Stop Blowing My Mind!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Oh dear. Leftism, hooo!

Our most influential non-elected political figure? Al Gore.

He was. Then the Climate Research Unit scandal happened, showing that the premise for man-made global warming is pure bunk. They fabricated their research and then destroyed it so that no one would be able to tell what they did. So, nowadays Gore has nothing except emotion, peer pressure, and ignorance to propel his agenda (which will probably be demonstrated by responses to this post, i.e., "HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL WHAT ARE YOU DUMMMMB!? UR REDUMBLICAN!").

Then there's the masseuse thing, that must be pretty embarrassing, even if the charges aren't true.

President Obama? Compared to hard-livin' frat guys like Clinton or Bush II, he's probably as close to the nerd end of the human spectrum of any U.S. President ever.

There's a lot of things I could call Obama. Apathetic. Cold-hearted. Marxist. Condescending. Incompetent. Fraud. But geeky? No.

Anyway, politics aside, what will really kill geek movies in the future is that a lot of them are terrible. Hollywood's formula thus far, in regards to a "geeky" franchise, is to hand it to people who don't understand it, give them a special effects budget equal to Obama's deficit (ok, I guess I wasn't done with politics after all), then cough something out. The result has been movies like Michael Bay's Transformers movies and the new Clash of the Titans flick, mediocre films scraping by only due to their special effects. THAT is the sort of unfulfilling garbage which will really turn audiences off after a while.

OTOH, it was nice to see ROTF suggest that President Obama would make a futile attempt to try and negotiate with Megatron. Oops, there I go again! But you know Obama totally would, though, which is why it's hilarious.

RDubayoo:
Oh dear. Leftism, hooo!

Our most influential non-elected political figure? Al Gore.

He was. Then the Climate Research Unit scandal happened, showing that the premise for man-made global warming is pure bunk. They fabricated their research and then destroyed it so that no one would be able to tell what they did. So, nowadays Gore has nothing except emotion, peer pressure, and ignorance to propel his agenda (which will probably be demonstrated by responses to this post, i.e., "HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL WHAT ARE YOU DUMMMMB!? UR REDUMBLICAN!").

Don't entirely disagree with you, but do some research on that scandal bud. The leaked documents contained communications between scientists regarding climate change research. On the whole, it didn't prove sh!t, but that didn't matter. Once they were leaked to the public, no-one bothered to read them, because everyone already "knew" what they said.

People are dumb.

I want to state for the record that when I said the science on climate was undecided, I meant it. It's undecided and there's not enough evidence for either side to say the science backs them up to the exclusion of the other side.

And this is completely off-topic, because everything I had to say about the article I said in my last post. Oh, well.

The message here seems to be less that geeky films are failing and more that niche geeky films are failing. Yes, Tron: Legacy will likely do terribly but the next Batman and Star Trek films will make absolutely ludicrous amounts of money.

As long as huge moneymakers like those are around, geekdom will remain in movie-making for a long time to come.

I've heard it said that a geek is someone that does to excess what a normal person does casualy. As such, geek culture and non-geek culture are usually at odds. A geek will look at a premis, cast list, director and overall hype and use that to decide to go see a movie or not, while a normal person will go "Michael Cera....pass, Stalone blowing shit up...cool."

Let's make one thing clear, at leas some of the Dark Knights success has to come with that fact it's friggin' Batman: a household name practically worldwide. The fact it came out well, and somewaht inteligent was a bonus that brought a lot of people back, but that might not have happened with a less rocognizable character or an original. (Hollywood's prone to this, like how most of the marketing for inception pimped it as by the director of the Dark Knight.) And I say somewhat inteligent because while well told, it was just a basic hero / villan story that made the afterschhol special point of there being good and evil in everybody to some degree. Good guy won, no one leaves the theatre uncomfortable.

Watchmen on the other hand wasn't well known outside of comic and other geek circles meaning a lot of people would pass it over. Those that took the plunge got a very nihlistic piece without clear cut heroes, villans, or morals.

But back to point, as much as geek cutlre has seen some success, it's been the more recognizable / watered down have have been the sucesses. People saw Lord of the Rings because it was Lord of the Rings, and if it was released as say, Dragonlance, a lot of it's sales would have been nonexistant. Iron Man may be geeky, buy it was also very audience friendly such that a non-geek would mistake it for just that year's sci-fi blockbuster attempt (the way no one knew Men in Black was a comic book first.) If we're just riding the coat tails of the popular crowd, the current spread of geek culture will end.

