I thought it was shite, but I might be in the minority.
I mean... *SPOILER ALERT* ...nothing fucking happens, does it?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I thought it was very good.
I usually like Christopher Nolan's stuff and wasn't disappointed.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: in the minority
Yes. It was easy to follow while it was happening, with enough questions left at the end to keep you thinking over the next couple of days. It was intelligent, funny, action-packed, had pretty-looking people in it, played by some jolly good actors, was well directed, looked spectacular and will probably be up for some Oscars. What do you want from a movie?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: What do you want from a movie?
Originality really. What happens in this film is that a scenario is put in place and then populated with exactly the same characters, special effects, CGI and cliches as pretty much any other blockbuster movie you can think of, but without any tension whatsoever. They had to use nearly an hour of pounding dramatic music to create that illusion. The music just went on and on. God knows what deaf people make of it. They wouldn't have a clue that anything dramatic was meant to be happening.
It was impossible to feel sympathy for any of the characters. Were we supposed to feel sorry for di Caprio's character, trying to get back to his children, or to thoroughly dislike him for helping a greedy multi-billionaire to destroy his competitor's company? Why did the girl architecture student quite cheerfully join in with all this corruption? Why was lovely old professor Michael Caine quite happy to get her involved in the first place?
The whole thing is just idiotic and falls to pieces as soon as you think about any part of it.
What it does do is makes you sit in a cinema for 2.5hrs trying to concentrate on what's happening, and that alone is attracting a lot of people to this film. Which is just sad. When you take away the challenge of thinking, you're left with total blandness on the screen. It's interesting that people are talking about going to see this film a few times so they can really "get it". That's going to really quickly become a horrible nightmare. Although I was actually craving a horrible nightmare by the time I got to the end of the film, just to cheer me up a bit.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I was going to watch this earlier this week but we went to see Toy Story 3 instead, which I really can't recommend enough.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Did you cry?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
no, but I did get a lump in my throat. If I was any less a red blooded alpha male type, I could definitely have blubbed.
At the end of the film, everyone applauded and cheered.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: no, but I did get a lump in my throat
You should probably get a doctor to check that out. Hope it's nothing to serious m9
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove:
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: no, but I did get a lump in my throat
You should probably get a doctor to check that out. Hope it's nothing to serious m9
Probly sum cinema hot dog, LOL!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
. E not to post as Thorn
[ 23.07.2010, 13:05: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: a lot of words I entirely disagree with
though. I want to come back and explain why I liked it so much but haven't got time right now because I have to cook Thorn's supper.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Well, I fucking loved it. I was totally entranced the whole way through, didn't want to take my eyes off the screen for a moment to find the bottle of massively overpriced juice that I'd knocked off my lap onto the floor of the cinema, and was worried about needing to take a slash at some point because of the large glass of coca cola I'd had in the Nandos before the movie (it's ok, my bladder performed well).
I can see how if you don't accept the central conceit of the film you may not enjoy it, after the movie I was thinking "but would that really work like that?" but I bought into it at the time and found Christopher Nolans vision of the subconscious mind fascinating.
I was surprised at how 'hollywood' he went with the effects, you can see this is a big budget film and I was grateful that I made the effort to go to the cinema to experience it. The music made me want to check out the end credits to find out who was responsible for it - but in a good way (Hans Zimmer FYI).
I don't want to talk about anything that may spoil the film for others, and I find it hard to do film reviews without dropping in key scenes from the film so I'll leave it there.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:What happens in this film is that a scenario is put in place and then populated with exactly the same characters, special effects, CGI and cliches as pretty much any other blockbuster movie you can think of, but without any tension whatsoever.
Is this entirely fair? The CGI was quite sparsely used - and for things that really couldn't be done in any other way. Things like Paris folding up over itself didn't seem familiar from other films. Certainly not in the same league as 'creature-roars-into-camera-with-wobbling-shops-and-flecks-of-spittle' that seems to be in every trailer for a CGI blockbuster. Other non-cgi FX like the gravity shifting round the corridor didn't seem familiar at all and were freakin' awesome.
I'm in two minds about whether you could describe it as cliched. It did rely a lot on the structure of a heist movie, but this seemed more like a twist on a genre than just a redeployment of cliches. The fact that all this was set in a dream-world with its own rules elevated it from the realm of cliche, for me - the use of genre conventions seemed like a canny way of making the film easy to navigate for the viewer, rather than lazy film-making.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I've had a think about this over the weekend, and also listened to the Kermode and Mayo podcast and the emails from their listeners.
