A high school teacher of mine once told us that years before us, when he first began teaching at the school, there was a history book the school was using, and in one silly chapter introduction or something like that, there was the word "damn" (used, I believe, in a quote). Of course, no kid is going to go actively read a non-assigned portion of any textbook (much less a history textbook), but nonetheless, the school required all students in that class to give the teacher their book so that he could tear out the offending page and return the book to them. Naturally, every kid suddenly wanted to go read that page before having it torn out.
Honestly, if I was living out my days in jail, I'd probably do something similar (though I'd probably go sillier with it), just to give me something to do.
As I read this article, I actually almost laughed out loud at the ridiculously stupid response by the lawmakers. Then I realized they're not stupid; they're just taking advantage of the less intelligent voters and creating a law that makes them (the lawmakers) the heroes of the day.
Yeah, this sounds like one of those ideas that seems fantastic when you dream it up, but then once you start trying to implement it, its flaws become immediately apparent.
(Also, Mike, I think you need to get rid of the that quotation mark at the very end of the article. Pretty sure it's just a typo, but it's significantly confusing.)
I totally agree (except I tend to prefer graphical ads over text ads). In fact, there are times at which I like ads. I just started using Tweetie, for instance, which offers the option to pay for a no-ads version. After using it for just about a day or so, I actually like occasionally seeing an ad for something that I didn't know about.
And for the most part, I block out ads mentally, anyway. It's the obtrusive ads that really bother me. There are some sites that are barely readable due to all the hypertext ads on arbitrary words. The second you try rolling your cursor across the page or try highlighting something, the article suddenly becomes unreadable. It amazes me that publishers can think such advertising methods are a good idea.
It's good to see a company get this right and not freak out over ads. As Mike said, if ads are so annoying and irrelevant that people want to totally do away with them, you're doing something wrong.
The really funny part about all of this is that the Moon Blu-ray already is legally watchable in the States. You just have to order it from the UK -- the disc is region-free.
On a side note, I actually haven't found Blu-ray prices to be all that unreasonable lately. Sure, the MSRP is often pretty absurd, but if you buy from the right place, they're often only about $5 more than their counterpart DVDs.
I think there will continue to be both types of special effects: huge, supercomputer effects and lower-budget, still-great-looking effects.
Alien, of course, is an example of a low-budget film with special effects that lack nothing at all. A more recent example is Duncan Jones' Moon. A really low budget upcoming (Finnish, I believe?) movie that appears set to have at least competent special effects is Iron Sky, with a budget of just over $7 mil. At the risk of going on for way too long about this, I also have to mention the upcoming web series The Mercury Men, which is another small, soon-to-be-released project with special effects that, from what has been released, look entirely competent, convincing, and even awesome.
The thing is, if the director is talented enough, he/she can make really convincing effects on a low budget. On the flipside, though, you have to be good to use "big" special effects, too. Just see the new Transformers movie, which is plagued with so much erratic cutting that even though the effects look great, you can rarely tell what's going on in the more special-effects-heavy scenes.
Really, special effects can be done both ways. James Cameron has demonstrated a masterful hand with big-budget effects. Other directors seem to thrive off limitations. From my experience (as a film critic), it all just depends heavily on director talent.
To be fair, in 2012, no one blows anything up. Nature does it, which isn't illegal. Though your point still applies, of course, to practically any other movie with an explosion.
I think the smoking pot -> R-rating thing is ridiculous indeed, but at the same time, it reminds me of people's complaints against Google dropping them from its indexing/penalizing their pageranks, etc. Doubtless Google is enormously important for many websites to be found, but you can't rely solely on one other company to be the fuel for your business.
This applies to the MPAA as well, even though it's fundamentally a very different organization from Google. It's unfortunate that the MPAA would make such a stupid decision, but if that one detail is going to harm your movie beyond repair (which it doesn't actually seem it will -- back to your point of this being exemplary of a larger problem rather than a large problem on its own), then you need to figure out a different way to get your movie to the people who are going to watch it.
Granted, there is still the problem that the MPAA's decision affects who can _legally_ see the film, which is not the case with something like Google, and that's somewhat troubling. However, it's quite obvious that if minors want to see an R-rated movie, they're going to find a way (easily) to see it.
So, yeah, troubling in principle because of the legal hand the MPAA plays in things, but if they're going to make decisions such as these, it seems to me that the studios are just going to have to figure a way around them. Despite studios' generally proven inability to adapt, I have a feeling this is something they would find a way to overcome.
And I thought "historical smoking" was a ridiculous warning.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
On the post: This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped
On the post: Merriam Webster Dictionary Pulled From Elementary School For Defining Oral Sex; Guess What All The Students Just Found Out About?
