WHHHHHYYYYYYY
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Sound of Music remake https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10620 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Sound of Music remake |
WHHHHHYYYYYYY
|
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The way I understood it, it wasn't so much a remake as a live performance that was televised. (Sound of Music has been to broadway, so it's not the first time.) |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sound of Music remake |
The original sucks. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sound of Music remake |
Lenas wrote: The original sucks. Uh huh. You can argue you don't like musicals, that's fine. You can say this movie ain't your cup of tea. I mean, it's not the type of thing I go out of my way to watch repeatedly. But saying it sucks is like saying Will Shakespeare was a hack, Isaac Newton was a moron, and Beethoven was talentless. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
/agree Talya |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sound of Music remake |
Talya wrote: You can say this movie ain't your cup of tea. Yeah, that. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sound of Music remake |
Talya wrote: Isaac Newton was a moron Well, he did believe one could turn lead into gold via alchemy, which is also what killed him. So he wasn't quite *all* there. 
|
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
And when he discovered optics, he insisted on having seven colors because he believed in numerology. But he also invented calculus on a dare. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: And when he discovered optics, he insisted on having seven colors because he believed in numerology. But he also invented calculus on a dare. Ahah! So that's the reason "Indigo" is sometimes listed as a color of the visible spectrum, despite there not being easily notable apart from blue and violet. |
|
| Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is actually evidence that naming colors helps us differentiate them. NPR, Radiolab had a fascinating article on color. It started out pointing out that Homer uses some strange descriptions for color. He refers to violet sheep, and wine-dark sea and oxen. Both Honey & faces 'pale with fear' are described as green. http://www.radiolab.org/story/211119-colors/ It turns out that blue isn't ever mentioned in the Oddessy. In fact, when we trace linguistic roots, blue is one of the last colors that is ever defined by cultures. There are a couple of reasons theorized by this, such as its rarely occurring in nature, and comparatively hard to manufacture artificial blue dyes. But when anthropologists study current cultures which still have no word for various colors, when shown, for instance, a monitor screen with clearly defined colors (I think the example they used was blue & green) the individuals couldn't even tell them apart. Given 4 squares, 1 green and 3 blue, they reported all squares were identical. (cellular and biological differences were ruled out) The phenomena is apparently present with us too. Another piece in the same episode they explore tetrachromes, women who have a 4th type of cone in their eye, theoretically able to see a wider spectrum of color. They were unable to find one until they came upon one woman who could indeed differentiate this supposed color difference that none of the other test subjects could. This woman however, was also an interior decorator so worked extensively with color. Then they tested an (male) artist and he too could differentiate this color difference that no one else could. (men CANNOT be tetrachromes) So in the course of working with color, he had trained his brain to further differentiate color than most 'normal' people can. It wasn't a cellular thing, but rather a brain-training thing. Working backwards, it wasn't that the tetrachromes didn't exist, but rather that most were not trained to see the additional color difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy |
|
| Author: | Serienya [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: The way I understood it, it wasn't so much a remake as a live performance that was televised. (Sound of Music has been to broadway, so it's not the first time.) It was a live performance of the Broadway musical, so it had the two songs omitted from the movie, and the original song order. I didn't see this performance. I didn't even hear about it until the next day.  I'd have liked to have seen Audra as the Mother Abbess, but don't feel I missed anything else in not seeing this.
|
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sound of Music remake |
That is an interesting line of research, but provides little justification for indigo. There are numerous shades of colors that are not considered primary or secondary. Mauve, for instance. Indeed, indigo does not fit into Newton's own paradigm. Actually, indigo is the primary color, it's blue that's the odd man out if I remember correctly. |
|
| Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
depends on if you're talking about light(additive) or pigment (subtractive) Cyan/Magenta/Yellow vs Blue/Red/Green |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|