MadmaxandradeHistória divertida, mas velha. Vai saber porque viralizou de novo agora - deve ter saído em algum Não Salvo gringo.
By this point, you’d figure that the Rickroll prank has long since passed its cultural expiration date. However, leave it to genius student Sairam Gudiseva to find a fresh spin on a formerly tired meme in a quantum physics essay, of all things.
More about Rickroll, Rick Astley, Watercooler, and MemesRick Rolled my physics teacher..pic.twitter.com/1iapc3RSU1
— Sairam Gudiseva (@sairamg3) January 14, 2014 Read more...
MadmaxandradeEu sinceramente não dava a mínima pra Tomb Raider até jogar o reboot, então concordo com a preferência pela nova Lara. Minha grande reclamação sempre foi que a Lara era uma personagem um tanto quanto unidimensional e sexualizada de forma cada vez mais exagerada.
Estranhei a notícia de que o reboot não tinha ido tão bem nas vendas (se bem que eu ainda acho que alguém na Square Enix exagerou na projeção de vendas, mas enfim), mas espero ansioso pela continuação da franquia na nova geração de consoles.
With the release of the reboot of the popular Tomb Raider franchise, Lara Croft has taken a different turn than in her other adaptations. Rather than the baddass heroine who slaughters countless henchmen, demons and even dinosaurs at times, she has instead become much more human and mortal than in her previous adaptations. Is this a good thing however? Is this new Lara Croft better than the older baddass one that we gamers have come to love? Let’s explore that thought shall we?
Lara Croft back in the previous Tomb Raider games was always depicted as the strong heroine who felt few, if any emotions at all. This helped to cement her in history as a strong heroine who had very few weaknesses and was capable of incredible feats on a whim. The classic Lara always carried her trademark twin pistols, amazing acrobatic skills and most notably (and perhaps even importantly), the face and body that gamers have deemed one of the sexiest in all of gaming.
Part of her allure is that she is probably the best example of a baddass heroine anyone can think of that is actually somewhat realistic. Unlike other heroines like Samus Aran from the Metroid series or Princess Peach from Super Mario, Lara doesn’t have any superpowers or magic at her disposal but instead has her gear, her skills and her wits. The fact that Lara is human in that regard is likely one of the main reasons why she is such a beloved character; she doesn’t need powers to kill demons and dinosaurs. Even though it’s a little unrealistic to see her jump incredible distances as well as dive off a waterfall without any fear of the rocks below, it was about as human of a heroine as we were going to get at that time.
But enough about the realism, we’re here to tell all about the old Lara Croft before moving onto her new adaptation in the reboot so let’s cut to the chase here and look at Lara in her glory days.
She has everything a woman would want. Curves for days, a perfectly proportioned body (debatable but for the most part true) flawless skin and plenty of plot and then to add to that, she has a British accent. Let’s not forget that she’s immensely skilled with firearms and is a master of mountain climbing, swimming, cliff diving and a slew of other skills that involve dangerous conditions. She’s a video game bombshell who is more than capable of whooping your ass before you can even take your eyes off of her as you gawk at her hotness.
Millions of gamers have idolized this Lara as not only a video game heroine but also a sex symbol; it’s incredibly rare for her not to make it onto any top list of sexiest video game characters or heroines and it’s even rarer for her to not be mentioned as one of gaming’s favorite female leads of all time.
One of the things she lacks however, is a true personality. Sure we can discern a few things based on her reactions in game or the way she speaks to characters but let’s face it, she doesn’t have a true personality behind all her baddassery. Lara doesn’t get a lot of character development in her games and the vast majority of them are simply high octane action mashups with some tomb raiding in between. This is likely the only reason why Lara is not the greatest video game heroine; people like to be able to relate to the characters they love and for the most part, Lara doesn’t possess much that people can relate to apart from being human and perhaps her interest in archaeology.
All this hype over a woman with little to no personality? It’s still well deserved as Lara is a shining gem in a world without too many strong female leads. Is this better than the new Lara that Crystal Dynamics has created for us in the reboot of the franchise? Let’s explore this.
At the very start of the game when the incredible high definition cutscene plays and we see Crystal Dynamic’s version of Lara, we already see that she’s drastically different from her older adaptation.
We see a girl who has had little to no experience in raiding tombs or any of the baddassery we knew in the Lara before. She genuinely has nothing going for her and all of the danger she faces forces her to improvise and survive. The majority of her time on the island was her getting through on sheer willpower and attempting to adapt to the changing environments.
One look at this Lara and we can already see one of the major differences between the two: she’s human. This Lara cries, chokes and gets injured while the other one is portrayed almost like an unstoppable killing machine who guns down just about anyone out there. This discussion of course is taking place apart from gameplay and is rather from a story and character development standpoint.
Even in the first 5 minutes of the game, we see Lara in a tight situation where she has to light herself on fire to get herself loose only to fall onto a spike and get impaled through the side. We can already see from this point that she is by no means immortal and is just as vulnerable as anything else out there and if the player doesn’t pull out the stick out of her side with a quicktime event, she will die right on the spot.
Crystal Dynamics created a Lara Croft that bleeds, gets hungry and must do whatever she can to survive. This is evident all the way until she escapes from the cave in the opening and relies on all the training that her mentor gave her in order to navigate the island. This goes all the way until she gets her iconic bow, which is a weapon that she relies on all the way through the game. She initially can’t fire it very well but with practice, she becomes quite the shot and doesn’t even think of using guns until she acquires her own. This is a far cry from the old Lara who never leaves home without her trademark dual pistols.
A major moment however, occurs just after she receives the bow and must hunt to survive. Lara at the point has never taken a life before and she even struggles to come to terms with her very first kill, breaking down almost immediately after doing it but quickly learning that if she doesn’t bring herself to do what’s necessary, she will die.
The baddass heroine we knew before almost doesn’t exist…until she blossoms.
Lara undergoes a major transformation during the events of the game and turns into a woman who will stop at nothing to save her friends and will do anything for them. After having a rocky first kill on her first human enemy, she hardens herself knowing full well that she can’t afford to have mercy or it will mean the death of her friends. She quickly adapts to conditions in the jungle as well as fighting against the island’s inhabitants, turning more and more into the baddass we knew before though never quite as emotionless. Her time on the island has given her a lot of experience when previously, she even broke down into tears upon making her first animal kill, even going to far as to curse herself for taking an innocent life. By the end of the game, she is a lot more reminiscent of her older self; she is an efficient killer who has withstood the test of hardship and is now more than able of taking care of herself.
