[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: A first practical step on the documentary problem
I sympathise. But you'll only grind your teeth down to the gum line.
Playing the "victim" got us this far ....... do you really think we
are going to change and become overly agressive?? I don't buy it .....
but hey .......!!
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:03:28 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: A first practical step on the documentary problem
> If a film lays no claim to scientific plausibility that's fine. 2012 was
> quite clearly not interested in science beyond as a marketing ploy.
> That's not the ssue, I feel. It is an issue when a film project lays
> claim to scientific credibility and fails to deliver, for whatever
> reason. The idea of some sort of rating or approval icon stems from
> foods - where similar issues are being dealt with. (Bear with me.)
> Chocolate is marketed as 80% Alpine and called "Pur Choc". Yet the 80%
> alludes to the percentage within the total amount of chocalte, so it's
> not 80% of the content, but of the 10% of choclate in the content, or
> 8%. Perfectly legal. In a way, this is what such documentaries are
> doing. The reply to the eroded credibility in foods has been a system of
> authorities - the green point for recycling, the connoisseur's star
> system. They require recognition as an authority to function.
> I don't care if its the "Smithsonian thumbs-up", the "science
> association's star system" or "Greg Paul's smiley". We can't bemoan
> eroded education at the same time we cynically accept eroding elements
> as 'unavoidable'.
>> Movie producers aren't in our world. They don't make films/documentaries for
>> They make it for Joe/Jane public and the bottom line. Take a good look at
>> the up-
>> coming 2012. See any scholars' names associated with this flick?? The
>> behind this will make you cringe. I find this in a lot of critical reviews.
>> they're aware. But in the same breath they say its worth seeing just for the
>> breathtaking CGI. Movie producers know what people will overlook if you give
>> a good story .... an entertaining story.
>> What GSP is proposing is noble and probably a complete waste of time. All a
>> really needs is a narrative by a Hollywood celebrity. Scientific ethics are
>> not a
>> part of Hollywood ....... in the past/now/or ever.
>> But hey ...... LOL!!
>>> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 06:30:15 -0600
>>> From: email@example.com
>>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; GSP1954@aol.com
>>> CC: email@example.com
>>> Subject: Re: A first practical step on the documentary problem
>>> This would be a terrible idea, because noone can agree on anything to do
>>> with dinosaurs.
>>> Anyone want to develop an organization to require that science displays
>>> display feathers on the therapods? LOL, it isn't going to happen!
Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail