1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

The Synologist
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby The Synologist » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:49 pm UTC

Image
"There's this idea that emoji are bad for communication because they replace ambiguity and nuance with a limited set of preselected emotions, but it doesn't really survive a collision with real-world usage of the thinking face or upside-down smiley."

It does indeed seem spectacularly bad: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_emoji_movie

Anyone seen it that can chime in?

Hiferator
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:23 am UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Hiferator » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:58 pm UTC

The thing with the LEGO Movie is, that you can get away with 80% product placement, if the product placement is interesting, and happens to also be the main characters. As opposed to the Emoji movie, where the product placement is boring background stuff. (I have not seen the Emoji Movie.)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:06 pm UTC

Hiferator wrote:(I have not seen the Emoji Movie.)

You mean, there really is an Emoji movie? It's a thing?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4877122/

Great Ch*rpin' Jehosaphat ~ it's the Voldeframe of meatspace!

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby mathmannix » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

Well, it actually seems very similar to me in theory to the idea of a LEGO movie. I imagine people who "grew up" playing with emoji (I don't think this has actually happened yet) might love the movie.

The big difference here seems to be that, outside of people who love LEGO's, most people probably have some experience with LEGO's and think they're a rather neat idea, if yet another commonly available building toy (like Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys and gee wilikers I hope movie executives make big-budget, high-quality movies based on those.) But probably most people who don't love (or at least comonly use) emojis either hate them or have no idea what they are. It's a steeper curve or something.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Flumble » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:18 pm UTC

thonk.png

speising
Posts: 2078
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby speising » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:24 pm UTC

If you play with legos, you are creating fantasy stories and scenes. You might say that stories are a quintessential part of lego. So it lends itself actually really good for a movie. The whole movie *was* a boy's fantasy realized.
Emojis are communication symbols. Where's the story in that? Might as well make a movie "ABC".

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Envelope Generator » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:31 pm UTC

speising wrote:Might as well make a movie "ABC".

Careful, don't give them any ideas.
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:34 pm UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:
speising wrote:Might as well make a movie "ABC".

Careful, don't give them any ideas.

They can have each letter only be able to make the sound of its own name. And have the plot be about a little tyke trying to learn them all!

Also, go on a marketing and merchandising blitz, while C&Ding everybody else for use of their characters.

speising
Posts: 2078
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby speising » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:52 pm UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:
speising wrote:Might as well make a movie "ABC".

Careful, don't give them any ideas.

They can have each letter only be able to make the sound of its own name. And have the plot be about a little tyke trying to learn them all!

Also, go on a marketing and merchandising blitz, while C&Ding everybody else for use of their characters.

Do they also have to fight each other on the behest of their master occasionally?

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby azule » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

I like my emoji flat with maybe a bit of shading.

I think xkcd could have done a better job...and all the faces would have been blank!
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:32 pm UTC

The Lego Movie was arguably 100% product placement since you can technically buy everything that exists in it, or at least the parts to build it. One could even make the argument that Disney movies are all essentially product placement for the tons of merchandise they'll inevitably be selling. What matters is, whether the people who made the movie cared about actually producing quality entertainment or just earning a paycheck.

I have no doubt that kids today (and by that I mean literal kids, like under 13) spend at least as much time texting and tweeting as my generation spent building stuff with Legos. But I find it hard to believe that they have the same kind of attachment to those round yellow faces as we do to, well, our round yellow faces. It'd be like if you made a movie in the '90s about notebook stickers.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:47 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:The big difference here seems to be that, outside of people who love LEGO's, most people probably have some experience with LEGO's and think they're a rather neat idea,

Outside of the "legos (plural) / lego (uncountable)" argument (or more strict "Lego™ (brand)" usage) , can I just point out the catapostrophical typo you just made. Twice... ;)

Anyway, the only reason I'm even tempted to see TEM is that it has Patrick Stewart in it. The fine Shakesperean actor as he is. That's perhaps the best reason to not see it, in order to not see how his distinguished career has apparently turned to poo....

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Flumble » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:26 pm UTC

(Reacting solely with a bastardization of the thinking emoji seemed like a good idea: it's very relevant to the title text and it seemed like an apt response to the very existence of this film. Also I like its confused/dorky/cynic expression.)


