the story to work.
Squishy
I’m not looking at the film in too much depth. I’m looking at the *surface*, and that surface is riddled with lousy acting. The primary thing one must experience in order to enjoy a movie as “entertainment” on its own terms is called suspension of disbelief. You have to be able to lose yourself in the movie and forget that these are people reciting lines, that they’re standing on some studio set, that they’re under bright lights with cameras recording their every rehearsed move. You must cease to look at it as a movie, and, momentarily, believe that what you are seeing is real. When the dialogue stated by a character rings false, when the acting draws attention to the fact that this person is *acting* rather than *living*, the bubble is burst. The artificiality of the entire thing is exposed. And that happened for me *every* time Hayden Christensen opened his mouth or pouted. And that sucks, because *he’s the star of the damned movie*.
I don’t think I’m nitpicking, either, and I think the implication that I’m being “laughable” by *expecting* decent acting and dialogue in a Star Wars film is insulting. I mean, it’s all well and good to say “Well, the acting and dialogue aren’t really the point of the movie.” Really? Okay, without acting and dialogue, what kind of movie do you have? A lot of CGI-generated shots of scenery and maybe some stuff blowing up, that’s what. The acting and dialogue are the *prime components* of a movie such as this, so I don’t think ignoring them is going to accomplish much. It’s certainly not going to help my enjoyment of it. It’s like listening to some kid who doesn’t know how to play the guitar attempt to perform a Hendrix tune: yeah, I know what he’s trying to *convey*, but it ain’t hitting it, and it certainly isn’t enjoyable, and trying to focus on how cool his clothes are isn’t going to help.
And when a movie like Spider-Man — a goofy comic-book action flick — can feature decent acting, dialogue and direction *and* provide solid entertainment (as well as garnering nearly-unanimous praise from critics who, as you like to say, like nothing better than to rubbish pure entertainment and stick up for “arty” flicks), then the deficiencies of Attack of the Clones become all the more evident. Especially when you look at what Lucas has been able to accomplish in the past (with such films as the original Star Wars, THX-1138 and American Graffiti) and compare it to what he’s done lately.
–Aleck
Originally posted by Aleck:
[QB]I’m not looking at the film in too much depth. I’m looking at the *surface*, and that surface is riddled with lousy acting. The primary thing one must experience in order to enjoy a movie as “entertainment” on its own terms is called suspension of disbelief. You have to be able to lose yourself in the movie and forget that these are people reciting lines, that they’re standing on some studio set, that they’re under bright lights with cameras recording their every rehearsed move. You must cease to look at it as a movie, and, momentarily, believe that what you are seeing is real. When the dialogue stated by a character rings false, when the acting draws attention to the fact that this person is *acting* rather than *living*, the bubble is burst. The artificiality of the entire thing is exposed. And that happened for me *every* time Hayden Christensen opened his mouth or pouted. And that sucks, because *he’s the star of the damned movie*.
Simply did not have that effect on me whatsoever, I sat back relaxed and didn’t think for a moment that the acting was poor, I enjoyed the ride, if it was really that bad I would have noticed it.
Being entertained isn’t just about the quality of acting, the acting in this is just what you would expect, not Oscar winning but far from wooden…they all gave an acceptable performance.
You can never believe a film like this to be real, sure while your in the cinema you get caught up in certain moments, maybe that’s what you’re getting at.
Truth be told there wasn’t much for me to be on the edge of my seat about, there wasn’t any major surprises, but there were scenes that made you marvel at the effects, but I guess nothing in the story came as a shock…probably because we all know what’s to come.
But I did enjoy it, job done as far as the film goes, but there was a predictability about it and I agree that Mr Lucas lacks the direction qualities to give it a killer punch.
I would have to agree that Mr Lucas missed an opportunity to show us in more depth Anakin’s path to the dark side, but I don’t feel that’s the fault of the actor, it was too a matter of fact in the story.I don’t think I’m nitpicking, either, and I think the implication that I’m being “laughable” by *expecting* decent acting and dialogue in a Star Wars film is insulting. I mean, it’s all well and good to say “Well, the acting and dialogue aren’t really the point of the movie.” Really? Okay, without acting and dialogue, what kind of movie do you have? A lot of CGI-generated shots of scenery and maybe some stuff blowing up, that’s what. The acting and dialogue are the *prime components* of a movie such as this, so I don’t think ignoring them is going to accomplish much. It’s certainly not going to help my enjoyment of it. It’s like listening to some kid who doesn’t know how to play the guitar attempt to perform a Hendrix tune: yeah, I know what he’s trying to *convey*, but it ain’t hitting it, and it certainly isn’t enjoyable, and trying to focus on how cool his clothes are isn’t going to help.
The acting and dialogue do play an important part, but it does go hand in hand with other factors in this film, like I said no one expects a level akin to winning an Oscar, as long as their not laughing themselves stupid due to the acting or dialogue, then it becomes what can be seen as acceptable.
To expect an Oscar winning performance is what I deem laughable, and if you do think that to be the case then I feel I’m correct in my previous assumption.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the acting does play second fiddle in the eyes of most of the public who go to see this movie, they will take it for granted that the acting will be of a required standard, they have no doubt that it will be of that standard, what they have come for is the eye candy and the answers to the epic, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle, if they wanted top notch acting then they would have buggered off to Broadway.
But no matter what you say, the acting is not something you will find many complaining about in this movie, I’m sorry Aleck, but you are overly critical, if proof were needed then you only have to look on this board, I honestly cannot remember a time where you have either backed down from an argument or agreed with anyone.
I can argue with you until I’m blue in the face, but there’s not much point, we’ll just end up going round in circles.
Thankfully, most people will ignore your comments and make their own minds up.And when a movie like Spider-Man — a goofy comic-book action flick — can feature decent acting, dialogue and direction *and* provide solid entertainment (as well as garnering nearly-unanimous praise from critics who, as you like to say, like nothing better than to rubbish pure entertainment and stick up for “arty” flicks), then the deficiencies of Attack of the Clones become all the more evident. Especially when you look at what Lucas has been able to accomplish in the past (with such films as the original Star Wars, THX-1138 and American Graffiti) and compare it to what he’s done lately.
Spiderman has won it’s success on the back of X-Men, and the same will be true of the Hulk.
As there has never been a Spiderman movie it is bound to do well, as did Batman and as did X-Men.
And I never said all critics are the ones who prefer arty films, but critics are fickle people and it goes to show how opinions can be divided.
You’d expect one critic to agree with another on the same film, but no, they do not, it’s a mixed bag with SW2.
Also there is a question of allegiance to certain studios, for instance, the newspaper The Sun (UK) is partly owned by the same people who own Fox, now guess what their critic gave SW2.
I have seen it so many times where the big films take a hit from a critic, even though they are so way off the mark, case in point…Titanic, critics slammed it, the public loved it.
Spiderman is new, and it’s difficult to judge it as a: it’s following the success of X-Men and b: there is not much to compare it too, aside from X-Men.
But if we ever actually took note of the ravings of critics we’d miss a lot of good films, they are never going to change people’s minds about going to see Spiderman or SW2.
But critics are still the same as the rest of us, they like something that is new, and Spidey’s effects are amazing, but if you took away all the CGI and the sound effects, you are back to reading the comic book, a comic book that started Spidey off, that made him popular, hard to go wrong with that isn’t it, especially when you have Avi Arad and Stan Lee making sure the character remains faithful to his comic book heritage.
But nowadays the actual quality of acting is not as important as the CGI, even the plot can get away with it to a certain degree, but neither are bad enough to overide your enjoyment of a film, and the same is true of SW2.
SquishyGood heavens, such angst over a movie.
theBrother liked it, a lot. I am going to see it this afternoon with my company.
I’ll post my considered opinion this evening.
quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
To expect an Oscar winning performance is what I deem laughable, and if you do think that to be the case then I feel I’m correct in my previous assumption.
If neither the actors or the director care enough about the project to do their absolute best, or at least to *hire* the best people for the job, then why should I care? Why should I have to ignore what I see as deficiencies in the film? When I go out and spend a significant amount of cash on seeing a movie, I at least expect a decent attempt from everyone involved, and if not, I’m disappointed. I don’t know Hayden Christensen’s previous work, so I didn’t know what to expect. I know both Natalie Portman and George Lucas, however, are capable of *much* better work. No, I’m not expecting Oscar-caliber work. I’m expecting actors that can *do their jobs*, though, and I don’t think that this is asking too much.
quote
I’m sorry Aleck, but you are overly critical, if proof were needed then you only have to look on this board, I honestly cannot remember a time where you have either backed down from an argument or agreed with anyone.
Okay, this is total bullsh!t. Complete and total. I have never once, *ONCE*, said anything personal against you in the course of this little debate, Squish. I have merely been stating my opinion about a movie, an opinion that you keep attacking as “laughable” and “overly critical.” I even conceded that I was perhaps being too harsh in my original post. It was *you*, Squish, who kept this whole debate going. *YOU* were the one who had to keep chiming in with things like “So Star Wars is now an art film?” and the like. *YOU* were the one who began arguing every point I made. *YOU* were the one who started making personal comments. I’ve never backed down from an argument? Read up the board, Squish, where I conceded that I was being too harsh. I’ve never agreed with anyone? Ask the number of people I’ve agreed with on things. I’m not going to sit back and say “oh, yeah, you’re right” when I don’t think that they are or when I’ve got a differing opinon. I’m not some spineless jellyfish who’s going to acquiesce to any opinion offered simply to avoid debate. If that means I’m “overly critical,” though I’d be hard-pressed to find a definition of that term that matches up with what you said, then fine. At least I’m using critical thinking instead of just taking whatever slop is placed before me.
I can argue with you until I’m blue in the face, but there’s not much point, we’ll just end up going round in circles.
Thankfully, most people will ignore your comments and make their own minds up.quote
Spiderman has won it’s success on the back of X-Men, and the same will be true of the Hulk.
That’s not what I’m talking about. You continue to miss the point. I’m not talking about financial success, I’m talking about the fact that Spider-Man has been continually praised for, overall, better acting, dialogue and direction than Attack of the Clones. I never once mentioned financial success, I’m talking about critical success. The critical success of a film that is pure entertainment and not an “art” film, which counters your argument that critics, in general, scoff at anything not arty.
And your continual bringing up of “the public loved it” excuse is meaningless. If that meant anything, then you oughta be jumping with joy over the fact that someone from Bros is in Blade II, since they were so huge. If it meant anything, you oughta be praising to the high heavens the blazing musical talent that is Robbie Williams or N*SYNC or Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue because, well, they’re just so damned popular.
quote
But critics are still the same as the rest of us, they like something that is new, and Spidey’s effects are amazing, but if you took away all the CGI and the sound effects, you are back to reading the comic book, a comic book that started Spidey off, that made him popular, hard to go wrong with that isn’t it, especially when you have Avi Arad and Stan Lee making sure the character remains faithful to his comic book heritage.
If you took away all of the CGI and sound effects, you’d be left with some decent writing and acting. If you took away all of the CGI from Attack of the Clones, you’d be left with precious little. It’s a shame that Lucas hasn’t been as active as Stan Lee in making sure that the Star Wars franchise lives up to the legacy of the first couple of films, and he’s the one *directing and writing* the things.
quote:
But nowadays the actual quality of acting is not as important as the CGI, even the plot can get away with it to a certain degree, but neither are bad enough to overide your enjoyment of a film, and the same is true of SW2.
Squishy
And that sums up what is so freakin’ distressing about this whole argument. As long as tons of cash has been spent to make sure that the CGI looks good, and that things blow up nice and make lots of noise, then the acting and writing can be tossed. Screw quality, just gimme bright colors and loud noises!!!
–Aleck
quote:
And that sums up what is so freakin’ distressing about this whole argument. As long as tons of cash has been spent to make sure that the CGI looks good, and that things blow up nice and make lots of noise, then the acting and writing can be tossed. Screw quality, just gimme bright colors and loud noises!!!
–Aleck
Actually, what is most distressing about this argument is your ability to abandon previously championed principles when discussing something you don’t like. Just when it appeared that you managed to get solipsism down to a fine *art* (well, not really, given all the hostilty and abuse) you go and talk about Star Wars af if you’re describing the *objective* properties of the film (as opposed to your own or anyone else’s *subjective* response to it). Suddenly your *reality* tunnel is revealed to be a wind tunnel as you *blow* everything out of proportion (again), where you’re doing your best to clarify and elaborate upon the tenabilty of your own *opinion* by way of something external to it. In other words, your trying to *convince* people of the adequacy of your convictions by way of something which you think is most adequate and appropriate to them – *quality* writing, acting, etc. Read: Quality/Quantity – if it had the one, then it would have the other. Your disparate reading of the things you dis/like *lays bare* the self serving and selective rendering of a contested and/or negotiated *reality* As I’ve always maintained – people (including yourself) bother to dis/agree with each other because dis/agreements presuppose the very things at issue – namely, that *reality* is not a tunnel or a vision, but the light sighted at the end of it. but hey..
Screw coherence, just gimme bright colors and loud noises!!!
Thanks Aleck, you’ve just made my freaking day
[ 24-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Actually, what is most distressing about this argument is your ability to abandon previously championed principles when discussing something you don’t like.