Or not. I was taught the theory was less survival of the fittest, and more survival of the most adaptable to their environment. As much as we'd like to drag normal people to geekdom, it won't happen overnight if at all, so we might need to make sure our geek movies are, like Dark Knight and Iron Man, made as much for the normals as they are for us, and more importantly, marketed to the normals. You keep hearing it. Scott Pilgrim missed it's marketng as people mistook it for a kids movie. Kick-Ass looked rather dopey in it's ad to the point of loking like a parody. They tried to appeal purely to the geek culture, and it failed as these indy projects really don't have the fanbase they seem. I know you know this. One of your game overthinker videos said the same thing about needing to apeal to the casual gamer market, and it's no different for films. Like I said, these aren't people that are going to look deeply into any project presented to them, and we may need to lead them in better directions a step at a time while not losing aspects that appeal to them.

As for Tron, I think the 3D will at least make sure it doesn't totally flop.

The watchmen is more intelligent and grittier then batman, hell no, it was adapted with all the mindset of a 13 year old whom favorite movie is 300, anything intelligent was thrown out, wasn't bad, but The Dark Knight was a much better film.

OT: it's too be expected honestly, people are eventually going to get tired of superhero movies and all things geeky (or micheal sera), in about 20 years it will come back and then go away after a few years, just like 3D.

Abanic:
I don't know why most critics (even the nerdy ones) consider Watchmen to be better than Dark Knight. I don't consider Zack Snyder'sWatchmen to be "much edgier" or "much more intelligent" than Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. The Watchmen graphic novel by Alan Moore certainly was, but the transition from page to film disolved most of the depth from the work.

Certain decisions were made, I don't know whether it was by the studio or director, and these decisions created a 'style-over-substance' superhero movie. The fight scenes were given the 90's era 'EXTREME' treatment, the 'sex scene' was enlarged while the 'impotence scene' was shortened (pun intended), additional dialogue was added that did not have any reason to be (it wasn't being used to cover the missing scenes), the pacing was destroyed (Moore's work had a tick-tick-tick 'countdown' feel as it led the reader towards impending annihilation), and the ending was altered (which I could understand if the movie had done the work of adding the emotional impact to the ending that the comic had mastered). I honestly don't know whether critics (especially the nerdy ones) are not also taking the excellent source material into account when they hurl praise at the feet of this movie.

Before I face the hordes of savage internet trolls that come to 'learn me gud' about why I'm wrong, let me request that everyone go back and reread the source material and take a good, hard, honest look at the movie. I would also like to add that while I enjoyed the graphic novel Watchmen and his run on Swamp Thing I am NOT a rabid Alan Moore fanboy who thinks that the author can do no wrong (I particularly thought that From Hell could have used quite a bit more polish). Was the Watchmen a bad movie? No, but it should have been more than what it was (and it wasn't the shining gem that some people think). When given a masterpiece, anyone should be able to make a decent adaptation out of it.

I hope that Movie Bob will one day astound us readers with a treatise on why Watchmen was better than Dark Knight and not just state that it is like it's an accepted fact. It could very well be that there are a few things about those movies that I hadn't considered.

Anyone have any ideas?

No your pretty much right, though I did enjoy watchmen the book is miles better, its just after the abortions that were from hell and constantine watchmen managed to get the characters pretty much right. Better than dark knight though? Hell no. I think its one of those bob things where he seems to think his opinion IS fact, just like his roasting of the expendables which in all fairness was not THAT bad.

I think moviebob needed to quote william goldman and point out, in the movie business nobody knows anything, a point bob makes in a more roundabout way.

ultimately money will drive future filmmaking, while hollywoods profit margins shrink they will stick with proven successes based on established franchises (ie marvel).

Chunkyfudgelover:
You have great faith in the movie going public I must say! Well, of course many an acute mind visits the cinema from time to time but when you take into account the mass of cretins who also go the average is brought down a fair amount. I certainly can't produce an official tally of their intelligence so my only source would be that I worked in a cinema for a year and I love going to the cinema myself! Sturgeon's law must also come into the equation I'm sure you'll agree.

Anybody can look at any group of people and giggle about what a bunch of what a bunch of mindless nincompoops they are, or call them a sheep blob, or whatever. Most the people have far more complicated reasons to see a movie than "herpderp I'm a dummy!!". Some people have worked long and hard and just want to kick back, the movie doesnt matter. Maybe they figure it'll be decent because its well-funded. Moviebob even mentioned a few reasons, like "this is something my friends and I comprimised to see." Hell, I know an incredibly intelligent adult who goes to dumb movies just to sleep through them, and another who watches them to feel smarter than the ninmcompoops who enjoy these kinds of movies.
Things are much more complicated than they seem. I'm sure the "average movie goer" would love a wonderful, thought provoking film if they were in the right mood. But the bland, big budgeted peice of horse pucky succeeds because its vauge and broad audience strokes can draw in a huge variety of different reasons to go see it.

Holy Smoke! I had no idea Inception did so well. I knew it did good, but:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inception.htm

Back on topic.

A lot of you have written that as long as there's money to be made, geek culture will thrive. True. But, heck, I'm seeing a lot of genres descend into mediocrity or worse... and hollywood, bereft of ideas is STILL churning out Jason movies, Nightmare on Elm Street, Prom Night, etc.