Inception is obviously a massively popular film which is having a mindblowing effect on a lot of people. I mean, many of them are describing it as the greatest film they've ever seen (and they've watched it twice or more already in a lot of cases), and comparing the final scene to the perfection of Citizen Kane (which I've never watched, oops).
So, my conclusion is that I should just shut up really. I mean, the 5Live programme did have comments from a couple of listeners which were very similar to mine, so there are a few of us who are seeing the emperor with no clothes on. But if most people are loving it then it must be us who are missing the... wonder of it all, I suppose.
If I persist in picking holes in such a popular movie then I'm just going to be irritating (more irritating, that is), so I'll zip it.
Inception did make me think slightly differently about a story I'm sort of playing about with myself at the moment. At first I was thinking, man, I've got to make this more complicated. Now I'm thinking, don't be so ridiculous. But be prepared for a wave of wilfully awkward film storylines as script writers desperately try to give people the frisson of just about managing to understand something a bit difficult. Like I got when I answered a question off of University Challenge once.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
To answer one of your questions.
Why was lovely old professor Michael Caine quite happy to get her involved in the first place?
Cobb said The Architect was only meant to design the levels and teach them to the dreamers, that's all. The professor is the grandfather of Cobb's children so he has a vested interest in getting Cobb back with his kids. Cobb uses this to convince him to help, along with "you remember, the chance to build cathedrals, entire cities, things that couldn't have exist in the real world" etc. Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
...and why she ended up going in - think it was to protect the others from cobbs fucked up subconscious and his projection of his wife right?
Interestingly I just watched Nolan's first film "Following" a super low budget affair ($6000 apparently) and the thief in that is also called Cobb
[ 26.07.2010, 07:21: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
That last post was brought to you by steelgate.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I just checked the name next to the last post and it was actually by Tilde and not by Steelgate.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I was thinking of changing my faceberk profile to something like "Turned out not to be 'Love' but just some stupid crush, instead" but decided against it on the grounds that it was insensistive, and that also people might not get it. Also, I the chance that one of my 'friends' that I added just because their name rang a bell or something might know someone who died there. What do you all reckon?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
We all reckon you should do it.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I have no idea what it means
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
When you balance the statistical likelihood of someone you know knowing someone who got killed in the crush against how likely someone you know is to get the joke, the chances of offending someone in your group of facebook friends is low. So I say go for it.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
There's a good opportunity for a venn diagram there if anyone wants it.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: I have no idea what it means
Thorn is trying to assess the potential amusement of making a joke about the recent deaths of 19 people at the Love Parade in Germany on his Facebook profile, when it may turn out that one of his "friends" knows someone who died there.
Statistically, it's orders of magnitude safer than making a cancer joke.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: There's a good opportunity for a venn diagram there if anyone wants it.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Ah. Actually I do know what you're talking about. I thought it was something to do with the film.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
No, I just chucked it in here because it was the active thread. Sorry. Sorry everyone.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Cherry, have you still not been to the cinema since Dodgeball? I remember you mentioning this a while back. I was wondering whether something awful happened (apart from the same awful thing that happened to everyone who watched Dodgeball) which meant you just couldn't bring yourself to go back.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I don't think I have. Unless the first LOTR came out after dodgeball which I don't think it did. So still Dodgeball is probably the last film I saw at the cinema.
Nothing bad happened, I just don't find the cinema the best way to be entertained. It's alright but I'd rather go to the pub.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
When I went to see Inception, there was a group of american teenagers at the front who kept doing stupid laughing (based on the Toy Story 3 ad that ran before the film) and making stupid noises throughout. It was never quite enough that it seemed to warrant yelling "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" across the cinema, but it was enough to be distracting. I saw them again outside, and one of them was saying "That was so funny I think I was laughing the loudest or some such" and one said "yeah, that was great", and I thought "fuck this" and said "It was really fucking irritating - you ruined the film for a lot of people sitting behind you." The look on their faces was priceless. They looked gutted. A brilliant, brilliant moment. So that's something you don't get in the pub - the opportunity to righteously bully 14-year-old Americans.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Anyone seen a "Wait, whose subconscious are we going into exactly?" t-shirt yet? There must be geek millions to be made in flogging those down the market.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
God. What sort of teenagers would go to the cinema and then talk loads.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Soz dang. You're well wrong:
It was impossible to feel sympathy for any of the characters. Were we supposed to feel sorry for di Caprio's character, trying to get back to his children, or to thoroughly dislike him for helping a greedy multi-billionaire to destroy his competitor's company?
What? WHAT?! The idea of dream control is so deeply tragic that we learn that anyone who gets involved with is has a midas touch effect. The more you want to inhabit the dream world, the less you actually dream. Anyone touched by the technology is ultimately a slave to it. It's such a tantalising prospect, but something that ultimately leads to something you are compelled to do. We should really hate Cobb for getting Ariadne involved, but he knows the lure of the technology is enough. She leaves when she finds out about it....and then returns. It's also a bit of a trick on the audience because Ariadne's character is our own pursuit of knowledge, she's asking the questions the audience ask as they are confused by the intro.
It's not just a corporate feud, when you consider their next move that Fischers company will make will make the company a global superpower. Saito has his architect murdered simply for being a turncoat, he could of easily had Cobb offed, but he needs him to do it. He knows the threat of death will get him nowhere, but the threat of allowing him to see his kids again?
As Tilde says, Cobb's Father introduced his son to it and clearly doesn't blame his son for Mal's death (unlike say, his own Mother)
The film doesn't even have to go into the apparent existentialist side of it. I like the 'are we still dreaming' aspect of it, but I like to think the ending is a kind of in-joke, a nod to the existentialist nature of films like Shutter Island and Existenz et al. To ask if Cobb is in Limbo, another layer above below or awake. It's a cheeky move, but in the context of the film, a total get-out clause. The main most important driving point of the film is a small but subtle point: can you plant an idea into another persons mind? Cobb dreams of his childrens faces, but he can never see them, so he has to wake up to reality, he has to let go of his memories of Mal, or 'je ne regrette rien' to see his kids again.
I rarely say this, but the pacing, acting, style and effects are hardly over the top. They serve the purpose. The multiple kicks are like one giant cresendo, answering the question 'can you place a thought into another mans mind' - it's fantastic. Bricks got shat. Minds got blown. Ellen Page went in the diddy wank-bank. I ...don't know what else to say.
[ 27.07.2010, 05:15: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: No, I just chucked it in here because it was the active thread. Sorry. Sorry everyone.
In the Good Old Days that would've been a six page thread all by itself.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: In the Good Old Days that would've been a six page thread all by itself.
Now all it gets it me Not Liking it on faecebook.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Now all it gets it me Not Liking it on faecebook.
Bringing the threads of this thread together coincidentally, there was a trailer shown before Inception for a new film which is coming out telling the story of how they made Facebook. A movie about web developers! All my dreams have come true. Any of you guys had movies made featuring your profession? Apart from Brigit Jones's Diary, I mean. Or Kindergarten Cop.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Whenever I see a movie about the publishing industry it makes me feel like Lionel Hutz watching LA Law: "Oh yeah, like lawyers have secretaries and offices and wear pants. That's Hollywood for you." Perhaps somewhere in London or New York there are publishing houses with glittering offices, populated by glamourous women in designer glasses and eccentric, gifted writers, but of the half dozen I've been to (including the one I work in) they've all been dilapidated Victorian houses with horrible carpets, filled with 6 year old books with unsellable titles and populated by smelly nerds wearing clothes that they bought when they were still a student.
Back when I was a journalist one film I really liked was Almost Famous. Obviously the mundane world of 70s music journalism was a world away from the glamour and hedonism of technology writing, but the thing it captured really well was that sense of shattering fatigue and hopeless How the hell am I going to get an article out of this that arises when you're off on a junket and the otherworldliness of it all is periodically shattered by the man who's paying you ringing up and demanding that work be done.
[ 27.07.2010, 05:00: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
With graphic design - although it's one of those job titles that would probably get an ooooohhhh from the punch-drunk collective of unemployables in the seminal 80s stereotype-fest that was Blind Date. The actual reality of the working environment of most graphic designers is so mundane. Nowadays it's usually a few people dressed in jeans, trainers and t-shirts with logos on them, sat in front of an 24" imac, staring intently at the screen whilst repeatedly moving their mighty mouses, sighing when the scroll ball jams, then pressing the key command cmd z, Noticing that the keyboard is covered in biscuit crumbs and a worrying collection of hairs from their receeding hairlines.
There's very little drama to be had here, I've often mentioned it and we've all had a good laugh about it. Sometimes we watch a video on youtube.
