I wonder what privacy one has to give up to access the application. Does it call home as to what I search for or who posts to which social network, etc. Nice feature but could be abused for advertising purposes. Would you like to view other movies with the phrase "terrorist plot" in the script? We'd like to recommend these titles for your viewing pleasure.
This is a good question, and anyone with Little Snitch (or equivalent) should be able to easily give some insights. Has any Little Snitch user rented one of these special videos?
BTW, I have no affiliation with the Snitch developers, but after using the utility for the past year or so I can't imagine ever using any computer without it again.
My best friend is blind. I have only limited experience with deaf persons however the field of research I was referring to involves surgery and I don't think one can be certified work in an OR environment without being able to both hear and see. I have not checked into it I just don't understand how it would be possible.
I'd like the feature whereby movies stop sucking as much. Really, is it just me or has the quality gone down the drain these past few years for most "films". It's like they're all out of ideas, even some big cinema releases are like B grade movies. And what happened to the latest Harry Potter? It like came and went so quickly, I didn't even realise it. Piracy has really gouged the heart out of the movie industry.
Ironically on the pirate torrents a number of the movies have subtitles provided because of many international users requiring them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilcox
And you resent it, is that what you're saying?
Listen, I also am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. I teach at a research university, a hearing university. I've seen deaf people come here and go into professions that 30 years ago no one would have said they could do, and even if people had thought it possible, the accommodations for the deaf student to succeed were not there. So I don't think it is unreasonable of the feds to require your organization to provide accommodations for some as-yet identified young researcher. I'm one of the taxpayers paying for that federally funded work, and I certainly regard this as a worthy use of my money.
I also hope you realize that captions aren't only for deaf people (the person the feds are targeting). There are lots of older people out there who are not able to go to theaters, and can't take advantage of this wonderful new streaming technology because they can't hear well enough.
The bottom line for me: what kind of a world do we live in when we have to pass federal legislation forcing corporations to do the right thing?
Thanks for the info. I found this document which on or about page 41 starts to describe the establishment of an advisory committee nothing about enactment of a law. Please advise of other text relating to the topic.
Just for the record I am not being argumentative for the sake of creating a dispute, but instead trying to discuss a subject which is important to our organization as we do video work for scientific research at universities where someone being deaf or blind is completely nonexistent in the field we represent. However since the program is federally funded we are required to provide CC to our training films.
You don't need to be totally deaf to need subtitles, time will harm your hearing. So yes, I'm glad CC is an obligation. It's a shame new digital distribution platform does not provide subtitles. it's very useful.
Also, my sight is poor but I'm not blind, I use accessibility tools of mac os x and ios every day, I'm glad they exist.
-
how do you know, noone with some handicap is not trying to work in your field ?
I'd like the feature whereby movies stop sucking as much. Really, is it just me or has the quality gone down the drain these past few years for most "films". It's like they're all out of ideas, even some big cinema releases are like B grade movies. And what happened to the latest Harry Potter? It like came and went so quickly, I didn't even realise it. Piracy has really gouged the heart out of the movie industry.
no.
It's just what you feel. There are many great movies. not all is hollywood blockbusters.
Everytime, some "old" (in spirit, everyone can be old suddenly) people come and tell "now it's all dull, in my time, life was great and men were real men, women were real women and little furry creatures was real furry creatures".
It's just fact of life. Old people always think the present is dull for whatever reasons.
Piracy did not change anything in the content of movies. Hollywood did not wait piracy to push Gremlins 2.
It's just what you feel. There are many great movies. not all is hollywood blockbusters.
Everytime, some "old" (in spirit, everyone can be old suddenly) people come and tell "now it's all dull, in my time, life was great and men were real men, women were real women and little furry creatures was real furry creatures".
It's just fact of life. Old people always think the present is dull for whatever reasons.
Piracy did not change anything in the content of movies. Hollywood did not wait piracy to push Gremlins 2.
Green Hornet in 3D. That's how desperate and clueless Hollywood is now. I haven't watched it yet but I know the best part of the movie is the trailer. My most enjoyable movie years were the 90's and very early 00's. I'm 32. Maybe I've gotten too old for movies. Fair enough. I find some games to be far more satisfying in plot, concept and value and far more worth the money - StarCraft2, CrysisWarhead, DeadSpace, MassEffect2, FEAR (Original and Project Origin), etc. I don't watch that much TV either nowadays, mainly just sport (football(soccer) and tennis).
