<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_1624214</id>
	<title>1977 Star Wars Computer Graphics</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258565880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Noryungi writes <i>"The interestingly named '<a href="http://www.toplessrobot.com/">Topless Robot</a>' has a real trip down memory lane: <a href="http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/11/computer\_graphics\_from\_a\_long\_long\_time\_ago\_in\_a\_g.php">how the computer graphics of the original Star Wars movie were made</a>. The article points to this
YouTube video of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeSw00n3Ac">a short documentary</a> made by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry\_Cuba">Larry</a> <a href="http://www.well.com/~cuba/">Cuba</a>, the original artist, that explains how he did it. In 1977."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noryungi writes " The interestingly named 'Topless Robot ' has a real trip down memory lane : how the computer graphics of the original Star Wars movie were made .
The article points to this YouTube video of a short documentary made by Larry Cuba , the original artist , that explains how he did it .
In 1977 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noryungi writes "The interestingly named 'Topless Robot' has a real trip down memory lane: how the computer graphics of the original Star Wars movie were made.
The article points to this
YouTube video of a short documentary made by Larry Cuba, the original artist, that explains how he did it.
In 1977.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492</id>
	<title>Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My personal favorite substitute for expensive early computer graphics was in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape\_from\_New\_York" title="wikipedia.org">Escape from New York</a> [wikipedia.org]. To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes, painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint, and shot it in the dark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal favorite substitute for expensive early computer graphics was in Escape from New York [ wikipedia.org ] .
To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city ; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes , painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint , and shot it in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal favorite substitute for expensive early computer graphics was in Escape from New York [wikipedia.org].
To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes, painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint, and shot it in the dark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147098</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot Scooped</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1257105300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow everyone knows that slashdot is behind the times, but a year and a half?  That's gotta be a record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow everyone knows that slashdot is behind the times , but a year and a half ?
That 's got ta be a record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow everyone knows that slashdot is behind the times, but a year and a half?
That's gotta be a record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152346</id>
	<title>Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be John Carpenter that directed "Escape From New York", not James Cameron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be John Carpenter that directed " Escape From New York " , not James Cameron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be John Carpenter that directed "Escape From New York", not James Cameron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147650</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computational power grew fast enough where you could do real-time inverse kinematics.  The artist just has to move the end of the 'chain' of joints and the math handles the rest.  A lot easier than trying to manage all of the joints explicitly with external hardware interfaces - and cheaper!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computational power grew fast enough where you could do real-time inverse kinematics .
The artist just has to move the end of the 'chain ' of joints and the math handles the rest .
A lot easier than trying to manage all of the joints explicitly with external hardware interfaces - and cheaper !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computational power grew fast enough where you could do real-time inverse kinematics.
The artist just has to move the end of the 'chain' of joints and the math handles the rest.
A lot easier than trying to manage all of the joints explicitly with external hardware interfaces - and cheaper!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147576</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257107760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash movie of Battlezone Arcade in action:  <a href="http://www.thelogbook.com/pdfmedia/1980/battlezone/" title="thelogbook.com">http://www.thelogbook.com/pdfmedia/1980/battlezone/</a> [thelogbook.com]  -   Atarisoft version on C=64: <a href="http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/b/battlezone\_02.gif" title="lemon64.com">http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/b/battlezone\_02.gif</a> [lemon64.com]</p><p>Other vector-based games: <a href="http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/category/arcade/vector/" title="thelogbook.com">http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/category/arcade/vector/</a> [thelogbook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash movie of Battlezone Arcade in action : http : //www.thelogbook.com/pdfmedia/1980/battlezone/ [ thelogbook.com ] - Atarisoft version on C = 64 : http : //www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/b/battlezone \ _02.gif [ lemon64.com ] Other vector-based games : http : //www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/category/arcade/vector/ [ thelogbook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash movie of Battlezone Arcade in action:  http://www.thelogbook.com/pdfmedia/1980/battlezone/ [thelogbook.com]  -   Atarisoft version on C=64: http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/b/battlezone\_02.gif [lemon64.com]Other vector-based games: http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/category/arcade/vector/ [thelogbook.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151512</id>
	<title>Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1257083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes, painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint, and shot it in the dark.</i></p><p>It wasn't phosphorescent paint and they didn't shoot it in the dark.  They painted the boxes black, and used reflective tape to make the grid lines; then they lit the model brightly and panned the camera through it.  With black background and super-bright glowing white lines, it must be pretty easy to find camera settings where all the film sees are the glowing white lines, and the rest is just undifferentiated black.</p><p>I have an old special-edition video tape of the movie and they showed this.  It's probably in the special features on the DVD.</p><p>Another effect: when the helicopter lands toward the end of the movie, you see a ruined city in the background, with actors in the shot.  The ruined city was literally a matte painting, painted on glass, with a window in the middle through which you could see the actors.  A super-low-budget way to get the effect they wanted.</p><p>And if anyone is wondering: yes, James Cameron worked on special effects before he was a super-famous movie director.  He didn't do the effects all by himself, of course, but he did work on <i>Escape from New York</i>.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city ; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes , painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint , and shot it in the dark.It was n't phosphorescent paint and they did n't shoot it in the dark .
They painted the boxes black , and used reflective tape to make the grid lines ; then they lit the model brightly and panned the camera through it .
With black background and super-bright glowing white lines , it must be pretty easy to find camera settings where all the film sees are the glowing white lines , and the rest is just undifferentiated black.I have an old special-edition video tape of the movie and they showed this .
It 's probably in the special features on the DVD.Another effect : when the helicopter lands toward the end of the movie , you see a ruined city in the background , with actors in the shot .
The ruined city was literally a matte painting , painted on glass , with a window in the middle through which you could see the actors .
A super-low-budget way to get the effect they wanted.And if anyone is wondering : yes , James Cameron worked on special effects before he was a super-famous movie director .
He did n't do the effects all by himself , of course , but he did work on Escape from New York.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To do the sequence where Snake is gliding into New York and looking at a computer generated wireframe of the city; James Cameron simply cut out a bunch of boxes, painted the lines on them with phosphorescent paint, and shot it in the dark.It wasn't phosphorescent paint and they didn't shoot it in the dark.
They painted the boxes black, and used reflective tape to make the grid lines; then they lit the model brightly and panned the camera through it.
With black background and super-bright glowing white lines, it must be pretty easy to find camera settings where all the film sees are the glowing white lines, and the rest is just undifferentiated black.I have an old special-edition video tape of the movie and they showed this.
It's probably in the special features on the DVD.Another effect: when the helicopter lands toward the end of the movie, you see a ruined city in the background, with actors in the shot.
The ruined city was literally a matte painting, painted on glass, with a window in the middle through which you could see the actors.
A super-low-budget way to get the effect they wanted.And if anyone is wondering: yes, James Cameron worked on special effects before he was a super-famous movie director.
He didn't do the effects all by himself, of course, but he did work on Escape from New York.steveha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150340</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you actually pretending there were no bad movies before CGI? Heck, I doubt there are more bad movies made than before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you actually pretending there were no bad movies before CGI ?
Heck , I doubt there are more bad movies made than before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you actually pretending there were no bad movies before CGI?
Heck, I doubt there are more bad movies made than before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147172</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you cannot suspend your disbelief then thats your problem, not anyone else's.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're accusing the guy who prefers puppets of not being able to suspend disbelief?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can not suspend your disbelief then thats your problem , not anyone else 's.You 're accusing the guy who prefers puppets of not being able to suspend disbelief ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cannot suspend your disbelief then thats your problem, not anyone else's.You're accusing the guy who prefers puppets of not being able to suspend disbelief?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152516</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>enoz</author>
	<datestamp>1257091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this context CGI = Computer Generated Imagery.</p><p>Those images of the wireframe in Star Wars were generated by a Computer, hence CGI.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater.</p></div><p>That seems to be limiting the scope of CGI to simply "Computer animation".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this context CGI = Computer Generated Imagery.Those images of the wireframe in Star Wars were generated by a Computer , hence CGI.CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater.That seems to be limiting the scope of CGI to simply " Computer animation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this context CGI = Computer Generated Imagery.Those images of the wireframe in Star Wars were generated by a Computer, hence CGI.CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater.That seems to be limiting the scope of CGI to simply "Computer animation".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146162</id>
	<title>amazing...</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1257101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...even for todays standards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...even for todays standards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...even for todays standards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made (too many war scenes) for the cheap cost that WB could afford (half Star Trek's budget).</p><p>Other shows that likely wouldn't exist in the format we got are the New Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG1, SGA, SGU with their numerous space battle.   Instead we'd have something like Buck Rogers or Space 1999 that barely have any space scenes at all, due to the cost of models being too high.  i.e. Claustrophobic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made ( too many war scenes ) for the cheap cost that WB could afford ( half Star Trek 's budget ) .Other shows that likely would n't exist in the format we got are the New Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG1 , SGA , SGU with their numerous space battle .