It strikes me as odd that there are so many negative reviews. It implies quite a few people have paid money to see it. Now I (and others here) haven't heard of this film before seeing the xkcd comic, so pray tell: did people have high expectations of this film? Like, given inside out was a massive success, did people expect a similar film because of the superficial similarity?


speising wrote:
SuicideJunkie wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:
speising wrote:Might as well make a movie "ABC".

Careful, don't give them any ideas.

They can have each letter only be able to make the sound of its own name. And have the plot be about a little tyke trying to learn them all!

Also, go on a marketing and merchandising blitz, while C&Ding everybody else for use of their characters.

Do they also have to fight each other on the behest of their master occasionally?

Spoiler:
All the letters within Latin are a happy bunch and there's no discrimination based on diacritics or cursive (and they're colourful too! because target audience). Together with Greek (no, not Cyrillic, Hebrew, Hindi or any other widely used alphabet –that's far too foreign for the target audience), they're at war with Arabic's abjad at first (which all wear turbans and move to the left on screen, because target audience), but they soon find out the abjad (especially an impure one that includes vowel markers) is not that different from themselves and become friends.
Following, there's a couple of musical pop songs with the letters of all (three) alphabets pairing up and singing their sound with a "sub"text of diversity and equality (because target audience).
And then the real adventure starts: together they explore further east, through the mystical valley of IPA (cue dream-like sequence with symbols floating around and ASMR sounds) and the mountain pass of Echoes (featuring runic inscriptions on the wall and echoes of phonemes lost to modern English). In the mountain pass they lose the red, far O (and the only one voiced by a black guy because target audience) to falling debris (not crushed, because the boulder is quite round, but hopelessly stuck nonetheless, otherwise the rating may not be PG) meet a band of ethereal beings who guide them through the mountains accompanied with throat singing.
After exiting the mountain pass, they encounter scary, flying, fire-breathing, dragon-like, slant-eyed Logograms, so they escape into a nearby hiding spot, which, of course, turns out to be a passage way to a hideout for forgotten Chinese characters (with long pointy white beards, because target audience), whom no one understands. The group of Western characters try to communicate with them for a moment, then burst out in song about their history, pronunciation and expedition to here. After that the Chinese characters start to learn the Western language (because target audience) and, with a really heavy accent and broken sentences and flashbacks, they tell about their history of pride, falling out of fashion, oppression (even bringing out a tianmen-square-shot) and finally going into hiding.
And then all of them together prepare for battle (probably donned in samurai armour, because target audience) against the "oppressive" modern Chinese characters. And then the battle happens against the dragons, with lots of slow motion, dramatic music, Chinese characters dropping like ants, Western characters being severely hurt and yet dealing the final blow to the dragon commander (because target audience).
Finally, the Western characters are back in the west (as seen from the Greek architecture with fountains and seaside) with the main characters in bandages and telling the story of their journey to their lowercase "children". Cue another pop song, pan out from the coast and roll credits.

Anyway, that's just me ranting about the average Hollywood production.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:33 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Now I (and others here) haven't heard of this film before seeing the xkcd comic,

I knew it existed, that it was coming, anyway. Probably due to hearing an interview with Stewart on the radio, months ago, and yet only today saw anything of a promotional poster nature - and that was a single bus-shelter thing.

And then there was 1857. Unless you didn't take that as (somewhat) serious...

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby xkcdfan » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:40 am UTC

How sure are we that these negative reviews aren't actually positive reviews from people traveling backward in time?

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby pogrmman » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:51 am UTC

I still can't believe they made a movie out of an extension to Unicode :/

Partly because I prefer old-style emoticons, and secondly because, well, they're just emoji. It's like how they made the game Battleship into a movie. Or how they turned a ride at Disneyland into a successful movie franchise.

It does look pretty hilariously bad though -- I love how the rotten tomatoes page is just the no symbol.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:01 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
mathmannix wrote:The big difference here seems to be that, outside of people who love LEGO's, most people probably have some experience with LEGO's and think they're a rather neat idea,

Outside of the "legos (plural) / lego (uncountable)" argument (or more strict "Lego™ (brand)" usage) , can I just point out the catapostrophical typo you just made. Twice... ;)

The plural of Lego is Lego. There is no 's'.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:08 am UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:The plural of Lego is Lego. There is no 's'.

Preach the Truth!

