In my experience, the original text-speak, (Need 2 talk. C u @ 8), works well with flip phones, when you don't have a full keyboard. But with a smart phone that has a keyboard, or multiple keyboards, as well as anticipated or suggested vocabulary, it is actually just as fast or even faster to write in standard words and sentences. If I want to use numbers or special characters, I need to switch to a second or third keyboard. It actually takes me longer to write "@," instead of "at." Additionally, I often use voice recognition that writes in standard English.
I suppose it could be argued that there's a difference between live performance and recorded media though. I mean, bands often perform and even record covers of songs by other artists, but I haven't come across anyone harboring the concept that Dark Side Of The Moon or Sgt. Peppers is due for a remake, and films are kind of like albums that way. Meant to be appreciated in their entirety, and maybe paid tribute to in bits. Sometimes a remake is great, but that seems rare. John Carpenter's The Thing comes to mind immediately. But I don't know if that explains the whole story of being annoyed with remakes. I think it may have something to do with respecting artists who try to avoid doing something that's been done before. Friedkin had that challenge in The French Connection with the car chase, so he made it a car chasing an elevated train instead. Then he had to top that with the chase in To Live And Die In L.A. The idea was always to bring something to the screen that hadn't been seen or done before. I think there's a lot to be said for that. Richard Burton couldn't even stand the idea of crying the same as other actors had done when he made Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf. He had to find a new way to break down sobbing, and did. Even when something pretty cool and original like Beetlejuice comes out, you can could on knockoffs like Death Becomes Her and Defending Your Life to satisfy audiences who can't get enough of the original. MASH had a great football game in it. People often remember the one from The Longest Yard though. Looking back on it now, I don't know if I'd even want to watch The Longest Yard again, although I've been longing to see MASH again. Enough rambling though. I'm pretty sure I've got a point in there somewhere...
Funerals and marriages can be strictly secular affairs without any clergy present. Why would the movies be unrealistic, then?
Some albums get remade (iconic ones) but it's primarily about he song and they do get remade.the analogy is a bit imperfect though.
I don't mind it too much when it's a genuine improvement in the theatrical experience. Imax and Dolby Cinema and Atmos and Barco Auro are the real deal. I'm a huge fan in particular of Dolby Cinema, and think it makes a lot of sense for theaters. I don't disagree at all that it's a way to charge more money for tickets; the question is if it's worth it.
Well with the 3D experience, lack of pop outs, means I will seriously consider not buying the media if the films not using the 3D too its maximum effect.
Well according to Hollywood/US TV every other Villain, Nemesis or Bad guy on the planet is a Brit or more specifically English, I’ve lost count of the number of times we’re portrayed in a negative light, if your watching an action/thriller film or TV program as soon as you hear an English accent you know that person is the evil geniuses, murderer or psychopath.
I hate that (especially in older movies), the woman was made out to be stupid and worthless. Especially in a fight scene, a man and a woman get into a fight with the evil maniac; the man does all the fighting, while the woman stands there and screams and/or faints.
Woman naked man fully clothed past stereotypes. Thankfully thats reversed now. Man is the Sex objrct ...PC 21stC.
Furthermore, in nearly all instances of actors wearing glasses, the actual lenses are plain glass/plastic/polycarbonate - that is, no prescription at all. Occasionally, on a distant shot, you can catch a glimpse of an actor's real glasses, but in close-up, it's always the plain lenses. Worse yet are old movies where there was no attempt at any kind of lens at all, just frames. There are occasions too where an actor is allowed to wear his/her own prescription sunglasses, as long as it's not a close-up. There's an episode of HOME IMPROVEMENT where Tim Allen and his TV wife are seated on a couch reading. Tim's got on a pair of what are probably his real glasses for nearsightedness, yet he's using these for reading.
I don't really disagree with you. But as lv70smusic said above, portrayals of LGBT characters by straight people have oftentimes been very wide of the reality mark. Thankfully, that's more a thing of the past, but it still happens. As far as who gets to do what role, of course qualifications should trump all. But Hollywood can be notoriously tone deaf when it comes to casting minorities. Remember Charlton Heston in "Touch Of Evil"? Janet Leigh in "Bye Bye Birdie"? As far as recent films go, I wouldn't have anyone other than Cate Blanchett in the role of "Carol", she was magnificent. The other side of the coin is the horrific "Stonewall". Who knew the hero of those riots was a white kid from the midwest? I think I opened a gnarly vein of this thread because there really aren't any easy answers, and I would still love to see an LGBT person take a lead role as an LGBT person. And not just the sassy friend, the dying friend, the loveless friend. And I'd also like it if they could have sex. Of course, they already do, on television.
I know you didn't like the show, but Looking was an excellent show about gay people. A wide net of types and it all worked, and the only show that comes close to that accuracy is Queer As Folk. And if you want comic relief, look no further than the online hit (5 years and running) Where The Bears Are, sort of Golden Girls, Murder She Wrote and Bear Week in Provincetown all rolled up onto one.
You might need a better phone. The days of sending texts in "text speak" are gone. I just typed this post on my phone, and it looks like one of my texts.
An Italian playing a Cuban (Pacino in Scarface) or a Cuban playing an Italian (Garcia in Godfather III). Of course, actors play different ethnicities all the time but it bugged me in these 2 movies (Pacino was especially comical in Scarface, he did a better job in Carlito's Way, but being a NYRican myself, I found plenty to laugh at in that movie also!). How homosexuality seems to be 'the 'flavor of the month' in this century. Also, the casting of blacks in what were originally white roles, in remakes and comic book movies, feels like a gimmick most times.
Not so much a flavor of the month as it's an acknowledgement of the existence of LGBT people. But yeah, at times it does feel like a character or storyline is being shoehorned in. And a lot of times the take on it is flat out wrong or stereotyped.
Bryan Batt (who is gay in real life) brilliantly portrayed the closeted Sal Romano on "Mad Men." Only the most hateful viewer would feel no sympathy for the character's inner torment.
To be honest, I normally do write out messages in proper English, but I thought I was just old-fashioned (... or old). And yes, my phone is ancient, and an upgrade wouldn't be a bad idea.