Green Hornet in 3D. That's how desperate and clueless Hollywood is now. I haven't watched it yet but I know the best part of the movie is the trailer. My most enjoyable movie years were the 90's and very early 00's. I'm 32. Maybe I've gotten too old for movies. Fair enough. I find some games to be far more satisfying in plot, concept and value and far more worth the money - StarCraft2, CrysisWarhead, DeadSpace, MassEffect2, FEAR (Original and Project Origin), etc. I don't watch that much TV either nowadays, mainly just sport (football(soccer) and tennis).
I rest my case.
Whilst the point a few posts up (about the grass you remember always seeming greener) is well taken, I'd actually have to agree with the point above as well. It seems like video game plots and hollywood plots are starting to meet in the middle in terms of mediocrity. It can't be long now before games start regularly overtaking their big-screen counterparts in plot subtlety.
I just recently completed COD: Black Ops, and whilst the plot twists were pretty obvious, I would still say that the story had more depth and better voice acting than most war films or political thrillers I've seen recently.
The International, for example had almost no storyline and was almost more like a video game, except that you only get to watch the protagonist taking on 40 uzi-wielding guys, you don't get to play him. And that was supposedly a thoughtful thriller - the game equivalents of a properly brain-dead action film like The Expendables would have to massively exceed the film in terms of depth to be taken seriously.
It used to be that games were based on film licences and people complained that they wasted the opportunities of the source material. These days, half the films that come out are based on video games and in virtually every case actually have significantly shallower plots than the games they're derived from (Doom, Resident Evil, House of the Dead, AVP, etc). Of course if Uwe Boll stopped making films it might significantly sway the stats there.
And as for value, well yeah - If a game costs three times as much as a film and gives you an average of 20 hours entertainment, then unless the film is 7 hours long, or so great that you'd watch it three times back-to-back, it's difficult not to feel that the game is better value for money.
yep, the way the single player campaign was done in Black Ops was way better than most movies
the only reason for 3D is the theaters make money on it. first 3 weeks or so they send back 90% of ticket revenues to the studios and make money on the snacks. charging extra for 3D glasses is all profit since they keep that money
Comments
I wonder what privacy one has to give up to access the application. Does it call home as to what I search for or who posts to which social network, etc. Nice feature but could be abused for advertising purposes. Would you like to view other movies with the phrase "terrorist plot" in the script? We'd like to recommend these titles for your viewing pleasure.
This is a good question, and anyone with Little Snitch (or equivalent) should be able to easily give some insights. Has any Little Snitch user rented one of these special videos?
BTW, I have no affiliation with the Snitch developers, but after using the utility for the past year or so I can't imagine ever using any computer without it again.
It is surprising to see a studio moving in the right direction without being dragged kicking and screaming...
This move might be the result of a lot of that kicking. Savvy?
And you resent it, is that what you're saying?
My best friend is blind. I have only limited experience with deaf persons however the field of research I was referring to involves surgery and I don't think one can be certified work in an OR environment without being able to both hear and see. I have not checked into it I just don't understand how it would be possible.
And you resent it, is that what you're saying?
Listen, I also am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. I teach at a research university, a hearing university. I've seen deaf people come here and go into professions that 30 years ago no one would have said they could do, and even if people had thought it possible, the accommodations for the deaf student to succeed were not there. So I don't think it is unreasonable of the feds to require your organization to provide accommodations for some as-yet identified young researcher. I'm one of the taxpayers paying for that federally funded work, and I certainly regard this as a worthy use of my money.
I also hope you realize that captions aren't only for deaf people (the person the feds are targeting). There are lots of older people out there who are not able to go to theaters, and can't take advantage of this wonderful new streaming technology because they can't hear well enough.
The bottom line for me: what kind of a world do we live in when we have to pass federal legislation forcing corporations to do the right thing?
Thanks for the info. I found this document which on or about page 41 starts to describe the establishment of an advisory committee nothing about enactment of a law. Please advise of other text relating to the topic.
Just for the record I am not being argumentative for the sake of creating a dispute, but instead trying to discuss a subject which is important to our organization as we do video work for scientific research at universities where someone being deaf or blind is completely nonexistent in the field we represent. However since the program is federally funded we are required to provide CC to our training films.