Instead we 'd have something like Buck Rogers or Space 1999 that barely have any space scenes at all , due to the cost of models being too high .
i.e. Claustrophobic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made (too many war scenes) for the cheap cost that WB could afford (half Star Trek's budget).Other shows that likely wouldn't exist in the format we got are the New Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG1, SGA, SGU with their numerous space battle.
Instead we'd have something like Buck Rogers or Space 1999 that barely have any space scenes at all, due to the cost of models being too high.
i.e. Claustrophobic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;CGI has ruined movies</p><p>Are you kidding? Yoda looks like a rag doll in the originals. The cantina puppets are pretty bad and Jabba's palace is a B-quality muppet showcase. If anything, CGI is producing a seamlessness that is impossible with the old techniques.</p><p>If you cannot suspend your disbelief then thats your problem, not anyone else's.</p><p>&gt;jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.</p><p>Thats an implementation issue, not a technological one. There's tons of CGI in those movies that looks amazing. In fact, I suspect its so good you dont even know its CGI. Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian. If anything, it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; CGI has ruined moviesAre you kidding ?
Yoda looks like a rag doll in the originals .
The cantina puppets are pretty bad and Jabba 's palace is a B-quality muppet showcase .
If anything , CGI is producing a seamlessness that is impossible with the old techniques.If you can not suspend your disbelief then thats your problem , not anyone else 's. &gt; jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.Thats an implementation issue , not a technological one .
There 's tons of CGI in those movies that looks amazing .
In fact , I suspect its so good you dont even know its CGI .
Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian .
If anything , it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;CGI has ruined moviesAre you kidding?
Yoda looks like a rag doll in the originals.
The cantina puppets are pretty bad and Jabba's palace is a B-quality muppet showcase.
If anything, CGI is producing a seamlessness that is impossible with the old techniques.If you cannot suspend your disbelief then thats your problem, not anyone else's.&gt;jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.Thats an implementation issue, not a technological one.
There's tons of CGI in those movies that looks amazing.
In fact, I suspect its so good you dont even know its CGI.
Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian.
If anything, it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148074</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier...)</p></div></blockquote><p>You could have done this easier <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape\_from\_New\_York#Production" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">without</a> [wikipedia.org] a computer or a calculator... heheh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier... ) You could have done this easier without [ wikipedia.org ] a computer or a calculator... heheh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier...)You could have done this easier without [wikipedia.org] a computer or a calculator... heheh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147244</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe less focus on effects = more focus on making the rest of the movie good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe less focus on effects = more focus on making the rest of the movie good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe less focus on effects = more focus on making the rest of the movie good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30157634</id>
	<title>Re:Lucasfilm VAX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Genesis was done with some SGI gear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Genesis was done with some SGI gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Genesis was done with some SGI gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155780</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1258644120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I remember it, the documentary for one of the Alien movies said it was methylcellulose and mentioned its use as a milkshake thickening agent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I remember it , the documentary for one of the Alien movies said it was methylcellulose and mentioned its use as a milkshake thickening agent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I remember it, the documentary for one of the Alien movies said it was methylcellulose and mentioned its use as a milkshake thickening agent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148050</id>
	<title>Re:yeah</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey sexy mama.  Wanna kill all humans?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey sexy mama .
Wan na kill all humans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey sexy mama.
Wanna kill all humans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147542</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1257107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Griffin Technology's <a href="http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate" title="griffintechnology.com">PowerMate USB Multimedia Controller</a> [griffintechnology.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Griffin Technology 's PowerMate USB Multimedia Controller [ griffintechnology.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Griffin Technology's PowerMate USB Multimedia Controller [griffintechnology.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146416</id>
	<title>Another freakin' story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about Star Wars was posted on tech website Slashdot today. The story garnered a great deal of interest.</p><p>In other news, there are ongoing rumors in the entertainment industry that producer George Lucas is nearing bankruptcy. A Lucas Arts spokesperson declined comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about Star Wars was posted on tech website Slashdot today .
The story garnered a great deal of interest.In other news , there are ongoing rumors in the entertainment industry that producer George Lucas is nearing bankruptcy .
A Lucas Arts spokesperson declined comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about Star Wars was posted on tech website Slashdot today.
The story garnered a great deal of interest.In other news, there are ongoing rumors in the entertainment industry that producer George Lucas is nearing bankruptcy.
A Lucas Arts spokesperson declined comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153078</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>linuxpyro</author>
	<datestamp>1257097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget about Benjamin Button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget about Benjamin Button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget about Benjamin Button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147646</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1257108060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naah. What made EpIV stand out was that the characters were animated by actors and technicians rather than by puppetteers. </p><p>In the later films, "Original Yoda" looked and sounded too much like Fozzie Bear, and moved just like a like a muppet.<br>
"Fozzie Bear am I, muppet am I being". Pah.</p><p>Had the exaggerrated theatricality that some puppeteers get off on, which was fine on The Muppet Show and Sesame Street, but on a "realistic" film just amounts to really hammy acting. You know the thing, where every action is loudly flagged in advance by a set of overblown prequel movements. Walking over to a chair and sitting on it becomes a bloody mime-artist performance. For me, that totally destroyed any illusion that you were looking at a real creature. You can't blame CGI for the Ewoks, either.
</p><p>
IMO, "Episode III" Yoda was way better than the Hensonised version. "EpIII Yoda" acted everyone else off the screen.</p><p>
JarJar Binks and the buzzing fly thing in the early episodes weren't crappy because they were CGI, they were crappy because they were badly written, played on crude and offensive ethnic stereotypes (a "Jamaican" stereotype for lazy JJB and a "Jewish" stereotype for the loansharking fly thing with the big nose), used cartoonish "pantomime" acting and were there as caricatures rather than as proper characters. It didn't matter whether you got puppeteers to animate them as mechanical puppets or as CGI - with the same script and direction they'd have been just as crap.</p><p>
Now if you'd mentioned Chewbacca, THERE was a non-CGI alien that you could believe in. Guy in a suit. But an actual actor, NOT a marionettist. When Chewie stomped across a room or scratched his arse, or growled at someone, it wasn't some puppeteer trying to produce the ultimate stylised ballet performance.</p><p>
Plus it probably helped that Chewie didn't have any George Lucas dialogue. Same thing for Artoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naah .
What made EpIV stand out was that the characters were animated by actors and technicians rather than by puppetteers .
In the later films , " Original Yoda " looked and sounded too much like Fozzie Bear , and moved just like a like a muppet .
" Fozzie Bear am I , muppet am I being " .
Pah.Had the exaggerrated theatricality that some puppeteers get off on , which was fine on The Muppet Show and Sesame Street , but on a " realistic " film just amounts to really hammy acting .
You know the thing , where every action is loudly flagged in advance by a set of overblown prequel movements .
Walking over to a chair and sitting on it becomes a bloody mime-artist performance .
For me , that totally destroyed any illusion that you were looking at a real creature .
You ca n't blame CGI for the Ewoks , either .
IMO , " Episode III " Yoda was way better than the Hensonised version .
" EpIII Yoda " acted everyone else off the screen .
JarJar Binks and the buzzing fly thing in the early episodes were n't crappy because they were CGI , they were crappy because they were badly written , played on crude and offensive ethnic stereotypes ( a " Jamaican " stereotype for lazy JJB and a " Jewish " stereotype for the loansharking fly thing with the big nose ) , used cartoonish " pantomime " acting and were there as caricatures rather than as proper characters .
It did n't matter whether you got puppeteers to animate them as mechanical puppets or as CGI - with the same script and direction they 'd have been just as crap .
Now if you 'd mentioned Chewbacca , THERE was a non-CGI alien that you could believe in .
Guy in a suit .
But an actual actor , NOT a marionettist .
When Chewie stomped across a room or scratched his arse , or growled at someone , it was n't some puppeteer trying to produce the ultimate stylised ballet performance .
Plus it probably helped that Chewie did n't have any George Lucas dialogue .
Same thing for Artoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naah.
What made EpIV stand out was that the characters were animated by actors and technicians rather than by puppetteers.
In the later films, "Original Yoda" looked and sounded too much like Fozzie Bear, and moved just like a like a muppet.
"Fozzie Bear am I, muppet am I being".
Pah.Had the exaggerrated theatricality that some puppeteers get off on, which was fine on The Muppet Show and Sesame Street, but on a "realistic" film just amounts to really hammy acting.
You know the thing, where every action is loudly flagged in advance by a set of overblown prequel movements.
Walking over to a chair and sitting on it becomes a bloody mime-artist performance.
For me, that totally destroyed any illusion that you were looking at a real creature.
You can't blame CGI for the Ewoks, either.
IMO, "Episode III" Yoda was way better than the Hensonised version.
"EpIII Yoda" acted everyone else off the screen.
JarJar Binks and the buzzing fly thing in the early episodes weren't crappy because they were CGI, they were crappy because they were badly written, played on crude and offensive ethnic stereotypes (a "Jamaican" stereotype for lazy JJB and a "Jewish" stereotype for the loansharking fly thing with the big nose), used cartoonish "pantomime" acting and were there as caricatures rather than as proper characters.
It didn't matter whether you got puppeteers to animate them as mechanical puppets or as CGI - with the same script and direction they'd have been just as crap.
Now if you'd mentioned Chewbacca, THERE was a non-CGI alien that you could believe in.
Guy in a suit.
But an actual actor, NOT a marionettist.
When Chewie stomped across a room or scratched his arse, or growled at someone, it wasn't some puppeteer trying to produce the ultimate stylised ballet performance.
Plus it probably helped that Chewie didn't have any George Lucas dialogue.
Same thing for Artoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150592</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using a <a href="http://www.doepfer.de/pd.htm" title="doepfer.de" rel="nofollow">Doepfer Pocket Dial</a> [doepfer.de] MIDI controller, together with a custom script that maps the MIDI output to keypresses. But of course those fat knobs in the video are way cooler, and input is probably smoother because they're heavy. Much better than a mouse for realtime control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using a Doepfer Pocket Dial [ doepfer.de ] MIDI controller , together with a custom script that maps the MIDI output to keypresses .
But of course those fat knobs in the video are way cooler , and input is probably smoother because they 're heavy .
Much better than a mouse for realtime control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using a Doepfer Pocket Dial [doepfer.de] MIDI controller, together with a custom script that maps the MIDI output to keypresses.
But of course those fat knobs in the video are way cooler, and input is probably smoother because they're heavy.
Much better than a mouse for realtime control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147000</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257104820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie</i></p><p>It's not just the graphics, it's the film-making.</p><p>Did you notice on this one how the initial shots of the Death Star graphics are a wide shot showing all the pilots slouching around listening to the briefing?  That was the point, not the graphics.</p><p>Today they would have framed that shot tight on the graphics with the speaker on one side.  But by not focusing on the graphics they're more powerful - in this universe, it's just commonplace, nothing that needs highlighting (until the detail is small enough that the audience wouldn't be able to follow, so they zoom in then).  To somebody watching in 1977 the effect is heightened.</p><p>The point here is the briefing and the reactions of those assembled to highlight just how ridiculous and impossible (without an assist from the "more powerful than you can possibly imagine" Ben Kenobi) the task is.  But they're going to try anyway because humans fight to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CGI has ruined movies , they are so in your face that you ca n't enjoy the movieIt 's not just the graphics , it 's the film-making.Did you notice on this one how the initial shots of the Death Star graphics are a wide shot showing all the pilots slouching around listening to the briefing ?
That was the point , not the graphics.Today they would have framed that shot tight on the graphics with the speaker on one side .
But by not focusing on the graphics they 're more powerful - in this universe , it 's just commonplace , nothing that needs highlighting ( until the detail is small enough that the audience would n't be able to follow , so they zoom in then ) .
To somebody watching in 1977 the effect is heightened.The point here is the briefing and the reactions of those assembled to highlight just how ridiculous and impossible ( without an assist from the " more powerful than you can possibly imagine " Ben Kenobi ) the task is .
But they 're going to try anyway because humans fight to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movieIt's not just the graphics, it's the film-making.Did you notice on this one how the initial shots of the Death Star graphics are a wide shot showing all the pilots slouching around listening to the briefing?
That was the point, not the graphics.Today they would have framed that shot tight on the graphics with the speaker on one side.
But by not focusing on the graphics they're more powerful - in this universe, it's just commonplace, nothing that needs highlighting (until the detail is small enough that the audience wouldn't be able to follow, so they zoom in then).
To somebody watching in 1977 the effect is heightened.The point here is the briefing and the reactions of those assembled to highlight just how ridiculous and impossible (without an assist from the "more powerful than you can possibly imagine" Ben Kenobi) the task is.
But they're going to try anyway because humans fight to be free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146254</id>
	<title>This is how...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Effects</p><p>Alpha version of course...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After EffectsAlpha version of course.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After EffectsAlpha version of course...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148244</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bull shit.</p><p>It's called 'poor movie making'. CGI didn't ruin anything. CGI has been used in a lot of good movies as well as high grossing movie.</p><p>The only problem with Jar-Jar is that he fell into the uncanny valley; which made people feel odd and therefor they don't like it. Also, the character was stupid as a rock. To my that was the ubforgivable sin of Jar-Jar. Almsot everything he did could be chalked up to being alien.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bull shit.It 's called 'poor movie making' .
CGI did n't ruin anything .
CGI has been used in a lot of good movies as well as high grossing movie.The only problem with Jar-Jar is that he fell into the uncanny valley ; which made people feel odd and therefor they do n't like it .
Also , the character was stupid as a rock .
To my that was the ubforgivable sin of Jar-Jar .
Almsot everything he did could be chalked up to being alien .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bull shit.It's called 'poor movie making'.
CGI didn't ruin anything.
CGI has been used in a lot of good movies as well as high grossing movie.The only problem with Jar-Jar is that he fell into the uncanny valley; which made people feel odd and therefor they don't like it.
Also, the character was stupid as a rock.
To my that was the ubforgivable sin of Jar-Jar.
Almsot everything he did could be chalked up to being alien.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930</id>
	<title>Slashdot Scooped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot was scooped by Digg on this 1.5yrs ago:

<a href="http://digg.com/movies/Making\_of\_the\_Computer\_Graphics\_for\_Star\_Wars\_Episode\_IV" title="digg.com" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/movies/Making\_of\_the\_Computer\_Graphics\_for\_Star\_Wars\_Episode\_IV</a> [digg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot was scooped by Digg on this 1.5yrs ago : http : //digg.com/movies/Making \ _of \ _the \ _Computer \ _Graphics \ _for \ _Star \ _Wars \ _Episode \ _IV [ digg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot was scooped by Digg on this 1.5yrs ago:

http://digg.com/movies/Making\_of\_the\_Computer\_Graphics\_for\_Star\_Wars\_Episode\_IV [digg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150834</id>
	<title>Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>rirugrat</author>
	<datestamp>1257079980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>John Carpenter, not James Cameron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Carpenter , not James Cameron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Carpenter, not James Cameron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146148</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George Lucas smokes poles.</p><p>Just like Hitler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George Lucas smokes poles.Just like Hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Lucas smokes poles.Just like Hitler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147102</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talking about SG1 - why did they replace the intro with the close-ups of a "real" gate with a CGI version that looks like it was made for the pilot - and was rejected. Don't tell me it was to comment on the introduction of Ben Browder and the Ori.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about SG1 - why did they replace the intro with the close-ups of a " real " gate with a CGI version that looks like it was made for the pilot - and was rejected .
Do n't tell me it was to comment on the introduction of Ben Browder and the Ori .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about SG1 - why did they replace the intro with the close-ups of a "real" gate with a CGI version that looks like it was made for the pilot - and was rejected.
Don't tell me it was to comment on the introduction of Ben Browder and the Ori.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146138</id>
	<title>NOT the original graphics!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't believe these lies.</p><p>The wireframe of the death star did not shoot first in the original.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't believe these lies.The wireframe of the death star did not shoot first in the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't believe these lies.The wireframe of the death star did not shoot first in the original.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148086</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1257067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps improved IK algorithms and motion capture have proven even more helpful than MIDI-connected dumb models.</p><p>I suspect, if you want to bring the models back, that you are going to need feedback: stepping through frames and having the "physical model" update its joint positions would make it a lot easier to avoid accidentally jerky inputs.  As to whether this would be a significant enough improvement over skeletal models with elaborate constraints, I dunno.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps improved IK algorithms and motion capture have proven even more helpful than MIDI-connected dumb models.I suspect , if you want to bring the models back , that you are going to need feedback : stepping through frames and having the " physical model " update its joint positions would make it a lot easier to avoid accidentally jerky inputs .
As to whether this would be a significant enough improvement over skeletal models with elaborate constraints , I dunno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps improved IK algorithms and motion capture have proven even more helpful than MIDI-connected dumb models.I suspect, if you want to bring the models back, that you are going to need feedback: stepping through frames and having the "physical model" update its joint positions would make it a lot easier to avoid accidentally jerky inputs.
As to whether this would be a significant enough improvement over skeletal models with elaborate constraints, I dunno.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even realise that any of the graphics in that movie were CGI. I RTFA, and I was disappointed (no video, I'll have to look again at home). The text of TFA was incredibly lame.</p><p>It seems I saw a "making of Star Wars" once and don't remember anything about computer generated graphics, buut rather computer-controlled models. IIRC the first CGI used in a feature length movie was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek\_II" title="wikipedia.org">Star Trek 2</a> [wikipedia.org] in 1982, and the only CGI there was the Genesis Effect that lasted less than two minutes.</p><p>The CGI in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">TRON</a> [wikipedia.org] (the same year) was primitive indeed. Methinks someone is rewriting history. Who shot first???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even realise that any of the graphics in that movie were CGI .
I RTFA , and I was disappointed ( no video , I 'll have to look again at home ) .
The text of TFA was incredibly lame.It seems I saw a " making of Star Wars " once and do n't remember anything about computer generated graphics , buut rather computer-controlled models .
IIRC the first CGI used in a feature length movie was Star Trek 2 [ wikipedia.org ] in 1982 , and the only CGI there was the Genesis Effect that lasted less than two minutes.The CGI in TRON [ wikipedia.org ] ( the same year ) was primitive indeed .
Methinks someone is rewriting history .
Who shot first ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even realise that any of the graphics in that movie were CGI.
I RTFA, and I was disappointed (no video, I'll have to look again at home).
The text of TFA was incredibly lame.It seems I saw a "making of Star Wars" once and don't remember anything about computer generated graphics, buut rather computer-controlled models.
IIRC the first CGI used in a feature length movie was Star Trek 2 [wikipedia.org] in 1982, and the only CGI there was the Genesis Effect that lasted less than two minutes.The CGI in TRON [wikipedia.org] (the same year) was primitive indeed.
Methinks someone is rewriting history.
Who shot first??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30172392</id>
	<title>Re:yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant\_Imahara" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Grant</a> [wikipedia.org], is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grant [ wikipedia.org ] , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grant [wikipedia.org], is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1257103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.  The scenes where the Vogons are done with puppetry are amazing, the scenes where they're CGI are 'meh'.  Same goes for the original Alien vs the A v P movies, as soon as I see CGI (especially for characters/animals) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope' and shuts down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Look at the Hitchhiker 's Guide movie .
The scenes where the Vogons are done with puppetry are amazing , the scenes where they 're CGI are 'meh' .
Same goes for the original Alien vs the A v P movies , as soon as I see CGI ( especially for characters/animals ) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope ' and shuts down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.
The scenes where the Vogons are done with puppetry are amazing, the scenes where they're CGI are 'meh'.
Same goes for the original Alien vs the A v P movies, as soon as I see CGI (especially for characters/animals) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope' and shuts down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1257104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects. Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?</i>
</p><p>
Until about 2002 or so (about when SGI tanked), most of the high-end 3D systems supported MIDI devices as controllers.  You could plug in a MIDI knob or slider box and connect it up to the joints of your character.  For some reason, few people do that any more.  Support for that never really caught on when 3D moved to the PC, even though MIDI devices were cheap.
</p><p>
The Jurassic Park guys had a small dinosaur skeleton model with sensors at the joints wired up to a MIDI interface, so they could pose the thing and the animation would follow.  That sort of thing was popular around 1995-2000 because it required little retraining for stop-motion animators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects .
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today ?
Until about 2002 or so ( about when SGI tanked ) , most of the high-end 3D systems supported MIDI devices as controllers .
You could plug in a MIDI knob or slider box and connect it up to the joints of your character .
For some reason , few people do that any more .
Support for that never really caught on when 3D moved to the PC , even though MIDI devices were cheap .
The Jurassic Park guys had a small dinosaur skeleton model with sensors at the joints wired up to a MIDI interface , so they could pose the thing and the animation would follow .
That sort of thing was popular around 1995-2000 because it required little retraining for stop-motion animators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects.
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?
Until about 2002 or so (about when SGI tanked), most of the high-end 3D systems supported MIDI devices as controllers.
You could plug in a MIDI knob or slider box and connect it up to the joints of your character.
For some reason, few people do that any more.
Support for that never really caught on when 3D moved to the PC, even though MIDI devices were cheap.
The Jurassic Park guys had a small dinosaur skeleton model with sensors at the joints wired up to a MIDI interface, so they could pose the thing and the animation would follow.
That sort of thing was popular around 1995-2000 because it required little retraining for stop-motion animators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147486</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made (too many war scenes) for the cheap cost that WB could afford (half Star Trek's budget).</p></div><p>There's a big difference between using CGI for exterior shots (cheaper than models and looks fine; models and CGI both look better if you spend more time on them, but CGI looks better for the same investment) and using CGI for interior shots.  Babylon 5 used it for backdrops on a few shots, but most of the sets were full of props.  The newer Star Wars films had almost nothing except green boxes in the sets and added everything else later.  In Babylon 5, all of the aliens used props.  If they couldn't make realistic props, they made sure that you only saw part of the alien and only for a second or so.  In Star Wars and AVP, they used CGI aliens everywhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made ( too many war scenes ) for the cheap cost that WB could afford ( half Star Trek 's budget ) .There 's a big difference between using CGI for exterior shots ( cheaper than models and looks fine ; models and CGI both look better if you spend more time on them , but CGI looks better for the same investment ) and using CGI for interior shots .
Babylon 5 used it for backdrops on a few shots , but most of the sets were full of props .
The newer Star Wars films had almost nothing except green boxes in the sets and added everything else later .
In Babylon 5 , all of the aliens used props .
If they could n't make realistic props , they made sure that you only saw part of the alien and only for a second or so .
In Star Wars and AVP , they used CGI aliens everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Without CGI the tv show Babylon 5 could have never been made (too many war scenes) for the cheap cost that WB could afford (half Star Trek's budget).There's a big difference between using CGI for exterior shots (cheaper than models and looks fine; models and CGI both look better if you spend more time on them, but CGI looks better for the same investment) and using CGI for interior shots.
Babylon 5 used it for backdrops on a few shots, but most of the sets were full of props.
The newer Star Wars films had almost nothing except green boxes in the sets and added everything else later.
In Babylon 5, all of the aliens used props.
If they couldn't make realistic props, they made sure that you only saw part of the alien and only for a second or so.
In Star Wars and AVP, they used CGI aliens everywhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151004</id>
	<title>Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1257080940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the "3d wireframe" scene in Escape from New York.  They just painted a wireframe on the scale model city.. looks convincing enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the " 3d wireframe " scene in Escape from New York .
They just painted a wireframe on the scale model city.. looks convincing enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the "3d wireframe" scene in Escape from New York.
They just painted a wireframe on the scale model city.. looks convincing enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30158818</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258653840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to wikipedia, Westworld "was first feature film to use digital image processing. John Whitney Jr. and Gary Demos at Information International Inc. (aka "Triple I") digitally processed motion picture photography to appear pixelized in order to portray the Gunslinger android's point of view.[7]" The graphics weren't computer <i>generated</i>, they were film processed with a computer. Not CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). So it appears that Futureworld was the first; "Futureworld was the first major feature film to use 3D computer generated images (CGI).[1] CGI was used for an animated hand and face."</p><p>Funny, I distinctly remember reading in a book about Siggraph (IIRC which I probably don't) that the scene in ST2 was the first. Perhaps it was the first to use realistic CGI. I still have the book, I'll have to go back and re-read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to wikipedia , Westworld " was first feature film to use digital image processing .
John Whitney Jr. and Gary Demos at Information International Inc. ( aka " Triple I " ) digitally processed motion picture photography to appear pixelized in order to portray the Gunslinger android 's point of view .
[ 7 ] " The graphics were n't computer generated , they were film processed with a computer .
Not CGI ( Computer Generated Imagery ) .
So it appears that Futureworld was the first ; " Futureworld was the first major feature film to use 3D computer generated images ( CGI ) .
[ 1 ] CGI was used for an animated hand and face .
" Funny , I distinctly remember reading in a book about Siggraph ( IIRC which I probably do n't ) that the scene in ST2 was the first .
Perhaps it was the first to use realistic CGI .
I still have the book , I 'll have to go back and re-read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to wikipedia, Westworld "was first feature film to use digital image processing.
John Whitney Jr. and Gary Demos at Information International Inc. (aka "Triple I") digitally processed motion picture photography to appear pixelized in order to portray the Gunslinger android's point of view.
[7]" The graphics weren't computer generated, they were film processed with a computer.
Not CGI (Computer Generated Imagery).
So it appears that Futureworld was the first; "Futureworld was the first major feature film to use 3D computer generated images (CGI).
[1] CGI was used for an animated hand and face.
"Funny, I distinctly remember reading in a book about Siggraph (IIRC which I probably don't) that the scene in ST2 was the first.
Perhaps it was the first to use realistic CGI.
I still have the book, I'll have to go back and re-read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</id>
	<title>Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>doroshjt</author>
	<datestamp>1257102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie.  What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CGI has ruined movies , they are so in your face that you ca n't enjoy the movie .
What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie.
What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146796</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Math.sqrt(-1)</author>
	<datestamp>1257104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally agreeing with you there.  The thing that made the original Star Wars Trilogy so spectacular was not the special effects, but the story.  Sure, the special effects were incredible for the time (and are still pretty damned impressive these 30 years later), but a lot of movies using "state of the art" special effects failed to achieve anything near that status and acclaim of any of the original Trilogy films (think Tron).  But now it's worse than ever.  These days, with the advent of relatively inexpensive CGI effects, directors and producers can focus more on creating dazzling eye candy without paying much attention to the quality of the script.

I'm starting to sound somewhat curmudgeonly now, aren't I?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agreeing with you there .
The thing that made the original Star Wars Trilogy so spectacular was not the special effects , but the story .
Sure , the special effects were incredible for the time ( and are still pretty damned impressive these 30 years later ) , but a lot of movies using " state of the art " special effects failed to achieve anything near that status and acclaim of any of the original Trilogy films ( think Tron ) .
But now it 's worse than ever .
These days , with the advent of relatively inexpensive CGI effects , directors and producers can focus more on creating dazzling eye candy without paying much attention to the quality of the script .
I 'm starting to sound somewhat curmudgeonly now , are n't I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agreeing with you there.
The thing that made the original Star Wars Trilogy so spectacular was not the special effects, but the story.
Sure, the special effects were incredible for the time (and are still pretty damned impressive these 30 years later), but a lot of movies using "state of the art" special effects failed to achieve anything near that status and acclaim of any of the original Trilogy films (think Tron).
But now it's worse than ever.
These days, with the advent of relatively inexpensive CGI effects, directors and producers can focus more on creating dazzling eye candy without paying much attention to the quality of the script.
I'm starting to sound somewhat curmudgeonly now, aren't I?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1257070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agreed.  Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.</p></div><p>Do I have to?</p><p>People got so hung up on the "Ford isn't supposed to be black" thing that they seem to have forgotten about the "Ford is supposed to be funny" thing...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Look at the Hitchhiker 's Guide movie.Do I have to ? People got so hung up on the " Ford is n't supposed to be black " thing that they seem to have forgotten about the " Ford is supposed to be funny " thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.Do I have to?People got so hung up on the "Ford isn't supposed to be black" thing that they seem to have forgotten about the "Ford is supposed to be funny" thing...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146828</id>
	<title>Looker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looker came out in 1980, and that featured some cool wireframe models of humans. IIRC it also had textures. Not sure if it was entirely CGI, but it looked wonderful nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looker came out in 1980 , and that featured some cool wireframe models of humans .
IIRC it also had textures .
Not sure if it was entirely CGI , but it looked wonderful nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looker came out in 1980, and that featured some cool wireframe models of humans.
IIRC it also had textures.
Not sure if it was entirely CGI, but it looked wonderful nonetheless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147958</id>
	<title>Re:I used one of those</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1257066540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bleah! I was a cart-tech and dig-tech for about 6 years. If I never sit at a digitizing table or look at a Nat'l Wetlands Survey map again, that's fine by me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bleah !
I was a cart-tech and dig-tech for about 6 years .
If I never sit at a digitizing table or look at a Nat'l Wetlands Survey map again , that 's fine by me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bleah!
I was a cart-tech and dig-tech for about 6 years.
If I never sit at a digitizing table or look at a Nat'l Wetlands Survey map again, that's fine by me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147710</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pretty sure Jar Jar would have sucked even more as a muppet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure Jar Jar would have sucked even more as a muppet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure Jar Jar would have sucked even more as a muppet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</id>
	<title>Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects. Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects .
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects.
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148524</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1257069360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes. I think it's called a mouse.</p><p>Really, you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier (hold a key on the keyboard) that would rotate whatever plane (X/Y/Z) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel.</p></div><p>Mouse wheels have shitty resolution, though.  They click to individual stops, they're sent to the host as if they were button presses...</p><p>More to the point I think is the fact that in current software, when you rotate a model with the mouse, it normally rotates it relative to the position it's in.  I'm not sure if this is how those dials worked, but I'm guessing not: probably it would have been simpler then to have each dial affect rotation parameters in a matrix, and then create the projection just by multiplying those matrices together - as opposed to using the dial to rotate (and then re-nomalize) a rotation matrix...</p><p>I think the really neat thing about that system of dials was that it was so responsive.  Naturally that's something we can still accomplish...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I think it 's called a mouse.Really , you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier ( hold a key on the keyboard ) that would rotate whatever plane ( X/Y/Z ) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel.Mouse wheels have shitty resolution , though .
They click to individual stops , they 're sent to the host as if they were button presses...More to the point I think is the fact that in current software , when you rotate a model with the mouse , it normally rotates it relative to the position it 's in .
I 'm not sure if this is how those dials worked , but I 'm guessing not : probably it would have been simpler then to have each dial affect rotation parameters in a matrix , and then create the projection just by multiplying those matrices together - as opposed to using the dial to rotate ( and then re-nomalize ) a rotation matrix...I think the really neat thing about that system of dials was that it was so responsive .
Naturally that 's something we can still accomplish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I think it's called a mouse.Really, you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier (hold a key on the keyboard) that would rotate whatever plane (X/Y/Z) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel.Mouse wheels have shitty resolution, though.
They click to individual stops, they're sent to the host as if they were button presses...More to the point I think is the fact that in current software, when you rotate a model with the mouse, it normally rotates it relative to the position it's in.
I'm not sure if this is how those dials worked, but I'm guessing not: probably it would have been simpler then to have each dial affect rotation parameters in a matrix, and then create the projection just by multiplying those matrices together - as opposed to using the dial to rotate (and then re-nomalize) a rotation matrix...I think the really neat thing about that system of dials was that it was so responsive.
Naturally that's something we can still accomplish...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256</id>
	<title>Lucasfilm VAX</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1257082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the console from the Lucasfilm VAX 780. Just the top part with a few switches and lights, and a key lock, on display on the wall in my office. I removed it before Pixar (which had spun off from Lucasfilm) threw the VAX away. Apparently this is the machine used for the Genesis Effect (Star Trek) and perhaps some later Star Wars effects shot using the Evans and Sutherland Picture System 2 or 3. It would have been purchased in 1981 or later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the console from the Lucasfilm VAX 780 .
Just the top part with a few switches and lights , and a key lock , on display on the wall in my office .
I removed it before Pixar ( which had spun off from Lucasfilm ) threw the VAX away .
Apparently this is the machine used for the Genesis Effect ( Star Trek ) and perhaps some later Star Wars effects shot using the Evans and Sutherland Picture System 2 or 3 .
It would have been purchased in 1981 or later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the console from the Lucasfilm VAX 780.
Just the top part with a few switches and lights, and a key lock, on display on the wall in my office.
I removed it before Pixar (which had spun off from Lucasfilm) threw the VAX away.
Apparently this is the machine used for the Genesis Effect (Star Trek) and perhaps some later Star Wars effects shot using the Evans and Sutherland Picture System 2 or 3.
It would have been purchased in 1981 or later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153322</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot Scooped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, perhaps that was the last time you visited Digg.  Because if you'd been there recently, you wouldn't be trying to promote it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , perhaps that was the last time you visited Digg .
Because if you 'd been there recently , you would n't be trying to promote it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, perhaps that was the last time you visited Digg.
Because if you'd been there recently, you wouldn't be trying to promote it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155052</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258639920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Babylon 5 used a limited amount of CGI due to their computer (amiga) only running 7 megahertz.  Towards the end of the show they upgraded to Macs and IBM PCs, but they were still only running around 200 megahertz, so that naturally limited how much CGI could be done.</p><p>BTW ever seen Sanctuary on Syfy?  Major chunks of that show doesn't exist.  They use a lot of greenscreen sets and fill-in with CGI later</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Babylon 5 used a limited amount of CGI due to their computer ( amiga ) only running 7 megahertz .
Towards the end of the show they upgraded to Macs and IBM PCs , but they were still only running around 200 megahertz , so that naturally limited how much CGI could be done.BTW ever seen Sanctuary on Syfy ?
Major chunks of that show does n't exist .
They use a lot of greenscreen sets and fill-in with CGI later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Babylon 5 used a limited amount of CGI due to their computer (amiga) only running 7 megahertz.
Towards the end of the show they upgraded to Macs and IBM PCs, but they were still only running around 200 megahertz, so that naturally limited how much CGI could be done.BTW ever seen Sanctuary on Syfy?
Major chunks of that show doesn't exist.
They use a lot of greenscreen sets and fill-in with CGI later</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149022</id>
	<title>Re:yeah</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1257071700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the few times Slashdotters have actually bothered to click the links...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the few times Slashdotters have actually bothered to click the links.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the few times Slashdotters have actually bothered to click the links...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150300</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1257077220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An old "Tempest" video game perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An old " Tempest " video game perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An old "Tempest" video game perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149820</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>rhyder128k</author>
	<datestamp>1257075420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's quite impressive when you look at how smoothly animated the complex 3d is compared to the home computers that were available even five years later. However, I suspect that the vector display works as a kind of acceleration for the line drawing. The computer only has to send the vertices to the monitor rather than calculating and then drawing all of the points on along the entire line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite impressive when you look at how smoothly animated the complex 3d is compared to the home computers that were available even five years later .
However , I suspect that the vector display works as a kind of acceleration for the line drawing .
The computer only has to send the vertices to the monitor rather than calculating and then drawing all of the points on along the entire line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite impressive when you look at how smoothly animated the complex 3d is compared to the home computers that were available even five years later.
However, I suspect that the vector display works as a kind of acceleration for the line drawing.
The computer only has to send the vertices to the monitor rather than calculating and then drawing all of the points on along the entire line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155832</id>
	<title>uhm... i know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258644300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when it looks flat, lifeless, unrealistic, out of place, and cartoony... when muscles don't move like they are supposed to, when gravity doesn't work like it's supposed to... even if you can jump and fly though the air.... you still do it in a gravitational field, like birds do.. when lighting is off, when eyebrows don't work right, when eyes are glassy and expressionless, when hairs don't crinkle properly. when the cruft and the crud are missing, the mud and bugs and spit and blood are nowhere to be found, when things crash and bang like they aren't supposed to.... when everything is too pretty, or prettily ugly, the sky too clear, everything too designed and prepped and coded..</p><p>then i can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when it looks flat , lifeless , unrealistic , out of place , and cartoony... when muscles do n't move like they are supposed to , when gravity does n't work like it 's supposed to... even if you can jump and fly though the air.... you still do it in a gravitational field , like birds do.. when lighting is off , when eyebrows do n't work right , when eyes are glassy and expressionless , when hairs do n't crinkle properly .
when the cruft and the crud are missing , the mud and bugs and spit and blood are nowhere to be found , when things crash and bang like they are n't supposed to.... when everything is too pretty , or prettily ugly , the sky too clear , everything too designed and prepped and coded..then i can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when it looks flat, lifeless, unrealistic, out of place, and cartoony... when muscles don't move like they are supposed to, when gravity doesn't work like it's supposed to... even if you can jump and fly though the air.... you still do it in a gravitational field, like birds do.. when lighting is off, when eyebrows don't work right, when eyes are glassy and expressionless, when hairs don't crinkle properly.
when the cruft and the crud are missing, the mud and bugs and spit and blood are nowhere to be found, when things crash and bang like they aren't supposed to.... when everything is too pretty, or prettily ugly, the sky too clear, everything too designed and prepped and coded..then i can tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148216</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1257068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie.</p></div><p>I disagree, there are many special effects movies where the opening and closing titles are far better than what's in between.  Ghost Rider comes immediately to mind ('cept for Sam o'course), and I recall feeling "amped" when I saw the titles of Batman Forever in the theatre.  You might dislike CG on principle, but effects houses don't get a lot of criticism for the work they do, compared with directors and screenwriters. Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, and Transformers are great on mute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CGI has ruined movies , they are so in your face that you ca n't enjoy the movie.I disagree , there are many special effects movies where the opening and closing titles are far better than what 's in between .
Ghost Rider comes immediately to mind ( 'cept for Sam o'course ) , and I recall feeling " amped " when I saw the titles of Batman Forever in the theatre .
You might dislike CG on principle , but effects houses do n't get a lot of criticism for the work they do , compared with directors and screenwriters .
Final Fantasy : Spirits Within , and Transformers are great on mute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie.I disagree, there are many special effects movies where the opening and closing titles are far better than what's in between.
Ghost Rider comes immediately to mind ('cept for Sam o'course), and I recall feeling "amped" when I saw the titles of Batman Forever in the theatre.
You might dislike CG on principle, but effects houses don't get a lot of criticism for the work they do, compared with directors and screenwriters.
Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, and Transformers are great on mute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These graphics weren't used as CGI, the were put on a display that was running in the scene. Computers were not used to render the scene.</p><p>1) A computer showed graphics on a screen, that screen was filmed frame by frame (it took 2 minutes for the computer to render each frame).<br>2) That film was developed, and then rear projected onto what was supposed to be a computer display surface during a scene.</p><p>CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These graphics were n't used as CGI , the were put on a display that was running in the scene .
