Veronica Mars - I don't understand it
video...@yahoo.com
I watched it, but I don't understand it. I feel lost. The storyline
left me confused. :-( (Of course having my my local station pre-empt
the show every week to show Philly games did not help.)
Please explain- What's the appeal of this show?
Where can I go to review a season 2 ploty summary?
.
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153212653....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's appear is rather noirish or hard-boiled, epitomized by a cynical lead
detective in a cruel cynical world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_noir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardboiled
Also good intelligent writing that doesn't talk down to the audience.
-- Ken from Chicago
Paul Colquhoun
And, as I was just thinking to myself today, not unlike a good DnD
campaign. There is the long-term "Who killed Lily" thread to give the
characters a goal, and the short-term side adventures, where they gain
experience and allies to aid them on their main quest.
Of course, some "side" quests are more important than others. "Find Mom"
/ "Get Mom Back" may be of more personal benefit in the long run.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
video...@yahoo.com
>
> detective in a cruel cynical world.
.
Ahhh; perhaps that's why I did not really "get" Veronica Mars. Some
parts I enjoyed, but mostly not. I admit my only motive now, to
continue watching the sunday reruns, is the lead actress. Not the
plot.
I used to watch TCM's "Darkness after Dawn" series which shows a
different film noir every saturday, but I rarely enjoyed those movies.
It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting. I prefer a more
positive outlook on the world as you might find in an old Matlock or
Perry Mason episode. (Aside - Would Edward G. Robinson's The Red House
be considered "noir"?)
Also, what's the deal with that "we used to be friends" theme music?
What's the connection of that song to the rest of the story?
It seems an odd choice.
.
""We'd be oversimplifying things in calling film noir oneiric, strange,
erotic, ambivalent, and cruel...." wrote French critics Raymond Borde
and Etienne Chaumeton in their 1955 book A Panorama of American Film
Noir......... despite the authors' caveats, in five decades it has
hardly been bettered as a concise description of the noir mode as
perceived by a plurality of critics." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_noir
.
Locutus
>
> Also, what's the deal with that "we used to be friends" theme music?
> What's the connection of that song to the rest of the story?
> It seems an odd choice.
It goes back to the first season. Keith would not let the Lilly murder go and evereybody shunned her. Hence the theme
you should watch it instead of asking questions that you might not understand unless you watch
>
David
video...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I watched Veronica last year, mainly because people told me I should.
> I watched it, but I don't understand it. I feel lost. The storyline
> left me confused. :-( (Of course having my my local station pre-empt
> the show every week to show Philly games did not help.)
>
> Please explain- What's the appeal of this show?
Cute lead, lovable characters, mysteries that don't talk down to the
audience, funny, crackling dialogue.
> Where can I go to review a season 2 ploty summary?
If you want you can download the whole season.
jayembee
> I used to watch TCM's "Darkness after Dawn" series which shows a
> different film noir every saturday, but I rarely enjoyed those movies.
> It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting.
Definitely a heightened stylistic approach (at least, the good ones).
If you don't like that, you won't like the genre. Me, I love it.
Similar to the "if you like your art to be photorealistic, you won't
like French Impressionism" type of deal (I love Impressionism, too).
> (Aside - Would Edward G. Robinson's The Red House be considered
> "noir"?)
I would say so.
> Also, what's the deal with that "we used to be friends" theme
> music? What's the connection of that song to the rest of the
> story? It seems an odd choice.
From the perspective of the second season, I can understand why
you'd think that. Veronica's father used to be the local Sheriff.
Therefore, even though the Mars' weren't rich, Keith's being
Sheriff gave them enough "status" so that she was part of the
In Crowd. When Keith was booted out as Sheriff over his handling
of the Lily Kane murder case, Veronica became an outcast, so
she was no longer friends with the rich kids.
In the second season, she was kinda sorta somewhat reaccepted
by the rich kids because Keith was vindicated with respect to
the Lily Kane murder.
-- jayembee
jayembee
>> Where can I go to review a season 2 ploty summary?
>
> If you want you can download the whole season.
Or rent the DVDs when they come out next month.
-- jayembee
Locutus
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message news:Xns980474B638DB6j...@140.99.99.130...
Why?
DLing is free
> -- jayembee
David Johnston
>
>Also, what's the deal with that "we used to be friends" theme music?
>What's the connection of that song to the rest of the story?
>It seems an odd choice.
It isn't. Veronica starts the series having lost all of her her
former friends and having become a social outcast.
Invid Fan
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I used to watch TCM's "Darkness after Dawn" series which shows a
> different film noir every saturday, but I rarely enjoyed those movies.
> It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting. I prefer a more
> positive outlook on the world as you might find in an old Matlock or
> Perry Mason episode.
Ah, but that's as unrealistic and uninteresting :)
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <1153230258....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
><video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I used to watch TCM's "Darkness after Dawn" series which shows a
>> different film noir every saturday, but I rarely enjoyed those movies.
>> It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting. I prefer a more
>> positive outlook on the world as you might find in an old Matlock or
>> Perry Mason episode.
>
>Ah, but that's as unrealistic and uninteresting :)
Far more unrealistic. Defense attorneys who have an infallible nose
for innocent people accused of murder? Interest is of course a matter
of taste.
jayembee
>>> It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting. I prefer
>>> a more positive outlook on the world as you might find in an old
>>> Matlock or Perry Mason episode.
>>
>> Ah, but that's as unrealistic and uninteresting :)
>
> Far more unrealistic. Defense attorneys who have an infallible nose
> for innocent people accused of murder?
Well, in Perry's case, he wasn't always necessarily convinced at the
outset that his clients were innocent. It was sometimes a ways into
his (and Drake's) investigation that he'd come across evidence that,
in his mind, clearly showed his client was innocent.
The truly unrealistic aspect of PERRY MASON was the narrative conceit
of his courtroom theatrics always getting the true perpetrator to
confess on the stand.
> Interest is of course a matter of taste.
As always.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Where can I go to review a season 2 ploty summary?
>>>
>>> If you want you can download the whole season.
>>
>> Or rent the DVDs when they come out next month.