You don't need to be totally deaf to need subtitles, time will harm your hearing. So yes, I'm glad CC is an obligation. It's a shame new digital distribution platform does not provide subtitles. it's very useful.
Also, my sight is poor but I'm not blind, I use accessibility tools of mac os x and ios every day, I'm glad they exist.
-
how do you know, noone with some handicap is not trying to work in your field ?
I'd like the feature whereby movies stop sucking as much. Really, is it just me or has the quality gone down the drain these past few years for most "films". It's like they're all out of ideas, even some big cinema releases are like B grade movies. And what happened to the latest Harry Potter? It like came and went so quickly, I didn't even realise it. Piracy has really gouged the heart out of the movie industry.
no.
It's just what you feel. There are many great movies. not all is hollywood blockbusters.
Everytime, some "old" (in spirit, everyone can be old suddenly) people come and tell "now it's all dull, in my time, life was great and men were real men, women were real women and little furry creatures was real furry creatures".
It's just fact of life. Old people always think the present is dull for whatever reasons.
Piracy did not change anything in the content of movies. Hollywood did not wait piracy to push Gremlins 2.
no.
It's just what you feel. There are many great movies. not all is hollywood blockbusters.
Everytime, some "old" (in spirit, everyone can be old suddenly) people come and tell "now it's all dull, in my time, life was great and men were real men, women were real women and little furry creatures was real furry creatures".
It's just fact of life. Old people always think the present is dull for whatever reasons.
Piracy did not change anything in the content of movies. Hollywood did not wait piracy to push Gremlins 2.
Green Hornet in 3D. That's how desperate and clueless Hollywood is now. I haven't watched it yet but I know the best part of the movie is the trailer. My most enjoyable movie years were the 90's and very early 00's. I'm 32. Maybe I've gotten too old for movies. Fair enough. I find some games to be far more satisfying in plot, concept and value and far more worth the money - StarCraft2, CrysisWarhead, DeadSpace, MassEffect2, FEAR (Original and Project Origin), etc. I don't watch that much TV either nowadays, mainly just sport (football(soccer) and tennis).
I rest my case.
Green Hornet in 3D. That's how desperate and clueless Hollywood is now. I haven't watched it yet but I know the best part of the movie is the trailer. My most enjoyable movie years were the 90's and very early 00's. I'm 32. Maybe I've gotten too old for movies. Fair enough. I find some games to be far more satisfying in plot, concept and value and far more worth the money - StarCraft2, CrysisWarhead, DeadSpace, MassEffect2, FEAR (Original and Project Origin), etc. I don't watch that much TV either nowadays, mainly just sport (football(soccer) and tennis).
I rest my case.
Whilst the point a few posts up (about the grass you remember always seeming greener) is well taken, I'd actually have to agree with the point above as well. It seems like video game plots and hollywood plots are starting to meet in the middle in terms of mediocrity. It can't be long now before games start regularly overtaking their big-screen counterparts in plot subtlety.
I just recently completed COD: Black Ops, and whilst the plot twists were pretty obvious, I would still say that the story had more depth and better voice acting than most war films or political thrillers I've seen recently.
The International, for example had almost no storyline and was almost more like a video game, except that you only get to watch the protagonist taking on 40 uzi-wielding guys, you don't get to play him. And that was supposedly a thoughtful thriller - the game equivalents of a properly brain-dead action film like The Expendables would have to massively exceed the film in terms of depth to be taken seriously.
It used to be that games were based on film licences and people complained that they wasted the opportunities of the source material. These days, half the films that come out are based on video games and in virtually every case actually have significantly shallower plots than the games they're derived from (Doom, Resident Evil, House of the Dead, AVP, etc). Of course if Uwe Boll stopped making films it might significantly sway the stats there.
And as for value, well yeah - If a game costs three times as much as a film and gives you an average of 20 hours entertainment, then unless the film is 7 hours long, or so great that you'd watch it three times back-to-back, it's difficult not to feel that the game is better value for money.
the only reason for 3D is the theaters make money on it. first 3 weeks or so they send back 90% of ticket revenues to the studios and make money on the snacks. charging extra for 3D glasses is all profit since they keep that money