This more human Lara is definitely a character that anyone can relate to more closely as the game almost encourages players to take care of her. Her emotional breakdowns are a breath of fresh air and reveal a softer side to one of gaming’s most baddass heroines and seeing this softer side allows gamers to understand that even the strongest person has a weak and vulnerable side. It is clear that she will remember every single moment of the island and will harden herself even more now that she managed to escape.
This brings us to the final major change: her appearance.
Gone are the oversized endowments and the super curvaceous woman that we’ve come to call Lara Croft and we are instead introduced to a beautiful girl who has just enough sexiness to keep her older adaptation present in her design. She bleeds, she has bandages and she actually sees wear and tear. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the old Lara look this human and even though new Lara has lost a lot of her sex appeal (which is a fact that some people even criticize), it doesn’t make her any less loved of a character. Seeing this side of Lara changed the view of the character as a whole and drives home the fact that every journey begins with a single step. For Lara, this is one HELL of a first step.
But then this begs the question: which of the two are better however?
Truthfully, there is no answer to this question as each Lara has her own set of things that flaw her. No heroine is perfect and the character of Lara Croft ultimately falls to how much the gamer appreciates her. Some gamers think the old Lara is the tried and true formula and want that one back while others believe the reboot has given us a whole new Lara that can be related to by many more than just fans of the series. Everyone has their preference but let’s explore them both side by side.
The old Lara will always be a more baddass character than the new one and no matter how hard the new one tries, she will never be the same Lara that gamers have cemented into their hearts all the way from Tomb Raider for the Playstation. The new Lara will never be able to imitate the same superhuman feats and she will never be able to heartlessly slaughter others. In other words, the new Lara will never become the same sexy baddass that we know and love.
The old Lara however will never be as easy to relate to as the new one. Almost anyone who watches what she experiences will be able to feel sympathy for her and unlike her older counterpart, she has weaknesses which add realism to the character. She unlike her counterpart actually suffers. You cut her, she bleeds. You shoot her, she cringes. You hold her, she’ll cry against your chest. There’s almost no indication of that with the old Lara and even though she may not be as baddass, she’s still a strong heroine due to how much she matures during the game. She grows from the scared and innocent girl at the start to the hardened and experienced explorer she becomes at the end, understanding that the world isn’t the nice place she used to know. It can also be argued that this game is an origin story so Lara may yet become the baddass her older self was which will completely negate the argument of which is better.
Let’s face it, I’m a sucker for well written characters and I’m even more of a sucker if I get to see an origin story for said character. I loved how human the new Lara was and throughout the game. Camilla Ludington’s performance as the character was powerful enough to cause me to actually want to protect Lara in my gameplay, so much so that I actually beat the game only dying about twice on Hard Difficulty and only dying to quicktime events due to bad reaction times.
Camilla’s voice is actually one of the main reasons why the new Lara is so well done. Yes we all love the cool and zero craps given version of her previously but before, Lara didn’t really have much of a distinct personality. The remake brings her to life and does it very well, especially during emotional moments when Lara even breaks down and cries (and she does that a lot in this game).
Then comes the visual differences. To be fair, the old Lara didn’t get a next gen makeover like the new one and to make the comparison as close as possible, I’m going to compare the Tomb Raider Anniversary version of Lara and the reboot version. The Anniversary in my opinion is the best looking rendition of the old Lara and also the least sexualized.
As we can see from the pictures, there is a lot more detail on the new Lara’s face and there are much less curves and well…plot if you catch my drift. I’m here to say that the new Lara does not need plot or an overly curvaceous body to be an attractive heroine. She plenty attractive and is in fact (at least in my opinion) more beautiful than her older counterpart though she isn’t as sexy. Hopefully, you all know the difference between beautiful and sexy as I use it here.
This isn’t to say that I don’t love the old Lara Croft; I grew up with her and loved almost all of the games I played with her (except Angel Of Darkness). She’s already cemented a spot in my heart as one of my favorite video game heroines but with the new Lara, I honestly don’t feel as if we’ve lost a strong character. Bear in mind that the first game is an origin story and this is Lara when she was at her youngest. By the time the first Tomb Raider started, she was already an experienced explorer who was shooting the crap out of everything in her way. The new Lara still has time to mature into the heroine we know and love but the difference this time? She’ll be a hell of a lot more human and that’s a change I look forward to in future games from Crystal Dynamics.
What do you guys think? Do you agree? Disagree? Hate my writing? Throw it all in the comments!
The post Old Vs. New: Lara Croft appeared first on 8BitGamer.
As part of their awards sniffing machinations, Hollywood’s motion picture studios will make screenplays for contenders available to download.
Here’s a list of some of the scripts available now. I’d particularly recommend Philomena, Saving Mr. Banks, All Is Lost and Pixar’s The Blue Umbrella.
Wolf of Wall Street
I hope you enjoy this little lot as much as my students have been.
You Can Now Legally Download Many Of The Year’s Best Screenplays, From Gravity To Saving Mr. Banks
Sadly, the particle disappeared before we could give it the Game of the Year award.
MadmaxandradePrevisível, e não só pelas reclamações dos fanboys. Como em toda série do Whedon, o começo da temporada serviu pra apresentar os personagens e situar os eventos.
(I’m not sure if it’s necessary, but there could be some emotional triggers in this. Just so you’re warned.)
‘It used to be we had friends, now we have “Friends”. We used to have neighbours, now we have “Neighbours”.’ -Mark E. Smith. Taken from his autobiography ‘Renegade’.
Originally, this was going to be a short column, you understand? I was going to write something along the lines of this:
“You know something, one of the things that has constantly embarrassed me about the Internet Comics Community is the lack of understanding that all notions of ‘You’re not writing what I want you to write!’ are totally, utterly irrelevant. The only people who are deciding what happens to Peter Parker are Dan Slott and Steven Wacker. What you see on the new comic shelves was written at least 2 months ago and plotted about six, probably. Complaining about the events in this week’s new comics is like moaning about the results of the F.A. Cup Final or Superbowl results. It’s happened. Whoever you’re annoyed about dying for whatever reason is Dead.
Do you write or edit for Marvel or DC? No? Then you might as well be shouting at rain for getting your hair wet rather than buying an umbrella and dealing with it.
I should qualify a bit, when I write things about the meaningless of death in comics crossovers or such, it’s done from a retailer level. I’m essentially compiling a list of things customers have said to me when they’re explaining why they’re cancelling their order for Avengers or Justice League. There isn’t a combination of things that can be done that’ll make me, personally, want to start buying all the X-Men books on a regular basis. I don’t have the money or the space in my house. I’d go for a run of something if it’s being done by someone I like, but my buying Uncanny Avengers is totally due to Rick Remender writing it. When he goes, I’m off. Too many ‘downloaded a back-up personality’ moments and ‘Life Model Decoys get out of jail free cards’ have made regular superhero comics something I don’t see any point in investing in.
I thought we here over in comics were…unique in that kind of reaction. People who are into films don’t fly off the handle when someone dies and take to the internet, threatening the writers and producers over social media and generally acting like children who’ve been told they have to clean their room. Then I saw the news about Brian from Family Guy dying via Facebook, where everyone went crazy. How dare Seth MacFarlane do this? Brian was my favorite! Where is the scoundrel? He didn’t ask us what he thought before he did this! Etc.
And I realized it’s not just us anymore. Everyone is nuts now. Go forth and moan about Green Lantern or Avengers Arena or whatever. We’ve managed to influence everyone into reacting to fiction like petulant children. Good job. Slow Handclap.”
That was going to be it, except for a chat with Ned Hartley, talking about his new comic Punchface. Then I was going to send off the four other columns I’ve written in the last two weeks to Rich so he could run them weekly over December while I dealt with this whole ‘Christmas’ thing. But then I got to thinking : What links these concepts? What do Family Guy, Avengers, The X-Men, The Justice League, Spider-Man, The Simpsons, Coronation Street, Batman have in common?
They’re all about families. really All of them are about a group of people who interact on a regular basis and have to live with each other.
Also, importantly, they’re all broadcast or published on at least a weekly basis and are as much a part of your regular life as your job, your home, going to the pub to see your mates, putting out the bins, walking the dog, paying the bills. They’re what you do with your luxury time, also. So I imagine your brain associates seeing what Batman and his Pals and Gals did this week with putting on your slippers and sitting on the bed with a cup of tea. I don’t have any research beyond, oh, twenty years working behind a counter of a comic shop, but I suspect people don’t tend to get into things like the X-Men in their twenties or so. They become friends with the whole Marvel Universe when they’re young. People over twenty want to know what to know what Warren Ellis or Chris Ware have created. People under twenty will be popping in to find out what Batgirl is up to this week.
Once they’re in, they’re in, man. I can’t count how many conversations I’ve had with people who can justify all the reasons why they should stop buying so much Marvel or DC product. They’re far too expensive, they’re taking up too much space. There’s too little pay off and even the big crossovers don’t have a clear ending anymore, just set ups for the next big thing. They understand, in their head, that buying comics on a weekly basis can potentially be as damaging as any other kind of addiction. Heck, with booze or drugs, nobody’s telling you to partake. You have to make the effort to go to the pub or the off-license or ring your dealer. With comics, what you’ve bought now is never enough. Come back next week to see how Spidey defeats Venom. Spidey will also be appearing in Superior Spidey Team Up. Don’t forget to check out The Superior Foes Of Spider-Man! Have you tried these other great titles by the same writer? Too busy to pop to the shop? Don’t worry, just join Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited and you’ll never miss an issue, True Believer.
I did a lot of damage to my life with alcohol, but Jack Daniels never asked me for my credit card details.
But still, with all that information and understanding, most of those people are still here and I wonder if, to a lot of readers, an issue of X-Men isn’t just 24 pages of story, but the physical representation of a safe place. A way to hang out with some awesome, people who’re funnier, more attractive and more exotic than those duller, meaner, uglier people in the real world. A portal to a sexier world for a few bucks, and we’re all friends, here, aren’t we? And you know what the key thing is. Unlike real life, your comic families will never reject you.
Whatever Wolverine does to Da’aken or Dog, he’ll never hurt you. You can hang out at the Westchester School of Gifted Mutants, and they’ll never turn you away, because they understand you’re different, just like them. Batman will be happy to have you hang out in The Bat-Cave, because what Bruce Wayne does is look after young people, like Dick and Babs and Jason. You can tell Damian not to be so mean to Alfred and play with Ace The Bat Hound.
Peter Parker will always be your best friend. He’s not like the others. He’ll never go away.
I’m not writing the above with any degree of cynicism or sneering, and I understand that the tone I’m writing this in is not necessarily the one you’re hearing when you’re reading these words in your head. I get it. When I was 15 or 16, I would have given up everything to go live with the Giffen/Dematteis incarnation of the Justice League. I’d have hung out with Mr. Miracle, cracked wise with Beetle & Booster, stolen J’onn Jones’s Oreos, punched Funky Flashman in the face. Everything. My childhood is…not a great thing and despite deaths, addictions, abuse and such, I’d still argue one of the most traumatic things that happened was the publication of Justice League America #60. Maybe more so, as it was the end of a safe place for me. The end of the Giffen/DeMatteis era where The League breaks up as one by one, all the members realize that this incarnation of the family is over and walk away. Even though it’s obviously for the best reasons, it is done.
I thought about that while I was making these notes, and how much more I knew about this business when I heard about the apparent glee that Dan Didio took in deciding to kill off Ted Kord in Countdown To Infinite Crisis. I knew that Beetle was only really cool when Keith and J.M. were writing him. I was old enough to know that DC had full right to do what they wanted with Ted, and I’d long left behind the notion that superhero comics mattered to me. I scoffed at the comic, saying that Max Lord had literally no reason to turn on the superheroes like he had, and the likes of Jim Gordon had more motivation to be angry at the consequences of Batman’s actions, given wat happened with Babs and Sarah Essen.
Deep down, though, there was a bit of me that thought ‘FUCK you, Didio, you hurt my friend and laughed about it.’ Sure, it’s irrational, and I suspect my moving on from the genre of superhero comics via having my illusions of The Marvel Bullpen and everyone working amicably to create good comics shattered rather harshly at various convention piss-ups meant that I wasn’t bothered enough by it to say anything. But you look at the way people react to the death of Peter Parker, Supergirl or Brian The Dog and you wonder if those reactions are more primal than they seem at first.
Because on one level, these events of fiction happened because someone wrote them down and they were published. On another, Peter Parker and his friends are real to some of you. You interact with them every week, and knowing they’ll be there to hang out with new stories to tell. When someone hurts your friend who provided a safe place you’ve known since you were a child, maybe you do become irrationally angry and react like a real person has died. I bet there are teenagers out there that feel Miss America and Kid Loki are far more real than members of their own family.
I’ve been thinking about this, and the way we, as in the people on the retail/publishing side interact with the punters a lot, lately. I’ve had people angry with me that I’ve dared take the piss out of The Legion Of Super-Heroes. I’ve listened to Indie types seem genuinely offended that someone would dare ask them about something as vulgar as Civil War, or Transformers fans get irate that they were talking to a customer about which incarnation of Optimus Prime was better and someone dared to bother to ask them where they could find a copy of Persepolis. I saw one retailer deride a customer for daring to ask what were good Marvel Comics published in the 90′s (They were ALL bad, because HE said so. So that’s how subjective taste works, I guess). I’ve seen artists publicly complain that the readers aren’t getting what they meant by their drawings and it does remind me at times that maybe we’re acting a bit too much like Sex Workers taking the piss out of their johns for having to pay for sex or Drug Dealers laughing at their clients for being stupid enough to get addicted in the 1st place.
Is that on? I don’t know. If we’re this clever, why are we selling them (You aren’t going to get Jay-Z rich working in a comic shop), or creating them instead of going into film posters or writing television (What was the circulation on your last comic again?) We’re here out of passion. The same emotion that drives the punter into the shop to buy stuff from us. It might not be articulated as verbosely from ‘their’ side, but it’s still a real thing. Imagine how fucked we’d be if all the customers ‘wised up’ to our level?
Comes back from the Dead. Has Followers. Duty bound to Father. COMES OUT OF A CAVE TO DO GOOD! Sound familiar AT ALL?
I believe we’ve reached a point where pop culture is, to a degree, both cult and drug in one. Where for some people, Batman is as real as Jesus Christ. Where even the rumor of a remake of a beloved film franchise will bring about the righteous indignation previously seen for things like Monty Python’s Life Of Brian or Scorsese’s Last Temptation Of Christ. Maybe (and this is a thing British writers, who grew up with 2000AD and short stories like Future Shocks rather than ongoing drop ins on regular groups like the Teen Titans or Power Pack should consider) we can’t just assume to tell a Fundamentalist Christian that Jesus is a twat and expect nothing to come from it. And maybe you don’t hurt someone’s friend and expect them to understand how clever you were to do so. Or is that emotionally stunted?
“Give me the child, and I will mould the man.”
“Give me the child for seven years,
and I will give you the man.”
“Give me the child until he is
seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”
“Give me the child till the age of seven
and I will show you the man.” - St. Ignatius of Loyola
Stan Lee told us we’re all one big gang of Marvel Zombies back in the Sixties. Deep down, I wonder if we ever stopped believing him.
You can find Nevs Coleman on Twitter.
Batman Is As Real As Jesus Christ – A Filthy Orphan By Nevs Coleman
MadmaxandradeÉ claro que eu tenho uma TV! Onde mais eu vou ligar o videogame?
MadmaxandradeOu como aquela velha piada: "Qual é a parte mais difícil do trabalho de um escritor? Limpar a geladeira."
| Piled Higher & Deeper by Jorge Cham |
www.phdcomics.com
|
|
 |
||
|
title:
"Work vs. Cleaning" - originally published
11/27/2013
For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE! |
||
Outro dia falei, nesse post no Facebook, que estava faltando criatividade nos Posters dos filmes. Usei como exemplo esses 3 posters aí de cima. E não é que tem gente que se dá ao trabalho de organizar a bagunça e separar categorias de clichês gráficos? A Marina Siqueira me mandou esse trablaho do site Demilked. Então, o UoD orgulhosamente apresenta as categorias Poster de Cinema Manjado:
O intrépido solitário de costas.
Cabeçonas sobre gente pequena na praia.
Costas com costas vistas de lado.
No meio das pernas.
Na cama e algo mais.
Olhão com coisa dentro.
Big Blue.
Preto e Branco em chamas.
Correndo na rua torto e azulado.
Cara feita de coisas.
Lady in Red.
A justiça é cega.
Textão na testa.
Reflexo no óculos.
A praça é nossa.
Big Blue.
Textão na testa.
Correndo na rua torto e azulado.
A praça é nossa.
Na cama e algo mais.
Reflexo no óculos.
Cara feita de coisas.
No meio das pernas.
Preto e Branco em chamas.
Lady in Red.
Olhão com coisa dentro.
A justiça é cega.
Costas com costas vistas de lado.
Cabeçonas sobre gente pequena na praia.
Ensino flipado é um método em que, ao invés de aula na escola e lição em casa, a aula é em casa e a lição é na escola.
O aluno assiste as aulas online, em casa e no seu próprio ritmo. Pode pausar, voltar trechos, acessar links. Depois todos se encontram na escola para experimentar na prática o que aprenderam e tirar as dúvidas. O professor, oficialmente, passa a ensinar ao invés de papagaiar a matéria.
Existem várias pistas de que a técnica é boa. As novas gerações já estão muito acostumadas ao consumo online de todo tipo de conteúdo. Pesquisam na internet, conversam pelo Skype, socializam pelo Facebook. É absolutamente natural. O fato das aulas online serem gravadas pelo próprio professor da turma, facilita ainda mais a experiência, como se estivessem de fato no mesmo ambiente.
A Academia Khan e o “Hole in The Wall” (computadores deixados em áreas carentes onde as crianças aprendem sozinhas, sem qualquer instrução) são bons exemplos.
A “terceirização” da entrega da matéria que pode ser consumida em ritmos diferentes ajuda a resolver um grande problema que é a diferença de velocidades entre alunos da mesma turma. Todos chegam para o presencial na mesma página, e o tempo que cada um levou não faz diferença.
E quando estão todos juntos, um aluno pode ajudar ao outro, criando um ambiente de aprendizado e de ensino coletivo (não há melhor maneira de aprender do que ensinando).
O aluno aprende a matéria e, principalmente, como aprender sozinho. Essa é a melhor parte, habilidade fundamental para um futuro bastante próximo.
Enfim, sempre criticamos (eu, pelo menos) as instituições de ensino por aqui. O mesmo respeito crescente que tenho pelos que ensinam, tem diminuido pelas organizações onde o ensino acontece, geralmente atrasadíssimas. Achei que valia a pena dar alguns exemplos como esse, da aula flipada, que é simples e genial ao mesmo tempo.
A única brecha que eu sempre fico pensando em sistemas como esse, com mais autonomia para os alunos, é a questão da auto disciplina necessária para funcionar.
Será que eles têm?
Como um aluno, sozinho em casa, vai conseguir ter concentração e vontade para sentar e assistir a aula, se bem alí ao lado tem o video game, a TV e o Facebook?
No fim acho que a revolução na educação vai precisar ter uma atenção especial em como desenvolver essa habilidade. De novo, a parte comportamental, sempre ela. Eu, como pai e home worker, confesso que não sei como vai ser.
