Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A good commentary is about as hard to find as a good film. My all time favorite was Resident Evil. They made the commentary well in advance of it hitting the screens, had obviously had a lot of fun making the film, and it was not a particularly big budget one, so they weren't trying to live up to anything. I was quite surprised by the depth of thought that had gone into 'yet another zombie flick'. I was disappointed by the sequels, which gained nothing from higher budgets and more famous casting. It was like the first was designed by an ambitious and committed team following a strong director, and the second two were designed by committees and focus groups.
The only DVD commentaries I've found to be worth a damn are the ones that talk about the actual film-making process.
That is true, but you can take it way too far. There are 4 different commentaries on the extended edition of LOTR. Cast, director/writer, design team, production team. They become progressively less interesting (to me), and more and more technical. How deep do you really want to get into it? Multiple commentaries is a good idea for that reason.
The worst commentary I've heard is definitely George Lucas on Star Wars. It was like listening to your Grandma telling you something that she's forgotten she already told you a thousand times.
-
Thx for the response Rachel. Interesting.
I have a parallel experience. I minored in Computer Science and work as a programmer now. All the training in designing systems did not prepare me at all for the a huge part of the process of software design - all the negotiating before anything is even begun, and all the fighting afterwards. Nor was the idea firmly planted that something like 80-90% of all programming work would be on maintaining existing systems. Nor did I appreciate that getting to work on something that actually involves needing to use or understand science is a tiny minority of the work available.
Almost all of our training was focused on making cool new stuff, to clearly defined specifications, or passing examination questions to which there were definite answers. As such, much like law graduates, we were inculcated in a mindset, which made it quite hard to actually see the real problems that we faced.
-
Not even Old?
Old skool is borderline no skool. But I wouldn't even claim that.
Paul
I'd not have said it taught you one approach per se, in fact, it teaches different approaches and this, IMO, is the real benefit.
I would hope so, although many approaches taught by the same school is just a bigger framework, rather than breaking the framework. Whatever the core of beliefs that all the approaches agreed upon would constitute the paradigm of the entire training regime. A paradigm that must either be accepted, or you don't work in the Law, at least not for long. I don't know, as I never studied the law, or jurisprudence. Philosophy has it's specializations too, and mine went down a path that did not deal with ethics or politics too much.
Rachel
I'm curious about your realization. Did you feel that there was no way at all within the legal training you were receiving to be pragmatic, to not look for fault and blame but resolutions or even prevention?
I ask because it seems to me that many lawyers are perfectly happy. They get a real sense of satisfaction from it. They enjoy the fighting, and especially the winning. The losing they can take philosophically, since it's usually the client who is actually eating it. And many of them even feel that they do good sometimes. Also a lot of them seem to have non-confrontational work, just looking stuff up and providing opinions etc.
I also have received some extremely good advice from lawyers prior to making a decision, which suggests they're not always 'after the fact merchants'. If I'd just taken one old koot's advice I never would have lost my shirt to the nasty old ACToid, for instance. The lawyers who manage you through a massive transaction like buying a house are not out to blame anyone for anything, they're just making sure you can't be blamed.
But your feeling must have been grounded in observation of the training you were receiving.
All
I'm not saying legal training is exceptional in inculcating a mindset that could be insidious to the ability of the mind to actually see reality. ALL training is like that, it forms filters that shape our very perceptions of the world. It can't be any other way. The only danger is not to realize this. Fresh out of university, it's quite a difficult thing to realize, that a great deal of training yourself to think, is about training yourself to ignore. That can be insidious, if taken too far.
-
Heh, I think the best thing that ever happened to me was getting an expensive wakeup call from a nasty little old ACToid during a real estate deal. It was the most expensive and valuable education I ever got. My flirtation with that particular dogma met a lucky end right there. Now I claim no school (as they say in Kung Fu films).
-
Well if WW1 was "The Great War" and the 1930s was "The Great Depression" perhaps this one could be "World Depression 2", which acronymizesatizes nicesimile to WD2, and can morph to Dub Dee Two, or DumpDeeDoo. So what do we do about Dumptydoo? It dumped on me, it'll dump on you.
-
I find it interesting that lawyers talk unabashedly about being inculcated with a value system at university, like it was the best thing that ever happened to them. I always saw a major point of higher education was to challenge established value systems in your own mind.
I guess it's a lot like learning fine art. You have to learn to paint like the old masters before you can forge new and challenging art. I was required to master arguing like Socrates too (Philosophy degree), before I was ever allowed to say what I thought about him all along, which was "tricky old bugger, wasn't he, reminds me of a lawyer". An extremely poor one, judging by his court record. Strange that our system should derive so much enthusiasm for the court methods of a man who talked himself out of a small fine and into the death penalty.
I'm not ragging on lawyers, btw. Just commenting on our amazing ability to train our minds to learn systems, and our generally weak ability to train our minds to seek truth. That will always be a very hit-and-miss affair.
-
I wonder if economic slowdown will affect the sales of what are after all discretionary purchases of luxuries.
It has for me. Switching to a mean new HD setup is a nice-to-have-not-need-to-have thing. My wife and I operate on a tit-for-tat basis re: luxury expenditures so I'm not going to blow my round on something I don't really want. I'd rather just wait until all the dust settles and a fully integrated system comes at rock bottom price. Until then MySky catches a sufficient slice of what TV I can bear to watch.
There's a few technologies like this at the moment. I'm sure I'd like an electric car too, I just don't want to pay current prices. They're almost there, though...allllmost.
-
ew. ur gross.
C'mon with names like Ansell, Brash, Long and Key, it's hard not to be sometimes.
-
The "Brash" comment on Kiwiblog was actually written by John Ansell, who didn't check first with Richard Long. Long was furious. I thought it came off okay.
LOL, I thought it came off OK too, at the time. Now I don't! I remember how chuffed DPF was that his site had been touched by greatness. Now it seems it was just touched by advertising. That's sooo hollow men.
Channeling Haiku now:
Ansell Breaks,
Sticky Comments Leak.
Long Morning After Regrets -
It occurs to me that reading the blogs of government supporters is no fun at all (I didn't read the standard or any of the others pre election), so who is the preferred blog of the opposition? Is there one?
Reading Kiwiblog stopped being fun years ago. It wasn't offensiveness, it was boredom, though. The regular contributors are much like Viz characters, or made up letters to the editor of Truth. Funny a few times, then just silly.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 927 928 929 930 931 … 1066 Older→ First