There are several multiples of Lego. One is More Lego. There's also Much Lego. But it is oxymoronic to say Excessive Lego.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby orthogon » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:39 am UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
mathmannix wrote:The big difference here seems to be that, outside of people who love LEGO's, most people probably have some experience with LEGO's and think they're a rather neat idea,

Outside of the "legos (plural) / lego (uncountable)" argument (or more strict "Lego™ (brand)" usage) , can I just point out the catapostrophical typo you just made. Twice... ;)

The plural of Lego is Lego. There is no 's'.

As a great woman once said, we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. Can we agree that, count noun or mass noun, Lego['](s) is/are a wonderful thing that makes the world a better place?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Invertin
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Invertin » Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:09 am UTC

I'm surprised at the number of people who hadn't even heard of this. I've heard mockery of the concept for months now.

But also please don't watch this movie. It's... There's no merit. Don't give this money. If they make an Emoji Movie 2 I will die.

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby pkcommando » Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:07 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:It strikes me as odd that there are so many negative reviews. It implies quite a few people have paid money to see it.

Well, except for the professional critics who get to see it for free. Also, it's not that unusual for movies to have free advance screenings for the general public as well. A quick Google search turned up one today in Michigan. Also, my quick search turned up this site, you can check it for your area.

Of course people still have to want to go see the movies, but it's an easier sell when the movie happens to be free and you get the bonus(?) of seeing it before everyone else does. Also, animated movies tend to appeal to parents who want something to do with their kids.
"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Flumble » Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:28 pm UTC

Ah, free screenings for non-critics, that's news to me!


Soupspoon wrote:And then there was 1857. Unless you didn't take that as (somewhat) serious...

That comic was a completely hypothetical joke until yesterday. :roll:

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby orthogon » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:15 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:It strikes me as odd that there are so many negative reviews. It implies quite a few people have paid money to see it.

I reckon I could review it accurately based on the trailer alone. I mean, the movie isn't going to be better than the trailer, which puts an upper bound of zero stars on my rating.

Emoji are stupid anyway. It's amazing that the "requirement" for emoji in Unicode came from Japan. You'd have thought that having a writing system based on thousands of similar-looking tiny pictures that might or might not look a bit like the thing they're supposed to represent would be a mistake that a great civilisation* would only make once... All I can think is that, once you've memorised a few thousand kanji, adding a few thousand more ideograms is no big deal.

*OK, it was the Chinese who invented them, and Japan's mistake was to try to use them for a completely different and significantly more inflected language for which they were not at all suited. But, whilst it's easier to see what they represent, emoji are no better than Chinese characters as a kind of language-agnostic way of expressing ideas. Without a grammar, with endings, particles, auxiliaries and suchlike, a string of emoji is just a salad of nouns and verbs with no structure.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:50 pm UTC

It is actually because of kanji/hanzi/etc that emoji exist. In the old proprietary CJK text encodings that Unicode has to interconvert with, you've already got a huge collection of multi-byte characters that are basically little pictures, and a visual library "keyboard" from which to select them, so it's super easy to just throw some actual little pictures in there too, everything you need for them is already in place.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3108
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:33 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Flumble wrote:It strikes me as odd that there are so many negative reviews. It implies quite a few people have paid money to see it.
I reckon I could review it accurately based on the trailer alone. I mean, the movie isn't going to be better than the trailer, which puts an upper bound of zero stars on my rating.


That may be true in this case, but in general you can have great movies with terrible trailers as well as movies with much better trailers.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:51 pm UTC

Case in point: Fight Club. I had no interest in seeing the movie based off the trailer until someone spoiled to me that Darth Vader was actually dead the whole time and then I had to go watch it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

The thing is that trailers don't deliberately get built up of the worst scenes in a film. They've got to attract the audience by giving snapshots that best epitomise the film they want people to see. With the caveat that they don't want to reveal that Rosebud is the name of the iceberg that the gold ends up teetering on the edge of, after Kaiser Soze wakes up and realises it was all a dream within a dream within a dream as the Dread Pirate Roberts and Tom Riddle come out of the shower, etc.

The best they can do, therefore, is patch together (suitably, and representively) attractive clips, perhaps with misdirecting flip-cuts to not reveal which characters are really having dialogue with over a Particularly Portentous Line. On the whole, though, they try to put as much of the best material as they can pack into the trailer, holding back mainly over twist-revelations (we've probably all been there, though, five minutes or less before the end-credits role, and suddenly realising that the scene we've just seen (hopefully, for the trailer-makers) or that a scene we are obviously just to see (ideally still with a twist) featured prominently enough in the preview footage that we can recall it from three months prior when we actually saw the "This Summer..." trailer that eventually sent us to this showing...


