The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread ΛΕ

[Chukchi Husky]

And yet everything you've posted here about what they tell you is wrong. And you are smart enough to understand that something in what they are saying is wrong, so you check with another source.

Only in their minds.

I'm not smart. When I do try to find out more about what they say, whenever I try to tell them I struggle to say about ten words then they'l speak clearly for ten minutes about how I'm wrong, how whatever source I found is wrong and in a tone that makes what they say sound completely logical and that disagreeing with them is stupid, insane and willfully ignorant.

 

[Morty]

Ability to talk for ages isn't the same as the ability to be intelligent.....just ask my ex-wife!!

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not smart. When I do try to find out more about what they say, whenever I try to tell them I struggle to say about ten words then they'l speak clearly for ten minutes about how I'm wrong, how whatever source I found is wrong and in a tone that makes what they say sound completely logical and that disagreeing with them is stupid, insane and willfully ignorant.

You not being articulate doesn't change the fact that they are never right.

 

[The_J]

On a scale from 1-10, how bad would you say it is to break up a relationship over phone/video call?

Background: I figured I don't really fit to my GF (this has only been 4 months now). There is itself nothing really wrong there, just the personalities don't really fit. She'll be in another time zone for at least 1.5 months more (left ~3 weeks ago, due to Visa). I initially thought I could end it some time after she's back (some 3-4 weeks after her birthday end of January), but the situation is beginning to annoy me. And I'm not going to buy a flight ticket for that (and a visit was not planned).

 

[sophie]

It's not ideal, but it's certainly better than sticking around in a relationship you no longer want to be a part of for another 2 months.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

On a scale from 1-10, how bad would you say it is to break up a relationship over phone/video call?

Background: I figured I don't really fit to my GF (this has only been 4 months now). There is itself nothing really wrong there, just the personalities don't really fit. She'll be in another time zone for at least 1.5 months more (left ~3 weeks ago, due to Visa). I initially thought I could end it some time after she's back (some 3-4 weeks after her birthday end of January), but the situation is beginning to annoy me. And I'm not going to buy a flight ticket for that (and a visit was not planned).

1.

Never understood this "rule". Well... not in the case of any sort of long distance relationship.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not smart. When I do try to find out more about what they say, whenever I try to tell them I struggle to say about ten words then they'l speak clearly for ten minutes about how I'm wrong, how whatever source I found is wrong and in a tone that makes what they say sound completely logical and that disagreeing with them is stupid, insane and willfully ignorant.

I strenuously disagree.

 

[Arakhor]

Definitely do it over a video call if you can. That way you can look each other on the face as you do it.

 

[cardgame]

I'm not smart. When I do try to find out more about what they say, whenever I try to tell them I struggle to say about ten words then they'l speak clearly for ten minutes about how I'm wrong, how whatever source I found is wrong and in a tone that makes what they say sound completely logical and that disagreeing with them is stupid, insane and willfully ignorant.

You are inarticulate in person. This is actually relatively common. Your articulateness has no bearing on your general intelligence or logic.

 

[The_J]

Definitely do it over a video call if you can. That way you can look each other on the face as you do it.

Yeah, that was the plan.
mmhh... still convinced to do it tomorrow... gonna see.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Just email her.

 

[The_J]

No, that would be an absolute dick-ish move.

 

[Birdjaguar]

They have a university degree in film studies.

Producers are all about the financing of a film and money and Directors are all about making a film. They live in different worlds.

Another thing they say is that CGI shouldn't cost anything because it's all made on computers instead of being made for real.

They are just showing how much they don't know. Creating things on a computer can be less expensive than trying to create the same thing in RL, GoT's dragons anyone? But that work takes both time and skill on the part of people. A CGI castle can take weeks of someone's time to create. That work is not free. Your friends are ignorant CH.

