|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 11, 2006 0:42:25 GMT -5
Ok brittany please please please clear up HOW a movie about the possible assassination will lead to CG videos of you or me getting tortured or raped? I FULLY understand that if the law passes a slanderous and hatefull movie featuring CG images of someone being raped and murdered would lead to more things. What I DONT understand is how a movie about what would happen to the world after george bushes assassination has to do AT ALL with slander or CG images of george bush being tortured or raped, thus leading to what you mention. Explain to me how 1 = the other please. The movie is not slander and it is not a 140 minute video of CG images of george bush being raped... it seems like more of a theoretical politcal story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first movie ever to feature someone being killed who was still alive in real life, right? If so, then this film sets a precedent. If not, then this film continues that precedent. This film either sets or continues the precedent that films depicting currently living people being killed by CG is socially acceptable. That means that right now I could make a film of you getting shot in the head and killed. But what if I didn't want you to be shot in the head? What if I wanted to make it more painful, so I shot your pinky off instead? Then I had you dipped in glue, and thrown off the Grand Canyon... You see, if killing you on film is acceptable, the method used to kill you doesn't matter, because courts do not concern themselves with defining "what is and what is not art". Either killing you on film (along with torturing you, etc) is allowed, or it is not allowed... Obviously this film is a step in the direction towards public acceptance of creating films about currently living people depicting their tortuous demise. You still havent told me where your getting all these ideas from. |
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 11, 2006 15:22:43 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first movie ever to feature someone being killed who was still alive in real life, right? If so, then this film sets a precedent. If not, then this film continues that precedent. This film either sets or continues the precedent that films depicting currently living people being killed by CG is socially acceptable. That means that right now I could make a film of you getting shot in the head and killed. But what if I didn't want you to be shot in the head? What if I wanted to make it more painful, so I shot your pinky off instead? Then I had you dipped in glue, and thrown off the Grand Canyon... You see, if killing you on film is acceptable, the method used to kill you doesn't matter, because courts do not concern themselves with defining "what is and what is not art". Either killing you on film (along with torturing you, etc) is allowed, or it is not allowed... Obviously this film is a step in the direction towards public acceptance of creating films about currently living people depicting their tortuous demise. You still havent told me where your getting all these ideas from. What idea(s)? If you are referring to prediction, it is easily deduced from a limited understanding of human nature and market theory. If you are referring to the rationalization itself (that A->B->C when A=C), that is implied by basic logic. If you are referring to facts (courts do not decide what is "art"), try an introductory course in law. |
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 11, 2006 15:24:15 GMT -5
I'm still not that bothered by that idea. I'm not going to call it "art" but I wouldn't let it bother me, either. Why would it worry you? Are you so worried about your reputation? Do you think reputation can be damaged because someone makes a film like this about someone? Do you think it could be publicly broadcast as truth? I don't see the huge cause for concern. The day your reputation becomes the sole foundation of your livelihood, trust me you'll care. |
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 11, 2006 16:03:56 GMT -5
Oh, so someone making a movie of me being killed... That would mean my livelihood was destroyed? Hell, i'd probably have some fun. Find people who thought I really died and I could say "Oh, yeah. Sure, I died. I came back, though. Sure is fun here."
Who knows? If people were stupid enough to believe some stupid movie, then they could easily believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 11, 2006 16:09:09 GMT -5
Oh, so someone making a movie of me being killed... That would mean my livelihood was destroyed? Hell, i'd probably have some fun. Find people who thought I really died and I could say "Oh, yeah. Sure, I died. I came back, though. Sure is fun here." Who knows? If people were stupid enough to believe some stupid movie, then they could easily believe that. In the business world, people make split second decisions with the information they have at the moment, oftentimes without taking the time to verify it (because they don't have that time). If there is alot of misinformation out there regarding yourself, expect people to base their decisions on it. That means that if I had a choice to hire you or some other guy, I googled both your names and saw a elephant porn movie starring you show up, but nothing for the other guy, no offense but I would prolly hire the other guy, as I'm sure many other employers would. A great way to learn about someone is through Googling their name. You see what they have done without the flowery language of their resume. If all you see is bad movies... you aren't going to want to do business with them. |
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 31, 2006 14:02:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Malakainin on Oct 31, 2006 14:05:06 GMT -5
Meh doesn't seem that big a deal either way, I think some people are exaggurating.  |
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 31, 2006 23:15:18 GMT -5
meh, I thought it was a crappy movie. The only thing it did well was illustrate the mood, however the movie was all emotion and no thought or social commentary beyond what's already common knowledge. It could have been much better had the second half of the movie involved more suspects and focused on ruling them out one by one due to them not fitting prevelant stereotypes, then at the end the real killer turns out to be the first suspect ruled out, but by then he's either nowhere to be found or in office himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Nov 1, 2006 14:10:18 GMT -5
The day your reputation becomes the sole foundation of your livelihood, trust me you'll care. I think Mr. Bush's reputation has already taken a huge nosedive. |
|