>>
>
> Why?
> DLing is free
Because, odd as it may seem, some people think that it's more
ethical to pay the rightful owners for their work if that option
exists.
-- jayembee
David
People who aren't very interested in the show are unlikely to seek out
the DVDs. OTOH if they download the episodes for free there's a chance
they'll become sorely-needed viewers next season. And tell their
friends. And keep the show going.
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
Which is where the revival show with Monte Markham fell apart; as soon
as the real killer would start to confess on the stand, the judge would
tell them to shut up!
Anim8rFSK
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you should break into a 7-11 and steal a case of beer, because if you
steal beer there's a chance you'll become an alcholic next season. And
hook their friends. And keep the beer company going.
The Watch Dog
the season-long mystery made more sense. The second season had great
dialogue, great characters, great acting, and so on, but I found the
explanation of the mystery to be unconvincing and unsatisfying.
Still one of the best shows on TV
David
wrote:
When the topic of downloading comes up you sure are big on nonsensical
comparisons. However I suppose it's okay that you're currently
downloading pilots because... the shows haven't premiered yet? The
DVDs won't come out for another year? Please tell us, oh righteous
one.
jayembee
> When the topic of downloading comes up you sure are big on
> nonsensical comparisons. However I suppose it's okay that
> you're currently downloading pilots because... the shows
> haven't premiered yet? The DVDs won't come out for another
> year? Please tell us, oh righteous one.
The latter isn't an unreasonable justification. That's what I meant
when I said, "if the option exists". I download most of of the
shows I watch regularly, as "archival" copies (before I downloaded,
I taped). Once they come out on DVD, I junk the downloads, and
buy the DVDs.
Given that most shows, success or failure, seem destined to come
out on DVD, I'm starting to cut down on the number of shows I
download. Those for which there is a reasonable certainty of a
DVD release -- THE CLOSER, the two STARGATEs, LOST, etc. -- I
won't bother downloading, unless there's a scheduling conflict
(like, this past year, watching LOST in real time and downloading
VERONICA MARS for later).
I still download the questionable or semi-questionable ones, since
unless it's a hit, there's no guarantee of a DVD release. THE BOOK
OF DANIEL, of all things, has been announced, but there's no sign
of, say, CENTURY CITY or THE JURY. So in some cases, my downloading
is a hedge against that. Even shows that do well aren't guaranteed
a DVD release -- COLD CASE being a case in point.
-- jayembee
David
The way I see it, the people who buy DVDs and those who download are
two distinct groups. DVD buyers are loyal fans. The downloaders are
most likely not fans at all but could become fans potentially. And
they aren't srealing the DVD sets, they're "stealing" the broadcast
version of the show, which were available for free in the first place.
I don't see a distinction between downloading episode 1 of "Heroes"
the Summer after it airs, the Summer before it airs, or the night
after it airs. If someone believes that all of the above is stealing,
fine, but for Fred to say that one is stealing and another isn't...
that's hypocrisy.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
This was, of course, a narrative conceit (or more likely a dramatic
shortcut) of the tv shows. In the books, the murderer sometimes broke down
and confessed, and other times, well, didn't. There were books where Mason
would make his climactic grandstand reveal, and the revealed murderer
immediately denied his (or her) guilt. Actually, the dramatic courtroom
reveal frequently did not occur in the book.
In fact, in one book, Mason establishes his client's innocence with a
dramatic courtroom reveal, and it isn't clearly established which one of
two conspirators did the murder. In the office afterwards, Drake asks him
which one, and he answers that that's Burger's problem and he's welcome to
it. (the dramatic reveal is that the person his client is accused of
murdering wasn't actually the murder victim).
The books, especially the earlier ones, were much better at varying the
formula than the tv shows (ain't that always the case?).
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Anim8rFSK
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In fact, in one book, Mason establishes his client's innocence with a
> dramatic courtroom reveal, and it isn't clearly established which one of
> two conspirators did the murder. In the office afterwards, Drake asks him
> which one, and he answers that that's Burger's problem and he's welcome to
> it. (the dramatic reveal is that the person his client is accused of
> murdering wasn't actually the murder victim).
um
huh?
Don Sample
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
I haven't read that story, but I can imagine a few scenarios where
something like that could happen.
One would be to kill someone, and mutilate the corpse enough to make
identification difficult, and then plant evidence that makes it look
like someone else's corpse. This could be done for a variety of
reasons. One would be to deflect suspicion away from yourself for the
crime. Another would be if you wanted to disappear, and not have anyone
looking for you.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
William George Ferguson
The "murder victim" was apparently a doctor who was flying his own plane to
Las Vegas when it crashed and burned. His wife was accused of the
murder,and Mason defended her. In the dramatic courtroom 'reveal', Mason
had gotten the DA to call a witness to prove the case against Mason's
client, when the witness skipped, Mason established that it was the
purported murder victim, dressed as a woman. The DA got an all-points out
for the witness/purported victim, and the case against Mason's client was
dismissed since Mason established through fingerprint evidence (using the
police's evidence) that the witness was the purported murder victim.
Back at the office, Mason indicated that the murder was probably
independent of the case with the doctor and his wife, speculating that the
dead body was the mechanic, who was involved in smuggling drugs from
Mexico, but he wasn't interested in verifying or proving any of that, that
was the DA's headache.
That's more or less as I remember it from many years ago. I'm pretty sure
the title was "The Case of the Bigamous Spouse". Either that or "The Case
of the Fugitive Nurse".
I think they adapted it as an episode of the original series also, but in
the adaptation, as I remember it, Mason, of course, nailed the murderer.
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153230258....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The theme song reflects the cynical hard-boiled nature of the show and it's
characters. "We used to be friends / a long time ago" [back when they were
young and naive and Veronica was part of the "in-crowd" of "90009ers", now
they've grown-up].
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the resolution
is low, but it can be quite realistic.
-- Ken from Chicago (who's gonna have to get all Rennaisance on jay)
Ken from Chicago
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:25gqb2hafbdil4va0...@4ax.com...
