Disqus - Latest Comments for stephanieebarr

Re: I Am Going to Forget I Ever Saw This so you don’t have to

stephanieebarr — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:34:49 -0000

No thanks, this is one thing I'd rather do myself as well as all the logic you put behind it.

Re: I’ve Been Married for 20 Years so you don’t have to be

stephanieebarr — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:19:44 -0000

You may have done it FIRST, but I'm planning to do it TOO.

Congrats.

Re: I Make Fruitless Fruit Salad so you don’t have to

stephanieebarr — Sat, 08 May 2010 10:40:53 -0000

Duh, cruller, the airiest of them all.

Re: I Make Fruitless Fruit Salad so you don’t have to

stephanieebarr — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:13:25 -0000

Uh, OK, enjoy.

I feel for your lack of cake. I'll go eat a doughnut in sympathy.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:17:11 -0000

We are not going to be able to reach each other. Thanks to a call with my sister, I even know why. Feel free to put whatever interpretation you want on it.

I'm out of here. Carry on amongst yourselves.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:34:54 -0000

In the interest of having a comment that isn't three letters wide, I'm starting a new one. It will work to your benefit, too.

Let's start again and I will try to explain why I disagree.

As I understand your contention, Avatar cannot be the greatest movie ever because, at least, the story is insufficient and the characters are "hollow and boring", completely unrealistic.

I understand that, and, if I agreed with your assessment, I would probably agree that this movie couldn't be the greatest movie ever (I'm not even sure that such a designation could exist, but it doesn't matter. Your point is that it can be precluded objectively, an error of fact).

The problem I have is that you have yet to provide any supporting and inarguable facts to support your case. In your review, you gave several reasons. Many having to do with mining and space travel, both of which I could say with assurity I'm more expert in, and both of which I explained your fallacies. You treat the story as trite, but that is a matter of opinion not fact, even if it has been done a thousand times in movies. It's played out more in real life. It happens today, so clearly the lesson has not been learned.

You have compared it Harry Potter. Alright, you see them in the same light. I do not, nor have you given a single reason to connect the two other than wild popularity. So no popular books were ever classics? Among the great ones?

You have to provide the connection to the analogy or it's meaningless. Right now, you have two connections - you think they're analogous (which means nothing to me or anyone else) and they were both bestsellers. That is insufficient for me.

When it comes to challenging experts, I expect them to prove their points, in controvertible data. Repeating their expertise or making comparisons or allusions without demosntrating connections doesn't work. Nor does telling me that the "math is complicated. You wouldn't understand it." Though that last has been tried (and I don't mean you).

I didnt' defend my sister and what you said about her because it was an "If-then" situation. I've never asked her if Harry Potter was the best book ever. I don't think English teachers generally would say such a thing. I do feel confident, if one of my sister's students did say so about Harry Potter, my sister would not be so arrogant as to correct her or, be offended that she thought so. Why?

Because greatness is where you find it. Vlaad the Impaler is still regarded as a hero in his homeland of once Wallachia, despite cruelty and stupidity that puts the Colonel to shame. True he killed between 100-300K people in the few short years he was in power, but the crime rate was never lower. And he kept the Turks at bay, using methods he learned from them (you see the power of knowing more than one culture).

I don't like the colonel. I'm not supposed to. I also don't see what you see. He is not a robot. He is manipulating the situation, not the other way around. He does see things in black and white; many military leaders do (look at those who advised the atomic bombings of Japan despite documented evidence that Japan was already ripe for surrender). And still, his responses are not without subtlety. He's not out to eradicate the Na'Vi per se. He wants them to know who's boss and topple their god, a favorite of conquistadors and missionaries alike. He wants to control them, find their weaknesses and exploit them.

You'll note that Jake had no report to the Colonel about the sacred tree, that he discussed it with Augustine's team, but not with him. The colonel figured out the significance himself.

The colonel believes that the Na'Vi are a direct threat and, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor thinks a decisive and devastating blow that wipes out their god and their primary force will cow them into submission. The Japanese were wrong about Pearl Harbor. So was the Colonel.

