- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3259 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
320 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 409356
There's a cocktail bar here where I live that has a pretty spectacular looking arrangement of these translucent white plastic panels that emit a diffuse light which changes gradually within the space of a few minutes through different shades of pastel, basically.
I asked them where they got these lighting fixtures, and they said something that they were custom made for their cocktail bar, and that they altogether cost around £2,000 to have made and installed (ok, we're talking about a dozen of these panels all around the bar). I just thought it might be a nice idea to have something like it in my own livingroom, but without the hefty price tag, by building it myself.
|>>|| No. 409372
I just watched the film "Arrival".
Am I the only one who is utterly disappointed by this vein of sci fi movie with every new one that comes out? It seems that in recent years, we have had a few really quite ambitious sci fi flicks about spaceships, aliens and other planets and what-have-you, but they simply try too hard. They want to be philosophical, thought provoking masterpieces, and aren't content with shooting for anything less than that. But what they deliver is an ungodly hodgepodge of Eastern philosophy, existantialism and any number of other similarly half cooked concepts.
It was beyond me how movies like "Interstellar" received such high critical acclaim, when all they do is just spend two hours all over the place and absorbed in plotless philosophical self-masturbation. And I am sorry, but "Arrival" is hardly much better. Yes, we get it, we all need to spend more time talking to each other and less time fighting wars, or planning to shoot alien spaceships out of the sky.
But I really like sci fi/alien movies better which aren't so fraught with pointless drivel but are a little more "hands on".
|>>|| No. 409379
I quite liked Interstellar.
I did watch it after taking a fairly heavy dose of a ketamine analogue, and it seemed a perfect fit for that. The irony of these intellectual sci-fi movies is that they're much more fun if you just let all the trite symbolism and pop-science/pseudo-philosophy just wash over you and enjoy the ride. I expect to do the same with Ghost in the Shell; based on the first impression reviews I've skimmed, I have absolutely no intention of watching it sober.
(For my sins, I did genuinely enjoy Source Code and Inception, conceptually. Even if they take themselves too seriously and wander into needless complexity and cringeworthy pretension, they remain a refreshing break from the endless comic adaptations that make up the bulk of the rest of action sci-fi releases.)
Another proper Alien movie would be nice, though. In Alien Isolation, putting the "game" bit aside, they managed to nail the human characters and emotion pretty well, and if a videogame can do it then Ridley needs to pull his thumb out of his fucking arse and make a good one. Or get Cameron back on board, if he can ever escape the mess he's got himself into with the Avatar films.
|>>|| No. 409382
Whynon earth anyone thought a live action remake of GotS was necessary is beyond e. Hollywood really has run out of ideas.
|>>|| No. 409384
Contact was shit as well.
Jodie Foster was quite alright in it, but even she couldn't keep the film from being a major disappointment.
>Another proper Alien movie would be nice, though.
There is one in the works. Alien: Covenant is coming out in May.
Very sadly, without Sigourney Weaver. It's like Terminator without Arnold Schwarzenegger. Pointless.
|>>|| No. 409388
Lads, I had a window whose locking mechanism became jammed shut a couple of months back. Its fixed now but the poor ventilation has led to the formation of black mould in a really awkward corner to get to on the ceiling.
Its a 5 minute job to fix of course but I can't be arsed. Do you think I could just leave the window open and the problem will solve itself? Perhaps I could even angle a mirror to reflect sunlight onto that corner.
I think the problem with discussing science fiction is that the setting is just a tool to explore other themes but for cultural reasons they get a common label. Predator has less in common with Gattaca than it does Die Hard for example.
The real problem once this is accepted is that the action genre is stuck in a rut while films that are supposed to make you think or at least give fancy visuals still sell. Chris Stuckmann may not be the go-to on filmmaking but he puts together good arguments as to why this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eac0lXfMs9c
Arrival was of course also trash.
|>>|| No. 409389
It's not really a problem of the genre, but of the audience. If you compare the focal points of Solaris, the recent film, to that of the book, they're totally different thematically.
|>>|| No. 409393
Drowning my sorrows after my team took what was a great opportunity to win some silverware and utterly shit the fucking bed. Granted, the ref contributed after calling a player onside for making a retreat that was positively Stalinesque, but the fault really lies with the team for failing to take advantage of the opposition being a man down for half the match.
|>>|| No. 409395
>"Starship Troopers" also comes to mind. The book has been seen by many as overtly and unashamedly promoting militarism and fascism, while the movie unmistakably satirizes them (although the latter was probably lost on many of the core audience who saw it).