No, I stated my opinion as opinion, conceded that my statments could have been too harshly spoken, and backed up my opinion with evidence from the text. I didn’t state my opinion as objective fact and didn’t attack anyone else’s opinion. As opposed to *you*, who, in the previous posts you are referring to, made unqualified one-sentence statements about your opinion with no examples or reasons given (made with no intent of engendering discussion or debate), made unqualified assumptions about whether or not Salter Street had “sold out,” stated that you were revealing an “unspoken truth” and, essentially stated that your opinion was the only one that mattered. I don’t care if others get enjoyment out of Attack of the Clones, I didn’t say anything to Slopmaster or Flamegrape regarding their positive opinions of the film, and I certainly didn’t lazily copy-and-paste someone else’s words as the only support for my opinion, as some might have done (hint, hint). My argument with Squish is not about whether or not either’s opinion is right or wrong — my argument with Squish is about his statements that acting and dialogue aren’t important in movies. I couldn’t care less if Squish thought that Attack of the Clones was the best film since Citizen Kane, it’s his opinion and he’s welcome to it. It’s *his* attacking of the reasons why *I* hold *my* opinion that I object to. He’s not debating that I’m *wrong* in my assessment of the acting and dialogue of the movie in question, he’s debating that I’m wrong to *look* at the acting and dialoge. We’re not debating the *response* to the movie, we’re debating the *act of watching* the movie. Get your story straight.
The rest of your post is rendered irrelevant since it’s based on a flawed and unsupported claim.
quote
Thanks Aleck, you’ve just made my freaking day
No problem. Tell me, is this going to lead to another teasing promise of your leaving, or what? Seems to be the pattern of your postings. Or, alternately, when is someone going to ban your sh!t-disturbing self from the board?
–Aleck
quote:
Well, when you take into account that the average joe has pretty much been conditioned to believe that anything made with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars is something of lasting quality and worth, no matter how lousy the acting (Attack of the Clones features the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a major motion picture) or how poorly executed a story it may be (“Ummm…let’s have the kids frolic through some fields here, and then juxtapose that with some political debating…the kids’ll love that!” “They sure will, Mr. Lucas!!!!”), then I wouldn’t want the critics to pander to that demographic. …To say critics are idiots for attempting to discuss the merits of a film instead of just pandering to Average Lowest-Common-Denominator Joe and just saying “Well, it’s great. It’s big and it’s loud and it runs around really fast,” is just wrong.
–Aleck
Looks like you’re presuming to speak for everyone again Aleck – particularly the right to discuss the de/merits of something. Your use of the term ‘just wrong’ shows you in all of your morning glory. It is both normative and prescriptive, and you offer the standard by which we should follow. Everyone else has been conditioned, but you have somehow broke the conditioning – and now, you’ll break the news to everyone who will care to listen. Or not care – listen up anyway. The only person you’re kidding with this its ‘just my opinion’ nonsense seems to be yourself. Witness your remarks about music : “If it meant anything, you oughta be praising to the high heavens the blazing musical talent that is Robbie Williams or N*SYNC or Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue because, well, they’re just so damned popular”. Well, it actually does mean something whether you like it or not – namely, that many people like these ‘artists’ because of perceived merit. Given your notion of meaning, you invalidate your own position again (and again and again)- by implying that you like *real* music whilst most others do *not* Whilst I certainly agree with you, you can’t presume to disagree with anyone, ever.
quote:
As opposed to *you*, who, in the previous posts you are referring to, made unqualified one-sentence statements about your opinion with no examples or reasons given (made with no intent of engendering discussion or debate), made unqualified assumptions about whether or not Salter Street had “sold out,” stated that you were revealing an “unspoken truth” and, essentially stated that your opinion was the only one that mattered.
Selective reasoning/memory. (and again and again). Lazy actually (hint, mint).
quote:
The rest of your post is rendered irrelevant since it’s based on a flawed and unsupported claim.
If you say so Aleck, because as you know, it is your saying which makes it so.
quote:
Tell me, is this going to lead to another teasing promise of your leaving, or what? Seems to be the pattern of your postings.
–Aleck
Wishful thinking – perhaps if you put a tooth under your pillow your wish might come true.
quote:
Or, alternately, when is someone going to ban your sh!t-disturbing self from the board?
–Aleck
Soon I expect – but note that I’ve never called for your or anyone else’s banning from this or any other board, despite regarding your own behaviour equally (if not more) disturbing. Not to mention, freaking hilarious. The way you diminish and interpret away your own role/responsibility in any perceived dis/agreement is questionable, to say the least. Most importantly, the fact that you even think it appropriate to call for a ban whilst expecting your sorry self to post without impunity speaks volumes. This not only indicates solipsism but narcisism.