Do I like the Colonel? Nope. Do I think him shallow, hollow and meaningless. No. I have provided examples (that can be looked up to compare the situation) and explained the similarities. He is not a single character. He is the product of years of lessons learned, and therefore highlights the lessons we haven't learned because we've chosen not to. He is more humane that many historical bad guys, including trying to drive out the Na'Vi with gas and persuasion (I think he half-suspected Jake could win them over and then take them over - insane but crazier things have happened. Look what happened to the Incas or the Aztecs). He's more humane that the carpet bombing and cruise missiles of today.

He doesn't see the Na'Vi as human (common for all wars - dehumanizing the enemy, whether they look like you or not), but he isn't interested in killing them for entertainment. But he will do anything to protect the interests of the humans as he sees them and he see everyone who entertains any other priority as a traitor.

He's not obviously crazy, a brilliant tactician, a brilliant mastermind (as if those haven't been done to death) or unpredictable. I'm afraid that I find the Colonel a great deal more real than that.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:52:19 -0000

I feel I have answered every single point you have made, with examples, with history, with cut and pastes of your own contradictions. You haven't made that many and most have been complete rehashes of what you said before, still unsubstantiated, still without citations or examples. And none of them have bearing on this movie except in your opinion.

The question is, why is your opinion better than mine. Who are you to decide? You haven't answered except to imply you are an expert and I'm not. ("But, at some point it just ain't so." - and you are the only judge? The quintessential judge?) Well, that's not good enough for me. Nor is it a point I can argue except by I don't know what makes you think you're omniscient but I don't buy it (which I did multiple times).

Your answers to me have been riddled with aspersions on my knowledge of history (rather than counterexamples, citations or anything useful), my thinking ability or telling me what I think. Examples of the latter include:

"To be honest, in the end I think that what you really think is great about it is the fact that you think it's great. "

"Honestly I suspect it is somewhat on purpose because you want to just support the idea that Avatar is really awesome come what may."

"I think at this point you're just bypassing the point because it's what works best in your favor. "

I have not challenged a point (with data and examples) that you have not countered by saying I was wrong with no justification except your expertise. No examples of why this isn't other than your reading of the character which differs from mine. You said the villain couldn't be real ('cause, of course, over the top villains don't exist in any of the great works or movies). When I provided examples that showed similar behavior in real life, you told me he was a moron and therefore wasn't comparable, but with no evidence to support the assertion, either that he was a moron or that every greedy militant bastard in history (most of whom have movies or books about them) was not. Or that he was hollow or boring. Says who? Nor did I see any indication you would even entertain the notion that you may have missed depth.

Are you telling me that someone expecting superficiality can't leave thinking they found it and there fore miss depth, even an expert? Emily Jane Bronte was overlooked and undervalued during her lifetime with her sister garnering all the praise, but Wuthering Heights is appreciated today in a way it wasn't then. It's not perfectly written nor does it have the most logical characters, but it's powerful and it touches people, even a century and a half later. Is it a great book? I know a few who would put it in their best 100, but I doubt anyone at the time would do so.

By the way, in the physical world, facts don't have to be proven. They are demonstrable, objective and repeatable. It is only theory that requires proof. And, since there are innumerable counterexamples of people, experts in fact, who thought a contemporary's work was never going to be considered great, only to be lost in obscurity while the subject's work stood the test of time, I guess that theory's done for. It only takes a single fact to disprove a theory. In science.

Tell you what, though, I'm as tired of this nonsense argument as you are.

Let's meet back here in a hundred years and see who's right.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:38:07 -0000

I challenge experts for a living. It's what I do and I'm very very good at it. I know that when people make personal attacks, attacking the thinking or capabilities of the other, it's inevitably a sign they themselves walk on thin ice.

I've been reading and enjoying your reviews for a long time, not because we always agreed, but because I appreciated your point of view. I just didn't realize it was the only one you considered valid.

It wasn't enough that we agreed to disagree. You seem to think I have to agree with you no matter what. I don't see that happening and I haven't read a single compelling reason yet why I should.