Anyway, with both "pick the good stuff" and any intention to misdirect the end result is often that the film is not entirely what (the makers think) we want to see. If it's better than the trailer (because it's not actually the romcom they tried to make it look like, but actually the technothriller that we'd appreciate more, or vice-versa) then our chances of seeing it without being 'forced' to, and/or getting a recommendation from someone else who better explains the relative attraction of the feature, are fairly low. Instead we'll mostly be viewing the :o trailers (from the graphical smileys that this forum provides, I'd call that an "expectant 'Woh!'") that actually promote :| films (that being the most "meh"ish graphical smiley this forum uses, IMO) as well as the :? ones ("wut?"). Seeing a :roll: trailer that sends you to a :lol: film just won't happen as many times as the :lol: getting you into a :roll: one, if you're at all fussy or not being paid for it in in currency (you're a reviewer?) or kind (its the first date with the hot person who might let you get closer?).

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Isaac Hill » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:24 pm UTC

The comic isn't sure which "meh" emoji is meant. According to the A.V. Club's review, the plot involves "meh" being the only emoji who can make multiple expressions. I'm just going to assume multiple "meh"s is how the plot resolves, since that's probably better than whatever the flm actually does.

Soupspoon wrote:Anyway, the only reason I'm even tempted to see TEM is that it has Patrick Stewart in it. The fine Shakesperean actor as he is. That's perhaps the best reason to not see it, in order to not see how his distinguished career has apparently turned to poo....

The same review says Stewart's part is under 2 minutes. Another way trailers can lie is to make an incredibly minor character seem more important by including almost all of his lines in a minute long trailer.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby GlassHouses » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:28 am UTC

orthogon wrote:[referring to Kanji] a writing system based on thousands of similar-looking tiny pictures that might or might not look a bit like the thing they're supposed to represent


More "might not" than "might," if you ask me. I started studying Japanese recently, and my first impression is that whatever similarity Kanji (or their original Chinese counterparts) may once have had to the things they're supposed to represent, has been lost ages ago.

Man = 人
OK, I can see that.

Tree = 木
Mmmyeah, maybe that, too.

Woman = 女
Huh?

Inside = 内
OK...

House = 家
The top part represents a roof, the bottom part means "pig". OK, makes sense, the distinction between "building for humans only" and "building for animals" may be more recent than this character, but...

Pig = 豕
???

Or how about

Horse = 馬

I am having fun learning these things, but make no mistake, it feels more like cultural archeology than learning a useful writing system.

What puzzles me about Japanese writing in particular is that they developed Kana, 1200 years ago, to deal with writing the inflectional parts of Japanese that the Chinese characters don't really fit... and yet didn't transition to writing Japanese using *only* Kana. I suppose you could argue that it's just an ongoing process; they've reduced the number of officially sanctioned Kanji to a somewhat manageable set of 2136, but that's still pretty brutal compared to the 46 + 46 characters of Hiragana and Katakana.

Mental Mouse
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Mental Mouse » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:44 pm UTC

Let me point out that Patrick Stewart has a sense of humor too. Also, for the day's GOOMHR, I have actually used the eggplant emoji.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Keyman » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:13 pm UTC

I have not seen the movie, and never planned to, but it was almost worth having it made just to see the quality of the vitriolic reviews.
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:36 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:I have not seen the movie, and never planned to, but it was almost worth having it made just to see the quality of the vitriolic reviews.

High quality, or low quality? I think it would be useful to each review all the reviews, and then we can review each other's reviews of the reviews. Some people will complete this task satisfactorily, some will not, of course.

(Semi-related to rating systems...)
Spoiler:
A school I passed the other day had a banner proudly proclaiming "(Offted inspectors) passed this school as Good, all across the board!", or words to that effect.

The scale is "Outstanding" (desired), "Very Good" (above average), "Good" ( :| ), "Satisfactory" (not technically failed) and "Inadequate" (oh dear, Special Measures here we come! Please give the retiring headteacher space to clear their head and their desk. And remember to thank any of the teachers you like before term ends, just in case you don't see them again.). Unless they've rejigged things again, recently.