Talvez como sempre foi: medo e/ou encantamento.
SE VOCÊ FOSSE UM ESTUDANTE E PUDESSE CRIAR O JEITO IDEAL DE APRENDER, COMO SERIA?
Encontrei essas perguntas imaginadas pelo Professor Tim Cigelske. Acho que são a base do questionamento da necessária e urgente revolução no ensino.
01. Para que aprender? Para você mesmo? Para passar no vestibular? Para arrumar um emprego? Por curiosidade?
02. Que tipo de coisas aprenderia? Fatos? Fórmulas? Conceitos? Ideias? Maneiras de se pensar?
03. Quem ensinaria? Professor? Cada hora um convidado diferente? Escritores? Online? Você mesmo?
04. Qual o método? Aula tradicional? Discussões? Perguntas e Respostas? Pesquisa? Auto-didatismo?
05. Quando aprenderia? No seu ritmo? No ritmo de outros?
06. Onde aprenderia? Sala de aula? Fora da sala? Passeando? Viajando? Em casa?
Se você respondeu pensando em você, imagine agora pensando em alguma criança (filho, filha, sobrinho, etc).
Um dia ainda vamos todos (pessoas, organizações, governos, planeta) perceber que estudar para passar no vestibular é muito pouca ambição. É pensar pouco. É pensar pequeno demais.
img: vita khorzhevska/Shutterstock
MadmaxandradeQuando vejo cálculos como esse, eu sempre lembro de um comentário da minha saudosa madrinha: "tudo bem, mas se eles pensassem na solução óbvia de primeira, não tinha filme".
It’s hard to find a movie for this time of year. I’m not talking about Christmas movies. Lord knows, Hollywood is lousy with Christmas movies. Instead, I’m talking about Thanksgiving movies. Usually Hollywood skips Turkey Day altogether and starts releasing Christmas movies in early November (including relatively recent releases like A Christmas Carol in 2009, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas in 2011, and The Best Man Holiday just this year). Still, there are a few Thanksgiving movies knocking around, and they’re not all as bad as Free Birds.
One of the most loveable and endearing Thanksgiving movies is John Hughes’ 1987 comedy Planes, Trains and Automobiles. The film follows businessman Neal Page (Steve Martin) trying to get home to Chicago from New York City two days before Thanksgiving. He stumbles into an unlikely travel buddy in Del Griffith (John Candy) and ends up on a three-day misadventure using almost every known form of ground transportation.
As a traveler myself, I know it can be extremely costly as much as it is time consuming, and that got me thinking: How much would a trip like this actually set Neal and Del back?
For the purposes of this article, let’s consider how much this trip would cost in today’s dollars. Neal Page starts on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan.
Plane ticket: Neal originally had a first-class ticket on a flight from New York to Chicago. A similar ticket today ranges from $400 to $1000, depending on various factors. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say he got the lowest-price deal for this flight. But let’s not give him the benefit of the doubt on travel insurance.
Cab bribe: Neal is trying to hail a cab to catch a first-class flight out of LaGuardia and ends up paying a scuzzy lawyer $75 for his cab. With average annual income in 2013 about double that of 1987, let’s assume he has to pay $150 for a similar cab.
Bus to LaGuardia: Neal ends up taking a bus to the airport, which would cost $13 for the airport shuttle in New York.
Cab in Wichita: After being diverted to Wichita, Neal and Del take a cab to a motel. While the exact location of the motel is not given in the film, a cab ride in that city will cost between $20 and $30. Let’s assume the higher number because in the film, Neal is annoyed that the cabbie is taking the “scenic” route.
Motel in Wichita: The average price for lodging in Wichita is $84 a night.
Stolen money: Though not actually a travel expense (yet certainly a hazard of the territory), the $700 stolen from Neal’s wallet and the $263 stolen from Dell’s wallet count toward the totals. Adjusted for inflation, this would be $1439.10 for Neal and $540.69 for Dell. But who carries $700 in cash on them?
Train to Chicago: Neal and Dell then hop a train from Stubville to Chicago. Because there are no trains out of a place called Stubville (or Wichita, for that matter), the closest city would be Kansas City. A train ticket from Kansas City to Chicago runs $141.
Bus to St. Louis: When their train breaks down, Neal and Dell hoof it to a bus depot and catch a bus from Jefferson City to St. Louis. This would cost $63 for the standard fare.
Rental car in St. Louis: Once in St. Louis, Neal attempts to rent a car to drive home, only to find out the car is missing from the parking lot, leading him to launch into a famous rant that earned the film an R rating. Today, it costs $156.58 to rent a standard-sized car and return it to a different city.
Motel in Illinois: After Dell picks up Neal in his rented car, they get another motel somewhere in Illinois. Lodging in this area runs from about $50 to $90. The motel room in the film runs $42.50, so let’s assume inflation doubled the price in the past 26 years to $85.
Speeding ticket in Illinois: After leaving the motel, Dell gets a speeding ticket from the Illinois State Highway Patrol (as well as getting the burned-out rental car impounded). An average speeding ticket in Illinois for going 78 mph in a 55 mph zone would be $95.
L train fare: After securing a final stretch of the trip in an ice truck (for free), Neal takes the L train home in Chicago, which has a fare of $2.25.
Add all these numbers together (minus Dell’s stolen money and his speeding ticket) and the trip costs:
$400 (plane ticket) + $150 (cab bribe) + $13 (airport shuttle for Neal) + $30 (Wichita cab) + $84 (Wichita motel) + $1439.10 (Neal’s stolen money) + $141 (train ticket) + $63 (bus fare) + 156.58 (car rental in St. Louis) + $85 (Illinois motel) + $2.25 (L train fare) = $2,563.93.
Or, enough to buy a nice flat screen, 3D Blu-ray player, and video gaming system. That’s doesn’t even include meals.
And it’s just for one person, so…
In the film, Neal actually picks up the tab for most of the expenses, including many hotel rooms and cab fare. He also buys Dell a train ticket in Stubville. Traveling with two people is always more expensive than just traveling with one and part of the purpose of the film is to put the odd couple characters together into a traveling powder keg.