 

[Traitorfish]

Daftest thing about this is, the push towards three-hour, multi-volume blockbusters has been pushed by studios and producers, not directors. Most directors would probably prefer to make a tight 90-120 minute film; it's studios who push to pad it out with another hour of set-pieces, because they've realised that, through the perverse witchcraft of macroeconomics, this makes films more profitable, or at least allows them compete in a crowded marketplace.

Jackson's Ring trilogy is the exception, and is very unusual in being a director-driven blockbuster, which is partly why its length is matched by its density, why all (or at least most) of the extra run-time actually does something. His second pass at Middle Earth, in contrast, showed all the hallmarks of a studio-driven project.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Producers are all about the financing of a film and money and Directors are all about making a film. They live in different worlds.

They are just showing how much they don't know. Creating things on a computer can be less expensive than trying to create the same thing in RL, GoT's dragons anyone? But that work takes both time and skill on the part of people. A CGI castle can take weeks of someone's time to create. That work is not free. Your friends are ignorant CH.

What they say is that the producers know how to make a film properly unlike the director. If the director was allowed to make a film their way, the film would be as long as possible instead of compressed down to only what's needed because directors are pretentious and self-indulgent.

When it comes to CGI, since it's all created on a computer then it shouldn't cost anything.

Daftest thing about this is, the push towards three-hour, multi-volume blockbusters has been pushed by studios and producers, not directors. Most directors would probably prefer to make a tight 90-120 minute film; it's studios who push to pad it out with another hour of set-pieces, because they've realised that, through the perverse witchcraft of macroeconomics, this makes films more profitable, or at least allows them compete in a crowded marketplace.

Jackson's Ring trilogy is the exception, and is very unusual in being a director-driven blockbuster, which is partly why its length is matched by its density, why all (or at least most) of the extra run-time actually does something. His second pass at Middle Earth, in contrast, showed all the hallmarks of a studio-driven project.

That's not what I was told. The producers want to make shorter films because more showings of the film can be shown in a day and that the human attention span is only an hour long. The ideal length of a film is at most 80 minutes.

They have many complaints about The Lord of the Rings trilogy, one is that the theatrical lengths are already too long (they said that nothing at all happens in the Return of the King) and should be made a lot shorter, so the worst thing to have happened was the extended editions. They complained about all the unnecessary material added to the film that isn't needed at all and none of the extra scenes can be remembered. They gave the example of the Mouth of Sauron as why the extended cuts are pointless. They don't entirely blame Peter Jackson, they say that Tolkien already ruined The Lord of the Rings by creating The SIlmarillion, adding details and background to things that don't need to be known and so ruining the mystery.

Another thing that I found odd is that they complained that the forests in The Lord of the Rings are obviously fake. I found that strange because according to The Appendices behind the scenes material, many forests throughout New Zealand were used for filming.

They told me that for The Hobbit, Peter Jackson was given complete creative freedom because of the success of The Lord of the Rings, so The Hobbit proves that Peter Jackson is a terrible film maker, just like how the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy proves that George Lucas is a terrible film maker.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What they say is that the producers know how to make a film properly unlike the director. If the director was allowed to make a film their way, the film would be as long as possible instead of compressed down to only what's needed because directors are pretentious and self-indulgent.

When it comes to CGI, since it's all created on a computer then it shouldn't cost anything.

That's not what I was told. The producers want to make shorter films because more showings of the film can be shown in a day and that the human attention span is only an hour long. The ideal length of a film is at most 80 minutes.

Chukchi, your friends are wrong. I am a producer on a documentary film being produced for the Imax theater market and know nothing about how to make a movie. I don't need to. Producers can control the budget and therefore the length of a film or how much is spent on CGI and actors. Typically, what happens is money is raised on the idea of the movie by producers; they select a director and together a budget is created. The director then makes the movie and tries to bring it in within budget. If he cannot meet the budget, then the producers will have to raise more money or stop the project. Oh, and BTW, the goal of the producers is to make money for the investors. It is not to make short films. There are more optimal lengths for films that meet scheduling demands, but the prospect of more profit will over ride a film's length.