I think you're wrong. That's OK. What's not OK is to be patronized by your or anyone else. If there's one thing I know how to do, it's build a character. And I don't need anyone thinking themselves so omniscient they can tell me what I do and don't know or when I am or am not thinking.

Pity. I really liked this blog.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:37:22 -0000

I'm a scientist. You've stated something as fact.

Prove it.

Why?

Never mind. That was said in anger.

For future reference, I don't care for people to tell me what I think. I don't have to be evasive and manipulative to prove my point. I don't even have to prove it. To my mind, you're the one who has put forth unsubstantiated opinions as fact that are, when all is said and done, opinions.

What is the greatest book ever? I'm thinking the answers are as diverse as the audience.

In the meantime, I'll do my own thinking, thank you.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:34:27 -0000

I never said that Richard the Lionhearted (or the colonel in Avatar) were morons, though I think you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. He bankrupted his own nation, went on countless and pointless crusades, left his monarchy in such a state that the Magna Carta was a result, ignored his queen, and alienated his allies such that they locked him up for years.

You can believe he's brilliant if you choose, though I'd be astonished as to where you obtained that insight, noting that one can be a brilliant tactician and still an idiot elsewhere. I'm not terribly impressed with him myself. I would also suggest caution in telling anyone you don't know intimately they are uninformed when it comes to history, as I am direct descendant of William the Conqueror and studied early Norman kings in earnest. Do bear in mind that history is as subject to interpretation as movies, especially when it comes to the character of the individuals involved.

I don't think the Colonel is anywhere near as crazy nor in any way stupid. Just single-minded and ruthless.

The problem I have is not that you see the character differently than I do; it's that you seem incapable of even entertaining the notion that your reading of the character is not the only one. It appears to me that, since you see the character a certain way, I not only must see him the same way, but that I must be either a fan of shallow and stupid characters or lying when I say characters matter to me. In either case, I find the arrogance irksome.

Or did I miss somewhere you were omniscient.

Forgive my tardiness in responding. I just went and saw Avatar for the third time. Literally.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:01:43 -0000

My sister is a Ph.D. in English and teaches on the college level. She is a huge Harry Potter fan, love the books, adores them. She thought Titanic was fantastic and saw it like five times in the movie theater. It was the "best movie of all time" until she saw "Gladiator" and changed allegiance. She'll turn 40 this March. She is also bloody brilliant. Hell, most of the people I know that love Harry Potter are adults (including another Canadian Lit teacher going for her Ph.D.)

I'm not big into Harry Potter or Titanic and thought Gladiator was a waste of time. What makes me qualified to tell her that Harry Potter isn't a classic? That it won't have the same staying power of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Or the Chronicles of Narnia. Or the Ring Trilogy that I found dry as dust? None of them are without flaws or are particularly grown-up in nature, yet all have stood the test of time. All are devoured by new generations with eyes that still recognize their magic.

Naughty Marietta was a huge success and nominated for Best Picture, yet there's only a handful of people who'd still watch it (those of us who love baritones who could really sing). Bet someone saw it as a classic then, and, even if the acting seems laughable now, I can think of several "classic" movies where I wasn't much more impressed.

My point is that I don't think anyone contemporary can say definitively, this has no possibility of being a great work. That's the kind of thing, only time will tell.

You don't have to agree with me.

Heck, I would have taken Frog Princess over 9, but then I'm a Disney fan. Amazing how many of those have passed the test of time.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:55:06 -0000

You have confused me. Originally, you said, "They're hollow and most of them are nonsensical. They aren't real people by a billion miles. " then you said: "I think we disagree on the idea that if you meet someone who is just like that character, then the character is thus "real". "

Well, damn, what do you need for real characters? People you'd like to know (even as villains)? What the people in "The Secretary" that made your top ten of the decade? Hollow and boring, maybe not (though I might very well think so in real life), but real? Sigourney Weaver said she was channeling Cameron himself. But not just him. Swap being overweight for smoking, and she could be me directly, both of us fighting politics for the good of other people and refuse to put a price tag on them.

