We are not discussing The Martian - Scott substituted a mechanical engineer for a fucking botanist.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
I loved Gladiator 2. Strength and honor.
as a piece of film-making it is far better than fucking napoleon. talk about historical abuse. nobody cares the dull mechanical engineer got swapped out.Dilbert_X wrote:
We are not discussing The Martian - Scott substituted a mechanical engineer for a fucking botanist.
If you'd actually, you know, read the book you'd know that the main character being an engineer was central to the story.
The Martian was as dumb as a Jesus film would have been if Mary had been changed to a man.
I think the problem with the latest round of Ridley Scott films is they have a gaping hole where the story-telling should have been.
A bit unfortunate to blow half a billion dollars in total and forget that.
The Martian was as dumb as a Jesus film would have been if Mary had been changed to a man.
I think the problem with the latest round of Ridley Scott films is they have a gaping hole where the story-telling should have been.
A bit unfortunate to blow half a billion dollars in total and forget that.
Fuck Israel
i'm too busy reading actual books to pay attention to silly virgin cuck fantasies about rugged STEM survivalists on mars or whatever.
i meant as a piece of film making it was at least well put together. as for 'read the book'ism, the napoleon and gladiator movies aren't exactly by the book as far as their historical content is concerned, either.
i meant as a piece of film making it was at least well put together. as for 'read the book'ism, the napoleon and gladiator movies aren't exactly by the book as far as their historical content is concerned, either.
The point is there are no rugged botanist survivalists, it made the whole thing ridiculous.
They were all well put together, with a gaping hole in the middle.
They were all well put together, with a gaping hole in the middle.
Fuck Israel
the original book relies on plenty of ridiculous scientific premises to set up its drama and plot points. story-telling is a different beast to hard science, dilbert. a physics textbook is 'well put together' but it doesn't make for great narrative.
Wait a minute, I thought you hadn't read it?uziq wrote:
the original book relies on plenty of ridiculous scientific premises to set up its drama and plot points.
"Andy Weir, the son of a particle physicist and electrical engineer, has a background in computer science. He began writing the book in 2009, researching related material so that it would be as realistic as possible and based on existing technology."
"The Martian was published in print by Crown on February 11, 2014. There are significant textual changes between Weir's original self-published version and the Crown edition: profanity was reduced, spelling and grammatical errors were fixed, there were many minor stylistic changes, scientific errors were corrected, and a 263-word epilogue removed."
From what I remember he got NASA to check some of it.
Ridley Scott is 87, he's lost his way a bit, why is this a big deal?
Fuck Israel
lmao dilbert finally acknowledging the work i do so that he can defend sci-fi writing. priceless. but i thought editors were uncreative pedants?
the book relies on things like storms on mars to up the ante and sense of danger a bit. there are no threatening gales on mars, dilbert. it has an atmosphere thinner than your hairline. it’s not ‘bad’ science per se but it’s just obviously trying to inflate a sense of drama to give the story more urgency and sense of impending risk. that’s fine. story-telling has different requirements to computer science. it’s not an insult to the book - i’m criticising your dunderheaded conception about ‘mug HARDDD sci-fi! i have a MSc don’t know!’
https://x.com/petreraleigh/status/18629 … 7OKnIcMVqg
back to ridley, a lot of the general film chatter around his films say much the same thing. the best thing you can say about him thesedays is he delivers his inane projects on/ahead of time and on/under budget. inspirational stuff. truly an engineer’s director. and yeah, he’s 87 … which is exactly why i said he should have retired a decade ago. gladiator ii is slop. we dont need it.
the book relies on things like storms on mars to up the ante and sense of danger a bit. there are no threatening gales on mars, dilbert. it has an atmosphere thinner than your hairline. it’s not ‘bad’ science per se but it’s just obviously trying to inflate a sense of drama to give the story more urgency and sense of impending risk. that’s fine. story-telling has different requirements to computer science. it’s not an insult to the book - i’m criticising your dunderheaded conception about ‘mug HARDDD sci-fi! i have a MSc don’t know!’
https://x.com/petreraleigh/status/18629 … 7OKnIcMVqg
back to ridley, a lot of the general film chatter around his films say much the same thing. the best thing you can say about him thesedays is he delivers his inane projects on/ahead of time and on/under budget. inspirational stuff. truly an engineer’s director. and yeah, he’s 87 … which is exactly why i said he should have retired a decade ago. gladiator ii is slop. we dont need it.
Last edited by uziq (2024-11-30 21:44:59)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
I appreciate how fast paced Gladiator 2 was. Scott quickly moved from action set piece to action set piece and that was a smart move.
People complained that "we didn't get time to know this character" and "the movie didn't make me invested in this character." And that is a good thing. No one has the mental energy to get invested in any of this bullshit anymore. We just wanted to see people get smoked in the coliseum
People complained that "we didn't get time to know this character" and "the movie didn't make me invested in this character." And that is a good thing. No one has the mental energy to get invested in any of this bullshit anymore. We just wanted to see people get smoked in the coliseum