The movie is barely related to the book at all, the original script was completely unrelated, the screenwriter had never even heard of it. It was only after the script was complete that someone pointed out some similarities, and so they got the right to use the name for the film, and they changed the characters names and other details here and there to make it more in line with the book.
On the subject of the book, I think anyone who says it "unashamedly promotes" militarism and fascism doesn't really get the point Heinlein was trying to make, (particularly so if you take it in context of his full bibliography.) Part of the message is promoting what could be considered the exact opposite of fascism; all the races and nations of Earth become perfectly united once humans start to travel outside the solar system. Through most of the book, the reader is assuming the main character is American, his Filipino ethnicity is only revealed (in an off-hand and insignificant way) later in the book.
The most significant message in the book shouldn't be seen as a promotion of militarism, but instead it is an argument against pacifism. War is seen here as the lesser of two evils, considering that the enemy they are facing is impossible to communicate with and sees humans as nothing other than food.
|>>|| No. 409396
>but instead it is an argument against pacifism. War is seen here as the lesser of two evils, considering that the enemy they are facing is impossible to communicate with and sees humans as nothing other than food.
Yes, but that's kind of an unconvincing argument though. Because at least so far, we haven't been visited by any aliens, let alone ones that were superior to us or were threatening to disrupt society as deeply and gravely as the alien invaders in Starship Troopers or maybe Independence Day.
You're essentially saying pacifism is bad because it will be useless against malevolent aliens. Or by extention, I'll let you have that, against a human enemy as well who just can't be reasoned with. But so far, any and all wars and armed conflicts have been fought between humans on this planet. Humans who, in spite of themselves, should at least have a shred of reason and sensibility. Even the two Cold War superpowers who were very realistically capable of ending the world with their vast stock of nuclear weapons in the end realised that a full blown nuclear war between them would have led to and solved nothing.
As long as wars are fought between human beings and on Earth, any war is a failure. A failure of the human spirit, a failure to utilise the one thing that sets us apart from all the other species on this planet. The capability for reason, cooperation and complex critical thought. And even if you said, what if there's a group of human enemies who are so hell bent on destroying another country and all life in it that it becomes an existential threat to that country which cannot be reasoned with, I once again say that war is failure. And maybe even your need to point to a potential, and as yet unrealistic alien threat to give validity to your argument is a failure to carry a rational debate about militarism and pacifism.
|>>|| No. 409400
Heinlein was a fascist fucking cunt. All his books are designed to be imagines as full of blond haired, blued eyed good little Aryan soldiers. Sorry mate. You notice that fucking *every other* sci-fi author publishing at the time had pretty unsubtle clues as to the ethnicity of the protagonists? There was a reason for that.
|>>|| No. 409401
He was probably closer to being an early ancap. I know the alt-right flirts heavily with the "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalist camp, so that might seem a nit pick, but fascism is inherently corporatist and ancapism is inherently individualist; both creeds take it to polar extremes, and I don't think they're reconcilable. Heinlein was an individualist, I think he just tried to describe alternate possible configurations for human society that would "work", which is the job of a good sci-fi author.
|>>|| No. 409402
>Yes, but that's kind of an unconvincing argument though. Because at least so far, we haven't been visited by any aliens, let alone ones that were superior to us or were threatening to disrupt society as deeply and gravely as the alien invaders in Starship Troopers or maybe Independence Day.
|>>|| No. 409404
>You're essentially saying pacifism is bad because it will be useless against malevolent aliens.
It's a deliberately extreme situation to illustrate the point. It's a response to people who said the Americans should never have joined the wars in Europe, and should have turned the other cheek to Pearl Harbour. He doesn't promote militarism at all in my opinion, he promotes pure and unadulterated pragmatism.
He also speaks a lot about the subject of pacifism on an individual level too. He shows completely contrasting attitudes towards violence between situations in developed and lawful societies, and societies at pioneer/wild-west like states of development.
>Heinlein was a fascist fucking cunt. All his books are designed to be imagines as full of blond haired, blued eyed good little Aryan soldiers
(Apart from all the red-heads he writes about.)
It's not so much that all his characters are blond and blue-eyed, I feel that it's more that the race of his characters is so completely irrelevant to him that he glosses over it. There are exceptions where race is deliberately the focus of the plot, such as where a family has a black man as a paid servant, the main character treats him as a member of the family, leading to a lot of arguments with his wife (a drunken slob) who tries to treat him a slave. (Slavery is something Heinlein speaks very very strongly against.) And other examples such as starship troopers, where the main character is Filipino.