"Infallible" characters tend star in more plot-driven stories since we KNOW
that characters will not the flawed or even tempted. Thus the stories, the
good ones, tend to shift the focus from the "infallible" characters dealing
with personality or internality flaws but rather they deal with external,
plot-oriented obstacles (e.g., locked-room mysteries, etc.).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
That was back in olden times when it was assumed everyone had a working
conscience--one that was uniformly alligned.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:i2oqb29ohqj9tasah...@4ax.com...
Well the "mainstream" audience too DUPID to deal with reality and variety!
And that's why noir and hard-boiled was such total failures as genres.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153212653....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I watched Veronica last year, mainly because people told me I should.
> I watched it, but I don't understand it. I feel lost. The storyline
> left me confused. :-( (Of course having my my local station pre-empt
> the show every week to show Philly games did not help.)
>
> Please explain- What's the appeal of this show?
http://www.tv.com/show/24272/summary.html
-- Ken from Chicago
jayembee
> Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the
> resolution is low, but it can be quite realistic.
You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
word means what you think it means.
Some Impressionists did work that can be described as photorealistic.
Mary Cassat's, for example, and some of Degas'. But the majority of
the work in that style isn't, in any way, shape, or form.
-- jayembee
Don Sample
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the
> > resolution is low, but it can be quite realistic.
>
> You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
> word means what you think it means.
Take most of Monet's paintings, and scale them down to the point where
the brush strokes vanish, and they start looking pretty realistic.
Ken from Chicago
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=french%20impressionism&sa=N&tab=wi
-- Ken from Chicago
video...@yahoo.com
Locutus wrote:
> >
> > Also, what's the deal with that "we used to be friends" theme music?
> > What's the connection of that song to the rest of the story?
>
>
.
Smart-ass comment there. SHOW ME where I can watch Veronica Season one
(legally and free), and I will. Answer: I cannot, because season one
is over and done. Hence my questions.
.
video...@yahoo.com
.
Uh... Ken. The reason it's called "impressionism" is because you're
painting your "impression" of what you see.... i.e. your feeling about
or for the object. Such as making your girlfriend look thin/120
pounds, when she's actually fat and 200 pounds. You are creating YOUR
view of her, NOT an accurate representation like a photo would be.
NON-photorealistic.
.
Also thanks for answering my question about Veronica's theme song.
It's too bad I did not watch the show's first season, but when I
originally watched the pilot I thought, "Oh no. Just another teen
soap," and quit.
.
video...@yahoo.com
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "David Johnston"
> >>
> >>> I used to watch TCM's "Darkness after Dawn" series which shows a
> >>> different film noir every saturday, but I rarely enjoyed those movies.
> >>> It felt so unrealistic, depressing, and uninteresting. I prefer a more
> >>> positive outlook on the world as you might find in an old Matlock or
> >>> Perry Mason episode.
> >>
> >>Ah, but that's as unrealistic and uninteresting :)
> >
> > Far more unrealistic. Defense attorneys who have an infallible nose
> > for innocent people accused of murder? Interest is of course a matter
> > of taste.
>
> "Infallible" characters tend star in more plot-driven stories since we KNOW
.
Okay I'll grant that Perry Mason is no more realistic than a film noir
detective. I guess I just don't like that dark/dreary view of the
universe. Life is depressing enough all by itself. ;-)
Has ANY legal show or movie shown true realism, the way things truly
are?
.
video...@yahoo.com
Locutus wrote:
> "jayembee"
> >
> > Or rent the DVDs when they come out next month.
> >
>
> Why? > DLing is free
.
So is Stealing a pair of Levis from the store. I hope you get caught
and arrested. People WORK HARD to create those shows..... they deserve
to get paid either through sales of commercials, or sales of dvds.
.
video...@yahoo.com
David wrote:
>
> When the topic of downloading comes up you sure are big on nonsensical
.
You'd feel differently if it was YOU who had spent two years
researching & writing a great novel (as example)...
... and then later discovered it failed to sell because people were
downloading it for free...
... thereby depriving you of your justified income for your hard work.
.
video...@yahoo.com
David wrote:
>
> The way I see it, the people who buy DVDs and those who download are
> two distinct groups. DVD buyers are loyal fans. The downloaders are
> most likely not fans at all but could become fans potentially. And
> they aren't srealing the DVD sets, they're "stealing" the broadcast
> version of the show, which were available for free in the first place.
.
BZZZZ. Wrong. The show was available *in exchange* for your watching
of commercials. Your watching of commercials translates into dollars
that are paid to the actors, writers, and staff.
So NO it is not free. You exchanged your time for entertainment. You
paid.
.
I guess in the future I need to be more specific. My over-the-antenna
tv is not truly free. It does not cost me money-out-of-pocket, but it
does cost me time... approximately 15 minutes an hour. I'm willing to
give up that time in exchange for not spending cash.
BUT I am not willing to steal the show via illegal downloads. I'll go
(a) pay my time by watching ad-supported downloads on ABC.com or (b)
buy the dvd. I will PAY the actors, writers, staff what they deserve
to be paid for their hard work.
Else, we might reach a point where there's nobody's buying anything
(either in money or time), and the tv shows will disappear from lack of
funds.
.
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153309205.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9804EBD7120C2j...@140.99.99.130...
>> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the
>> >> resolution is low, but it can be quite realistic.
>> >
>> > You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
>> > word means what you think it means.
>> >
>> > Some Impressionists did work that can be described as photorealistic.
>> > Mary Cassat's, for example, and some of Degas'. But the majority of
>> > the work in that style isn't, in any way, shape, or form.
>> >
>> > -- jayembee
>>
>> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=french%20impressionism&sa=N&tab=wi
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
> .
>
> Uh... Ken. The reason it's called "impressionism" is because you're
> painting your "impression" of what you see.... i.e. your feeling about
> or for the object. Such as making your girlfriend look thin/120
> pounds, when she's actually fat and 200 pounds. You are creating YOUR
> view of her, NOT an accurate representation like a photo would be.
>
> NON-photorealistic.
Excellent point.
Now here's why it's wrong:
You mixing "photorealistic" with "realistic representation". VERONICA MARS
is a FICTIONAL series about fictional characters from a fictional zip code
90909 (the closest is 90009 or 91909) but the series is "photorealistic" in
that the series look like photos tho it's NOT a "realistic representation"
of Kristen Bell, Enrico Colantoni, Teddy Dunn, Francis Capra, Percy Daggs
III, Jason Dohring, et. al. or Los Angeles.
"Photorealistic" is about whether an image looks like it could be photo, not
necessarily how well it represents reality. The visions of Johnny Smith has
on THE DEAD ZONE are "photorealistic" even tho they don't always accurately
represent the fictional reality of that universe (notably because Johnny is
tramping thru it or is taking the place of one of the characters within it
or the progress of time within the vision differs from normal time).
> Also thanks for answering my question about Veronica's theme song.
> It's too bad I did not watch the show's first season, but when I
> originally watched the pilot I thought, "Oh no. Just another teen
> soap," and quit.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153309554.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It would be nice if they simply remembered the Prosecution / Plaintiff
always began the trial with the first of the opening statements while the
Defendant always ends with the final closing statements (excluding waivers
and rebuttals and opening motions).
Maybe some British show is realistic and maybe 100 CENTRE STREET which was
on A&E came close or the 4-episode THE D.A. in which the D.A. "never tried a
case" because he always got the defendent to settle the case.
-- Ken from Chicago
jayembee
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the
>>> resolution is low, but it can be quite realistic.
>>
>> You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
>> word means what you think it means.
>
> Take most of Monet's paintings, and scale them down to the point where
> the brush strokes vanish, and they start looking pretty realistic.
Sorry, Don, but that's one of the silliest arguments I've seen in a
while. When you "scale them down to the point where the brush strokes
vanish", you're removing one of the essential elements of Impressionism.
-- jayembee
jayembee
>> Some Impressionists did work that can be described as photorealistic.
>> Mary Cassat's, for example, and some of Degas'. But the majority of
>> the work in that style isn't, in any way, shape, or form.
>>
>> -- jayembee
>
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=french%20impressionism&sa=N&tab
> =wi
I fail to see what that link is meant to prove. Most of the works shown
on that page don't appear to be photo-realistic (unless you want to make
the argument that they look like blurred photos).
-- jayembee
jayembee
> Has ANY legal show or movie shown true realism, the way things
> truly are?
No. For the same reason that cop dramas are never realistic. The fact
is that 98% of court cases -- like 98% of police work -- is boring
shit. Although in the realm of cop dramas, THE WIRE actually comes
close in showing how tedious and methodical detective work can be.
-- jayembee
record hunter
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> You mixing "photorealistic" with "realistic representation". VERONICA MARS
> is a FICTIONAL series about fictional characters from a fictional zip code
> 90909 (the closest is 90009 or 91909) but the series is "photorealistic" in
> that the series look like photos tho it's NOT a "realistic representation"
> of Kristen Bell, Enrico Colantoni, Teddy Dunn, Francis Capra, Percy Daggs
> III, Jason Dohring, et. al. or Los Angeles.
>
Neptune isn't supposed to represent LA, but rather San Diego. 92109 is
the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, right next to La Jolla. I
don't know how fabulous PB is, but La Jolla's certainly one of the
nicest places on earth.
Ian?
Don Sample
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer it
looked unreal.
Take a look at any of the thumbnails at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism>. They all look like
realistic paintings. It is only when you scale them up that the
"essential element" becomes apparent.
Don Sample
"video...@yahoo.com" <video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > The way I see it, the people who buy DVDs and those who download are
> > two distinct groups. DVD buyers are loyal fans. The downloaders are
> > most likely not fans at all but could become fans potentially. And
> > they aren't srealing the DVD sets, they're "stealing" the broadcast
> > version of the show, which were available for free in the first place.
>
> .
>
> BZZZZ. Wrong. The show was available *in exchange* for your watching
> of commercials. Your watching of commercials translates into dollars
> that are paid to the actors, writers, and staff.
>
> So NO it is not free. You exchanged your time for entertainment. You
> paid.
>
> .
>
> I guess in the future I need to be more specific. My over-the-antenna
> tv is not truly free. It does not cost me money-out-of-pocket, but it
> does cost me time... approximately 15 minutes an hour. I'm willing to
> give up that time in exchange for not spending cash.
You pay for the TV you watch with your cash too: every time you buy
something that was advertised on a TV show.
jayembee
> No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
> something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer
> it looked unreal.
Paintings aren't intended to be looked at from a distance. If you
look at most of Monet's paintings hanging on a museum wall, they
do not look photorealistic.
-- jayembee
Don Sample
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
But to get that effect, the artist had to deliberately set about to
create that effect. It isn't an accident; it is something that was
designed into the paintings.
jayembee
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
>>> something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer
>>> it looked unreal.
>>
>> Paintings aren't intended to be looked at from a distance. If you
>> look at most of Monet's paintings hanging on a museum wall, they
>> do not look photorealistic.
>
> But to get that effect, the artist had to deliberately set about to
> create that effect. It isn't an accident; it is something that was
> designed into the paintings.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to support the argument that they
are photorealistic when viewed at the distance that one would
normally view them.
It would take a considerable distance to make them look photorealistic.
I've seen "scaled-down" Monets. In fact, my desk calendar is of Monets
from Boston's MFA. The paintings are scaled down to about the size of
a postcard. They still do not look the least bit photorealistic.
-- jayembee
Anim8rFSK
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Okay, how are you and Brande adding little icons to your postings (in
your case what appears to be Peter Brady)?
Anim8rFSK
Like only listening to the parts where Rich Little says "and this is
what Frank Gorshin would sound like if he were the Lone Ranger" and not
listening to the actual impression itself.
Not that in LIttle's case it really sounds any different. :-)
Default User
Like a little grainy photo in the header? That would be an X-Face:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-face>
I have them turned off in my newsreader because they creep me out.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
video...@yahoo.com
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> <video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com>
> >> >
> >> > You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
> >> > word means what you think it means.
> >
>
> > painting your "impression" of what you see.... i.e. your feeling about
> > or for the object. Such as making your girlfriend look thin/120
> > pounds, when she's actually fat and 200 pounds. You are creating YOUR
> > view of her, NOT an accurate representation like a photo would be.
> >
> > NON-photorealistic.
>
>
>
> Excellent point. Now here's why it's wrong: You mixing "photorealistic"
.
I was not talking about Veronica. I was talking about Monet and other
Impressionist PAINTINGS which are >not< photo-realistic. (Neither are
expressionist paintings.) Go reread the quoted portions of this
message above, and you'll see that I was discussing PAINTINGS, not the
tv show.
In that context, my previous statement was accurate.
.
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153350660....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Excellent point.
Now here's why it's irrelevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
I was using VERONICA MARS as an example of how images need NOT be, to use
your previous statement, "an accurate representation" of reality, of real
people, places, things, events BUT can be "photorealistic". In the examples
of the images I linked to, those were just the first page images I googled,
but considered they were pretty photorealistic, I took it as an example of
how common they *can* be.
The catch of course is resolution. The resolution is so low, it approaches
pointillism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism
You have to step away from the picture an the various individual colors and
shade, mix and blur, much as you can't look at a magnified digital photo
lest the individual pixels become so enlarged as to stand out individually.
Look at Monet's work and you can see how his paintings look like they could
be photos, not close up, but from a distance:
Admittedly his "Impression" which led to the creation of the movement,
"Impressionism" is a bit more stylized, more like a picture of a sun in a
hazy sky, but even that's a stretch to prove my point.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Which was my point, they are photorealistic, but with very low resolution.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
The same is true of most jobs.
RESCUE ME and THE JOB follow the BARNEY MILLER, often cited by cops as most
realistic, in showing the lunacy that can arise to fill up the hours and
days of boredom between the seconds and minutes of excitement.
-- Ken from Chicago
jayembee
> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
>> I fail to see what that link is meant to prove. Most of the works
>> shown on that page don't appear to be photo-realistic (unless you
>> want to make the argument that they look like blurred photos).
>
> Which was my point, they are photorealistic, but with very low
> resolution.
That's not what people mean by "photorealistic".
-- jayembee
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
Most of the time when people say "photorealistic" to me, they mean "I
heard this term and I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking
about by throwing it out" -- usually in the bidding process.
James Gassaway
news:aeiqb2pug43hjuu52...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:27:01 GMT, jayembee
> <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>>"Locutus" <Dr...@Uni-MatrixOne.DeltaQuadrent> wrote:
>>
>>> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>>> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Where can I go to review a season 2 ploty summary?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want you can download the whole season.
>>>>
>>>> Or rent the DVDs when they come out next month.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> DLing is free
>>
>>ethical to pay the rightful owners for their work if that option
>>exists.
>
> People who aren't very interested in the show are unlikely to seek out
> the DVDs. OTOH if they download the episodes for free there's a chance
> they'll become sorely-needed viewers next season. And tell their
> friends. And keep the show going.
People who become interested after illegally downloading episodes are most
likely going to simply continue to illegally download more episodes.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
video...@yahoo.com
> > they'll become sorely-needed viewers next season.
>
> likely going to simply continue to illegally download more episodes.
.
Ding; ding; ding.
That fits my own observations of coworkers/friends who have tons of
illegally burmed dvds or tapes, and not even one legally-purchased
studio copy.
Their thought process is: "Why pay when I can steal it for free?"
.
video...@yahoo.com
> > Impressionist PAINTINGS which are >not< photo-realistic. (Neither are
> > expressionist paintings.) Go reread the quoted portions of this
> > message above, and you'll see that I was discussing PAINTINGS, not the
> > tv show.
> >
> > In that context, my previous statement was accurate.
>
>
> Excellent point. Now here's why it's irrelevant:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
> I was using VERONICA MARS as an example of how images need NOT be, to use
> your previous statement, "an accurate representation" of reality, of real
.
According to your wikipedia link, the term "impressionist" applies to
paintings, not photos or videos. Also according to that link, such
paintings use *visible brushstrokes* and other techniques that make
them look NOT realistic.
.
video...@yahoo.com
Don Sample wrote:
> "video...@yahoo.com" <video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess in the future I need to be more specific. My over-the-antenna
> > tv is not truly free. It does not cost me money-out-of-pocket, but it
> > willing to give up that time in exchange for not spending cash.
>
>
> You pay for the TV you watch with your cash too: every time you buy
> something that was advertised on a TV show.
.
True; my dad used to observe that sales of Coke would go up after a
major ad campaign on tv. And ditto for Pepsi.
I guess people are influenced by commercials. For myself though, I
don't think I've ever been influenced, because I'm anti-materialist; I
try not to buy anything preferring to keep my money in my pocket.
.
E Brown
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Smart-ass comment there. SHOW ME where I can watch Veronica Season one
>(legally and free), and I will. Answer: I cannot, because season one
>is over and done. Hence my questions.
>
It's on DVD. My local Blockbuster rents it.
epbrown
--
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus
2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black
Edward McArdle
"video...@yahoo.com" <video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except that many of those people are so concerned with downloading stuff
that they never have time to watch it!!
--
my URL,
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153380501.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
When did I say that VERONICA MARS was "impressionist"?
I was using VERONICA MARS as an example of how *images* need not be "an
accurate representation" of reality but still be "photorealistic"--to
counter your argument "impressionism" is not "photorealistic" because it is
not "an accurate representation" of reality. Whether an image is an
"accurate representation" of reality is a moot point as to whether said
image is "photorealistic". By definition, photos are "photorealistic" but
need not be "an accurate representation" of reality--which VERONICA MARS is,
a series of photos (at least 24 of them every second). The same goes for a
painting or drawing, etc.
Just for fun, are monochrome photos "photorealistic" and / or "an accurate
representation" of reality?
As for Impressionism using "visible brushstrokes", yeah, I said they can be
"photorealistic" but with "low resolution". A low resolution digital photo
has visible pixels or "jaggies" close up. However from a distance they are
... (say it with me) ... "photorealistic".
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
Notice the PICTURES shown. Some are quite photorealistic. Why, because they
are smaller than the actual size or "zoomed out", which is just another way
of saying they are shown from the perspective of someone look at said
pictures ... (drum roll please) ... "from a distance". I believe I've
repeated that ad nauseum. Don't make me repeat myself again. >=^>
Oh and another thing about the link about Impressionism:
"Content and composition
Before the Impressionists other painters, notably such 17th century Dutch
painters as Jan Steen, had focused on common subjects, but their approach to
composition was traditional. They arranged their compositions in such a way
that the main subject commanded the viewer's attention. The Impressionists
relaxed the boundary between subject and background so that the effect of an
Impressionist painting often resembles a snapshot, a part of a larger
reality captured as if by chance.[10] Photography was in fact gaining
popularity, and as cameras became more portable, photographs became more
candid. Photography inspired Impressionists to capture the moment, not only
in the fleeting lights of a landscape, but in the day-to-day lives of
people.
Another major infuence was Japanese art prints (Japonism), which had
originally come into the country as wrapping paper for imported goods. The
art of these prints contributed significantly to the "snapshot" angles and
unconventional compositions which are a characteristic of the movement.
Edgar Degas was both an avid photographer and a collector of Japanese
prints.[11] His The Dance Class (La classe de danse) of 1874 shows both
influences in its asymmetrical composition. The dancers are seemingly caught
off guard in various awkward poses, leaving an expanse of empty floor space
in the lower right quadrant"
KEY PHRASE: An Impressionist painting often resemples a snapshot.
'nuff said.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-2E82D...@news.west.cox.net...
I loved my old 1970s video game, Phong, unless it was hot, then we'd go out
onto the porch, out of the sun under some Gouraud shading, while laughing at
the squares, geeks and nurbs walking by with their Star Wars, Star Trek,
Buck Rogers toys. Good times.
-- Terminological Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
That's why I qualified it with the "low resolution", um, qualifier. If I'm
going to use a common phrase to mean something slightly different than
average, then it's my responsibility to make it clear.
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ANIM8Rfsk-2E82D...@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <Xns9805DBB56EA0Bj...@140.99.99.130>,
> > jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
> >> >> I fail to see what that link is meant to prove. Most of the works
> >> >> shown on that page don't appear to be photo-realistic (unless you
> >> >> want to make the argument that they look like blurred photos).
> >> >
> >> > Which was my point, they are photorealistic, but with very low
> >> > resolution.
> >>
> >> That's not what people mean by "photorealistic".
> >>
> >> -- jayembee
> >
> > Most of the time when people say "photorealistic" to me, they mean "I
> > heard this term and I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking
> > about by throwing it out" -- usually in the bidding process.
>
> I loved my old 1970s video game, Phong, unless it was hot, then we'd go out
> onto the porch, out of the sun under some Gouraud shading, while laughing at
> the squares, geeks and nurbs walking by with their Star Wars, Star Trek,
> Buck Rogers toys. Good times.
>
> -- Terminological Ken from Chicago
hee hee
trotsky
> In article <8eednchdUb4d7yLZ...@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-2E82D...@news.west.cox.net...
>>
>>>In article <Xns9805DBB56EA0Bj...@140.99.99.130>,
>>>jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>I fail to see what that link is meant to prove. Most of the works
>>>>>>shown on that page don't appear to be photo-realistic (unless you
>>>>>>want to make the argument that they look like blurred photos).
>>>>>
>>>>>Which was my point, they are photorealistic, but with very low
>>>>>resolution.
>>>>
>>>>That's not what people mean by "photorealistic".
>>>>
>>>>-- jayembee
>>>
>>>Most of the time when people say "photorealistic" to me, they mean "I
>>>heard this term and I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking
>>>about by throwing it out" -- usually in the bidding process.
>>
>>I loved my old 1970s video game, Phong,
Are you sure that wasn't a local Korean grocery store owner?
Liz
Anim8rFSK
"Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then it's not free if you're renting it. Liz
So videonovels should steal anything he can't get legally and free then?
That pretty much would be anything wouldn't it?
video...@yahoo.com
> "video...@yahoo.com" <video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > James Gassaway wrote:
> > >
> > > People who become interested after illegally downloading episodes
are most
> > > likely going to simply continue to illegally download more
episodes.
> >
> > .
> >
> > Ding; ding; ding.
> > That fits my own observations of coworkers/friends who have tons of
> > illegally burmed dvds or tapes, and not even one legally-purchased
> > studio copy. Their thought process is: "Why pay when I can steal it
for free?"
> >
> > .
>
> Except that many of those people are so concerned with downloading
> stuff that they never have time to watch it!!
.
Heh. Good point. Tons of burned dvds and never watched. Such a huge
waste of money (imho). That's one of the reasons I've become
anti-materialist. I had bookshelves filled with books and videos that
I had purchased and then they just collected dust. One day I thought,
"Why do I keep stuff I never use?", watched/read everything one last
time, and then sold it on Ebay for cash.
I then used the cash to buy S&P500 stocks; a much, much better
investment, because they are growing rapidly in value.
.
Last year I was living in a hotel with a 1200 kilobits/second
connection, so I decided to download ALL of doctor who from episode 1
to episode ~5000 (or whatever). After I had Doctor #1, Hartnell, I
started watching all his episodes every spare minute I had.
Unfortunately, Doctors 2-7 were still downloading in the background, 24
hours a day/7 days a week. Then suddenly I got a "out of disk space"
error. Now I had started with 150 gigabytes free, so that's a LOT of
data I downloaded!
I later went back and calculated I was downloading at the rate of *3
hours* for every hour of internet connection..... literally downloading
faster than I could watch it!
.
(Aside- Just in case someone questions my "theft" of the Doctor, most
of the episodes I downloaded are not available on BBC dvd. I was
watching reconstructed episodes created by the fans, for the fans.)
(And also I don't really like the Doctor. When I finished my 7-doctor
marathon, I had only written down ~20 stories that I liked over the
whole ~30 year lifespan. I wouldn't collect the Old Doctor dvds, even
if you gave them to me for free. Just not my type of show.)
(I did buy the New Doctor's season 1 on dvd. That's more to my
liking.)
.
David
More likely they'll start watching the show live, and "Mars" needs all
the viewers it can get.
Liz
could Season 1 of VM be seen legally and free? The answered received
was to rent Season 1. That's not free. I made no judgment, expressed
no opinion - just pointed out the flaw.... Liz
Anim8rFSK
"Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope, not saying that. All I'm saying is that the question was where
> could Season 1 of VM be seen legally and free? The answered received
> was to rent Season 1. That's not free. I made no judgment, expressed
> no opinion - just pointed out the flaw.... Liz
>
sorry, that was really directed at videonovels, just shot through you.
this was before I realized videonovels is just troy, trolling, and
killfiled him.
James Gassaway
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
"Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153402300.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
lizards...@hotmail.com
check out
Mark Bolding
at:
Unbelievable
check out
Mark Bolding
at:
Unbelievable
check out
Mark Bolding
at:
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-822C0...@news.west.cox.net>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <i2oqb29ohqj9tasah...@4ax.com>,
> > William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In fact, in one book, Mason establishes his client's innocence with a
> > > dramatic courtroom reveal, and it isn't clearly established which one of
> > > two conspirators did the murder. In the office afterwards, Drake asks him
> > > which one, and he answers that that's Burger's problem and he's welcome to
> > > it. (the dramatic reveal is that the person his client is accused of
> > > murdering wasn't actually the murder victim).
> >
> > um
> >
> > huh?
>
> I haven't read that story, but I can imagine a few scenarios where
> something like that could happen.
>
> One would be to kill someone, and mutilate the corpse enough to make
> identification difficult, and then plant evidence that makes it look
> like someone else's corpse. This could be done for a variety of
> reasons. One would be to deflect suspicion away from yourself for the
> crime. Another would be if you wanted to disappear, and not have anyone
> looking for you.
>
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Ken from Chicago
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:wkLvg.1089852$xm3.220888@attbi_s21...
No, you're thinking of Tang. Phong was the first home video game (well, that
and flip flop sandals).
-- Ken from Chicago
Giles
Ken from Chicago wrote:
[regarding abusing the term photorealistic]
>
> That's why I qualified it with the "low resolution", um, qualifier. If I'm
> going to use a common phrase to mean something slightly different than
> average, then it's my responsibility to make it clear.
>
photographs didn't really have resolution when the term photorealistic
was coined.
You would, of course, sound silly. Such is the eternal risk of the
neologismist.
-Giles
video...@yahoo.com
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> "Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><videonov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> SHOW ME where I can watch Veronica Season
>>> one (legally and free), and I will. Answer: I cannot,
>>> because season one is over and done.
>
>
>
>
> > could Season 1 of VM be seen legally and free? The answered received
> > was to rent Season 1. That's not free. I made no judgment, expressed
> > no opinion - just pointed out the flaw.... Liz
> >
> sorry, that was really directed at videonovels, just shot through you.
> this was before I realized videonovels is just troy, trolling, and
> killfiled him.
> >
> > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > So videonovels should steal anything he can't get legally and free then?
> > > That pretty much would be anything wouldn't it?
.
(1) Your question makes no sense. You already know I'm anti-theft of
videos.
(2) The question appears to be directed at someone other than me.
(3) The only person acting like a troll is you animator. You're going
around and throwing insults all over the place & displaying a severe
lack of manner. Rather ironic.
(4) BE the example you think I should be. In other words, no insults.
.
Ken from Chicago
"Giles" <gbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1153448112....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No way. I'm far too stuffy to ever sound silly online.
-- Ken from Chicago
jayembee
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> "Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>><videonov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SHOW ME where I can watch Veronica Season
>>>> one (legally and free), and I will. Answer: I cannot,
>>>> because season one is over and done.
>>
>>> Nope, not saying that. All I'm saying is that the question was
>>> where could Season 1 of VM be seen legally and free? The answered
>>> received was to rent Season 1. That's not free. I made no
>>> judgment, expressed no opinion - just pointed out the flaw....Liz
>>>
>> sorry, that was really directed at videonovels, just shot through
>> you. this was before I realized videonovels is just troy, trolling,
>> and killfiled him.
>>>
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> So videonovels should steal anything he can't get legally and
>>>> free then? That pretty much would be anything wouldn't it?
>
> (1) Your question makes no sense. You already know I'm anti-theft
> of videos.
Yes, he knows that. The question makes perfect sense, because he's
inquiring if the *other* person believes you should steal. But
something got trimmed along the way.
> (2) The question appears to be directed at someone other than me.
It is, but as I said, something got trimmed along the way.
-- jayembee
video...@yahoo.com
> > > > Answer: I cannot, because season one is over and done.
> > > >
>
>
>
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> "Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then it's not free if you're renting it. Liz
>
> So videonovels should steal anything he can't get legally and free then?
> That pretty much would be anything wouldn't it?
.
That was NOT what Liz what saying Anim. Liza whas not advocating
stealing; she was correcting E.Brown's proposal that I rent the dvd
(because it's not free).
.
As it turned out, I decided to download it from ipodnova.net.
Yeah; yeah; it's stealing. But let's be frank. I did NOT enjoy Season
2. And there's no reason to think I will enjoy Season 1 either. It's
kinda silly to spend money on something, I already know in advance, I
won't enjoy. (Just as I did not waste money on the drek called
Andromeda.)
Of course I might be surprised.
I might enjoy season 1. In which case I'll go buy the DVD to alieve my
guilt.
.
video...@yahoo.com
> The question makes perfect sense, because he's inquiring
> if the *other* person believes you should steal.
> But something got trimmed along the way.
.
thanks for clarifying. I've gone back & reconstructed the
conversation:
.
> > E Brown wrote:
> > > On 19 Jul 2006 04:35:56 -0700, "video...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > where can watch Veronica Season one(legally and free) ?
> > > > Answer: I cannot, because season one is over and done.
> > > >
> > > It's on DVD. My local Blockbuster rents it.
>
>
>
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> "Liz" <lizgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then it's not free if you're renting it. Liz
>
> So videonovels should steal anything he can't get legally and free then?
> That pretty much would be anything wouldn't it?
.
That was NOT what Liz what saying Anim. Liz was not advocating
stealing; she was correcting E.Brown's proposal that I rent the dvd
(because it's not free).
.
As it turned out, I decided to download it from ipodnova.net.
Yeah; yeah; it's stealing. But let's be frank. I did NOT enjoy Season
2. And there's no reason to think I will enjoy Season 1 either. It's
kinda silly to spend money on something, I already know in advance, I
won't enjoy. (Just as I did not waste money on the drek called
Andromeda.)
Of course I might be surprised.
I might enjoy season 1. In which case I'll go buy the DVD to alieve my
guilt & all will be right in the world.
.
Rob Jensen
<jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Since when is French Impressionism non-photorealistic? Maybe the
>> resolution is low, but it can be quite realistic.
>
>You consider Monet's work to be photorealistic? I don't think that
>word means what you think it means.
>
>Some Impressionists did work that can be described as photorealistic.
>Mary Cassat's, for example, and some of Degas'.
I would argue that those artists either weren't Impressionists or
weren't working in their normal Impressionist forms/modes for
particular paintings or eras of their own work. The work of Chagall,
for instance, was pretty much what I'd characterize as
proto-Surrealism rather than Impressionism
>But the majority of
>the work in that style isn't, in any way, shape, or form.
More specifically, French Impressionism was a direct and explict
reaction against/rejection of on the one hand the
naturalism/"photorealism" of the Neoclassic movement of the first half
of the 19th century and of the hypermelodramatic offshoot of
Neoclassicism, Romanticism (aka The Pre-Raphaelites) on the other.
What French Impressionism was was realistic about the effects of light
and the absence of light on color -- but that's not even remotely the
same as photorealism and, moreover, it's so far from realism that it
ultimately led to both Abstract Impressionism and Surrealism.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
Rob Jensen
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> You mixing "photorealistic" with "realistic representation". VERONICA MARS
>> is a FICTIONAL series about fictional characters from a fictional zip code
>> 90909 (the closest is 90009 or 91909) but the series is "photorealistic" in
>> that the series look like photos tho it's NOT a "realistic representation"
>> of Kristen Bell, Enrico Colantoni, Teddy Dunn, Francis Capra, Percy Daggs
>> III, Jason Dohring, et. al. or Los Angeles.
>>
>
>Neptune isn't supposed to represent LA, but rather San Diego. 92109 is
>the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, right next to La Jolla. I
>don't know how fabulous PB is, but La Jolla's certainly one of the
>nicest places on earth.
La Jolla is one of the most *expensive* places on earth.
Okay, top 50 in ratio of cost to not being worth it, at the very
least. But hey, when gas in the area is around $1 a gallon more than
it is in Central MO, I have a right to sneer and gloat at how much La
Jollans are getting ripped off for the overrated view, especially when
one can get ripped off for far less money elsewhere in the tragically
overpriced San Diego County area.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
>something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer it
>looked unreal.
You're talking specifically about Monet's chose mode of Pointilism,
which is only *one* subgenre of Impressionism. Many other
modes/subgenres of Impressionism do NOT include this trick of the eye
as a formal rule.
Rob Jensen
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> <video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > I was not talking about Veronica. I was talking about Monet and other
>> > Impressionist PAINTINGS which are >not< photo-realistic. (Neither are
>> > expressionist paintings.) Go reread the quoted portions of this
>> > message above, and you'll see that I was discussing PAINTINGS, not the
>> > tv show.
>> >
>> > In that context, my previous statement was accurate.
>>
>>
>> Excellent point. Now here's why it's irrelevant:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
>> I was using VERONICA MARS as an example of how images need NOT be, to use
>> your previous statement, "an accurate representation" of reality, of real
>> people, places, things, events BUT can be "photorealistic".....
>
>.
>
>According to your wikipedia link, the term "impressionist" applies to
>paintings, not photos or videos. Also according to that link, such
>paintings use *visible brushstrokes* and other techniques that make
>them look NOT realistic.
Actually, there was an Impressionistic movement in Movies/TV/Theater,
too, so wikipedia needs some serious updating by people who know what
the fuck they're talking about. In the motion picture world, the
minimalist Koyaanisquatsi is arguably Abstract Impressionism (as are
many of the brief interstitial cartoons on Sesame Street). Likewise,
I would argue that Robert Altman's entire oeuvre is entirely
Impressionistic in the way he observes environments and group
dynamics, using overlapping dialogue in the same way that Monet used
colored dots.
Rob Jensen
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>KEY PHRASE: An Impressionist painting often resemples a snapshot.
Except that it generally doesn't. It gives by definition the
*impression* of a moment frozen in time in order to isolate the
*impression* of what light feels like or color feels like or movement
feels like, etc. Any resemblance between an Impressionistic painting
and a snapshot depended on how succesfully the given Impressionist was
able to reject the formalistic rules of classical/neoclassical art.
The closer the painter got to "realism" or a "snapshot" (the trickery
of Pointilism aside), the more likely it was considered a failure or
seen as proto-Impressionism (epecially the earlier the work was
painted) or as another genre entirely.
Don Sample
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:50:51 -0400, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net>
> wrote:
>
> >No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
> >something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer it
> >looked unreal.
>
> You're talking specifically about Monet's chose mode of Pointilism,
> which is only *one* subgenre of Impressionism. Many other
> modes/subgenres of Impressionism do NOT include this trick of the eye
> as a formal rule.
>
> -- Rob
Monet generally didn't use pointillism.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>In article <cjgkc292p4q361riu...@4ax.com>,
> Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:50:51 -0400, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >No. One of the essential elements of impressionism was to create
>> >something that looked real, from a distance, but when you got closer it
>> >looked unreal.
>>
>> You're talking specifically about Monet's chose mode of Pointilism,
>> which is only *one* subgenre of Impressionism. Many other
>> modes/subgenres of Impressionism do NOT include this trick of the eye
>> as a formal rule.
>>
>
>Monet generally didn't use pointillism.
Monet, Seurat, whatevah. 8^p