So Geek Culture's future is assured.

Here's the difficult discussion coming: Much of Hollywood film making is a financial crap shoot. I have no idea why Transformers made so much money but GI Joe made substantially less. I thought Titanic sounded like the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. I thought "The Kids Are All Right." was very interesting and wish it did better.

It's a crap shoot. As it stands, Watchmen did pretty freaking well. A Box Office disappointment, sure. They were hoping for another 300 level hit. That's like trying to win the lottery consistently.

But a movie that cost $130 mil to make and makes 180 world wide is not going to frighten investors away.

Anyone know what the biggest budget bomb of the last 10 years was? I dunno, I'm asking. I promise you, it wasn't Watchmen.

The real thing to worry about is Hwood beating this thing into the ground with mediocrity. Iron Man 2 was fun enough, but if I knew I would feel about it as I did, I sure wouldn't have run out to the theater to see it.

Hwood is going to have the same problem with geek culture that it has with any genre: maintaining quality while dealing with the terror that it is all such a crap shoot.

Kollega:

I have never really understood all the fuss about "the impending end of geek films" Moviebob constantly brings up.

That's because MovieBob is living in a world of this own, but to his defense, so are we all.

As a softcore trekkie, I loved the last Star Trek movie even for all it's silliness, and I hated Scott Pilgrim because it reminded be of all the mid 90 hipster garbage I was forced to grow up with.

(of course most of the mid 90s hipster flicks were also slasher movies, so if only Jason Voorhees had made an appearance in Scott P Vs. World and slaughtered the fucking lot of them I would have been a happy camper)

There's always going to be difference of opinion, and I'd hate, I'd absolutely would fucking hate to see Robin in the next Batman movie . But I know Moviebob would feel the complete opposite.

....

You know, I think we'd all benefit if we could just be a little more open minded about things, I mean hell, Robin was actually handled pretty well in the animated series from what I remember...so!

Maybe, The Expendables wasn't such a bad movie after all, at least for some. I mean at least we can all agree Rambo 4 was fucking awesome, can we?

=P

Sicamat:
Isn't The Expendables as much as a geek movie as Scott Pilgrim VS. The World?

Yes it is. Think about the fact that they advertised it as a film with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Randy Couture from WWE and UFC respectively, both considered to be geek pasttimes in their own right.

What people don't get is that the term "geek" has a broad spectrum that it emcompasses. While I might love comics from Marvel and DC, I don't give two shits about the indie books from Oni Press (Scott Pilgrim comes to mind). So while I will run out and see Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman I'm not going to go out and see Scott Pilgrim because it doesn't appeal to me.

You can be a geek and love Devo or be a geek and love KISS and hate Devo. You can be a geek and vote Democrat or be a geek and vote Republican. Everyone has some geek tendencies, not matter how "anti-geek" they seem. The frat boys that hate RPGs for all the geeky number crunching does all that geeky number crunching every Sunday night when they figure their Fantasy League standings.

tldr; the geekiness of media will never end because every form of media is a geeky pasttime for someone.

Possibly the real point to this is movie makers should diversify there focus. Rather than have the entire industry focus with laser like intensity on one sub-genre before exhausting appetite for it and moving on much like with tv, books and music a broader spread is needed.

After all geeks and nerds are the intellectuals of the world (for now atleast). Rarity if nothing else will ensure we are never truly mainstream. Therefore focusing all your available budget to make media just for us will never have the return on investment movie producers desire that a more diverse approach would.

RDubayoo:
Oh dear. Leftism, hooo!

Our most influential non-elected political figure? Al Gore.

He was. Then the Climate Research Unit scandal happened, showing that the premise for man-made global warming is pure bunk. They fabricated their research and then destroyed it so that no one would be able to tell what they did.

It didn't disprove anything, they were not talking about a decline in temperature, but I'm guessing you don't even know what I'm talking about, because you just took it at face value and ran with it.

Man made global warming is pretty much accepted as being true in the scientific community.

You have great faith in the movie going public I must say! Well, of course many an acute mind visits the cinema from time to time but when you take into account the mass of cretins who also go the average is brought down a fair amount. I certainly can't produce an official tally of their intelligence so my only source would be that I worked in a cinema for a year and I love going to the cinema myself! Sturgeon's law must also come into the equation I'm sure you'll agree.

We are going with the second one right? The everything being crap?

The opoint is that unlike say, opera, films and cinema going are universal in appeal and don't especially appeal to braniacs or Johny idiot. Particular films might but as a whole I don't think you can say so.

Memory does of course play funny tricks on us, I still am amazed at how rude some people were when I worked in the service industry.

Apologies, when you mentioned these people referred to Iron Man as 'fast food cinema' I got the impression they thought it was beneath them, which certainly seems pretentious. When a film so universally loved is disliked by an individual they tend to be only saying this to make you think they know something you don't. Of course if they just didn't like it then that's fair enough, albeit a shame. The Expendables was a terribly made movie regardless of who liked it. To use a musical analogy... U2 the band. Suppose I hated them. It matters not, they make good music whether I like it or otherwise!

It was my fault for the wording.

We come into a tricky subject here though, how do we view something as good or bad? This is a seperate (though related) issuse to what we like. An example for me is the film "Laurence of Arabia" is a great film IMHO, but I'm not sure how much I would like it, I could only watch it once and I admired the filmmaking but didn't warm to it.

"Date Movie" is IMHO a horrible unfunny film but I'm sure someone would argue that it was a cinematic triumph (though they might happen to be the directors). My problem is how do I prove the primacy of my opinion over there's? I don't think I can so ultimately my opinion is limited to myself, rather obviously actually but so was the wheel.

I guess it varies from school to school and town to town. Such labels were once based on individual groups. The existence of these labels led to people augmenting their appearance, musical taste, personalities and even cigarette brands to better suit the 'requirements' of the group they wish to assimilate into. Metalheads will grow their hair to become 'more metal'. Emos will all of a sudden start reading Twilight novels and collecting Tim Burton crap all in the hopes of appearing 'more emo'. Accordingly self-proclaimed 'indieheads' will wear vintage tees, skinny fit jeans, all of a sudden turn vegan and watch 'quirky' films. That is why Juno was 'so cool' and had a Kimya Dawson soundtrack. That is why Nick & Norah was soaked in Indie essence. It's also why the indie comic Scott Pilgrim was chosen to be made into a movie. It was marketed deftly to these cretins. The industry thrives on these credulous slaves.

How bizarre. These people actually exist? I thought they were some hyper idealised version of teenage life where clans were created to make dramatic tension ("Oh no she's dating outside here clique, jow could she?").

Hot damn, another chance to use this

image
That makes my running count like 4 now, right? I really find it annoying when people generalize everyone who sees a movie, and yes, imad.
While the comments on these items have become really a depressing thing, I'll say this
Society, in short, essentially ended the whole struggle thing.

And 370999,
As far as I know, those clan type things, they don't exist, atleast where I'm from.

The Stonker:

Sicamat:
Isn't The Expendables as much as a geek movie as Scott Pilgrim VS. The World?

Sorry I need to defend this movie and say.
Fuck you.
The expendables is a cliché action movie with B rated actors, even the explosions aren't that nice.
While Scott Pilgrim is creative and actually focuses on something except for explosions.
Really don't put Scott Pilgrim and The expendables in the same room, why? Because the expendables is a movie for the masses, while Scott can be enjoyed by everyone and the geek will understand more of the jokes.
But you get the point.

Please don't be so insulting; he's got a right to his opinion, as much as you do. I thought the same thing, myself: Expendables is by definition a type of geek entertainment, because it revels in presenting old action hero stars in a common film, exploiting the tropes of its particular genre. It's not the same kind of movie as Scott Pilgrim, by any stretch, but you don't have to fill a film up with ridiculous video game references, young actors, and loads of ridiculous nonsensical special effects to qualify for geek-dom*. There are layers here, many of them; that's why I think Movie Bob's article is only reflecting a basic fact that's been overlooked: to be geek is not to be united.

* may or may not be accurate as I haven't seen either film. But I am a geek, even though I couldn't give a rat's patootie about Scott Pilgrim; it's not catering to my specific brand of geek (or age): D&D playing Sci Fi junkie with a couple hundred games from Steam.

Well duh?

Nothing lasts forever. I don't think any one is under any illusion that the current flavour is going to last for that much longer.

I don't think it's just going to drop out over night sometime though. I'm hoping it will evolve.

If it does. It will mutate into something that your generation probably couldn't handle. If there's one thing I've noticed about you, it's that you seem to think that everything that was made in your time is made of sunshine, rainbows and all the intellectual development of Stephen Hawkings. And that the only things of merit today are rip offs from nerd days past.

Personally I think it will change for the better. Let's be totally honest. Scott Pilgram was a shite movie. That's why it didn't do well. Not because it was too edgy. Or too Geeky. Simply because it was poor.

If I'd have known nothing about it. I would have assumed it was a parody about the Geek culture that's strangle-holding modern media.

I'm personally looking forward to seeing things change drastically. Everything has already passed it's peak and started to go a little stale at the minute

Make way for the next massive change. You never know... You might like it.

DayDark:

RDubayoo:
Oh dear. Leftism, hooo!

Our most influential non-elected political figure? Al Gore.

He was. Then the Climate Research Unit scandal happened, showing that the premise for man-made global warming is pure bunk. They fabricated their research and then destroyed it so that no one would be able to tell what they did.

It didn't disprove anything, they were not talking about a decline in temperature, but I'm guessing you don't even know what I'm talking about, because you just took it at face value and ran with it.