So, how much would it cost for both of them to make this trip? The answer is less than double the original cost, but still huge:
$800 (two plane tickets) + $150 (cab bribe) + $27 (Dell’s cab to airport) + $13 (airport shuttle for Neal) + $30 (Wichita cab) + $84 (Wichita motel) + $1439.10 (Neal’s stolen money) + $540.69 (Dell’s stolen money) + $282 (two train tickets) + $126 (two bus fares) + $313.16 (two car rentals in St. Louis) + $85 (Illinois motel) + $95 (Dell’s speeding ticket) + $6.75 (three L train fares) = $3,991.70
Sure, this makes a fun film, but there had to be a better choice for travel. In fact, few trips from one major city to another would be this difficult. In fact, had Neal simply managed to hail a cab in New York City, he could have paid the cab fare to drive him to his home in Chicago for less than what he ended up shelling out.
Standard cab fare to Chicago from New York City, while never used for this purpose, would be just under $1600, which is a $1000 savings on Neal’s trip alone. It would have cost the same for both he and Dell to cab it to Chicago, which means the entire trip would cost less than half of what it did for both to make their misadventure.
It would have also been quicker. The drive from New York City to Chicago is about 12 hours long, which would have put them in Chicago early on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Even if they tipped the cabbie $1000 and sent him on his way, they would have spent less money, been home early for Thanksgiving, and the driver could have been home with his family before the sun set on Wednesday night.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Happy Thanksgiving.
Do Ricardo Eletro
Oooops.... nem o estagiário da criação.
(Valeu, @rubixnall)
O post Propaganda sincerona apareceu primeiro em Blog Te Dou um Dado?.
MadmaxandradeOu seja, a versão interpretada pelo Robert DeNiro era mesmo mais próxima do monstro literário.
The Monster in this film does not physically resemble Mary Shelley’s character. It was make-up artist Jack P. Pierce who came up with innovations such as the Monster’s flat head, the bolts through the neck, the droopy eyelids, and the poorly-fitted suit.
Frankenstein (1931)
I'm old and bitter... or this generation isn't all that impressive. Let's recap shall we?
Nes / Master System - We had a huge technical improvement. We went from squares and blips to characters and tunes. Hell, some games even had text!
SNES / Genesis - The pixels actually really ressemble what they are trying to convey, instead or baring a slighty semblance. Games starts to have an story. You can have more than 3 enemies on the screen!
PS1 - We got 3d. Ok, Snes had some 3d too, but this was the truly 3d generation.
PS2 / Xbox - Console gaming discovers the internet, voice acting and high poly models turns commonplace.
PS3 / Xbox360 - We got... even better models... better online. And waggling.
PS4 / XboxOne - Models now have more polygons I can count, online is almost mandatory, and even more motion gaming. Sorry, I'm just not impressed.
Let me talk about games now. Call of Duty Ghosts was released on PC first and it's basically the same (if not better) on PC. Now, you can prefer to play on consoles, and it's fine, but it shows "next gen gaming" is hardly gamebreaking. It's something I can run on my machine right now without fanfare.
So, for me, this generation is more about a mandatory hardware upgrade and less about stepping in a new age of gaming.
To close, internet also made us all a bit cynic. We know about hardware failures, about price cuts, about weak line-up of games on launch. Basically, buying on launch is usually seen like a bad deal.
There is no hurry to jump on the boat yet, unless you really, REALLY want to play Killzone or Ryse.
Tony Panaccio wants Bill Murray to know something.
Dear Bill,
First off, looking good in those Monuments Men ads on Facebook. Every time I log on to play Angry Birds, your ad is right there all the time. And yes, I clicked Like.
The reason I am writing you is because I am a nostalgia nerd. I’d call myself a nostalgia addict, but the definition of addiction is something one does compulsively and without joy, and your film roles have always brought me joy – even the ones that came out of left field. I mean, Garfield? Really? But, you were the only reason I watched it. Along with Charlie’s Angels, Zombieland and The Life Aquatic (each one with a different level of brilliance). Hell, I even went to the theater to see The Razor’s Edge. Friggin critics. You were good.
Being a nostalgia nerd, I found myself horribly dismayed and disappointed that I would not be seeing you in the upcoming Ghostbusters 3. And, let’s get this out of the way – yes, I agree with you. It is a monumentally bad idea. I can think of no reason to do another Ghostbusters movie except to find more money among the ectoplasmic ooze. But, as a freelance creative artist myself, I find there is little evil in checks clearing the bank. Money is a great motivator. It got The Eagles back together (remember the Hell Freezes Over Tour? And they said “never again”).
That being said, I would like to enumerate a few more reasons that might make a compelling argument for you to appear in Ghostbusters 3, in hopes that you might reconsider your choice to pass on this nostalgia buffet.
1) Getting the Band Back Together – As a pop culture junkie, I have suffered – along with millions of my brethren – with pop culture reunions that lack key members. Journey is currently touring sans Steve Perry. Their new lead singer Arnel Pineda kicks ass, but it’s not the same. Styx has toured without Dennis DeYoung. The Dallas revival tragically lost JR last year. Us boomers are aging, and we are losing touch with the movies, bands and TV shows that shaped our youths. The Ghostbusters are among the last few remnants of our pop culture roots. To hear that it’s happening without you is like hearing that The Partridge Family is getting together without David Cassidy. Crushing.
2) Monty Python’s Doing It – A few days ago, British comedy fans woke from their long slumber to hear that Monty Python is getting back together again for a stage show. Granted, they are missing the departed Graham Chapman, but they are another group of pop culture gods who said never again, but have recanted. Apparently, Terry Jones said he would like to pay off his mortgage, which is fine with me. So would I. And that’s what friends do for friends. After all, doesn’t Dan Aykroyd have a few bills to pay these days? There are only so many Adam Sandler movie cameos to go around, these days.
3) The Beatles Reunion That Never Happened – Lorne Michaels, one of your old bosses, once tried to get The Beatles back together on an episode of SNL decades ago. And according to the lore, but for a lack of a cab on a cold NYC night, John Lennon and Paul McCartney could have made history. When missed opportunities like that make history almost as much as the reunion would have, it’s an indication of fans’ thirst for these nods to our past. Without insulting the memory of The Beatles, The Ghostbusters are a fictional version of that kind of gathering. You, Dan, Harold and Ernie are the Fab Four of the afterlife. It won’t be the same slime without you. And you have to admit, you still look good in the jumpsuit.
Click here to view the embedded video.
4) It Couldn’t Hurt – Look, you are more than an actor. You are a brand. Wherever you go, whatever you appear in, you bring a flavor no one else can. Is there ANYONE else who could have portrayed himself in the midst of a zombie apocalypse? You think Chevy Chase or Eddie Murphy could have pulled that off? No matter what you do, your career is immune to bad movies, because moviegoers love you wherever you appear? That’s magic, and magic should never be withheld where it’s needed. And if your concern is whether it will be funny, you have to remember that Dan and Harold have written, produced, directed and starred in some of the funniest movies of all time. These guys aren’t chumps. And let’s not discount what you bring. Hell, your ad libs are funnier than most full scripts. The Ghostbusters need your magic. Moviegoers need your magic. The fans need your magic. And me, the guy who YouTubes your appearances at golf tournaments and late night talk shows (remember when you threw the heckler out of Letterman’s studio?