Similar story
A high school teacher of mine once told us that years before us, when he first began teaching at the school, there was a history book the school was using, and in one silly chapter introduction or something like that, there was the word "damn" (used, I believe, in a quote). Of course, no kid is going to go actively read a non-assigned portion of any textbook (much less a history textbook), but nonetheless, the school required all students in that class to give the teacher their book so that he could tear out the offending page and return the book to them. Naturally, every kid suddenly wanted to go read that page before having it torn out.
Plus ... over "damn"?
On the post: Imprisoned Terrorist, Carlos The Jackal, Claims Intellectual Property Over Documentary About His Life
On the post: Indiana Senators Rush To Put In Place Sexting Law When They Clearly Don't Understand Sexting
Laughter, followed by sadness
Although I guess they *could* just be stupid.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
1. This guy clearly doesn't have much business sense. It's not all that surprising that he would default to a "pay me for that" frame of mind.
2. I wonder if he realizes that probably 99.99% of everyone who's used his song has likewise not gotten paid.
On the post: Remember The MATRIX? Former Drug Smuggler In Charge Of It Is Building More Databases...
As the saying goes, sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet.
On the post: App Store Overload? Kindle Gets An App Store
On the post: Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting
(Also, Mike, I think you need to get rid of the that quotation mark at the very end of the article. Pretty sure it's just a typo, but it's significantly confusing.)
On the post: Halt...In The Name Of The MPAA/RIAA/FBI/NSA! [Updated: Hoax]
On the post: Kindle Fans Punish Publisher For Delaying Ebook Releases By Giving Books One-Star Reviews
Dead Space
http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Space-Pc/dp/B0019C4MU2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&am p;qid=1263593612&sr=8-4
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Same as I've always said
And for the most part, I block out ads mentally, anyway. It's the obtrusive ads that really bother me. There are some sites that are barely readable due to all the hypertext ads on arbitrary words. The second you try rolling your cursor across the page or try highlighting something, the article suddenly becomes unreadable. It amazes me that publishers can think such advertising methods are a good idea.
It's good to see a company get this right and not freak out over ads. As Mike said, if ads are so annoying and irrelevant that people want to totally do away with them, you're doing something wrong.
On the post: Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months
On the post: A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets... And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
The really funny part about all of this is that the Moon Blu-ray already is legally watchable in the States. You just have to order it from the UK -- the disc is region-free.
This fiasco is really a shame.
On the post: Could Wolverine's Leaking Have Helped It At The Box Office?
Blu-ray Price
On the post: A Look At The Data Center That Crunched Avatar
Both
I think there will continue to be both types of special effects: huge, supercomputer effects and lower-budget, still-great-looking effects.
Alien, of course, is an example of a low-budget film with special effects that lack nothing at all. A more recent example is Duncan Jones' Moon. A really low budget upcoming (Finnish, I believe?) movie that appears set to have at least competent special effects is Iron Sky, with a budget of just over $7 mil. At the risk of going on for way too long about this, I also have to mention the upcoming web series The Mercury Men, which is another small, soon-to-be-released project with special effects that, from what has been released, look entirely competent, convincing, and even awesome.
The thing is, if the director is talented enough, he/she can make really convincing effects on a low budget. On the flipside, though, you have to be good to use "big" special effects, too. Just see the new Transformers movie, which is plagued with so much erratic cutting that even though the effects look great, you can rarely tell what's going on in the more special-effects-heavy scenes.
Really, special effects can be done both ways. James Cameron has demonstrated a masterful hand with big-budget effects. Other directors seem to thrive off limitations. From my experience (as a film critic), it all just depends heavily on director talent.
On the post: GSM Encryption Cracked... GSMA's First Response? That's Illegal!
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
Re: Re:
Thanks for clarifying.
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
I think the smoking pot -> R-rating thing is ridiculous indeed, but at the same time, it reminds me of people's complaints against Google dropping them from its indexing/penalizing their pageranks, etc. Doubtless Google is enormously important for many websites to be found, but you can't rely solely on one other company to be the fuel for your business.
This applies to the MPAA as well, even though it's fundamentally a very different organization from Google. It's unfortunate that the MPAA would make such a stupid decision, but if that one detail is going to harm your movie beyond repair (which it doesn't actually seem it will -- back to your point of this being exemplary of a larger problem rather than a large problem on its own), then you need to figure out a different way to get your movie to the people who are going to watch it.
Granted, there is still the problem that the MPAA's decision affects who can _legally_ see the film, which is not the case with something like Google, and that's somewhat troubling. However, it's quite obvious that if minors want to see an R-rated movie, they're going to find a way (easily) to see it.
So, yeah, troubling in principle because of the legal hand the MPAA plays in things, but if they're going to make decisions such as these, it seems to me that the studios are just going to have to figure a way around them. Despite studios' generally proven inability to adapt, I have a feeling this is something they would find a way to overcome.
And I thought "historical smoking" was a ridiculous warning.
Next >>