MovieChat Forums > Incandenza > Replies
Incandenza's Replies
Well, in chess the whole game is on the board for both players to see. A "won" position is one where one player can force a win regardless of the opponent's moves.
I don't remember exactly on the game you're talking about, but I think Beth had managed to win material, and then Borgov goes checking the king hoping to find a way to at least draw, but ultimately he runs out of checks and Beth stabilizes. This particular ending might be considered "won" 10 moves earlier, it's just a matter of playing it out until it's clear that there aren't resources they didn't see.
But to answer your question directly, in very complicated positions, it's normal for both players to calculate the same line, but one of them misses a move/miscalculates. When the player is surprised by the move, he becomes aware that he miscalculated the line. In a way this single move "ends" the game (it becomes a "won" position) for the opponent, but the game was theoretically over as soon as he allowed the line, if you know what I mean.
This isn't how all games go, most are a slow accumulation of slightly better moves, but in the context of "one move" ending the game, that's when it happens. A battle of calculation. Assuming both players are great and wouldn't just blunder a queen or a mate in one (which sometimes happens too, still).
I found it very funny too. The whole concept is so ridiculous. The first half just had me confused and disappointed, but the second time in Oslo it clicked for me, and then I was happy to see it play out. As it ended I laughed out of happiness at having seen something new and surprising, although I'm not sure it was good.
I didn't mean to say you made up the rumors, only that you were passing them on, my apologies if it sounded too aggressive. I guess I should have said "help spread" instead (english is not my first language).
The origin for those claims is that website, sausageroll. They cite people who did not work on the game, they hammer the point of transgenderism throughout the whole article when we know it's a tiny part of the game, they repeat many now confirmed to be false claims. They're not rumors worth repeating, and I was also referring to your "Druckmann threatened people who didn't like the storyline" line.
Hum, those rumors are ridiculous. The character designs of everyone other than maybe Lev obviously did not have anything to do with transgenderism. You don't have to spread these dumb rumours to criticize the game.
Other than that, I enjoyed reading your post. It makes sense that if Joel was your favourite character to play as this would be very unsatisfying. Personally, I think the direction they chose was interesting and fruitful; I enjoyed the crazy internal turmoil they inflicted on me through most of the game, and although I too was feeling kind of empty by the end, I felt like I learned things about myself. I ended up caring for Abby despite the odds.
It kind of sucks that the story they went with ended up (predictably) alienating and not pleasing a lot of people. But at the same time it stands as something unique and emotionally challenging, specially rare in the form of a AAA videogame.
Another Altman film, Nashville, might be considered similar too. And it's pretty good.
Yeah, I agree with you. I guess he did feel animosity towards Neiman still, but yeah, right at the end he's proud. The film kind of goes with that ending because it's interesting, I don't think it's telling you that such methods are worth it.
And yeah, Fletcher is definitely an asshole, haha. Jazz is not about competition. Lots of historic jazz records have mistakes in them, but it's part of the fun to see the way the players adapt.
He probably gives himself credit for his performance at the end. He was proud.
Watch this scene again to understand what he thinks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lFs5gbv_k
I also think it might be too intense for a 10 year old, but it is not nearly as gory as Saving Pvt. Ryan when it comes to yet living people. It does show a lot of dead bodies in sad and horrible conditions.
Ok, it's interesting that you say it like that, it didn't cross my mind to just assume it was true.
I assumed she had been gaslighted because earlier in the film we have this scene [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcsByxGdYO0[/url] which tells me at least that her memory isn't too good.
And for some reason I thought the first film left it clear they didn't, but man, I just went back to watch that bit in Before Sunrise and I don't know what I was thinking! It does look like they will do it when it cuts. Though I guess it stays ambiguous still.
I'll need to rewatch the entire thing to understand how I felt when I wrote the original post.
Loved it. It had a great atmosphere and I enjoyed the interaction between the characters a lot.
Directed by Edgar Wright.
Edit: For real though, don't think you need to be in a rush. But it's worth watching.