Click here to view the embedded video.
I do. We all do.
You can bring anything you want. Bring your golf clubs, bring your tuxedo from Lost in Translation. Bring Chevy so you can kick his ass, again. Just, please, bring us the magic, just one more time. We’ll keep the slime warm for you.
Enfim, a grande dúvida se dissipou: Monty Python vai fazer um novo show ao vivo!
O anúncio foi feito hoje, onde os cinco pythons remanescentes (Eric Idle, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin e Terry Jones) se reuniram numa coletiva de imprensa no Playhouse Theatre, em Londres.
Marcada para começar ao meio-dia, os pythons entraram com um atraso de 20 minutos (aumentando a ansiedade de todos).
Entraram falando ao mesmo tempo.
(PRATICAMENTE) AO VIVO
O mestre de cerimônias, Warwick Davis, apareceu e mandou todos se calarem.
Ele apresentou a todos, chamando-os de “lendas do humor”, e então tirou um envelope e pediu para que rufassem os tambores.
Aquele envelope diria o local da próxima apresentação dos pythons.
Foi então que ele o abriu e disse o local: “Qatar” (fazendo uma alusão à escolha do país-sede da próxima Copa do Mundo).
Abriu outro envelope e anunciou a vencedora da noite – piada pythonesca: “Meryl Streep”.
Logo depois ele abriu outro envelope, contendo a sede da apresentação dos pythons, e disse: “Londres”.
Aí pegou o envelope derradeiro e anunciou a grande novidade: o novo show vai acontecer no dia 1 de julho, na O2 Arena, em Londres.
O show, que se chama Monty Python Live (mostly) – algo como Monty Python (praticamente) Ao Vivo - tem como lema “um já foi, faltam cinco“, referindo-se à morte do python Graham Chapman.
PIADAS ATRÁS DE PIADAS
E Warwick logo cedeu às perguntas dos jornalistas.
A primeira pergunta veio de uma repórter da Espanha e, prontamente, Michael Palin bradou: “Ninguém! Ninguém espera pela Inquisição Espanhola!”, e o público caiu na gargalhada.
Um repórter australiano perguntou se eles vão se apresentar em seu país. A resposta: “O problema com a Austrália é que existem planetas mais perto”.
Eric Idle respondeu, em certo momento, que “Graham Chapman vai estar lá. Se existe um Deus, então ele vai aparecer”. Sobre a questão de suas velhices, Gilliam brincou dizendo que haverá equipes médicas a postos. E Michael Palin disse que espera que Terry Jones seja o primeiro a precisar ir ao médico.
Sentados em lugares trocados, as respostas vinham no conhecido tom de humor pythonesco
John Cleese disse que eles vão fazer os antigos sucessos, mas não de uma forma previsível. “Haverá também algumas das animações de Gilliam como parte do show”.
Sobre os ingressos, Idle apenas brincou dizendo que eles serão vendidos a “300 libras mais barato do que os Rolling Stones”.
Idle (na bancada como Cleese) disse que já está muito velho para fazer o andar tolo, mas pode fazê-lo com ajuda de alguém.
A coletiva de imprensa foi assim, cheia de piadas por parte dos pythons.
Mas, uma coisa é certa: o anúncio da volta acabou com a nossa angústia e nos deu a certeza de que boas risadas virão!
Para quem quiser saber mais, o site da apresentação já está no ar: http://www.montypythonlive.com
MadmaxandradeAchei o curta até bacana, mas imagino que ele funcione melhor pra ver logo depois do filme principal, ainda com a história fresca na cabeça.
Why Watch? Meanwhile, on earth.
Aningaaq is the companion to Gravity that fills in the visual space on the other end of Ryan Stone’s last-grasp radio call, and it breathes cold air into an isolated, unhappy story. Directed by Jonas Cuaron, it has the potential to be powerful, but probably not for anyone who hasn’t seen Alfonso Cuaron’s feature.
Some have said that it should have been included in the movie — either at the very beginning or in real-time — but I just don’t see it. Part of what made Gravity so powerful was that we were never allowed to escape the environment. There was no safety release valve of flashing down to Houston to see what they were up to and no breather in the form of exposition from Stone’s past life. Including this short (or any shots on earth) would have broken the spell. Luckily we get to see it regardless.
It’s also interesting that the team is submitting this short for Oscar consideration, meaning that it has a shot at making history alongside its all-but-guaranteed-a-nomination big brother. It’s a melancholy bit of storytelling with its own thoughtfulness and purpose, to be sure, but on the awards front there are plenty of other shorts that surpass it. Granted, I watch thousands of short films a year, but the buzz on this is coming purely from the depth of the feature film’s popularity.
At any rate, it’s a beautiful bite of snow that also represents an encouraging shift in the way stories are told and the access we have to them.
What Will It Cost? About 7 minutes.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Pandas são extraordinários. Parecem inventados por alguma criança.
Mas também são uma anomalia da evolução.
São carnívoros, mas só comem bambú.
Claro, as vezes comem carne ou vegetais, mas sua dieta preferida é feita 99,9% de bambú.
Eles têm dentes de carnívoros, um sistema digestório curto de carnívoros, enzimas e bactérias próprias para a digestão da carne. Ainda assim, só comem bambú.
Provavelmente essa opção vegetariana aconteceu há muito tempo, em alguma época em que a comida era pouca e o bambú era muito. Infelizmente, se a sobrevivência foi o ganho imediato, a longo prazo o resultado foi uma adaptação ruim de modo geral.
Os pandas são escravos do bambú.
Se você for visitá-los (recomendo o Zoo de San Diego) certamente estarão comendo ou dormindo. Para dar conta de suas necessidades calóricas diárias, os pandas comem 18 quilos de bambú por dia, literalmente, já que esse volume leva um dia inteiro para ser mastigado. Apesar do volume, a energia resultante de um dia serve apenas para garantir a mastigação do dia seguinte. O panda come só para ter energia suficiente poder continuar comendo no dia seguinte.
Possuem uma cabeça muito arredondada porque desenvolveram músculos da mandíbula de tanto mastigar.
