Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Despite the thoughts of Paul the octopus, I'm picking Germany to not be overly troubled by Spain.
-
Setting aside value judgements on whether any of these films are good, none get seen by an actual audience, largely because low-budget indies (apart form horror and porn) are not what audiences want.
That doesn't matter. Encouraging more cheap digital features both teaches people how to make films that work, so that when they do get a $6m budget for a 35mm feature the mistakes have already been cheaply made, and it provides a greater pool from which to notice the real talent.
And, frankly, it saves money, in the long run. The Commission has produced some real stinkers (no, I won't name them). The budget of any one of them could've made a dozen cheap digital features and odds-on, one of them would've been really good (quite apart from the benefits mentioned above).
-
I'm going to stab at some other things that have been somewhat revolutionary - colour, digital manipulation/CGI, the addition of sound tracks to movies.
Quite so. What I meant to say was the first revolution in the affordability of filmmaking.
-
Mr. Chipmunk,
I quite agree with almost every word of your comment. Good luck with your own exploits!---
Craig,
Congratulations on being the only voice questioning whether we should spend less on our own culture.---
"No mention of the Internet...", or digital
Yeah, what a bloody tragic failure of vision. Here we are in the middle of really the first technical revolution in filmmaking since the invention of the movie camera, and neither the Commission nor Jackson & Court seem to have recognised the once-in-a-lifetime chance to democratise filmmaking, and thus cast a much wider net over the possible talent.
I find it inexplicable.
Well, not really. I chalk it up to an obsession with professionalism. Teams of kids running around with digi-cams and $20k budgets? It's all a bit uncouth, isn't it?
-
NZFC CEO Graeme Mason & Ant Timpson & Robert Sarkies respond to the Review (The Arts on Sunday, NatRad).
-
Minor point:
Fair enough.
-
Well, yes, and I listed a whole damn bunch of those things up thread.
Settle down. Also, no you didn't. You listed some of "the real sins of football", and since much of the list is not "cheating" at all, then how can one be expected to know that that's what you're talking about?
There are a lot of small instances like that in every football game: claiming it should be a throw-in for your team when you know it isn't, etc.
Okay, starting to get it.
Anyhow, as I said yesterday, whether it's "cheating" or not is really beside the point - and I'm willing to retract the accusation on the grounds that we can't really know if it was deliberate or instinctive.
As I said, the real villains are FIFA who allow a rule that punishes the infringed-against more than it does the infringer. That's messed up.
-
So... does anything count as cheating, in football?
Note: not being facetious; genuinely still struggling to understand your position. -
I can't actually work out on what basis you guys are defending Suarez.
Are you simply saying that he used the rules as they stand to his best advantage, or what?
-
NZFC Review
Having heard Graeme Mason from the NZFC on The Arts On Sunday I can't imagine that the NZFC is ready for the true soul-searching required.
There's a fundamental flaw in having the subject of a review being in charge of implementing the recommendations; namely that the more changes they implement, the more they look like they were doing a poor job beforehand.
So they will, I suspect, change a few of the most obviously flawed procedures, and then otherwise carry on as usual, with 'what's best for the Commission' remaining the prime goal.