Yeah, it was a negative ad. Not the best premise for selling iPads.
You wish there were more violent films? Because we don't have nearly enough violent films or video games in this world. And none of them have inspired men to murder dozens of innocent people in cinemas with automatic weapons.
In fact, let's get rid of all the romantic films. Because romantic movies are the reason Hitler murdered millions of Jews. Let's just have movies celebrating violence, murder, death, bloodlust and torture; that will inspire people to dream of killing others for fun.
Great idea, Marvin.
I would rather have Marvin's comments than your comments since your comments are always negative.
The Apple ad was a good ad that promoted the use of iPad Airs by students.
As for as Scorsese personal life, what does that have to do with his ability to be a great director?
Remember when we were told the iPad is only good for consumption?
Remember when we were told you needed a "real" computer to do any "real" work?
Remember when it was weird to see people holding up an iPad to take a photo?
Yes, I remember!
Tim Cook continues to be positive about the iPad. This ad is another indication that he knows a great deal more than what we are reading from Wall Street!!
Perhaps that's our shortcoming, not theres. Why should a smaller camera be the better choice? Are we really so elitist to think they are wrong for using an iPad over an iPhone or DSLR? One benefit the iPad has is a huge display, which certainly has its benefits.
Remember when we were told the iPad is only good for consumption?
Remember when we were told you needed a "real" computer to do any "real" work?
Remember when it was weird to see people holding up an iPad to take a photo?
Yes, I remember!
Tim Cook continues to be positive about the iPad. This ad is another indication that he knows a great deal more than what we are reading from Wall Street!!
Yet the Scorsese voice-over of this ad was negative.
Tim Cook being positive about the iPad counts for nothing if he doesn't get the message across and take the iPad in the right direction. I don't believe that he has carried through Jobs's vision of the iPad well. There are too many out of date and similar models; the ads are too vague and confusing. They should be direct and multitudinous. There are hundreds of thousands of apps for the iPad, many of them unique to the iPad, and the iPad has taken the place of many devices. But that message doesn't get through because the ads just sell a lifestyle with no focus. We get lots of brief fast-moving images that could be any generic tablet, but nothing to tell us what is so compelling about the iPad above other tablets. It's such a wasted opportunity. The larger iPad should have been introduced last year. If Apple are to really own magazines, they need a bigger iPad.
Despite Cook's undoubted enthusiasm for the iPad—which is particularly evident at the earnings calls—I still don't think that a lot of Apple really get the iPad. I think many of them are still working on their MacBooks and regard the iPad as a slightly odd consumer device that's somewhat beneath them, but Jobs loved it, so they have to support it. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't feel the same level of love and understanding that developers generally have for the iPhone that they should for the iPad, and that's probably because they simply don't use them as much in their everyday lives. I hope that'll improve. I share Cook's passion for it; I received the original iPad the day before it went on sale in the shops, and it has remained my favourite Apple computer ever since. But I think Cook needs to inspire Apple with his passion more, and that's where I feel Jobs really delivered.
It'll be interesting to see if Cook manages to be a spearhead for the Apple Watch. Can he match the love that Jobs poured into the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad?
Boring? That would describe Boyhood.The rest were largely quite interesting. This has been one of the best years for movies in recent history, not for the glitz and glamour but for the creativity and depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
I have yet to see Boyhood, but I felt both Birdman and Foxcatcher were dull.
I did like Grand Budapest a lot. Fiennes was great, but that Algerian kid stole the show (for me). When he didn't even get nominated, I lost all interest.
Btw, the Imitation Game had to be one of the most cliched movies of all time. And historically inaccurate, because it completely ignored his Princeton days, where his hanging around people like Von Neumann and Alonzo Church (not to mention Albert Einstein) had a far greater impact on his understanding of and insights in computing than did Cambridge University. I also did not care much for the historical inaccuracies in Selma (e.g., sidelining the role of Lyndon Johnson). It ticked me off mightily that King's estate wanted a ridiculous sum of money for the use of his speeches, that the director decided to change them!
Why would a production decide to use a consumer camera to make a movie when all the talent and direction are being paid thousands? How can you justify not using the highest quality camera available? Is Apple paying them to do this? If I was making an expensive production, I certainly wouldn't use a consumer brand camera. Not discrediting the iPad but surely a Red would be more appropriate for a professional film project.
I have yet to see Boyhood, but I felt both Birdman and Foxcatcher were dull.
In my view Boyhood is an amazing film. Link later is an intelligent filmmaker who makes intelligent films. It is hard to imagine any adult males not appreciating the film if not intellectually, at least on a very fundamental human level. I highly recommend it.
For those of you who don't wish to endure this nauseating ad, Scorsese, who does the voice-over, says:
Destroy your dreams.
Bleurgh.
I love my iPad Air 2, but I found this ad unfocused and lacking in clarity.
Ok. Just looked up Scorsese and see that he was the geezer who directed Taxi Driver. That explains everything. I hated that film.
Edit: from Wikipedia—
Many of his films are also notable for their depiction of violence and liberal use of profanity. Scorsese has been married five times. Divorced three times.
Such utter ignorant hogwash from beginning to end - except the fact that you hate Taxi Driver. I disagree but it's your opinion. The rest is hogwash.
Perhaps that's our shortcoming, not theres. Why should a smaller camera be the better choice? Are we really so elitist to think they are wrong for using an iPad over an iPhone or DSLR? One benefit the iPad has is a huge display, which certainly has its benefits.
I can understand a iPhone because of it's size, and portability. If you can carry a iPad, then you can carry a much more capable camera. An iPad definitely has its uses, I wasn't referring to those users.
For those of you who don't wish to endure this nauseating ad, Scorsese, who does the voice-over, says:
Destroy your dreams.
Bleurgh.
I love my iPad Air 2, but I found this ad unfocused and lacking in clarity.
Ok. Just looked up Scorsese and see that he was the geezer who directed Taxi Driver. That explains everything. I hated that film.
Edit: from Wikipedia—
Many of his films are also notable for their depiction of violence and liberal use of profanity. Scorsese has been married five times. Divorced three times.
Such utter ignorant hogwash from beginning to end - except the fact that you hate Taxi Driver. I disagree but it's your opinion. The rest is hogwash.
Well, Wikipedia can be hogwash, but I should imagine it's correct in this instance.
Well, Wikipedia can be hogwash, but I should imagine it's correct in this instance.
Do you really feel that the fact that his films are violent and that there is profanity is a reflection of Scorcese as a director? Or how many wives he's had. That's what hogwash. It makes no sense.
Wow! I just saw Samsung's "you can make a movie with Samsung stuff" commercial on the Oscars. I don't know if it aired before this, but their copying is getting so fast...
Well, Wikipedia can be hogwash, but I should imagine it's correct in this instance.
Do you really feel that the fact that his films are violent and that there is profanity is a reflection of Scorcese as a director? Or how many wives he's had. That's what hogwash. It makes no sense.
The Wikipedia citation about his liberal use of violence and profanity is partly why I hated Taxi Driver, so I deemed it pertinent to quote it.
The anecdote about his failed marriages struck me as telling.
Comments
Yeah, it was a negative ad. Not the best premise for selling iPads.
You wish there were more violent films? Because we don't have nearly enough violent films or video games in this world. And none of them have inspired men to murder dozens of innocent people in cinemas with automatic weapons.
In fact, let's get rid of all the romantic films. Because romantic movies are the reason Hitler murdered millions of Jews. Let's just have movies celebrating violence, murder, death, bloodlust and torture; that will inspire people to dream of killing others for fun.
Great idea, Marvin.
I would rather have Marvin's comments than your comments since your comments are always negative.
The Apple ad was a good ad that promoted the use of iPad Airs by students.
As for as Scorsese personal life, what does that have to do with his ability to be a great director?
Remember when we were told the iPad is only good for consumption?
Remember when we were told you needed a "real" computer to do any "real" work?
Remember when it was weird to see people holding up an iPad to take a photo?