(He also writes a lot about incest and consensual noncing of daughters, but that's neither here nor there.)
>He was probably closer to being an early ancap. I know the alt-right flirts heavily with the "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalist camp, so that might seem a nit pick, but fascism is inherently corporatist and ancapism is inherently individualist; both creeds take it to polar extremes, and I don't think they're reconcilable. Heinlein was an individualist, I think he just tried to describe alternate possible configurations for human society that would "work", which is the job of a good sci-fi author.
I agree with this. His vision of an ideal society was one where the government gives every citizen is given enough money to lead a comfortable life whether they work or not, all work becomes voluntary. But most of his stories are set closer to reality, corporatism is mostly portrayed as something unwelcome and unsavoury, but generally effective at improving the well-being of humanity in the right circumstances.
|>>|| No. 409405
>It's a deliberately extreme situation to illustrate the point.
If you need to illustrate your point with a situation so extreme it's not very likely it will ever happen and is for all intents and purposes quite removed from reality, then you are really shooting yourself in the foot though. Because it doesn't lend validity to the point you are trying to make at all.
>It's a response to people who said the Americans should never have joined the wars in Europe, and should have turned the other cheek to Pearl Harbour.
Well, and just where was the U.S. when Hitler rose to power and started discriminating against Jews pretty much right from the word go, and had a series of racial laws passed as early as 1935? Where were the later Western allies when Hitler invaded Bohemia and the Sudetenland, as well as Austria and incorporated them into the Reich?
Chamberlain's appeasement bid was too little, too late. The world had been letting the lunatics run the asylum in Germany for too many years and was really quite unfussed about Hitler. All the while ignoring that he was preparing his military for war at least from the mid-1930s onward. Also, many Americans, mostly Wall Street bankers, made loads of money collaborating with Nazi Germany. It is thought that George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush owed much of his wealth, which laid the foundation for his family's power and influence, to financing businesses in Nazi Germany. Even Henry Ford made money off the Germans with his factory in Cologne.
There are many ways you can cripple a country and deter it from attempting world domination. If the rest of the world had been more determined to wield all its diplomatic pressure in unison, just maybe WWII could have been prevented altogether. And to call it pragmatism to send your armies quite some time after the shit has hit the fan (the U.S. did wait until Pearl Harbor to join the war at all!) can well mean ignoring the fact that you failed diplomatically because you didn't try hard enough. And even when WWII started, the U.S. government continued to stay out of it deliberately because they knew that going to fight another war in Europe was going to be a very unpopular decision, just 20 odd years after many Americans had given their lives in WWI.
No matter which way you slice it, war is always human failure, a failure of humanity even before the first shots are fired. War isn't the continuation of diplomacy by other means. It is the result of a complete failure of diplomacy.
|>>|| No. 409406
Isn't all sci-fi satire "a situation so extreme it's not very likely it will ever happen"? Why can we dismiss Heinlein's world but not, say, Orwell's or Huxley's?
|>>|| No. 409409
>while the movie unmistakably satirizes them (although the latter was probably lost on many of the core audience who saw it).
And, indeed, on many film critics, who panned it as mindless, low-brow pulp.
Paul Verhoeven films are always a good barometer on whether or not someone is worth listening to.
|>>|| No. 409410
(I know it's bad manners to double past but I've read the thread backwards so whatever)
Ghost in the Shell was actually really good, I went to see it with the mrs this weekend. I think I'd say I actually prefer it to the source material; the neckband will tell you it lost a lot of philosophical depth, but I would respond that it's worth it if you get more relatable dialog and characters, as opposed to that awful forced writing you tend to get in anime. Besides which, you're kidding yourself you believe the original wasn't style over substance to start with.
It has a few scenes that will make gain like an idiot though in the attention to detail they've paid; some of the shots are identical to the original artwork. And they sealed the deal for nerd cred when the non-cyborg cop, who barely features as a character, nevertheless uses the same firearm he was meant to use in the anime.
I'd give it a solid 8, don't listen to the snobs.
|>>|| No. 409411
>And, indeed, on many film critics, who panned it as mindless, low-brow pulp.
To me, Starship Troopers has always been a very enjoyable film on many levels.
For one thing, of course, I like the subtle yet glaring satirization of the above mentioned militarism and fascism. It always gives me a chuckle how unflinchingly boastful the movie is in that respect.
But also, it's just very entertaining. It doesn't aim for lofty ideas about existentialism and philosophy which have fallen so resoundingly flat on their face in "Arrival" or "Interstellar", but it is just a good old Alien shoot-em-up.
And the CGI and other special effects were also top notch for its time of circa 1997/98. It is also an interesting time capsule in terms of how the Internet's visual aesthetics began permeating films and other works of art in the late 1990s.
|>>|| No. 409414
>Isn't all sci-fi satire "a situation so extreme it's not very likely it will ever happen"? Why can we dismiss Heinlein's world but not, say, Orwell's or Huxley's?
Tricky, that one. Life has indeed been imitating art to some degree. George Orwell probably had no way of foreseeing just how a surveillance society as portrayed in "1984" would take shape in detail in our modern world, and that the Internet would make it such a piece of piss for governments to constantly keep a close watch on their citizens. But I think what made him anticipate it in a more roundabout way was the general nature of politics, which you didn't need to be a genius to protract into the future, and the historical precedent of Germany's totalitarian fascist government which had ceased to exist just three years before he wrote "1984", as well as totalitarian currents in the post-war Soviet Union, but also in Western democracies, e.g. the Un-American Activities Committee.
And then you have sci fi authors like Arthur C. Clarke, who made a baffling amount of predictions about the future which then materialised. Clarke foresaw satellites (the Clarke Orbit is even named after him, in which many geostationary satellites are located today) as well as the Internet. Was Clarke a true visionary, or were there just a lot of geeks among scientists who were fans of Arthur C. Clarke's works and took them as inspiration for the directions in which they pushed 20th century technologies?
|>>|| No. 409415
Old lads, was Josh Snow always this dippy and weird, or is he just going a bit senile?
|>>|| No. 409419
If any of you lads like speculative sci-fi then try John Brunner:
Stand on Zanzibar, a novel set in 2010 about overpopulation
The sheep Look Up: set in 2014 about air pollution
The Shockwave Rider: a book mainly about how how his vision of the internet can be used to spy on us.
All really good reads, though SoZ is by far the best due to the structure of the book and the world building.
|>>|| No. 409427
Damn, it's never nice finding out you've made such a basic mistake. Especially a day after the fact; like I started keeping caltrops in my shower.
|>>|| No. 409622
I hate seasonal holidays. And the fact that today is Good Friday is neither here nor there for me.
|>>|| No. 409624
And what's so good about it anyway. Never understood why it is called that.
When I was little, I also couldn't get my head around the meaning of Boxing Day. This was not helped by my older brother telling me every year that it was called Boxing Day because it was the one day of the year where he was allowed to punch me and nobody could do anything about it (it never occurred to me that maybe the same would apply to me punching him, but there you go, he was four years older and quite aware that I was very easy to tease).
|>>|| No. 409625
It's called Good Friday because it's the day Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world.
|>>|| No. 409626
I left everything until the last minute again so I get to spend a weekend busy which probably isn't all that good for my health considering all the coffee I'll drink. Any tips on becoming one of those people who does things well in advance?
>And what's so good about it anyway. Never understood why it is called that.
Nobody is sure. They think it either means good as in holy or has been a corruption of God Friday.
|>>|| No. 409636
Tonight is the first night in well over three months that I am having a noteworthy amount of alcohol. I was going through a period of bad luck where I was stricken with severe influenza for a few weeks, then with a bad stomach flu, and subsequently I had bronchitis for two weeks. And during all that time, those three months, I had less than half a dozen pints all put together. It was undoubtedly no unhealthy side effect of me being sick all the time, but tonight, I felt like having a bit more to drink. Got home from the pub with my mates a while ago, and now I am having a bottle or two of Stella in front of the TV with my laptop on my sofa.
Can't say I really missed it, but it was of course fun knocking back a few again tonight with my mates.
|>>|| No. 409661
Herroh fom prace of FEEHDOM
I am bes leadA evah. Jus like Fiddle Castro. We do same thing but no studen like me. Go studen bah u see Fiddle face but no mah face. Why studen, u fukink stupit?
Join me as Fiddle dead now.
|>>|| No. 409662
I'm moaning this post for being unfunny but thank you at least for reminding me of the most I've ever laughed in my life, which was watching Team America in the cinema with the ladm8s when I was 16 or so. For a child of the 9/11 generation it was perfection. Fuck yeah!
|>>|| No. 409686
Only the Daily Mirror would afford an announcement of eight pages of Easter puzzles nearly as much space on page one as the news that there might very realistically be a nuclear war.
Hey, you need to have something to keep your mind off the end of the world while you're inside your nuclear bunker. Might as well be Easter puzzles.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]