Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 11:47
...
...
...
...
not short enough
10/10 for effort though
...
...
...
not short enough
10/10 for effort though
Page 4 of 4
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 11:51
Phew! Was I the only one packing their bags ..?
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 12:41
Maybe I'm not a "visual learner" but I tend to find the opposite is the case.
My imagination serves me reasonably well, but show me footage and I start thinking Hollywood.
It all looks a bit "Day After Tomorrow" when you see it on TV, just like 9/11 looked a bit "Independence Day". The fact that it was real didn't make it any more realistic, if you know what I mean.
Bizarrely the one bit of footage that really struck me during the 9/11 coverage was a hand-held cam by someone (presumably a journo) heading straight to the scene shortly after the planes had struck. The crowds were already streaming away (towards the camera). You could almost feel the sense "hey, aren't I cool as f**k chasing after this huge story". Then the first tower collapsed and the guy (wholly understandably) turned around and run away as fast as he could. It was about the only thing I saw that had any sense of humanity to it - someone actually reacting to what was going on around him.
Planes flying into buildings looked more like a computer game.
My imagination serves me reasonably well, but show me footage and I start thinking Hollywood.
It all looks a bit "Day After Tomorrow" when you see it on TV, just like 9/11 looked a bit "Independence Day". The fact that it was real didn't make it any more realistic, if you know what I mean.
Bizarrely the one bit of footage that really struck me during the 9/11 coverage was a hand-held cam by someone (presumably a journo) heading straight to the scene shortly after the planes had struck. The crowds were already streaming away (towards the camera). You could almost feel the sense "hey, aren't I cool as f**k chasing after this huge story". Then the first tower collapsed and the guy (wholly understandably) turned around and run away as fast as he could. It was about the only thing I saw that had any sense of humanity to it - someone actually reacting to what was going on around him.
Planes flying into buildings looked more like a computer game.
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 12:52
Yes, I see what you mean. It's a bit strange when you come to think of it that Hollywood CGI effects look more realistic than... well, than real life.andymackem wrote:The fact that it was real didn't make it any more realistic, if you know what I mean.
Hyperreality anyone? Page Umberto Eco.
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 13:43
That was... Oh, never mind.RicheyJames wrote:again the tiresome reliance on personal insults. such a pity that so many are unable to make their point in any other way...Francis wrote:Pick on someone your own size big nose.
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 13:52
Where are you two from? Nose city?Francis wrote:That was... Oh, never mind.RicheyJames wrote:again the tiresome reliance on personal insults. such a pity that so many are unable to make their point in any other way...Francis wrote:Pick on someone your own size big nose.
i got it
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 14:02
OIFrancis wrote:Pick on someone your own size big nose.
Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 22:12
RicheyJames wrote:last time i checked the dictionary was still defining fatuous as "not carefully thought about" which is exactly how your initial comment came across. it still does.emilystrange wrote:if those moving pictures gave me a far greater insight into the physical scale of destruction, then how can it be a fatuous comment?
terribly sorry if my being upset disrupted my flow of language.
Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 10:52