To your credit, at least you haven’t jump up and down like a monkey who has had his pants taken away from him. The anger management course I suggested must be *freaking* working.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Your use of the term ‘just wrong’ shows you in all of your morning glory. It is both normative and prescriptive, and you offer the standard by which we should follow.
No, I said it was wrong to state that critics should be pilloried for daring to discuss the relative merits or deficiencies in a film, because that is, in effect, their job description. That’s what they *do*. To say that they *should not* do this, is incorrect. Wrong. Mistaken. Squish was saying that critics shouldn’t pick apart Attack of the Clones because of something insignificant like acting, dialogue or story, and I was arguing that this is, indeed, their job. I was being overly broad in my statements about “the average Joe,” but taken *in the context of Squish’s commments about the average Joe*, they fit.
quote
Witness your remarks about music : “If it meant anything, you oughta be praising to the high heavens the blazing musical talent that is Robbie Williams or N*SYNC or Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue because, well, they’re just so damned popular”. Well, it actually does mean something whether you like it or not – namely, that many people like these ‘artists’ because of perceived merit.
Wrong again, chief. Squish was taking the stance that criticizing AOTC was pointless because it’s going to do tons of business, and knowing his loathing of teen-pop, I used these artists as examples of popular artists that he would have no problem bad-mouthing and would end up having to defend if his argument were to be taken to its logical conclusion. I make no implications about the quality of my own tastes, or statements about the superiority of what I like in music.
quote
Selective reasoning/memory. (and again and again). Lazy actually (hint, mint).
Whitewashing your own past posting history is a particular pleasure of yours, is it not?
quote
If you say so Aleck, because as you know, it is your saying which makes it so.
No, I think it’s fairly evident. You claim I’m trying to invalidate someone else’s opinion, and I make it clear that I am *not*. That basis upon which you build your argument is invalid, therefore the argument does not stand.
quote
Wishful thinking – perhaps if you put a tooth under your pillow your wish might come true.
Why would I wish that you would tease everyone by promising to leave and then not do so? Doesn’t make any sense, kiddo.
quote
Soon I expect – but note that I’ve never called for your or anyone else’s banning from this or any other board, despite regarding your own behaviour equally (if not more) disturbing.
You’ve called for your own banning previously. Self-contradictory? Perhaps.
quote
The way you diminish and interpret away your own role/responsibility in any perceived dis/agreement is questionable, to say the least.
In what way? You claim I’m doing something that I am clearly *not* doing, and I state categorically that I am not doing what you claim. What’s questionable about that? Your use of out-of-context quotations to back up an invalid point is questionable as well, by the way.
quote
To your credit, at least you haven’t jump up and down like a monkey who has had his pants taken away from him. The anger management course I suggested must have *freaking* worked.
To believe that I would have placed that much importance on anything you’ve said is indicative of narcissism on your part, wouldn’t you say?
–Aleck
Oh Aleck now I get it, you just didn’t like the movie, well why didn’t you just say so.
And let me just say to anyone who’s read these posts, please ignore Aleck, the movie is great and has the best acting ever and Sir George Lucas is a god, miss it and you’ll regret it.
Squishy 
quote:
No, I said it was wrong to state that critics should be pilloried for daring to discuss the relative merits or deficiencies in a film, because that is, in effect, their job description. That’s what they *do*. To say that they *should not* do this, is incorrect. Wrong. Mistaken. Squish was saying that critics shouldn’t pick apart Attack of the Clones because of something insignificant like acting, dialogue or story, and I was arguing that this is, indeed, their job. I was being overly broad in my statements about “the average Joe,” but taken *in the context of Squish’s commments about the average Joe*, they fit.
How does gainful employment ‘explain’ a practice, let alone ‘justify’ it, sweetie? Yes, its what they do – in fact its what I also now do as well. You develop dvds and i review them. Can’t wait to get my hands on a copy of Lexx, season 4. But the fact that I – or anyone else – has a job to do does not explain or justify the job in and of itself. It has recourse to fact/ors other than a job description – mostly, the fact that it is both possible and desirable to critically engage with something other than your own sensibilities. Given your own criteria – its what someone does – then George Lucas is perfectly defensible in making this film the way he has. its his job to make films and someone else’s job to comment on them – for good or bad. Basically, everyone’s a critic – not unlike filmakers, some happen to be better than others.
quote:
You claim I’m trying to invalidate someone else’s opinion, and I make it clear that I am *not*. That basis upon which you build your argument is invalid, therefore the argument does not stand.
Don’t be silly, wiggins. At no point have I claimed that you are trying to invalidate anyone’s opinions. Only that you are trying to validate your own – by pointing to things other than yourself. Consequently, the points that you are trying to invalidate throw into relief the very notion of validation, and my argument rises like a phoenix from the ashes of your recurrent and self serving solipsism.
quote:
To believe that I would have placed that much importance on anything you’ve said is indicative of narcissism on your part, wouldn’t you say?
Nice try – but no it isn’t, kid galahad. Rather, this expressed belief is indicative of an experience of you on this board as both respondent and witness. Its been quite the treat watching someone wield a *piece of apparatus* as cumbersome as your own ego so readilly and rampantly. I’ve previously commented upon your disturbing sense of entitlement, rage and self importance. I’d like to introduce you to two three worded sentences. “I was wrong” and “I am sorry”. Next week I’d like you to practice saying “I love you” without looking at yourself in the mirror for once.
quote:
In what way? You claim I’m doing something that I am clearly *not* doing, and I state categorically that I am not doing what you claim. What’s questionable about that? Your use of out-of-context quotations to back up an invalid point is questionable as well, by the way.
See the above remarks, snuggles . And since when does something like context matter to you, especially since your behaviour readilly cuts across anything like a coherent delimitation.
[ 25-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Well I saw it today. I totally disagree with theBrother. This movie had more snooze factor that a whole bottle of nightquil. Some of the CGI was great, some was not. The dialoge was totaly painful, and….. the kid playing Anikin Skywalker made me want to slap the sugar out of him until he straightened up and quit pouting. Oh and I still have not gotten to see JarJar Binks blown into the next galaxy. Sigh…. and I had such high hopes too.
This is so typical, I think a movie is great and everyone dumps on it. I think a movie is lousy and everyone praises it but I guess I just have more taste than the critiics.
-SM
quote:
Originally posted by Slopmaster:
This is so typical, I think a movie is great and everyone dumps on it. I think a movie is lousy and everyone praises it but I guess I just have more taste than the critiics.-SM
No, I don’t think so, different tastes perhaps. Hey, it happens.
Nice job of ducking every point I made. Save for the pitiful attempt to claim that just because a person is engaged as a film critic, that this doesn’t mean that he/she has any reason to engage in the act of film criticism. Brilliant job in avoiding response to practically everything in order to do anything more than justify your own opinion of me by looking outside yourself (at posts on a science-fiction television bulletin board).
And also, congrats on turning yet *another* thread’s focus squarely on *you* (something you yourself once labeled as the literal definition of “idiocy”, I believe). You’ve again received the attention you apparantly are so hungry for. Another indication of your own narcissism? Perhaps so.
Oh, and also, nice job of presuming to know *anything* at all about my life and/or self outside of this forum from a handful of posts *on* this forum. Your extrapolation is highly inaccurate, boyo.
–Aleck
so: to recap, some of you like the latest in the star wars saga and some of you don’t…some of you are able to argue about whether or not you should or shouldn’t like it,and still play nicely, and one of you jumps in, as always, to make it a personal fight with aleck…so bonnee, give it a rest will you? and what happened to your ‘threat’ not to post here anymore?
sigh, promises…promises…Well I saw it again today and its much better the IInd time around. The Story, music, fx, acting and just everything was great about it, can’t wait for III.
-SM
quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
Oh Aleck now I get it, you just didn’t like the movie, well why didn’t you just say so.
And let me just say to anyone who’s read these posts, please ignore Aleck, the movie is great and has the best acting ever and Sir George Lucas is a god, miss it and you’ll regret it.
Squishy
SIR George Lucas? Is that for real?
quote:
Originally posted by thefrey:
Well I saw it today. I totally disagree with theBrother. This movie had more snooze factor that a whole bottle of nightquil. Some of the CGI was great, some was not. The dialoge was totaly painful, and….. the kid playing Anikin Skywalker made me want to slap the sugar out of him until he straightened up and quit pouting. Oh and I still have not gotten to see JarJar Binks blown into the next galaxy. Sigh…. and I had such high hopes too.
Did you at least think it was better than Episode I?
Yes, the dialogue is not that great. It reminds me of lines given in old silver-age comic books from the 1960s. Or maybe the predictible lines in an old serial. Or maybe something from a Kurasawa action film like The Hidden Fortress.
About bratty Anakin. If he was cool and loveable and not so bitter… then maybe he wouldn’t have grown up to be “twisted and evil?” Yeah, the kid’s a jerk. But girls seem to always fall for the mavericks…
Although I was hoping for it in this movie, I predict that Jar Jar will be killed by Anakin in the next movie.
quote:
Originally posted by Slopmaster:
This is so typical, I think a movie is great and everyone dumps on it. I think a movie is lousy and everyone praises it but I guess I just have more taste than the critiics.-SM
Heh heh heh! What do you like on your popcorn?