Most producers don't know anything about how to make a movie, they are involved only to make money. People like Steven Spielberg are an exception, they began by directing and once they got rich enough, they began producing also. He does know how to make a movie. But more and more, movie producers just just investors out to make a buck. Hedge funds are now in the business of being producers and investing money in movies rather than stocks and bonds.

Again I'll say, creating content with CGI is not free. Skilled people must do the work. Computer games are 100% CGI, do your friends think that that content is free to produce? If they do, then they are ignorant of how things work in the real world.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Again I'll say, creating content with CGI is not free. Skilled people must do the work. Computer games are 100% CGI, do your friends think that that content is free to produce? If they do, then they are ignorant of how things work in the real world.

Yes. They keep complaining about how computer game budgets are always on the rise and don't understand where the money is going, since everything is made on computers. Any money made on a game should go to the producers and publishers, not to the people working on the computers since working on computers doesn't cost anything. They hate when game prices go down during a sale and despise piracy because it deprives computer game companies like Electronic Arts of money that rightfully belongs to them and that all the copyrights they own should be enforced as strictly as possible. Another thing they hate about modern computer games is that they're always buggy on release along with taking up far too much space and they don't understand why, because all computer games are made by using an engine that's already been created, so all the work is done. They've even said that Nintendo needs to teach other game developers how to make games because it's obvious that no other developer knows how to make games properly.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes. They keep complaining about how computer game budgets are always on the rise and don't understand where the money is going, since everything is made on computers. Any money made on a game should go to the producers and publishers, not to the people working on the computers since working on computers doesn't cost anything. They hate when game prices go down during a sale and despise piracy because it deprives computer game companies like Electronic Arts of money that rightfully belongs to them and that all the copyrights they own should be enforced as strictly as possible. Another thing they hate about modern computer games is that they're always buggy on release along with taking up far too much space and they don't understand why, because all computer games are made by using an engine that's already been created, so all the work is done. They've even said that Nintendo needs to teach other game developers how to make games because it's obvious that no other developer knows how to make games properly.

They are just ignorant beyond belief. Don't believe anything they tell you. Computer games have become incredibly complex and finding and eliminating the bugs is a full time job. Dedicated players are the best testers, that's why games go through beta testing with players. They will catch many many bugs, but not all. Good companies will patch things quickly.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes. They keep complaining about how computer game budgets are always on the rise and don't understand where the money is going, since everything is made on computers. Any money made on a game should go to the producers and publishers, not to the people working on the computers since working on computers doesn't cost anything. They hate when game prices go down during a sale and despise piracy because it deprives computer game companies like Electronic Arts of money that rightfully belongs to them and that all the copyrights they own should be enforced as strictly as possible. Another thing they hate about modern computer games is that they're always buggy on release along with taking up far too much space and they don't understand why, because all computer games are made by using an engine that's already been created, so all the work is done. They've even said that Nintendo needs to teach other game developers how to make games because it's obvious that no other developer knows how to make games properly.

When they say that working on computers doesn't cost anything, look them straight in the eye and say "you are stupid".

 

[Chukchi Husky]

They are just ignorant beyond belief. Don't believe anything they tell you. Computer games have become incredibly complex and finding and eliminating the bugs is a full time job. Dedicated players are the best testers, that's why games go through beta testing with players. They will catch many many bugs, but not all. Good companies will patch things quickly.

They know far more about game design than I ever could. It was part of their university degree to study game design. They don't believe that games are as buggy as players say they are, that complaining about bugs is wrong because it's concentrating on the technical aspects of the game instead of on the game play. When they complain about companies releasing buggy games, it's the gigantic patches that these companies release almost every week, in some cases larger than the game itself and they don't understand why, especially because Nintendo never does that.

When they say that working on computers doesn't cost anything, look them straight in the eye and say "you are stupid".

They've constantly proven over and over again that they're far smarter than I am. They have university educations, I failed my end of school exams. They always know something weeks or even months before I hear about it from another source. I can't call them stupid as that isn't proof that they're wrong.