The only times I can recall a graphic designer portrayed in film is watching the gay guy from Eastenders "Colin". Grey-haired sexual predator of the terminally confused "Barry".
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Does Sal from Mad Men count as a graphic designer? He uses brushes and paints, which is what Photoshop was called back in the fifties, but it's mainly the same job I think.
I'm sure 'graphic designer' is one of those jobs that quite often crops up in romantic comedies n the grounds that you can use it to suggest your lead has a creative streak, earning power is indistinct so no-one in the audience is quite certain that the character can/cannot afford the lovely studio flat they live in, and it's often freelance, which - in the movies - makes it easy for you to ditch your work for a walk in the park/ hurried trip to the airport to beg for a final blowjob etc.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: and it's often freelance, which - in the movies - makes it easy for you to ditch your work for a walk in the park/ hurried trip to the airport to beg for a final blowjob etc.
If there's going to be any sort of realism in this Facebook movie then it will have to have a web developer making a huried trip to the airport to beg for his first blowjob. Then going home again without one.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
And spelling hurried wrong.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
There's quite a few illustrators, artists and comic book scribblers. The woman that Hugh Grant gets with in About a Boy, Steve Gutenburg in the now slightly wrong-titled Three Men and a Little Lady, Jason Lee in Chasing Amy. It's all about the romance of having brushes, pens, paper and fuck off big drawing boards. Whereas design today is more like dress down friday in the I.T. department.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Didn't Michael Caine play the role of Ringo in one film? Educating Rita? How accurate was that?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Is anyone here a detective? they'd be spoilt for choice.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
They did make a movie about me in 1989 called Gleaming the Cube but it wasn't work related Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I dunno, I think there are some films out there which portray the IT support industry in a fairly accurate way, like Hackers and Tron.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
and The Matrix
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Now you're just being silly
Speaking on Tron... anyone excited?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I'm quite excited as I have tomorrow, Friday and Monday off work but none of that is related to Tron.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Not got Thursday off?
I am excited for Tron related reasons, although I do feel as though it's almost certainly going to be a disappointment.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've got to write a best man's speech between now and Friday. It's really hard, isn't it? It's like writing a stand-up routine, basically.
I also have an actual proper photoshoot this afternoon which I am already convinced I will fuck up good and royally.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
No, not Thursday.
I've got tomorrow off as it's Kate's birthday and I'm moving house over the weekend so booked Friday off as a moving day and Monday off as a Summer day so I get three days of but only use one days holiday. Hoorah.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I don't think I'm likely to see the new Tron before it comes on TV so no I'm not very excited about it yet as I probably won't see it for several years.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I dunno, I think there are some films out there which portray the IT support industry in a fairly accurate way, like Hackers and Tron.
Die Hard 4.0, also.
I'm not excited about Tron: Legacy in the slightest. I literally couldn't give two shits. If the head of Disney rang me up and said "for two of your shits you can go and see tron, in 3d, at the Imax", I'd say "Eisner," I'd say, "I couldn't give two shits about your stupid film and please stop calling me on my home number".
I was reading an article this morning about the marketing for Tron: Legacy, which was arguing that it was the most hyped film of all time or somesuch. The "controlled burn" (as marketing people who should never be allowed to speak ever put it) has been going on for three years now, apparently. I'm really suprised - I thought Tron was regarded as a bit naff, and a bit of a cult thing. I'm really suprised that this thing has been selected to be the recipient of the full and total support of the almighty Disney Mark-E-Schlong.
[ 27.07.2010, 09:48: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I also have an actual proper photoshoot this afternoon which I am already convinced I will fuck up good and royally.
Just do what the photographer tells you, don't be nervous and try to enjoy the experience.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Heh.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Presumably Disney don't make films these days which they think won't make them enormous amounts of money. With a film, I think its commercial success is almost entirely down to the marketing, with virtually nothing to do with the actual quality of the film itself. The idea obviously being that it doesn't matter whether or not the film is good, so long as they can convince enough people to go and see it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Presumably Disney don't make films these days which they think won't make them enormous amounts of money. With a film, I think its commercial success is almost entirely down to the marketing, with virtually nothing to do with the actual quality of the film itself. The idea obviously being that it doesn't matter whether or not the film is good, so long as they can convince enough people to go and see it.