Yeah, I choose to believe she was lying.
At first I totally bought her story, but I [i]didn't like that story[/i]. So I was confused, and almost disappointed. And then I saw the birds return at the end.
I didn't think Nora would lie after catching Kevin on his lie and not buying it. But I interpreted the birds returning as telling us "Hey, did you think the birds would fly away and spread the message after all? Nah, they were just late." And, you know, earlier in the episode, the viewer is confused at Kevin's ignorance of the real past, but it turns out that the simple explanation that he was just lying was correct. (Although it's not simple to me [b]why he would[/b] either)
I think it's clever the way they made it so the end would please several types of people.
Edit: Though now that I read Dreamers' post I guess Nora wasn't just lying to Kevin, so that makes more sense to me now.
He's the man who talks to Kevin in episodes 8 and 10 (the one who who talks to him at the bridge, and then tells him to sing the karaoke at the lounge). He had no beard then.
I see what you mean now. Those are some interesting points, and thank you for giving examples.
Society definitely [i]seems[/i] to be walking in that direction, maybe because the people who have the power have the most influence and they need that kind of thinking to justify their positions.
I can't say I noticed it in this film, and it's always tricky to state whether the film is supporting or criticizing what it shows on screen, but it's certainly true that the real intention often has no bearing on its effects (like anti-war movies still functioning as pro-war propaganda; the effect of story telling in this powerful medium, I think).
[b]"Those of us who might feel that way already would get the movie and others would just think it's boring."[/b]
Yes, I can agree that that is how it goes. But I don't agree with the way you refer to the film as a means to an end (needing a point/ in this case delivering conservative propaganda).
[b]"I look at a lot of movies as being political, because I think they are. They are produced for a profit inside or a system that needs to justify and perpetuate itself."[/b]
I agree in the sense that anything anyone does is always affirming existing ideologies, but I can't believe it's actively being spread here. I wanna say the makers of this film saw it as end in itself, film as art and not just a product.
I thought Lee was childish, an idiot when he was drunk (which was almost always?), and I had little sympathy for him before the accident. But I was really touched by the sequence of the reveal, and what happened at the police station (I got tears in my eyes when he tried to shoot himself), augmented of course by the structure of the screenplay (suddenly his character made sense!).
To me the film being popular makes sense because to me it's a really good movie, felt very true to life and I felt like I had experienced something special by the end of it. And I don't remember getting the feeling that the film was judging Lee, or making a negative statement about him.
I guess this is a case where our subjectivities affect a lot how we see the object.
Edit: Oh, and yeah, I guess I too got the feeling that there was something missing by the end, when Lee doesn't change and the film doesn't resolve as one would expect, so in that sense it is unsatisfying. But it serves to drive the point that that is just how it goes often enough. It was too hard for him.
I think a point the movie makes is that some mistakes can be so horrible that they're really hard to come back from.
I think a good effect it could have on its viewers is help them understand the mind of someone who has made one of those mistakes, so that the next time they hear about someone who did something similar (accidentally causing deaths) they won't demonize the person and understand that he/she hates himself more than anything (and could maybe use some help).
Don eladio gus look way older mike looks same so does victor, gus Dr looks fat as hell gus acts so nerdy Sal looks same also but shows still great
Maybe he's painting himself and trying to blend in with the background, symbolizing his effort to be a normal lawyer? Not sure how to interpret it exactly in the context of the story so far, but it seems like it symbolizes a failed attempt to be something he isn't.
Definitely something they wanted us to see and hear, as there is a woody sound, akin to a door or a window moving. Might have been just for setting the mood, but the uncertainty makes me curious. Can't quite figure out what it is either.
I saw it. I gave the original an 8/10 for reference and I'd give the new one like a 7/10 tops.
It's a fun movie, especially if you really liked the first one, but it just felt like more of the same. Has some interesting visuals. Wasn't a fan of how the music was used in some places, but I guess it's in line with how the previous film was made. I haven't seen the original in quite a while.