Man made global warming is pretty much accepted as being true in the scientific community.

Yeah... sure.

I guess all the drastic climate changes that happened before we even existed. Never mind before our industrial revolution just never happened ay?

"DAMN YOU PERMIAN EVIDENCE... for foiling my clever strawman!!!!!!"

Did we have an effect on Natural climate change? Hmmmm debatable. But possible.

Did we cause it? Fuck no. What hippie world do you live in?

I really don't even understand your distress here about "geek movies". As others have said you could call serious fans of any genre a geek. As far as I'm concerned I never really saw any particular activity or hobby automatically define someone as a geek or not a geek. Plus many of the movies you gushed about weren't too good, so I wouldn't mind seeing those kinds of films disappear.

Also, I really resent this feeling that so many geeky people think they are of the highest intelligence. More than anything self proclaimed geeks tend to just be more opinionated, elitist, and hard-headed. I know plenty of people who often watch brainless flicks and are just as intelligent, if not more intelligent, then you. Also, I know many people have the opinion that if a movie is in a genre they despise than it can't be as smart or fun as a movie in a genre they like. There are people who can find messages in everything. Even the dumbest of movies can seem intelligent if the right person twists it enough.

Entertainment is just that, something to entertain. It doesn't necessarily need a profound message or pop culture references to do its job. Besides, most styles in movies never truly go away. They just tend to come and go at random.

gurall200:
The watchmen is more intelligent and grittier then batman, hell no, it was adapted with all the mindset of a 13 year old whom favorite movie is 300, anything intelligent was thrown out, wasn't bad, but The Dark Knight was a much better film.

OT: it's too be expected honestly, people are eventually going to get tired of superhero movies and all things geeky (or micheal sera), in about 20 years it will come back and then go away after a few years, just like 3D.

What exactly was intelligent about the Dark Knight?

The only actual intelligence it had to offer was the whole collapse of archetypal good and evil... And that wasn't even done particularly well. It seemed way too rushed and tacked on at the end.

People over egg that film. It was good. But without Ledgers performance it would have been extremely forgettable.

I much preffered Watchmen. I thought it was better than the book. It dealt with all the same issues. Made the over all feel of the story much darker (that was just aesthetics though) and got rid of that retarded ending with the squiggly tentacle monster.

I thought it had much more to say than the Dark knight did.

dathwampeer:

Yeah... sure.

I guess all the drastic climate changes that happened before we even existed. Never mind before our industrial revolution just never happened ay?

"DAMN YOU PERMIAN EVIDENCE... for foiling my clever strawman!!!!!!"

Did we have an effect on Natural climate change? Hmmmm debatable. But possible.

Did we cause it? Fuck no. What hippie world do you live in?

Hmm..Maybe I'm just kind of out there but I always felt the problem with global warming was more that we were accelerating it not causing it. I don't really see that effect as being debatable. Human kind has too much of an impact on the earth to not throw something out of wack. To me what I find more debatable is when global warming has truly picked up, species are lost, and others flourish will we really be in terrible shape as some predict? We might just get along fine in a different way or we may lose some people when ways of life are really threatened.

I agree with your last statement though. We can't really cause something like that just effect it in one way or another.

Let me stop commenting on this its going off subject.

Nocturnal Gentleman:

dathwampeer:

Yeah... sure.

I guess all the drastic climate changes that happened before we even existed. Never mind before our industrial revolution just never happened ay?

"DAMN YOU PERMIAN EVIDENCE... for foiling my clever strawman!!!!!!"

Did we have an effect on Natural climate change? Hmmmm debatable. But possible.

Did we cause it? Fuck no. What hippie world do you live in?

Hmm..Maybe I'm just kind of out there but I always felt the problem with global warming was more that we were accelerating it not causing it. I don't really see that effect as being debatable. Human kind has too much of an impact on the earth to not throw something out of wack. To me what I find more debatable is when global warming has truly picked up, species are lost, and others flourish will we really be in terrible shape as some predict? We might just get along fine in a different way or we may lose some people when ways of life are really threatened.

I agree with your last statement though. We can't really cause something like that just effect it in one way or another.

Let me stop commenting on this its going off subject.

Some people still try to blame the entire thing on us.

I will conceit that it is probably likely we have had some effect on this natural shift. It may seem drastic by our standards. We've possibly sped up the change by like 100 years or something. I'd say that's looking at the top end of our effect.

To think that we have like this immense effect on the worlds climate. Like we caused it to shift a 1000 years to early or something. Well it just seems arrogant to me. To think that we actually influence it so much.

I'm not entirely convinced we've done much to it at all.

The main gas we're responsible for is of course co2.

Our contribution accounts for something like 5% of the total co2. Which accounts for something like 20% of the total GHG's. That doesn't amount to much.

Water vapour is the largest one. Shall we start blaming the sea?

And now, before the row is over, they need to make a good Judge Dredd movie.

Hopefully with Judge Death and Luna 1. And especially Walter.

camazotz:

The Stonker:

Sicamat:
Isn't The Expendables as much as a geek movie as Scott Pilgrim VS. The World?

Sorry I need to defend this movie and say.
Fuck you.
The expendables is a cliché action movie with B rated actors, even the explosions aren't that nice.
While Scott Pilgrim is creative and actually focuses on something except for explosions.
Really don't put Scott Pilgrim and The expendables in the same room, why? Because the expendables is a movie for the masses, while Scott can be enjoyed by everyone and the geek will understand more of the jokes.
But you get the point.

Please don't be so insulting; he's got a right to his opinion, as much as you do. I thought the same thing, myself: Expendables is by definition a type of geek entertainment, because it revels in presenting old action hero stars in a common film, exploiting the tropes of its particular genre. It's not the same kind of movie as Scott Pilgrim, by any stretch, but you don't have to fill a film up with ridiculous video game references, young actors, and loads of ridiculous nonsensical special effects to qualify for geek-dom*. There are layers here, many of them; that's why I think Movie Bob's article is only reflecting a basic fact that's been overlooked: to be geek is not to be united.

* may or may not be accurate as I haven't seen either film. But I am a geek, even though I couldn't give a rat's patootie about Scott Pilgrim; it's not catering to my specific brand of geek (or age): D&D playing Sci Fi junkie with a couple hundred games from Steam.

And as do I.
I was talking about the quality of the movie so yeah, Scott pilgrim is new while The expendables is a piece of steamy pile of sh*t

dathwampeer:

Yeah... sure.

I guess all the drastic climate changes that happened before we even existed. Never mind before our industrial revolution just never happened ay?

"DAMN YOU PERMIAN EVIDENCE... for foiling my clever strawman!!!!!!"

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Humanity is now the dominating force. It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can't cause climate change is like arguing that humans can't start bushfires because in the past they have happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth's history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Did we have an effect on Natural climate change? Hmmmm debatable. But possible.

What? debatable? Source

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Did we cause it? Fuck no. What hippie world do you live in?

Reality? Here's a nice simple picture to sum it up:

image

[EDIT for clearity]
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

10. It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking. As a consequence of greenhouse warming, which we are the dominating source of.

Souce

dathwampeer:

Some people still try to blame the entire thing on us.

I will conceit that it is probably likely we have had some effect on this natural shift. It may seem drastic by our standards. We've possibly sped up the change by like 100 years or something. I'd say that's looking at the top end of our effect.

To think that we have like this immense effect on the worlds climate. Like we caused it to shift a 1000 years to early or something. Well it just seems arrogant to me. To think that we actually influence it so much.

I'm not entirely convinced we've done much to it at all.

The main gas we're responsible for is of course co2.

Our contribution accounts for something like 5% of the total co2. Which accounts for something like 20% of the total GHG's. That doesn't amount to much.

Naturally emitted CO2 is kept in check by itself through a cycle of adding and removing CO2 from the atmosphere, Humanity only emits CO2, but we don't remove it like the natural effects, this causes it to build up over time.

image

Water vapour is the largest one. Shall we start blaming the sea?

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

Water is the dominant greenhouse gas, but it is a function of temperature, and temperature is a function of CO2.

Increased CO2 = increased warming = increased water vapor in the atmosphere = more heat is trapped on earth.

Um
When did this become an environmental lecture, DayDark? ^^;;

and I like the xkcd comic, tryx3. I really do think that everyone has been generalizing everyone else as sheep[/hypocrisy]
No, really, I agree with the comic, and theres been a lot of that in this thread, and in how MovieBob has been generalizing the public. Though it seemed to be a bit out of anger when calling out The Expendables.

RDubayoo:

Then the Climate Research Unit scandal happened, showing that the premise for man-made global warming is pure bunk.

The IPCC (and Al Gore) may have exaggerated the extent of the consequences, but this doesn't mean that human activity causing global warming is completely bogus. Let's keep politics out of this, please. It's a scientific issue.

dathwampeer:

I guess all the drastic climate changes that happened before we even existed. Never mind before our industrial revolution just never happened ay?

"DAMN YOU PERMIAN EVIDENCE... for foiling my clever strawman!!!!!!"

Did we have an effect on Natural climate change? Hmmmm debatable. But possible.

Did we cause it? Fuck no. What hippie world do you live in?

No, sorry. For a long time I've been very doubtful about global warming being caused by human activity. Actually I was not comfortable defending either position, as we should be when we don't know enough about the issues involved. I thought, like you, that climate changes happened before in the world's history, so the present fluctuations couldn't mean much. They could possibly not even be caused by human interference.

Actually, the more I read and get informed about it (from scientific sources, not political panphlets), the more I am convinced that there's human influence is a definitive factor in global warming. The scientific community is not really divided about it, most climate scientists agree with it.