Oh absolutely - it just suprises me that they picked out Tron of all things, given that the original was a bit of a flop. I mean, they do like their direct-to-DVD sequels, where they make a cheap-ish film that does well enough to earn the money back, but clearly that's not what they've got planned for Tron. It seems like they want/need it to become the most successful entertainment event ever. They seem to be pouring a lot more into it than they did with Prince of Persia, or Sorcerer's Apprentice, and it makes me wonder whether they've set their sights a teensy bit high. It makes me feel like somewhere there's a project plan for Tron:Legacy with the objective "Ensure that every man, woman and child on the planet sees Tron:Legacy by end of 2011 generating income of eleventy billion dollars".
Of course, all this will fall apart if they don't have a section detailing how to get CiH off his sofa and into his cinema.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I don't think Tron was a flop, really, I just think people didn't really know what to make of it. At the time I think there were a lot of people who thought using computers to create visual effects was cheating. It probably was the product of a creative vision which overreached what the technology was really capable of at the time. But since the initial release, like you say, it has developed into a cult phenomenon, and considering how successful other cult reboots have been, it will probably do very well. And is arguable less cynical than the new A-Team film.
Lots and lots of people really fondly remember Tron, and will be genuinely excited about the idea of a sequel. There will always be people who want to say it was shit, because it's a popular cult thing, and that's what people do when they're trying to sound really cool. I don't think it'll be a particularly good movie, and almost certainly won't have the same sense of fun and wonder as the original, but I dare say it'll be an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half. And the sound track is being produced by Daft Punk, which is probably no bad thing.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I dunno, I think there are some films out there which portray the IT support industry in a fairly accurate way, like Hackers and Tron.
Die Hard 4.0, also.
My favourite IT support character is that Russian guy in one of the Pearce Brosnan James Bond films. The one that says, "I am inwincible!" whenever he manages to do anything with IT. I always say that when I manage to solve a quite difficult IT problem. (Which has been twice so far.)
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
All I remember about the original is the lightcycle race, and a little robot that floated in the air and answered questions with "yes" and "no".
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I didn't feel particular inwincible the other day, when my trenchboat got stuck under my skateboard while I was on my way to look at a jammed printer, sending me face first into a filing cabinet.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh, it's actually Pierce Brosnan, which looked completely wrong, so I wrote Pearce. Sorry Pierce.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: All I remember about the original is the lightcycle race, and a little robot that floated in the air and answered questions with "yes" and "no".
That wasn't a robot, it was a 'bit'. The majority of the film takes place inside a computer, so most of what you see is a slightly imaginative visualisation of popular computing terms and concepts.
The 2003 game Tron 2.0 took this even further, with the player battling viruses, and having to escape from a system which is being formatted.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: That wasn't a robot, it was a 'bit'.
No - it was a little grey floating robot.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Is the plot of Tron:Legacy about a super-powerful computer with state of the art quad-core processors, 128GB of RAM and four graphics cards running in tandem getting fucked off that it's only ever used for surfing for pornography and occasionally updating a CV?
[ 27.07.2010, 10:53: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
No, Thorn, it wasn't a robot. It was a 'bit' which took the form of a small floating sphere which could respond with a positive or a negative gesture, representing the nature of a bit which is a single binary operator in the form of a 1 or a 0.
[ 27.07.2010, 10:51: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
What is a trenchboat?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It was a typo, sorry. I meant trenchcoat.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Perhaps you also meant 'robot'.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: It was a typo, sorry. I meant trenchcoat.
I thought you meant trenchgoat.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Perhaps you also meant 'robot'.
No it was definitely my trenchcoat which got caught beneath my skateboard. No robots involved.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: No robots involved.
Not even a little bit?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
No
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I just asked our IT guy whether a computer 'bit' was like a little flying grey robot that could only say "Yes or No" and he stared at me for a bit and then said "No. No - that's fucking retarded. Who told you that?" And I said it was this guy who worked in IT at the Open University and he said "That guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about."
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I fucked up the photoshoot. Let's hope I don't fuck up the best man's speech as well.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: The only times I can recall a graphic designer portrayed in film is watching the gay guy from Eastenders "Colin". Grey-haired sexual predator of the terminally confused "Barry".
Hey Tilde, there's a former graphic designer in the mildly violent and quite funny film Tamara Drewe, which I went to see this evening. It's only mentioned a couple of times that he used to be a graphic designer though. He spends most the time being a gardener.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
though. I want to come back and explain why I liked it so much but haven't got time right now because I have to cook Thorn's supper.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)