Also note that, as an Academy is often a revised form of governance that a school (not this one) might be forced into as part of the Special Measures required rejigging, the term "Academy" is a bit poisonous to the reputation of a school and "Voluntary Academy" seems to be the term used by the kind of establishments that desired the different funding/control model that an Academy status goes along with...

(Or maybe they would rather jump, instead of be pushed? Possibly devaluing even the Voluntary distinction.)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby orthogon » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:53 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:A school I passed the other day had a banner proudly proclaiming "(Offted inspectors) passed this school as Good, all across the board!", or words to that effect.

The scale is "Outstanding" (desired), "Very Good" (above average), "Good" ( :| ), "Satisfactory" (not technically failed) and "Inadequate" (oh dear, Special Measures here we come! Please give the retiring headteacher space to clear their head and their desk. And remember to thank any of the teachers you like before term ends, just in case you don't see them again.). Unless they've rejigged things again, recently.

Did they actually misspell "Ofsted"? That would be truly hilarious.

If I'm not mistaken, "Satisfactory" was renamed "Requires Improvement" a couple of years back, without the meaning actually changing. Prior to that I remember reading a brilliant comment piece that said
... "satisfactory", which, in the Kafkaesque world of Ofsted, means "not good enough".


Pseudo-edit: it might have been Stephen Jones's letter.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:25 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Did they actually misspell "Ofsted"? That would be truly hilarious.
It would be, wouldn't it. No, that was my own entirely Satisfactory typing that produced that.

(Seemingly wouldn't have spill-chucked, either way, and hidden in the midst of a URL tag it didn't even seem to want to redwaveyunderline it, like it does "orthogon" even though/because that's a quoted tag-value..!)

If I'm not mistaken, "Satisfactory" was renamed "Requires Improvement" a couple of years back, without the meaning actually changing.

And so Good==average even more so. Not so much the squeezed middle as the evaporated centre.

chenille
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby chenille » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:31 pm UTC

GlassHouses wrote:Woman = 女

That one makes perfect sense to me. It's just like one of our stick figures, except it has a body, wider at the top.

GlassHouses wrote:Horse = 馬

Very stylized, but you can see where it came from. The horse is the bottom part, with four legs on the left and the head hanging down on the right. It's carrying some sort of pack that's probably a bit too large for it.

GlassHouses wrote:Pig = 豕

But no, they aren't all pictograms by any means. :) Note too a lot of them are also based on what other words sounded similar - similarities you can still hear in languages like Mandarin, but not necessarily so much in Japanese.

GlassHouses wrote:What puzzles me about Japanese writing in particular is that they developed Kana, 1200 years ago, to deal with writing the inflectional parts of Japanese that the Chinese characters don't really fit... and yet didn't transition to writing Japanese using *only* Kana.

That's basically what happened in Korean, switching entirely from Chinese characters to Hangul. And yet Korean has more in common with Chinese (via an extremely high number of loanwords) than Japanese does. But writing is part of culture, after all; people are not going to make choices about it purely based on what works best, as all us English speakers should know well.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby orthogon » Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
GlassHouses wrote:Horse = 馬

Very stylized, but you can see where it came from. The horse is the bottom part, with four legs on the left and the head hanging down on the right. It's carrying some sort of pack that's probably a bit too large for it.


Actually it seems that's its tail, not its head!

Spoiler:
Image
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby poxic » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:01 pm UTC

Mental Mouse wrote:Let me point out that Patrick Stewart has a sense of humor too.

Knowing what little I do about him, I'd suspect that he just wanted "Poo" on his resume for the giggles.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

I hope Heaven has a periscope to Hell, because humans are really only happy relative to other humans.
- Zach Weinersmith

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:13 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Actually it seems that's its tail, not its head!

Ah, so it contains a horse the way A contains an ox.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby somitomi » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:46 am UTC

orthogon wrote:Actually it seems that's its tail, not its head!

So what happened to the head? Chinese Godfather?
"It's like he's his own alt account. Saves all the logging in and out."/poxic
they/them/theirs = he/him/his ❖ If you want to use something else out of dadaist spite, I won't mind.
✆ Hello? This is Forum Games Discord, what is your emergency?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby orthogon » Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:31 am UTC

somitomi wrote:
orthogon wrote:Actually it seems that's its tail, not its head!

So what happened to the head? Chinese Godfather?

:D
Actually, I think the head is what chenille thought was "some sort of pack" on its back.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests