Stop Blowing My Mind!

[Kandon Arc]

And now, before the row is over, they need to make a good Judge Dredd movie.

Hopefully with Judge Death and Luna 1. And especially Walter.

Well Karl Urban's signed on to make a new one. I don't know who's directing, but Karl Urban's presence fills me with some confidence.

 

[gurall200]

The watchmen is more intelligent and grittier then batman, hell no, it was adapted with all the mindset of a 13 year old whom favorite movie is 300, anything intelligent was thrown out, wasn't bad, but The Dark Knight was a much better film.

OT: it's too be expected honestly, people are eventually going to get tired of superhero movies and all things geeky (or micheal sera), in about 20 years it will come back and then go away after a few years, just like 3D.

What exactly was intelligent about the Dark Knight?

The only actual intelligence it had to offer was the whole collapse of archetypal good and evil... And that wasn't even done particularly well. It seemed way too rushed and tacked on at the end.

People over egg that film. It was good. But without Ledgers performance it would have been extremely forgettable.

I much preffered Watchmen. I thought it was better than the book. It dealt with all the same issues. Made the over all feel of the story much darker (that was just aesthetics though) and got rid of that retarded ending with the squiggly tentacle monster.

I thought it had much more to say than the Dark knight did.

*smashes head into keyboard* I didn't say it was more intelligent, just said better and more entertaining, the watchmen was a boring, immature adaptation of a great comic, with a script that missed the point and landed on its nose, a comic that was lauded for being a serious take on superheroes degenerated to a hyper stylized blue screen 300 derivative, the action was dull, and excruciatingly boring, with acting ranging from good to mediocre. True the dark knight was little more then good vs evil, but it sure as hell wasn't boring.

 

[DayDark]

Not true. The climate follows a predictable pattern throughout the Epochs. A pattern that we haven't broken.

If you're referring to the the 1500 year climate cycle, then it is a issue of heat distribution, and not temperature rise. It has been observed mainly through ice core data as a warming in the northern hemisphere matched at precisely the same time by a cooling in the southern hemisphere. basically a see-saw effect. When talking global warming we are talking about the rapid increase in global temperature over the last 200 years, which are known to be man made.

If you're talking about this:

Than I would say the last bit is quite a break from the pattern. If we look closer at the last part of that graph.

we can see that the resent atmospheric CO2 rise, follows our own CO2 emission almost perfectly.

The Earth's climate is constantly in flux. Events that happen on it's surface do have an effect. Such as rise in certain gases. But for us to have actually caused the climate change, would suggest that it wasn't already going to happen. This is where the science doesn't back you up.

See above.

What's debatable is exactly how much effect we've had.

No, I think it's pretty guaranteed that we have had an effect.

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

No they do not!

Humans contribution to the total GHG's is less than 1 percent of the total GHG. If you honestly think that is enough to have a drastic effect on the rate of climate change then this discussion is pointless.

If you can't understand that naturally emmited CO2 is balanced by itself, while human emitted CO2 is not, then this discussion is pointless.

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

We account for something close to 3% of the total co2 in the atmosphere. That is hardly anything. Not enough to have the effect you propose.

Actually we can even recognize that the rising CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels through isotope analysis (source [http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf])

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6.Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

That's just a breakdown of how greenhouse gases work. If there is more co2 than normal then of-course the heat that corresponds to co2 absorption will be escaping less.

Point 6. That's called the greenhouse effect. That's how all greenhouse gasses work, not just co2. Water vapour still plays the deciding factor as far as GHG's are concerned.

Water vapor is a function of heat which is a function of CO2. It effectively amplifies any temp increase from CO2.

:/ I'm not denying the involvement of greenhouse gases in climate change. Just our proposed involvement in the levels of greenhouse gasses.

Your involvement is the almost the most documented part of this whole thing. the sheer number of evidence is so staggering I can only link to it, because it would fill up this whole thread. so giant mountain of evidence [http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm]

We are NOT the domination source in greenhouse gases. methane produced by cows plays a larger total percentage in GHG emissions than our co2 production.

Our involvement in the whole thing has been severely overplayed.

The major effect that we do have on climate change is not through our emissions but to how we change the landscape. For instance there is thought that our keeping of livestock has caused a boom in their species population. As I said their methane release dwarfs our co2 emissions. This could be considered a natural effect though. Because even though we're responsible for increasing their population through farms, it's something that is also seen naturally. Dinosaurs for instance would have released much larger quantities during their life.

The one we really have to hold our hands up to is deforestation. That's had a larger impact than any other single cause that we're responsible for.

Greenhouse emissions are a relatively small and inconsequential point to the argument that we're responsible.

source [http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html]

Again, naturally emitted CO2 is balanced, our emission is not.

Here, go to this [http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php] site, there's a 121 arguments against global warming and the human influence, which have all been debunked. If you have any further arguments, I'm sure they'll be one of them, so please, save the time, and just scroll down to your particular argument, and get the explanation.

 

[tautologico]

Put simply. Science is very divided on our actual involvement on GHG emission.

We are just unfortunate enough to be in a time when a climate shift was inevitable. Our involvement is very arguable. It was always something that was going to happen. How much we've changed the timing is debatable. I'd be surprised if it's over 100 years.

Climate change is a constant. GHG's play a part in that constant. Our contribution to the current level of GHG's is relatively small.

I don't think climate scientists are "very divided" about this.

Just one example, from http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus among climate researchers is outlined by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

He then goes on to say that some other meta-study mentioned the existence of 3% of studies rejecting the man-made climate change hypothesis, and then goes on to verify these. In the end, he found no evidence for studies rejecting the hypothesis, and the author of the previous meta-study retracted his conclusions and said he had found only one publication rejecting the hypothesis, and it was an editorial, not a scientific paper.

So, there you go. Where's the controversy?

 

[Chunkyfudgelover]

Blimey! This thread certainly took an abrupt turn!

We are going with the second one right? The everything being crap?

We were indeed! Laugh out loud.

The opoint is that unlike say, opera, films and cinema going are universal in appeal and don't especially appeal to braniacs or Johny idiot. Particular films might but as a whole I don't think you can say so.

I would argue that opera is not the least bit high-brow and that cinema is merely more financially accessible. Opera is just associated with the upper class as are certain films and accordingly can have either positive or negative connotations to different people. Some people will view Opera as pretentious whereas others will think the opposite. I've never been to an Opera, in fact the closest I've ever come to attending one was watching a Frasier episode involving it!
But in my ideal world people from every corner of society would like Opera for the right reason, because they simply enjoy it as opposed to trying to appear 'highbrow'. Likewise I'd love it if people who didn't like Opera did so because it's just not their cup of tea instead of saying to themselves "I hope people don't think I'm stupid for not liking this" or even worse "Opera is for snobs".

We come into a tricky subject here though, how do we view something as good or bad? This is a seperate (though related) issuse to what we like. An example for me is the film "Laurence of Arabia" is a great film IMHO, but I'm not sure how much I would like it, I could only watch it once and I admired the filmmaking but didn't warm to it.

"Date Movie" is IMHO a horrible unfunny film but I'm sure someone would argue that it was a cinematic triumph (though they might happen to be the directors). My problem is how do I prove the primacy of my opinion over there's? I don't think I can so ultimately my opinion is limited to myself, rather obviously actually but so was the wheel.

I believe the subject is far simpler than you think. There are basic tenements to making films, I wouldn't go as far as to call them rules but there are things that just work! I'm glad you said that "Laurence of Arabia" was a good movie and then said "but I didn't really like it". This means you know exactly what I'm getting at. As I've said before, and this is my main point, if a film is well made with good editing, direction, pacing and storytelling then whether someone likes it or not is irrelevant, it is not subjective, it is an objective fact that it is good!

Comedy is a slightly different story as the main objective is to make a funny film. Comedy is a very intricate craft as things like timing, delivery, irony, absurdism and so on all come into play. If it's funny then you've succeeded in making a good movie. If someone doesn't get a joke does that mean it isn't funny? I would argue not.

But then of course we have music which is vastly different again. While music can be completely broken down into mathematics and theory, it's much less rigid, there really are no rules when it comes to music but as I said about films... certain things just work. A major chord WILL sound joyous and uplifting, a minor WILL sound sad. A V-I chord progression will result in a perfect cadence. End of.

So how are we to distinguish between good and bad music and films?
To me, it is honesty and honesty alone.
I don't care how much I didn't like watching a movie, as long as it was done with integrity and you told a story then I'm all for it.
What on earth was the point of that sex scene?
Why was this not an 18's movie when it so clearly should've been?
Why was the camera panning down the protagonists abs while he did pull-ups?
In what way did this contribute to the story?
It didn't. And you were pandering!
When you pander to a demographic you are focusing on profit. Not art.

In the realm of music, pandering and dishonesty rears its ugly head in different ways...
In punk it's typically frowned upon for the musicians to be technically proficient.
In emo they all dress the same and all have the same bloody hair.
In rap they seem to continuously brag about wealth and wear excessively baggy clothing.
The list goes on and on but every 'scene' has a set of rules that prohibit artistic freedom.
And a look. Bands these days would be lost without their look as they would have no way of pandering to the sensibilities of societies various factions. And the fans would have no idea whether or not it's 'cool' to like a band because they themselves are morons. Music and image should not be synonymous. Sadly that seems to be the way.

And certain films have images and associations attached to them. Certain films pander to certain types of people. Others don't pander to anyone and are lost to obscurity despite being brilliant. The odd time a great film will get the recognition it deserves though this is a rarely occuring phenomenon these days.

EDIT: On topic, Scott Pilgrim, while it may have had plenty of computer games references and been thought of as a geek movie (which I would argue is not the case), it was marketed as a 'hip indie' Micheal Cera movie. And Micheal Cera carries weight in terms of an image the marketers were focusing on.

How bizarre. These people actually exist? I thought they were some hyper idealised version of teenage life where clans were created to make dramatic tension ("Oh no she's dating outside here clique, jow could she?").

Goodness me yes! Just by looking at someone you know exactly what music they listen to, what films they claim to like and so on. Most people know this and accordingly appear as they wish to be judged. Which is a pain in the arse for me as I have long hair and everyone naturally assumes I listen to Metallica and jump to all kinds of conclusions about me before they even talk to me and realise that I don't like only what they think I like but in fact anything that is good. And what is good to me? As I said above. The youth of today want to be segregated and immediately identified as a member of a faction. I do not, though it doesn't stop people from doing so.

A bit like wearing glasses. It doesn't make you smart. But it doesn't stop people thinking you are.

 

[tautologico]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Eco/climate-change-debate-climatologists-meteorologists-divided-global-warming/story?id=10447809&page=1

They even go as far as to suggest climate change isn't happening. (not something I agree with)

I'm just pointing out that our proposed level of involvement is in no way certain.

The more I've read into though over these last few days the more unsure I've become. I'm still not entireley convinced that we're playing as a large a part as we're being told. But it's made me go do some more research on it. Which is always a good thing.

Yes. And I do believe it's healthy to be a skeptic, instead of jumping on bandwagons because your favorite celebrity/politician says something. It's important to try and get informed about things.

Some people say global warming will destroy the world unless we go back to the stone age, some people say global warming is a myth. So very few of these people, on both sides, are really aware of the science involved in this. Unfortunately, we get caught in these fruitless discussions that are all about politics, with very little science involved. It's sad.

But really, this particular story you linked is ridiculous. It's really bad journalism. It starts by saying

While most climatologists agree that humans are driving global warming -- literally, in some respects, because of our reliance on fossil fuels -- some of the most trusted names in the weather business don't buy it.

The difference is obvious: climatologists agree; "trusted names in the weather business" don't. So, we should trust weather announcers over climatologists? Who doesn't agree with man-made global warming?

John Coleman, the founder of "The Weather Channel" and the original weatherman on "Good Morning America," has spoken out with his belief that climate change is a myth.

...

Other television weathermen tend to doubt that man has anything to do with it.

Oh, so nevermind the scientists, the weather guys are telling there's no global warming. The piece really does that, it really puts both opinions on the same level. It's not a good sample of the opposing view at all.

 

[Namewithheld]

Global Warming does not worry me nearly as much as shiftless bastards manipulating political power by exploiting people's fears of it. and before you clamor about the evil corporations on the 'other side' and such and such, I hate them too. In fact, any concentration of power beyond a certain level is dangerous and should be regarded with distrust.

The way I see it, the first terraforming project we're going to do is on the Earth, once our tech reaches post scarcity levels and we can do major scale geoengineering. Doing all we can to mitigate our impact now is important, but you need to recognize that with our current tech level, we cannot have no impact without killing billions of people.

And as a human, I am against people dying.

Now, as to Al Gore...the guy is an asshole.

Now, as to nerd movies...eeehhhhhh.

I don't care whether a movie is about nerds or robots or flying badgers. I just want it to be good.

 

[DayDark]

snip

Alright I'm not to big to admit that I've not actually done any research on this in a long time. And I will take a closer look at the links provided.

I'm still not entirely convinced about our proposed level of involvement though.

I can't fault you for being skeptical, as long as you'll check it out.

There are a lot of things these sites aren't taking into consideration. For one thing they are only taking the last 600 000 years or so into consideration. It's pretty much accepted that there are large shifts in climates over very large periods of time. And within those large periods of time there are many smaller fluctuations. I had always understood it to be that we were simply leaving this set of fluctuations.

I don't know, at one point they talked about having the highest temperatures in 800.000 years, could be an individual review paper that had taken that into account and not the site.

Also atmosphere trapped in ice isn't 100% indicative of the true levels of a time period. Even in ice the sample will degrade.

I agree, which is why it should not be used alone as evidence, but I haven't seen that it is.

But I will read through these links thoroughly. Whilst maintaining my scepticism.

It's probably also worth noting there are a lot discussions going on in the comments section of those 121 arguments. People still aren't totally in agreement.

As long as you read them I'm fine, remember that most of the questions have a basic, a intermediate, and sometimes an advanced answer. If you want whole deep in detail explanation, you should pick the intermediate or advanced answer.

btw, I'm sorry for my rage outbreaks, things get heated sometimes.

 

[Sartan0]

I would argue this is not so much the rise and decline of geek culture, but the rise and decline of comic book superhero culture. Science fiction, fantasy and horror have all been fairly successful genres of film and television since at least the 1950s, and especially since the mid-70s. They go through cycles of popularity and obscurity as well, but tend to bounce back in some way, even if it's a new subgenre. Inception is by any definition of the word, a science-fiction film, and it was immensely popular, and wasn't based on a comic book or video game. It's like Nolan made a cerebral sci-fi film of ideas from the 1970s, but with modern special effects and good acting.

The past 10-15 years have been the first real successful iteration of superhero stories in mainstream film after so many fits and starts. Partly because the technology is finally there to render them, and partly because filmmakers who grew up with them are now making movies. But it was going to end eventually, because superhero stories have limited appeal.

Why? Bob brought this up tangentially in one of his Game Overthinker videos, but basically comic books have been catering to the same 25-50 year old male demographic since the mid-80s, and indulging way too much in the "grim and gritty" anti-hero stories of the 1990s Dark Age. These are not how you cultivate the next generation of comic book fans. Luckily, the current and upcoming class of comics creators seem to get it, most recently and notoriously, Darwyn "stop catering to the perverted needs of 45 year old men" Cooke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMZl0FJsx4], but also the Marvel Adventures line, the more recent DCU animated adaptations, and so on. So even if the current trend for capes peters out in the next year or so, hopefully we'll see it rise again in another decade when today's preteen fans become the media tastemakers.

Well said! Inception was the best science fiction of the year so far and likely will be the best of 2010. I don't mind super hero stuff but even I am getting tired of the limited appeal. I would not be broken up if the Supers cleared the stage for more good science fiction. I did enjoy SPvstW but it was not really a super hero movie as I see them. I can see the case that it was I just don't buy it.

 

[wulfy42]

I have some bad news. At least some signs of bad news at least.

I can't wait for the Tron sequel so of course after seeing the previews I quickly called a bunch of my friends (my wife was at the movie with me and had already seen it). I have talked with quite a few people since then (maybe even 50) about the movie and only a very few want to see it.

I am shocked.

Seriously I thought everyone loved Tron. I never realized that it flopped in the theators. I was fairly young when it came out and to me it seemed like a big hit. I certainly didn't think it was a cult classic but actually thought it was way ahead of it's time and reached a huge audience. Not quite in the same league as Star Wars but ahead of the Star Trek movies at least and maybe even in the same league as T2 etc.

It seems not.

Many of the same friends who were willing and waiting for the last Terminator movie (even after the previous one) are not interested in seeing the new Tron movie. Some are younger then me (i'm almost 40) so I guess it's a bit understandable since they didn't see the movie when it was first released (probably took away from some of the experience). Many never played any of the tron games for instance (Discs of tron was awesome) and so I guess I can understand why they might not be as excited about the movie.

Still I have at least 20 friends in the mid 30's to early 40s and only a couple are waiting for the movie (to see it in the theator at least).

I find that incredibly sad and I hope it isn't a sign of how many people will actually see the movie when it comes out.

Some of them actually waited in line over night for star wars movies etc.....I just don't understand it.

 

[AnonymouZero]

totally and completely agree with bob on this one. even when i dragged my bro (the meaning of jocks/frat boy stereotype) to see scott pilgrim and he enjoyed it, he hesitated when some of his jock friends would ask about the movie.

oh well. it was awesome while it lasted. and i think tron will fail... if the guardians of gahoole does.

 

[captainwillies]

There's probably something to be said for "mainstream pandering, but ultimately positive portrayal" vs. "well-written, realistic and fair but with fringe appeal".

So I'll concede the point. Keep up the good work, Bob!

Nah, I dunno that there's any need to "concede" anything. It's a complicated dynamic.

The original creators of "Xena" said that they dropped broad implications of 'gay' subtext into the show because it was just 'what you do' in self-aware, just-for-fun fantasy/action material involving amazonian heroines. When it got back to them later that the show had developed a HUGE lesbian following who'd adopted the characters as non-ironic icons, they opted to start pushing the envelope with it. "For the boys" exploitation turns "for the greater good" character development - happens more often with more causes than anyone wants to admit. How many men, in the 1960s, became suddenly "cool" with Feminism because Feminist women seemed more 'fun' and sexually/personally outgoing?

Shia?

 

[funkygibbing]

Registered simply to suggest that Bob, you need to get an editor, or visit the apostrophe protection society and discover the difference between it's and its.

www.apostrophe.org.uk

 

[Shagdawg]

I know that part rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but this article [http://nerdgirlpinups.com/article/129] gives it some perspective (it did for me, anyway). In short: it's not that being gay is "perverted stuff", it's using shameless lipstick lesbian exploitation to pander to horny old farts that is.

I get that he was probably taken out of context, but the fact that it's on his off-the-cuff "list" AT ALL doesn't say nice things about where his head is at in regards to the subject either way. If nothing else, it implies that his "default reaction" to lesbianism is to regard it as a fetish for straight men rather than as a legitimate lifestyle for millions of actual women.

Yes, fine, even the most well-intentioned stories about gay women in comics are either created or executed with at least ONE eye on a straight male audience that wants to see such-and-such hot heroines "with eachother;" but I don't see how that necessarily devalues it automatically as a concept. Hell, not for nothing but SURELY there are gay women reading comics who appreciate such things on much the same level, no? When deny them the chance to see such stories, and writers to write them, because it's also going to be enjoyed by pervy dweebs?

Seems like the point he was making was the intent of the writers is not to create a genuine gay or lesbian story but rather to use a character "coming out" as either shock value to be "edgy" or for the titillation of 45 year old pervs. I don't think he's in the wrong head space at all, and frankly I think its insulting to insinuate he's somehow homophobic for having this viewpoint.