Yes, I remember!
Tim Cook continues to be positive about the iPad. This ad is another indication that he knows a great deal more than what we are reading from Wall Street!!
They still look like dicks.
Perhaps that's our shortcoming, not theres. Why should a smaller camera be the better choice? Are we really so elitist to think they are wrong for using an iPad over an iPhone or DSLR? One benefit the iPad has is a huge display, which certainly has its benefits.
Yet the Scorsese voice-over of this ad was negative.
Tim Cook being positive about the iPad counts for nothing if he doesn't get the message across and take the iPad in the right direction. I don't believe that he has carried through Jobs's vision of the iPad well. There are too many out of date and similar models; the ads are too vague and confusing. They should be direct and multitudinous. There are hundreds of thousands of apps for the iPad, many of them unique to the iPad, and the iPad has taken the place of many devices. But that message doesn't get through because the ads just sell a lifestyle with no focus. We get lots of brief fast-moving images that could be any generic tablet, but nothing to tell us what is so compelling about the iPad above other tablets. It's such a wasted opportunity. The larger iPad should have been introduced last year. If Apple are to really own magazines, they need a bigger iPad.
Despite Cook's undoubted enthusiasm for the iPad—which is particularly evident at the earnings calls—I still don't think that a lot of Apple really get the iPad. I think many of them are still working on their MacBooks and regard the iPad as a slightly odd consumer device that's somewhat beneath them, but Jobs loved it, so they have to support it. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't feel the same level of love and understanding that developers generally have for the iPhone that they should for the iPad, and that's probably because they simply don't use them as much in their everyday lives. I hope that'll improve. I share Cook's passion for it; I received the original iPad the day before it went on sale in the shops, and it has remained my favourite Apple computer ever since. But I think Cook needs to inspire Apple with his passion more, and that's where I feel Jobs really delivered.
It'll be interesting to see if Cook manages to be a spearhead for the Apple Watch. Can he match the love that Jobs poured into the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad?
I doubt it. Prove me wrong, Tim.
Yes,
They should have noted that it was filmed (and edited on an iPad).
Also, disjointed. It should have all been done by the "man", then said "written and directed by Martin S."
Or whatever.
Boring? That would describe Boyhood. The rest were largely quite interesting. This has been one of the best years for movies in recent history, not for the glitz and glamour but for the creativity and depth.
I have yet to see Boyhood, but I felt both Birdman and Foxcatcher were dull.
I did like Grand Budapest a lot. Fiennes was great, but that Algerian kid stole the show (for me). When he didn't even get nominated, I lost all interest.
Btw, the Imitation Game had to be one of the most cliched movies of all time. And historically inaccurate, because it completely ignored his Princeton days, where his hanging around people like Von Neumann and Alonzo Church (not to mention Albert Einstein) had a far greater impact on his understanding of and insights in computing than did Cambridge University. I also did not care much for the historical inaccuracies in Selma (e.g., sidelining the role of Lyndon Johnson). It ticked me off mightily that King's estate wanted a ridiculous sum of money for the use of his speeches, that the director decided to change them!
This is true. Especially for older people.
Why would a production decide to use a consumer camera to make a movie when all the talent and direction are being paid thousands? How can you justify not using the highest quality camera available? Is Apple paying them to do this? If I was making an expensive production, I certainly wouldn't use a consumer brand camera. Not discrediting the iPad but surely a Red would be more appropriate for a professional film project.
I can understand a iPhone because of it's size, and portability. If you can carry a iPad, then you can carry a much more capable camera. An iPad definitely has its uses, I wasn't referring to those users.
Well, Wikipedia can be hogwash, but I should imagine it's correct in this instance.
Was Scorcese an apprentice of Scorsese? ????
I don't know about yours, but my MacBooks Air allow me search on the internets.
(Sorry, fixed typos).
The Wikipedia citation about his liberal use of violence and profanity is partly why I hated Taxi Driver, so I deemed it pertinent to quote it.
The anecdote about his failed marriages struck me as telling.
We will all be judged.