Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - pfellah

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Movies / Inside Out
« on: July 07, 2015, 07:50:39 am »
It's probably in my Top 3 for Pixar movies. Finding Nemo will always be #1 -- it came out the year my son was born, so it resonated in a way that will be hard to beat -- but Inside Out is neck-in-neck with The Incredibles for second place. Though I admit the reason I liked it so much had a lot to do with mushy parenting stuff that might not resonate with younger viewers that don't have kids.

Here's the thing. On one level, they did their standard Pixar thing where they took something ordinary (cars, toys, etc.) and anthropomorphized it into something new and interesting. And that certainly works as a pretty good movie. It's neat to see how the characters on the inside translate to actions in the outside world and they created a model of that world that holds together really well. You can tell they put a lot of thought into it. By that kinda traditional Pixar definition, Anger gets most of the best lines. Certainly anyone can get two hours of enjoyment out of that movie.

On the other hand... and here, the Captain is turning on the "mushy parent" sign... there's this second movie within the movie that's for the parents, and it works you over in a mostly good way. If you tweak the perspective and treat it as a movie about Joy as the parent (instead of the external parents) and Riley as her child, it becomes something really beautiful about the struggle parents go through as their kids grow older and change into someone else. It's about trying to control and guide something that is ultimately uncontrollable, and Joy represents the idea that love and optimism are the only lens you can see your child through, the only tool in your toolbox. And you want to be open to those changes, but you're also stuck holding on to the person they used to be. There's a scene where Joy is literally clinging to memories that are fading away, and damned if it didn't get a little dusty in that theater.

Freakin' Pixar, man...

Movies / Re: AH! THE PAIN!
« on: June 13, 2008, 01:15:40 pm »
God, it's me.... Pfellah. I don't ask for much, but I'm gonna ask you this one favor. Please please PLEASE let this movie get delayed in post-production until my 4-year-old is too old to be interested. And see if you can do something about that world peace thing if you have a minute.


Movies / Re: Disney Announces Movies through 2012
« on: June 10, 2008, 08:34:31 am »
It seems like their 2D studio is still there, but is mostly doing straight-to-video releases.

Movies / Re: Speed Racer
« on: June 10, 2008, 08:29:50 am »
From what I'm told the movie is very campy. The story is apparently really boring, and cheesy. Some 3D animators I knew went to it and they ended up looking at the compositing more then watching the movie. And from a film standpoint apparently the cinemtography is really nice. My arguement to that is if you are reduced to admiring the cinemtography and special effects because the mvie itself is boring, then it fails as a movie to entertain people.

I think that's a decent way of looking at it. There was never that much depth to the TV series -- who's he racing against, what's the complication gonna be, where are Sprytle and Chim-Chim gonna turn up, how are they gonna resolve it -- so you either have to embrace that shallowness and hope that's what people will like about it, or you can use the skeletal source material as just a blueprint and graft some dramatic gravity on to the bones. Seems like they tried to do both and succeeded at neither.

TV / Re: Lost
« on: June 06, 2008, 10:26:34 am »
Daniel Faraday was on the Zodiac and that makes me think he will need Desmond to be his "constant" next season, just like the notebook informed him.  Therefore, the Zodiac passengers might be somewhat unstuck in time.

I'll see you and raise. I suspect an unhinged Faraday will play a large role in the trouble that happens after the O-6 leave. There's always been a logic vs. faith angle to the Jack-Locke dynamic, so what better new foil could you have for Locke than the proverbial Mad Scientist?

PC Games / Re: The Sims 2: (Insert Expansion Pack Name Here...)
« on: May 23, 2008, 08:59:50 am »
I saw that, at first I thought it was a joke. I was really hoping the H&M stuff was only a once over thing. It's things like this that really make me feel Maxis really doesn't care about the players anymore and it's all about squeezing as much money out of the game as possible.

Different strokes for different folks. Some Sims players are really in to trying to duplicate reality in the game as closely as possible, and having real branded options in the game probably appeals to some. I can't imagine pumping out a few new skins is pulling that many resources away from other projects, and one can always choose not to buy. (I think I only ever bought one Stuff Pack, though I do have all the expansions...)

Books / Re: What are you reading?
« on: April 09, 2008, 12:04:06 pm »
The John Adams mini-series on HBO has steered me toward the McCullough biography, so I've been working on that.

Spoiler: America gains independence, Adams becomes President. Shhhhhhh!

Everything Else / Re: Transhumanism
« on: April 09, 2008, 11:54:06 am »
Definetly, and as soon as the technology is there for my to upload my mind into a computer, I'm there.  Immortality here I come.

Unless they load you on a Vista machine.

At the current time I've moved off of Obama and over to Hillary.

Obama is quite good at rallying people however I am concerned as to whether or not he can actually get things done. The intellectual level on which he operates is astounding, he steps things up and then just steps it up again. This won't work as President though, he's just got too many questions surrounding him. Now I would bet money that he will become President some day but now is not that time.

I come at it the other way. I think we've got issues that are going to need bi-partisan participation, and I don't think cooperation is Hillary's strong suit -- she strikes me as a "my way or the highway" kind of person. Obama, and even McCain, have shown some willingness to reach across the aisle.

TV / Re: Lost -- Season 4
« on: February 23, 2008, 02:09:06 pm »
But if Claire died why would Jack be so resentful of Aaron? 

In my mind I can picture something like this, Claire is sick and Kate is looking after him.  She and the other Oceanic 6 are down by the beach or something a Helicopter comes says they came to rescue them but they have to leave now, a storm is coming. Something anywhere along there.

Or maybe for some reason or other the people on the freighter demand to bring the Oceanic 6. Claire in a desperate attempt to keep Aaron safe gives the baby to Kate. (maybe things get really dangerous on the island). Of course I don't see Jack agreeing to just leave like that, obviously I'm missing things, but these are general ideas I'm playing with.

I don't think Jack resents Aaron per se. I suspect it's more of a guilt thing... maybe Claire got hurt, he was the only doctor around, and failed to save her. That would make Aaron a constant reminder of his failure... which, we know by now he takes this stuff personally. ;)

TV / Re: Lost -- Season 4
« on: February 23, 2008, 06:23:38 am »
It's actually Aaron  :P

Claire died

That's specualtion, Hurley and Jack have said they need to go back to the island. Ben says he is keeping their friends safe (which we presume is why Sayid is helping him). What happened to the others is unknown, but I find it unlikely they kill off 40+ people.

One scenario I do see happening is for some reason or other they can't take everyone. To get Aaron off the island Claire gives the baby to Kate.

Maybe Aaron is with Kate when the oppertunity to go home arises and only she and the other Oceanic 6 get home.

It's too early to say but I wouldn't blame Kate just yet. She might be the reason Aaron is off the island.

On the flip side Jack seemed resentful of Aaron. At first this leads us all to believe it's Sawyers baby. But since we know it's Claires we have to ask why. It could be that Kate did steal Aaron maybe to lighten her sentence. Maybe Claire does die. Or it might be because the Oceanic 6 somehow abandoned the survivors and Aaron is just a bitter reminder to Jack about what they did. 

I doubt Kate stole Aaron -- otherwise, I can't see Jack being willing to come to her defense in the trial -- but I don't see any scenario where Claire would voluntarily leave her baby with someone else, which almost draws the inevitable conclusion that she dies at some point. Maybe the writers will come up with something, but I'd be hard-pressed to figure what that is.

The other wrinkle in all of that is we don't know in the flash-forward if it was ever revealed that Jack's dad fathered Claire. Though that would seem to make him more likely to be willing to see a child that turns out to be a blood relative (even if an illegitimate one).

TV / Re: House: Season 4
« on: February 11, 2008, 07:49:20 am »
I'm watching season 4 Ep.9.
 Why does he call the one girl 13?

Back when the search for his new team was starting, there were something like 40 candidates and he gave them all numbers. For whatever reason -- I believe it was because she wouldn't divulge any personal information about herself -- he just kept calling her 13. (I mean, presumably he has her resume, so he could use her name if he wanted...)

TV / Re: Lost -- Season 4
« on: February 11, 2008, 05:53:22 am »
That's true, just on numbers, there should still be some Others left. The raiding party that attacked the beach was 10 guys, so presumably there are more than that. Most specifically, Richard was never dispensed with one way or the other (as far as I remember), though the actor (Nestor Carbonell) went off to do Cane on CBS.

Everything Else / Re: 2008 US Presidential Election-Official Discussion
« on: February 10, 2008, 05:13:30 pm »
Clinton polarizes the masses, if you were a McCain supporter you'd probably want Clinton to win the nomination because moderates will not vote for her.

It is just that I am not sure this is true, outside the news.  All the talking heads seem to be getting it wrong, and over reaching.  Clinton is more moderate than Obama... so if I ignore the political analysts, Clinton could reasonably do much better, unless the "Clinton hating" is as bad as the analysts purport.
Also, Clinton being a moderate lefty may create more net apathy for moderate righty McCain.  So, I wonder if Obama would bring out more conservative to the polls than Clinton would bring out "Clinton haters".

The US population has become so bipolar [sic] that I can't wrap my head around it.

I also wonder about the political analysts' claim that deciding between Clinton and Obama at the convention is a bad thing, while McCain is free to campaign nationally.  I am not convinced of this either.  Waiting until the convention leaves the GOP without a definite target, and hand waving attacks against both are more likely to invoke the ire of the people, than to frame the election in GOP terms.

I have no clue...

As far as the first part, I'm someone who feels exactly like the media says... and it's not politics, it's personality. Hillary has shown herself to be a venomous personality who expects to get her way -- because damnit she's smarter and just a better person than the rest of us -- and gets real petty when she doesn't, and I don't think those are qualities we need in the Oval Office when we've got serious issues to deal with that will REQUIRE bipartisan cooperation. Say what you will about McCain's age or Obama's inexperience, but they seem like guys who will truly work with the other side if it's the right thing to do; Hillary's very much cut from "my way or the highway" cloth, and I don't think that's what we need.

(For the record, I'm not against the general notion of a woman President... just not THAT woman.)

As far as the second part, the reason they say that is because campaigns run on money. If Obama and Clinton spend all their money pummeling each other into submission, what will the winner have left to go against (presumably) McCain. Furthermore, what wounds will they have inflicted on each other for (presumably) McCain to take advantage of?

Lastly, someone was talking about McCain VP candidates... I have two different notions on this -- 1) he keeps going after independents, moderates, and Democrats on the fence by going with Joe Lieberman -- who's pro-war enough to appeal to the base, but still has some lingering credentials with Democrats, or 2) he throws a bone to the religious right and picks someone like Rick Santorum.

(I'd like to state for the record that "McCain/Santorum wins the White House in '08, followed by McCain having a heart attack two weeks after taking office" is pretty much the point at which I'll be looking into New Zealand citizenship, even if it does mean a six-month wait for movies to get into theatres there...)

Are you seriously defending our actions against Iran?

I think one can admit America's made some mistakes in terms of trying to manipulate the fates of other nations while still finding that specific piece to be an oversimplification. That piece wanted to see America as the bad guy and Iran as a freakin' Norman Rockwell painting and ignored anything that didn't support that view -- like the fact that Iran and Iraq had border issues for hundreds of years before the US ever got involved (though yes, giving Iraq chemical weapons was a mistake); like the US actually helping Iran with its nuclear program during the Shah's reign; like any mention of the USSR/Russia supplying arms to Iran; and of course, while the US is raked over the coals for funneling money to Iranian groups, Iran's sponsorship of terror groups doesn't even warrant a passing mention.

For the record, I don't see America as right 100% of the time. But I have little respect for something like this -- from either side of a view -- that attempts to remove all the shades of gray and paint everything in black and white.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8