The marine is a man who pit himself against a planet and sees the Na'Vi as personifying the planet. He wants any excuse he can to go after them. He doesn't care about money or the operation. He cares about taming Pandora his way. He's no more unreal than the warmongers and best generals throughout history and there are endless (and some excellent classic) movies about war. In the best movies, our good guys work against such win-at-all-cost psychos, as they do here. He's not crazier or more insane that Hitler or Himmler or Stalin or Custer (righteously slaughtered by the Sioux) or even Napoleon, who would have made a fine leader if he hadn't been so damn greedy. I don't get why this is different.

There's like five minutes of screen time for the money guy, but that's OK, he's not what's important. It's the marine that matters because, to him, it's personal. Just like it's been countless times in history. When I've read history, I've read about these guys endless times, Richard the Lionhearted, leaving his country fallow to fight endless Crusades, Henry V who overcame impossible odds at Agincourt, but couldn't stay alive long enough to see his son born, Alexander the Great who conquered a huge swath of the world before dying at 30. The list goes on and on. For each of the great military fruitcakes (who often left their own land unstable in the greed for more and the need to constantly fight wars) , there are undoubtedly thousands more who never left a mark on history except, perhaps, with spectacular failure because they had the drive, but not the skills and tactical abilities - or they ran against people who wouldn't be conquered so easily.

They may be hollow and boring to you. Not to me. And, no, I'm not a history professor. But I could have been.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:05:38 -0000

What I meant on Harry Potter was that, though I didn't get "it", why so many people adored it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't assume, because I don't see the point, that the readers must all love it because their friends love it or because they're too stupid to realize it ain't all that great. Many of the people I know who love it are brilliant and never follow the crowd just to follow it. For me, I assume I'm the one missing it for whatever reason. That doesn't bother me. It's enough that others get it and are happy.

Clearly, you don't get "it" about Avatar. I'm not willing to concede that that automatically means that there is no "it" or that we're all too stupid to know better, that it can't actually be great. You can believe so; I don't have to agree. You can say that because you didn't get "it," it can't be a truly great movie. I don't have to agree.

You saw many things in movies you recommended (that I watched) that I never really got or enjoyed. I didn't assume you were a fool for seeing what I didn't see. I assumed I missed it and chalked it up to the world being full of individuals. I don't care for the assumption that something great can't exist, even if I see it clearly, just because someone else does not.

But then, I don't normally consider myself a fool either.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:52:59 -0000

I don't care for Harry Potter, but I do think they are great. They touch people of all ages and in many countries. I don't have to get it to appreciate they couldn't do that if they weren't good.

I didn't know a single person who had seen it and liked it when I went to see Avatar. My husband (and then my daughter) who were both dead certain they wouldn't like it, turned out to like it (my husband described it as "the best movie ever.") He didn't want to like it. But he did. We are not, as a general rule, blown away by special effects either. So, I don't think anyone decided for me I would like it.

I don't agree with you on the characters because there isn't a single character there (NONE, including the marine fruitcake) that I haven't met in real life. Not the Na'Vi (color and particular skills notwithstanding - my grandmother's father was a Native American Shaman). I've met them all. They are real because I've met them, I knew them all, and what the did made perfect sense because of the people I know. Perhaps its because we hang out with different people - I know a lot of ex-military, contractor, Native American, new age, pilot, technical, and scientific types.

This is one of my favorite stories ever. I've seen it play out a thousand times in history and in movies/books/etc, though, in reality, it usually ends tragically. I love how it played out, what it said and how it said it. Can you blame me for hoping we finally learn?

I have no idea what a romcom is.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:15:53 -0000

I didn't think we were that different in what we were looking for either, but I'm thinking so now. I not only think Avatar was, without doubt, the best movie of 2009, I think it's the best movie I've ever seen.

I am all about the characters and, so far from seeing them as cardboard or caricature, I found them vibrant and alive. I found the plot not trite or stupid but brilliant (as I feel about any great story retold in a new and riveting way - see A Christmas Carol. It is a great story, or it wouldn't be told so often and, yet, we still haven't learned). I have not seen science this sound since, well it's been years if not decades and found the story more than plausible for reasons I explained.

This movie demonstrates for me why I love movies, why I love science, why I believe in people even with all the greed and ugliness out there. I find it intriguing that so many people have reached for such extreme reasons not to like that while labeling movies much weaker in these aspects higher. Like, if everyone likes it, it can't be good. It strikes a cord in me and reminds me why I got into the thankless world of science.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I won't apologize for loving it either. I wasn't terribly fond of Titanic, not like I've enjoyed other Cameron movies, but it occurred to me that it wouldn't have been so successful if it hadn't touched people in some way. I feel that is at least as true for Avatar. If that's so, isn't that what movies are supposed to do?

Truth is, I'm as confused by your immunity to its power and beauty as you are by my embracing of it. I didn't mean to get into the Avatar discussion again. I accept that it's not your cup of tea. But, to many of us out there, it's why we love movies. And we don't have to be ashamed of that either.

That doesn't mean you're wrong. Or me either.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:35:35 -0000

I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm just saying I don't agree with you, not because you're an idiot but because we clearly are looking for different things in movies.

I found 9 a terrible disappointment and left feeling disheartened and cheated.

To each his own.

Re: Best Movies Of 2009 – The Wishlist Version

stephanieebarr — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:26:24 -0000

You know I don't agree with you at all with Avatar (but then the populace is voting with its hard earned money), but I knew how you felt about it so I'm not surprised. But no mention of Star Trek? And 9 gets an honorable mention?

Sorry, buddy, I can't agree with you there, either. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own opinion - you most certainly are - but I'm just not able to see eye to eye with you. I haven't seen any of your top ten (except Up), but I'm beginning to think I just won't get what I look for from them.

That's OK. We don't all go to see movies for the same reasons.

Re: The Invention Of Lying Blu-Ray Review – Win Yours Here!

stephanieebarr — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:58:25 -0000

Sounds interesting. I'd like to win.

Re: 10 Things I Hate About You – 10th Anniversary Blu-Ray – Win Yours Here

stephanieebarr — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:46:08 -0000

I'd actually love to win this. I really enjoyed this movie and found much of the dialog priceless. I can't always recall more than one line from a movie, but just thinking about it, five or six priceless gems leap to mind, not the least of which is "I still maintain he kicked himself in the balls."

What fun!

Re: Best Movies Of The Decade – The 00’s

stephanieebarr — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:22:02 -0000

No, wait, I see! Pages! It's early for me.

Re: Best Movies Of The Decade – The 00’s

stephanieebarr — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:21:15 -0000

I'm confused. I see movies 75-66 (random order). Part II has 28-17 (or 16, I can't remember). Where are the rest of them?

Re: Best Movies Of The Decade – The 00’s

stephanieebarr — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:24:56 -0000

Cars is actually my second least favorite of the Pixar's (though I agree with the "Do no wrong." - it's still great). But, you know, that's what's cool about Pixar. I don't know anyone that doesn't like them, but I don't know any two people who like the same one the best (although I think my husband and I both favor WALL-E). My kids have different favorites (Monsters, Inc and The Incredibles for the two youngest). My sister likes Finding Nemo, etc.

There are number on this list I've never seen that intrigue me. Now I can fill up my Netflix queue

Re: Worst Cooks In America

stephanieebarr — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:06:18 -0000

I have to say I hate shows where it starts, "People you know and trusted think you dress/cook/look/etc horribly. We're here to fix you." It's a formula that works for some people but I find it a bit vicious for me.

Re: Extract Blu-Ray Review – Win Yours Here

stephanieebarr — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:08:58 -0000

Office Space was a shrug to me. I'm guessing this would be as well. I think that's often the case with farcical humor.

Re: Jennifer’s Body DVD Review

stephanieebarr — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:14:20 -0000

I'm intrigued. Although not fond of Juno myself, my daughter definitely liked it. I found your description appealing and have often found merit in what, on the surface, were apparently fun nonsense.