The real consequences of global warming are hard to predict, but they may be very bad if some boundaries are crossed. So it is worth trying to change that, and discussing about the best ways to do it.

I'm not particularly inclined to the "left" side of politics, but here I'm not siding with any particular political ideologies. I'm siding with science.

MovieBob:
And if they can't? Ah, well. Good times are fleeting. Blind Side 2, anyone?

Hell, I'll take it if the boxshot has as nice a picture of Sandra Bullock's ass as the last one did.

Something pleasant to stare at while I'm waiting around the self check-out at Walmart.

Oh yeah, and wait for Scott Pilgrim to hit DVD. It'll probably do a lot better there than it did in theaters.

It's sad that geek-friendly stuff never seems to do well. It's even sadder when you realize Cracked.com was right about a lot of geek movies don't do well compared to...well, stuff that's not as good. It's a little thing I like to call the Property of Inverse Awesomeness. Presuming awesomeness could be something to be measured, as awesomeness continues, success of the movie too will increase. However, throw in something nerds like (science-fiction, fantasy, zombies, superheroes, et cetera) and we see a decrease in success. Just imagine if there was a "genre movie" equivalent to Best Picture in the Oscars.

Vkmies:
And now, before the row is over, they need to make a good Judge Dredd movie.

Hopefully with Judge Death and Luna 1. And especially Walter.

Well Karl Urban's signed on to make a new one. I don't know who's directing, but Karl Urban's presence fills me with some confidence.

DayDark:
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Humanity is now the dominating force. It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can't cause climate change is like arguing that humans can't start bushfires because in the past they have happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth's history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Not true. The climate follows a predictable pattern throughout the Epochs. A pattern that we haven't broken.

The Earth's climate is constantly in flux. Events that happen on it's surface do have an effect. Such as rise in certain gases. But for us to have actually caused the climate change, would suggest that it wasn't already going to happen. This is where the science doesn't back you up.

It's pretty obvious to anyone willing to look at the Earth's history that climate change is a constant. We may have sped the process up to a degree. Which may seem drastic to us. But in the grand scheme of things it's not going to make a lick of difference. 100 years or so is literally nothing in relation to the length of time these events take place over.

What? debatable? Source

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.".

What's debatable is exactly how much effect we've had.

Reality? Here's a nice simple picture to sum it up:

image

[EDIT for clearity]
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

No they do not!

Humans contribution to the total GHG's is less than 1 percent of the total GHG. If you honestly think that is enough to have a drastic effect on the rate of climate change then this discussion is pointless.

We account for something close to 3% of the total co2 in the atmosphere. That is hardly anything. Not enough to have the effect you propose.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6.Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

That's just a breakdown of how greenhouse gases work. If there is more co2 than normal then of-course the heat that corresponds to co2 absorption will be escaping less.

Point 6. That's called the greenhouse effect. That's how all greenhouse gasses work, not just co2. Water vapour still plays the deciding factor as far as GHG's are concerned.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

10. It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking. As a consequence of greenhouse warming, which we are the dominating source of.

Souce

:/ I'm not denying the involvement of greenhouse gases in climate change. Just our proposed involvement in the levels of greenhouse gasses.

We are NOT the domination source in greenhouse gases. methane produced by cows plays a larger total percentage in GHG emissions than our co2 production.

Our involvement in the whole thing has been severely overplayed.

The major effect that we do have on climate change is not through our emissions but to how we change the landscape. For instance there is thought that our keeping of livestock has caused a boom in their species population. As I said their methane release dwarfs our co2 emissions. This could be considered a natural effect though. Because even though we're responsible for increasing their population through farms, it's something that is also seen naturally. Dinosaurs for instance would have released much larger quantities during their life.

The one we really have to hold our hands up to is deforestation. That's had a larger impact than any other single cause that we're responsible for.

Greenhouse emissions are a relatively small and inconsequential point to the argument that we're responsible.

source

tautologico:

No, sorry. For a long time I've been very doubtful about global warming being caused by human activity. Actually I was not comfortable defending either position, as we should be when we don't know enough about the issues involved. I thought, like you, that climate changes happened before in the world's history, so the present fluctuations couldn't mean much. They could possibly not even be caused by human interference.

Actually, the more I read and get informed about it (from scientific sources, not political panphlets), the more I am convinced that there's human influence is a definitive factor in global warming. The scientific community is not really divided about it, most climate scientists agree with it.

The real consequences of global warming are hard to predict, but they may be very bad if some boundaries are crossed. So it is worth trying to change that, and discussing about the best ways to do it.

I'm not particularly inclined to the "left" side of politics, but here I'm not siding with any particular political ideologies. I'm siding with science.

Put simply. Science is very divided on our actual involvement on GHG emission.

We are just unfortunate enough to be in a time when a climate shift was inevitable. Our involvement is very arguable. It was always something that was going to happen. How much we've changed the timing is debatable. I'd be surprised if it's over 100 years.

Climate change is a constant. GHG's play a part in that constant. Our contribution to the current level of GHG's is relatively small.

dathwampeer:

gurall200:
The watchmen is more intelligent and grittier then batman, hell no, it was adapted with all the mindset of a 13 year old whom favorite movie is 300, anything intelligent was thrown out, wasn't bad, but The Dark Knight was a much better film.

OT: it's too be expected honestly, people are eventually going to get tired of superhero movies and all things geeky (or micheal sera), in about 20 years it will come back and then go away after a few years, just like 3D.

What exactly was intelligent about the Dark Knight?

The only actual intelligence it had to offer was the whole collapse of archetypal good and evil... And that wasn't even done particularly well. It seemed way too rushed and tacked on at the end.

People over egg that film. It was good. But without Ledgers performance it would have been extremely forgettable.

I much preffered Watchmen. I thought it was better than the book. It dealt with all the same issues. Made the over all feel of the story much darker (that was just aesthetics though) and got rid of that retarded ending with the squiggly tentacle monster.

I thought it had much more to say than the Dark knight did.

*smashes head into keyboard* I didn't say it was more intelligent, just said better and more entertaining, the watchmen was a boring, immature adaptation of a great comic, with a script that missed the point and landed on its nose, a comic that was lauded for being a serious take on superheroes degenerated to a hyper stylized blue screen 300 derivative, the action was dull, and excruciatingly boring, with acting ranging from good to mediocre. True the dark knight was little more then good vs evil, but it sure as hell wasn't boring.

dathwampeer:

Not true. The climate follows a predictable pattern throughout the Epochs. A pattern that we haven't broken.

If you're referring to the the 1500 year climate cycle, then it is a issue of heat distribution, and not temperature rise. It has been observed mainly through ice core data as a warming in the northern hemisphere matched at precisely the same time by a cooling in the southern hemisphere. basically a see-saw effect. When talking global warming we are talking about the rapid increase in global temperature over the last 200 years, which are known to be man made.

If you're talking about this:
image

Than I would say the last bit is quite a break from the pattern. If we look closer at the last part of that graph.

image

we can see that the resent atmospheric CO2 rise, follows our own CO2 emission almost perfectly.

The Earth's climate is constantly in flux. Events that happen on it's surface do have an effect. Such as rise in certain gases. But for us to have actually caused the climate change, would suggest that it wasn't already going to happen. This is where the science doesn't back you up.

See above.

What's debatable is exactly how much effect we've had.

No, I think it's pretty guaranteed that we have had an effect.

image

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

No they do not!

Humans contribution to the total GHG's is less than 1 percent of the total GHG. If you honestly think that is enough to have a drastic effect on the rate of climate change then this discussion is pointless.

If you can't understand that naturally emmited CO2 is balanced by itself, while human emitted CO2 is not, then this discussion is pointless.

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

We account for something close to 3% of the total co2 in the atmosphere. That is hardly anything. Not enough to have the effect you propose.

Actually we can even recognize that the rising CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels through isotope analysis (source)

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6.Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

That's just a breakdown of how greenhouse gases work. If there is more co2 than normal then of-course the heat that corresponds to co2 absorption will be escaping less.

Point 6. That's called the greenhouse effect. That's how all greenhouse gasses work, not just co2. Water vapour still plays the deciding factor as far as GHG's are concerned.

Water vapor is a function of heat which is a function of CO2. It effectively amplifies any temp increase from CO2.

:/ I'm not denying the involvement of greenhouse gases in climate change. Just our proposed involvement in the levels of greenhouse gasses.

Your involvement is the almost the most documented part of this whole thing. the sheer number of evidence is so staggering I can only link to it, because it would fill up this whole thread. so giant mountain of evidence

We are NOT the domination source in greenhouse gases. methane produced by cows plays a larger total percentage in GHG emissions than our co2 production.

Our involvement in the whole thing has been severely overplayed.

The major effect that we do have on climate change is not through our emissions but to how we change the landscape. For instance there is thought that our keeping of livestock has caused a boom in their species population. As I said their methane release dwarfs our co2 emissions. This could be considered a natural effect though. Because even though we're responsible for increasing their population through farms, it's something that is also seen naturally. Dinosaurs for instance would have released much larger quantities during their life.

The one we really have to hold our hands up to is deforestation. That's had a larger impact than any other single cause that we're responsible for.

Greenhouse emissions are a relatively small and inconsequential point to the argument that we're responsible.

source

Again, naturally emitted CO2 is balanced, our emission is not.

Here, go to this site, there's a 121 arguments against global warming and the human influence, which have all been debunked. If you have any further arguments, I'm sure they'll be one of them, so please, save the time, and just scroll down to your particular argument, and get the explanation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here