Se movimentam o mínimo necessário, geralmente ficam sentados. Sexo dá muito trabalho, portanto dispensam. Gestações são interrompidas na metade e bebês pandas nascem prematuros porque as mães não teriam energia suficiente para um parto normal de uma gestação completa. Em zoológicos a torcida é mesmo por prematuros porque os bebês têm muito mais chances fora da barriga da mãe.
Outra consequência ruim é que Pandas não conseguem hibernar como os outros ursos porque não conseguem juntar nutrientes suficientes para mais de um dia, que dirá os 3 meses do inverno.
Soltos na natureza ficam em situação ainda pior porque não conseguem e nem sabem como conseguir outro alimento, a não ser o bambú.
Enfim, Pandas foram na contra-mão do caminho para o qual foram desenhados, viraram vegetarianos e viraram escravos dauilo que justamente os salvou há muitos anos.
Metaforicamente também fazemos isso quando nos acomodamos em um emprego ou numa relação só pelo pseudo segurança, pela “sobrevivência”. Também mastigamos nossos bambus. Os filés passam por nós, mas mesmo assim ficamos comendo bambús. De vez em quando até damos uma provadinha numa carne, mas voltamos correndo para o bambú porque, se bobearmos, não teremos o suficiente para amanhã.
O risco é ficarmos como Pandas: extraordinariamente ordinários.
(img Hung Chung Chih/Shutterstock]
I’m pretty sure I remember looking at the lock and seeing myself turn the key. Or was that yesterday?
MadmaxandradeOu seja, Helen Mirren já foi uma patcha gostosa. Tu vê.
Look-alike by: Unknown
MadmaxandradeTaí um filme que eu iria ver fácil na estreia.
Jack Nicholson refused to wear a Boston Red Sox hat during filming and instead wore his New York Yankees hat.
The Departed (2006)
Winning a Best Actor or Actress Oscar can be a boon for your career, and while most performers will publicly pretend that they’d be happy enough just to be nominated none of them would turn down the honor if an Academy Award came their way. (Unless you’re George C. Scott or Marlon Brando of course.) Unlike Pac-Man and the Grammys though, there’s no sure-fire path to victory in the Oscar race.
Except according to the fine folks over at Delayed Gratification, there actually is a very specific formula to help ensure the odds will be in your favor. And no, being good at archery is not part of it.
Apparently there are a few key factors common across a large percentage of past Oscar winners in the Best Actor and Best Actress categories. Common wisdom says playing a real person or someone with mental illness or an addiction increases your chances, but less than one in six winners actually fit those characteristics. Instead, the odds are greatest when playing a fictional character in the United States who neither fornicates nor dies onscreen. (This explains why no actress has ever won for a performance in a Friday the 13th film.) Those attributes apply to male and female characters, but interestingly, the sexes split when it comes to profession and time period. Men win more when playing soldiers or lawmen and are in contemporary times, while women win more playing performers most likely in the relatively recent past.
Check out the full infographic from Delayed Gratification below. (h/t Cinema Blend)
Granted, it’s a lot to take in, but the infographic from researcher David Shaw and artist Christian Tate is loaded with interesting revelations. Shave off that mustache and/or beard! Less than one in five actors have won playing hairy-faced characters. Put down those balls! The only sport your character should participate in is boxing.
While it’s nearly impossible to follow all the threads on the graphic, the various-sized nubs along the center give a good idea of several other factors. Female characters engaging in onscreen sexual shenanigans have a noticeably better chance come awards’ season than do the males. By contrast, male characters who die onscreen are closer to an Oscar than are the females who bite the dust. One person’s orgasm is another’s little death it seems.
And in case you were hanging on to that old chestnut about sexism in Hollywood, men win most frequently playing authority figures, politicians, or creative types, while women have a better chance as performers, housewives, socialites, and service industry employees. So there’s that.
Since we all know infographics don’t lie, it seems like a no-brainer that we should be able to use this formula to predict who’ll take home the gold at the 2014 Academy Awards right? We don’t have nominees yet, but there are some very clear front-runners.
For Best Actress, the favorites seem to be Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine), Sandra Bullock (Gravity), Judi Dench (Philomena), Brie Larson (Short Term 12), and the obligatory Meryl Streep (August: Osage County). Upcoming possibilities include Amy Adams (American Hustle) and Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks), but they’re both period pieces and can therefore be tossed right the hell out. We can lose Dench too as she’s playing a real person. Bullock’s out because she’s playing a scientist (and depending on who you ask she may or may not die onscreen), and Streep is a no-go due to facial hair (probably). So, per science, either Blanchett’s socialite or Larson’s public servant will win for Best Actress.
For Best Actor, the odds are currently favoring Bruce Dern (Nebraska), Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave), Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips), Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club), and Robert Redford (All Is Lost). Right off the bat we can say goodbye to Ejiofor, Hanks, and McConaughey as they’re portraying real people. This leaves us with Dern and Redford, but while it’s not part of the infographic above it seems to me that more actors have won for performances in color films over black & white. Sorry Mr. Dern, but you can’t fight science.
On a side note, Delayed Gratification is a somewhat new but undeniably brilliant magazine. They only release four issues per year, but their mantra is all about “slow journalism.” Instead of succumbing to the new normal of the knee-jerk, 24 hour news cycle, each issue examines important news stories from the past few months in retroactive detail. They revisit the story and the people days, weeks, and even months later, and the result is almost always fascinating.
MadmaxandradeDá pra jogar com o Senna e dirigir um módulo lunar. Serei obrigado a comprar GT6.
Not content with modeling more than a thousand cars drivable on planet Earth, Gran Turismo developer Polyphony Digital is now apparently shooting for the Moon. In a newly released trailer for Gran Turismo 6, the "real driving simulator" creator teases lunar driving.
The PlayStation 3 game's car list shows that the Lunar Roving Vehicle LEV-001 '71 — seemingly based on the Apollo 15 LRV — will be among the 120-plus new vehicles included in Gran Turismo 6, but it's currently unclear if Moon races will be limited to that vehicle only or if the Lunar Roving Vehicle can be driven on any of the game's 100 track layouts. We've contacted Sony Computer Entertainment for details.
The Moon isn't the only heavenly body getting new consideration...
MadmaxandradeOu seja, o cara pelo qual a mulherada baba assistindo The Voice é um sósia do Kramer.
!['Will [ ] allow us to better understand each other and thus make war undesirable?' is one that pops up whenever we invent a new communication medium.](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/simple_answers.png "'Will [ ] allow us to better understand each other and thus make war undesirable?' is one that pops up whenever we invent a new communication medium.")