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Do you really live on a fat farm? I didn’t know you had serious weight problems. Sorry about your troubles.
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
Did you at least think it was better than Episode I?
A sharp stick in the eye was better than Episode I
quote
Yes, the dialogue is not that great. It reminds me of lines given in old silver-age comic books from the 1960s. Or maybe the predictible lines in an old serial. Or maybe something from a Kurasawa action film like The Hidden Fortress.
Or a really, really badly done soap opera.
quote
About bratty Anakin. If he was cool and loveable and not so bitter… then maybe he wouldn’t have grown up to be “twisted and evil?” Yeah, the kid’s a jerk. But girls seem to always fall for the mavericks…
hummm, but a whinner? Most unattractive.
quote:
Although I was hoping for it in this movie, I predict that Jar Jar will be killed by Anakin in the next movie.
As were we all. Well let us just cross our fingers.
quote:
Originally posted by thefrey:
the kid playing Anikin Skywalker made me want to slap the sugar out of him until he straightened up and quit pouting. Oh and I still have not gotten to see JarJar Binks blown into the next galaxy. Sigh…. and I had such high hopes too.
When I first saw Brigadoom, I wanted to reach thtough the TV, grab Stan by the throat
and tell him to shut the …. up and stop complaining. This was good acting on Brian’s part, because Stan was supposed to act like that. And I’m sure the direction there was also good.
Anakin however was supposed to act a bit more mature, and only appear to be heading to the dark side. Now I’m not sure if its bad acting, bad directing or both that made Anakin come off that way, but it only would have come out right if he were still 8 years old, and had not gone through all the jedi training.Jar Jar was nearly as annoying this time around. I thought he was very restrained, and didn’t come off too bad. He only had what, 3 lines in the entire movie
quote:
Do you really live on a fat farm? I didn’t know you had serious weight problems. Sorry about your troubles.
Bored now.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Annoying you are Bonnee but deal with it we will.
-SM
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Bored now.
[ 27-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Wow! Not only do you own a website dedicated to fat things, you also own a website catering to people in the their late 40s and early 50s! Just how many websites do you own? You must have an abundance of money to afford the webspace, bandwidth, and IT.
quote:
Wow! Not only do you own a website dedicated to fat things, you also own a website catering to people in the their late 40s and early 50s! Just how many websites do you own? You must have an abundance of money to afford the webspace, bandwidth, and IT.
[ 30-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
I am sure that no one would knowingly link a picture of a site thay don’t own. Since sucking up someone elses transfer allowance when no actual traffic is being delivered to their site would be, well you know, very, very wrong.
Please note that the above animations are encouraged to be ‘linked’ from
As you’ll note, many animations are provided for free and extensive use: you simply highlight the desired image, and it provides visitors with the required code to reproduce elsewhere.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Please note that the above animations are encouraged to be ‘linked’ from ..
Cool… What about the other pictures from http://www.fat.co.uk/%5B/url%5D and http://www.thirdage.com/%5B/url%5D ? Do they also allow and encourage people to use their pictures and bandwidth?
HEY! I like JarJar, dammit!
Stir fried, that is.
Seriously, I liked the movie, so there, but that’s MY opinion. Sheesh, I haven’t seen anything this heated since super_joe’s ‘WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS’ post. Tells you something about the emotions Osama bin Laden and George Lucas can cook up, don’t it?
Yeah, I really liked the film as well. I freely admit that my being a Star Wars fan influenced my enjoyment of the film. But, bad acting and odd dialogue aside, the whole film was fun to watch. The CGI and fight scenes really made this film. Maybe Episode I would have been spat on less if it had some more action scenes.
Oh, and one word: Yoda. If nothing else was amazing in the film, he was. When I first heard about him fighting, I kind of thought “Hmm, not very in character, is it?” The whole “It is not war that makes one great” philosophy he’s put across before seemed to contradict him picking up a light saber. But they did it so well! The whole cinema gasped and an aura of tingling amazement filled the room. No criticisms can take away the impact of moments like that.
And on that topic, anyone see the new, shorter trailer on (at least British) T.V? They have about two shots from the fight. Maybe, due to word of mouth, it isn’t a complete suprise by now but I do think it could spoil the effect for people who have yet to see the movie. Just a wee winge, though.
So, I thought it was great. Just don’t start an arguement because I said so. p.s: Jar Jar Binks? I reckon they could have made him cool. Remember, he was made a General at the end of Episode II. Deepen his voice, give him some stubble, put him on a ten year combat training course… he would end up being a bad-ass Gungan warrior! They could even give him a fight scene!
That would be my ideal picture of him. But that’s just what I hoped for in Episode II…[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: Ptarg ]
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Please note that the above animations are encouraged to be ‘linked’ from ..Originally posted by thefrey:
Cool… What about the other pictures from http://www.fat.co.uk/%5B/url%5D and http://www.thirdage.com/%5B/url%5D ? Do they also allow and encourage people to use their pictures and bandwidth?
Hummm, I will take your silence on this topic as a NO.
Not entirely silent thefrey – I read your remarks and immediately deleted the links to the pictures (which was presumably the implication of your question. We both already knew the answer).
My assumption was that if the images could be accessed via a search engine, then they are avialable to be accessed and linked accordingly. That may or may not be true – I remain uncertain. The fact that the question was originally broached by Flamegrape within the context of ‘etiquette’ (it is ‘somewhat rude’) and you took it the level of ‘morality’ (it is ‘very, very wrong’) suggests to me that this is more a question of discretion and moderation.
Since it is not ‘law’, however, I remain undecided as to the overall status of the request not to do this – I certainly haven’t encountered any objections on other message boards, and suspect that it is a site specific ‘preference’.
Fair enough, even though your objection/concern is not mentioned in the Sadgeezer’s rules and regulations guide. Linking to images is a function enabled by the site, and it functions as such without any indication of moral or legal constraints (apart from the profanity clause). There is certainly no proviso that urges all images must be original, require express permission from the linked source and/or uploaded to your own homepage and then downloaded (linked/sourced) accordingly.
I am therefore obliged to ask from what authority do you presume to speak – not Sadgeezer’s (not ‘officially’ or ‘regulatively’ at any rate) and certainly not on behalf of those sites who have allowed their content to be accessed via a search engine.
I am not trying to start anything (seriously)- just wondering by what authority anyone can presume to hold anyone else to account here? Given that you and Flamegrape have decided to invoke normative terms, how is it that either of you can invoke this norm without recourse to anything specific – let alone publicly challenge me if I chose to ignore the request and/or indicate that I remain subject to reapproachment (Note, though, that I haven’t ignored your desires – I’m just responding to the request to account for myself regardless.) My question is of equal or greater importance to your own, and encourages discussion/specification of similar accountability. For the public record, at any rate.
Either way, I am investigating the possibility of linking downloaded images via a personal homepage if and when desired.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Either way, I am investigating the possibility of linking downloaded images via a personal homepage if and when desired.
Actually that is the way to do it. When you link an image directly to the site that carries it, then every time someone opens this thread, their site receives a call for that image. This is using up their transfer allowance. Most sites, mine included, allow us to transfer so much per month. IF someone comes to one of my pages and opens it, the images and text are called for and that uses some of my transfer allowance. A problem? No, you are at my site that is how it is suppose to work. However if someone links directly to an image on my page, that means that every time that image is displayed it uses up my transfer allowance with NO benefit to me. Not good. This abuse can cause the smaller free sites to be listed as ‘UNAVAILABLE DUE TO EXCESSIVE USE’ or it can cause the smaller sites to get nasty notes from their host companies to reduce their usage or pay more. On the bigger sites it just adds to the burden on the server. Copying someone else’s images and putting them on your personal page to use is called ‘snerching’. Normally, as long as the home site doesn’t have any major warnings about using their images, you can put them on your personal page as long as you acknowledge the source. (Usually with a link) In the cases where the original images are copyrighted, a disclaimer is needed. Under these circumstances most people don’t mind, and you are generally okay, unless the original image owner has a major cow, in which case you have to remove the images they are upset about.
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
Not entirely silent thefrey – I read your remarks and immediately deleted the links to the pictures (which was presumably the implication of your question. We both already knew the answer).
That answer being “NO, they do not encourage direct linking.” But what about the images of the Monkey and the Yawner on this thread? I prefer to use words to get my point across, but if you have a picture you want to direct people’s attention to, try using the URL. That way if people want to see it, they can pop over to that page. You get your point across, that hosting page gets some traffic, and the graphic is not called for every single time someone opens that thread.
P.s. I still think Jar Jar Binks should be sacrificed to the Rating Gods.
thank you frey for explaining very clearly what the problem is with what bonnee was doing…obviously, he did not realize that what he was doing was a source of difficulty in any way…it’s a pity however, that as usual he couldn’t just admit his lack of knowledge and apologize for stepping on any toes
and on that note, this thread has grown big and so must be closed
[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: FX ]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.