Computers were not used to render the scene.1 ) A computer showed graphics on a screen , that screen was filmed frame by frame ( it took 2 minutes for the computer to render each frame ) .2 ) That film was developed , and then rear projected onto what was supposed to be a computer display surface during a scene.CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These graphics weren't used as CGI, the were put on a display that was running in the scene.
Computers were not used to render the scene.1) A computer showed graphics on a screen, that screen was filmed frame by frame (it took 2 minutes for the computer to render each frame).2) That film was developed, and then rear projected onto what was supposed to be a computer display surface during a scene.CGI is when a computer is used to render the final image projected in the theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147484</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how CGI itself has ruined movies and I also have a hard time seeing as to how animatronics would have noticeably improved the prequel triology.</p><p>I think the interesting thing in this video is the CGI and other special effects seemed almost like an after-thought for the original Star Wars, "Hey, what special-effects can we throw in for the big ending scene we have planned with the death star?". Like they already had the story and character's roles mostly worked out and added the effects on top.  For the newer films it seems like this was entirely reversed, almost like Lucasfilm had this big reputation they built up over the years based mainly on special effects and didn't want to risk losing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how CGI itself has ruined movies and I also have a hard time seeing as to how animatronics would have noticeably improved the prequel triology.I think the interesting thing in this video is the CGI and other special effects seemed almost like an after-thought for the original Star Wars , " Hey , what special-effects can we throw in for the big ending scene we have planned with the death star ? " .
Like they already had the story and character 's roles mostly worked out and added the effects on top .
For the newer films it seems like this was entirely reversed , almost like Lucasfilm had this big reputation they built up over the years based mainly on special effects and did n't want to risk losing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how CGI itself has ruined movies and I also have a hard time seeing as to how animatronics would have noticeably improved the prequel triology.I think the interesting thing in this video is the CGI and other special effects seemed almost like an after-thought for the original Star Wars, "Hey, what special-effects can we throw in for the big ending scene we have planned with the death star?".
Like they already had the story and character's roles mostly worked out and added the effects on top.
For the newer films it seems like this was entirely reversed, almost like Lucasfilm had this big reputation they built up over the years based mainly on special effects and didn't want to risk losing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148560</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as soon as I see CGI (especially for characters/animals) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope' and shuts down.</i></p><p>I have the same experience, but it's probably just a cognitive bias.  It doesn't seem to affect young children without preconceived expectations.  Anecdotally, my kids prefer CGI over puppetry because the latter isn't "cool" enough.</p><p>At any rate, the common Hollywood explanation/excuse seems to be that it's not the quality of CGI that makes it preferred, but the cost and flexibility.  Once you build a model, it's set in [whatever material it's made out of], whereas CGI can be changed more or less on a whim.  I do think the ship models in the original Star Wars movies were more convincing, perhaps *because* of their natural imperfections, but I wouldn't expect to see a return to that style of effects in the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as soon as I see CGI ( especially for characters/animals ) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope ' and shuts down.I have the same experience , but it 's probably just a cognitive bias .
It does n't seem to affect young children without preconceived expectations .
Anecdotally , my kids prefer CGI over puppetry because the latter is n't " cool " enough.At any rate , the common Hollywood explanation/excuse seems to be that it 's not the quality of CGI that makes it preferred , but the cost and flexibility .
Once you build a model , it 's set in [ whatever material it 's made out of ] , whereas CGI can be changed more or less on a whim .
I do think the ship models in the original Star Wars movies were more convincing , perhaps * because * of their natural imperfections , but I would n't expect to see a return to that style of effects in the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as soon as I see CGI (especially for characters/animals) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope' and shuts down.I have the same experience, but it's probably just a cognitive bias.
It doesn't seem to affect young children without preconceived expectations.
Anecdotally, my kids prefer CGI over puppetry because the latter isn't "cool" enough.At any rate, the common Hollywood explanation/excuse seems to be that it's not the quality of CGI that makes it preferred, but the cost and flexibility.
Once you build a model, it's set in [whatever material it's made out of], whereas CGI can be changed more or less on a whim.
I do think the ship models in the original Star Wars movies were more convincing, perhaps *because* of their natural imperfections, but I wouldn't expect to see a return to that style of effects in the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147366</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1257106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.</p></div><p>Because Jar-Jar would have ceased to be utteryly annoying if it had been an animatronic instead of CGI?  You're seriously claiming that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.Because Jar-Jar would have ceased to be utteryly annoying if it had been an animatronic instead of CGI ?
You 're seriously claiming that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.Because Jar-Jar would have ceased to be utteryly annoying if it had been an animatronic instead of CGI?
You're seriously claiming that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147446</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1257107160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects. Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?</p></div><p>Yeah, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Etch-Sketch-Magic-Screen/dp/B00000J0HG" title="amazon.com">here</a> [amazon.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects .
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today ? Yeah , here [ amazon.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's nice to have the dials to manipulate 3D objects.
Is there anything like that which someone can buy today?Yeah, here [amazon.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151156</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>Pseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1257081900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first CGI used in a feature length movie was in <i>Westworld</i> (1973).  Other notable uses are <i>Futureworld</i> (1976), <i>The Black Hole</i> (1979), <i>Alien</i> (1979), <i>Looker</i> (1981) and <i>Tron</i> (1982).</p><p>For my money, though, the biggest breakthrough was in 1984, with two movies which used what we would now think of as CGI visual effects (<i>The Last Starfighter</i> and <i>Young Sherlock Holmes</i>).  If you don't count the star field warp effect in <i>Star Wars</i>, this was the first time that computers were used to produce the look of something in the "real world", as opposed to a computer display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first CGI used in a feature length movie was in Westworld ( 1973 ) .
Other notable uses are Futureworld ( 1976 ) , The Black Hole ( 1979 ) , Alien ( 1979 ) , Looker ( 1981 ) and Tron ( 1982 ) .For my money , though , the biggest breakthrough was in 1984 , with two movies which used what we would now think of as CGI visual effects ( The Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock Holmes ) .
If you do n't count the star field warp effect in Star Wars , this was the first time that computers were used to produce the look of something in the " real world " , as opposed to a computer display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first CGI used in a feature length movie was in Westworld (1973).
Other notable uses are Futureworld (1976), The Black Hole (1979), Alien (1979), Looker (1981) and Tron (1982).For my money, though, the biggest breakthrough was in 1984, with two movies which used what we would now think of as CGI visual effects (The Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock Holmes).
If you don't count the star field warp effect in Star Wars, this was the first time that computers were used to produce the look of something in the "real world", as opposed to a computer display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152486</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jar Jar wasn't hated due to an unrealistic look. He was hated because he talked like a moron and was superfluous to the plot. They thought having one alien (Yoda) that spoke bad English succeed meant they should do it more. The result was that embarasment of a character. Please don't compare him to Jamaicans. They don't compare you to poorly implemented virtual sock puppets with a speech impediment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jar Jar was n't hated due to an unrealistic look .
He was hated because he talked like a moron and was superfluous to the plot .
They thought having one alien ( Yoda ) that spoke bad English succeed meant they should do it more .
The result was that embarasment of a character .
Please do n't compare him to Jamaicans .
They do n't compare you to poorly implemented virtual sock puppets with a speech impediment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jar Jar wasn't hated due to an unrealistic look.
He was hated because he talked like a moron and was superfluous to the plot.
They thought having one alien (Yoda) that spoke bad English succeed meant they should do it more.
The result was that embarasment of a character.
Please don't compare him to Jamaicans.
They don't compare you to poorly implemented virtual sock puppets with a speech impediment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146386</id>
	<title>Droidmaker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you like this, you'll love the book "Droidmaker"</p><p>http://www.droidmaker.com/contents.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you like this , you 'll love the book " Droidmaker " http : //www.droidmaker.com/contents.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you like this, you'll love the book "Droidmaker"http://www.droidmaker.com/contents.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326</id>
	<title>yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The interestingly named "Topless Robot"</p></div><p>*click*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interestingly named " Topless Robot " * click *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interestingly named "Topless Robot"*click*
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204</id>
	<title>Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>DesertJazz</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a pretty sweet video, if you think about how out of the box some of this was at the time it makes it even cooler.  (Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty sweet video , if you think about how out of the box some of this was at the time it makes it even cooler .
( Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty sweet video, if you think about how out of the box some of this was at the time it makes it even cooler.
(Sad to think a calculator I used in high school could have done this easier...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147304</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>davidbrit2</author>
	<datestamp>1257106380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How on earth is this modded Troll? I personally agree with the sentiment. Physical effects and good old fashioned compositing almost always create a more compelling, stylized look. The ingenuity and reality involved in creating such effects is far more impressive, if you ask me. Hell, Ghostbusters is 25 years old, and I still think the special effects are phenomenal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How on earth is this modded Troll ?
I personally agree with the sentiment .
Physical effects and good old fashioned compositing almost always create a more compelling , stylized look .
The ingenuity and reality involved in creating such effects is far more impressive , if you ask me .
Hell , Ghostbusters is 25 years old , and I still think the special effects are phenomenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How on earth is this modded Troll?
I personally agree with the sentiment.
Physical effects and good old fashioned compositing almost always create a more compelling, stylized look.
The ingenuity and reality involved in creating such effects is far more impressive, if you ask me.
Hell, Ghostbusters is 25 years old, and I still think the special effects are phenomenal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152452</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You didn't cry during Wall-E? I mean, didn't either, it was just I hadn't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.</i></p><p>I cried. I wanted my money back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't cry during Wall-E ?
I mean , did n't either , it was just I had n't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.I cried .
I wanted my money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't cry during Wall-E?
I mean, didn't either, it was just I hadn't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.I cried.
I wanted my money back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155612</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>ooioioio</author>
	<datestamp>1258643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's like with everything:
something new == everybody shifts towards it
after a certain amount of time == it levels itself out and heads back to where the use influences the outcome in a natural way

wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... someone stole my segway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no problem, i let my new iPhone-App "Find my segway, and do evil things to the thief" handle it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's like with everything : something new = = everybody shifts towards it after a certain amount of time = = it levels itself out and heads back to where the use influences the outcome in a natural way wait ... someone stole my segway ... no problem , i let my new iPhone-App " Find my segway , and do evil things to the thief " handle it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's like with everything:
something new == everybody shifts towards it
after a certain amount of time == it levels itself out and heads back to where the use influences the outcome in a natural way

wait ... someone stole my segway ... no problem, i let my new iPhone-App "Find my segway, and do evil things to the thief" handle it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155494</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;These graphics weren't used as CGI, the were put on a display that was running in the scene. Computers were not used to render the scene.</p><p>By this flawed reasoning, Tron is not CGI, Last Starfighter is not CGI, Babylon 5 is not CGI,  and so on, because these did not render the CGI in real time either.  They generated their CGI at a rate of 1 frame every ~5 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; These graphics were n't used as CGI , the were put on a display that was running in the scene .
Computers were not used to render the scene.By this flawed reasoning , Tron is not CGI , Last Starfighter is not CGI , Babylon 5 is not CGI , and so on , because these did not render the CGI in real time either .
They generated their CGI at a rate of 1 frame every ~ 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;These graphics weren't used as CGI, the were put on a display that was running in the scene.
Computers were not used to render the scene.By this flawed reasoning, Tron is not CGI, Last Starfighter is not CGI, Babylon 5 is not CGI,  and so on, because these did not render the CGI in real time either.
They generated their CGI at a rate of 1 frame every ~5 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30182526</id>
	<title>Re:Lucasfilm VAX</title>
	<author>JasonAsbahr</author>
	<datestamp>1258833840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151728</id>
	<title>The "lastest toy" phenomenon</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1257085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed each of this new technology did it share of ruining.</p><p>It's not that these technologies are inherently bad. It was just the "latest toy around" and lots of directors felt compelled to over-abuse it and put it everywhere even where it definitely shouldn't be used. Directors started considering as a magic trick that will inherently make a film better as soon as it is used.</p><p>It happened with every single stuff you mention.<br>It happened in other media too - any one remember how "let's all go full 3D" completely killed old-school adventure games ?</p><p>And you can already bet that the next new technology (3D Stereoscopy, probably) will also get absurdly overused - with films going Stereo 3D, just for the sake of being Stereo 3D, without any need for it or without having any actual value to show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed each of this new technology did it share of ruining.It 's not that these technologies are inherently bad .
It was just the " latest toy around " and lots of directors felt compelled to over-abuse it and put it everywhere even where it definitely should n't be used .
Directors started considering as a magic trick that will inherently make a film better as soon as it is used.It happened with every single stuff you mention.It happened in other media too - any one remember how " let 's all go full 3D " completely killed old-school adventure games ? And you can already bet that the next new technology ( 3D Stereoscopy , probably ) will also get absurdly overused - with films going Stereo 3D , just for the sake of being Stereo 3D , without any need for it or without having any actual value to show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed each of this new technology did it share of ruining.It's not that these technologies are inherently bad.
It was just the "latest toy around" and lots of directors felt compelled to over-abuse it and put it everywhere even where it definitely shouldn't be used.
Directors started considering as a magic trick that will inherently make a film better as soon as it is used.It happened with every single stuff you mention.It happened in other media too - any one remember how "let's all go full 3D" completely killed old-school adventure games ?And you can already bet that the next new technology (3D Stereoscopy, probably) will also get absurdly overused - with films going Stereo 3D, just for the sake of being Stereo 3D, without any need for it or without having any actual value to show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148792</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better Then CGI?</p><p>Great another idiot who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than". No, I don't accept this is a typo, I see this online far too often, there must be a school churning out these binlids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better Then CGI ? Great another idiot who does n't know the difference between " then " and " than " .
No , I do n't accept this is a typo , I see this online far too often , there must be a school churning out these binlids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better Then CGI?Great another idiot who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than".
No, I don't accept this is a typo, I see this online far too often, there must be a school churning out these binlids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146834</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Big\_Monkey\_Bird</author>
	<datestamp>1257104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny about Space 1999.  the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon's Den.  I used to have nightmares.

Seeing it years later, it was just a flashlight and foam rubber.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny about Space 1999. the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon 's Den .
I used to have nightmares .
Seeing it years later , it was just a flashlight and foam rubber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny about Space 1999.  the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon's Den.
I used to have nightmares.
Seeing it years later, it was just a flashlight and foam rubber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151572</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257084360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HFCS?  You should be <em>more</em> scared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HFCS ?
You should be more scared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HFCS?
You should be more scared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456</id>
	<title>2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics"</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1257102480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The space-ship consoles show CAD-drawings the ship aligning with landing pads. Also  the astronauts debugging the supposedly broker communication module used graphics.   Only these was faked with drafted animation cells because computer graphics wasnt advanced enough in the 1960s to this. There were only osilliscope vector graphics then.  But Kubrick and advisers like Minsky were anticipating better graphics in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The space-ship consoles show CAD-drawings the ship aligning with landing pads .
Also the astronauts debugging the supposedly broker communication module used graphics .
Only these was faked with drafted animation cells because computer graphics wasnt advanced enough in the 1960s to this .
There were only osilliscope vector graphics then .
But Kubrick and advisers like Minsky were anticipating better graphics in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The space-ship consoles show CAD-drawings the ship aligning with landing pads.
Also  the astronauts debugging the supposedly broker communication module used graphics.
Only these was faked with drafted animation cells because computer graphics wasnt advanced enough in the 1960s to this.
There were only osilliscope vector graphics then.
But Kubrick and advisers like Minsky were anticipating better graphics in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30170894</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Kashgarinn</author>
	<datestamp>1258731660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bastard.. yoooouuuuuu baaaastarrrrrd..</p><p>Make ur spoiler alerts bigger, you should have said  ***SPOILER ALERT: WILL FUCK UP HOW YOU LOOK AT ALIENS THE MOVIE***</p><p>I probably would have ignored it anyway, but maybe, just maybe it would have saved me from having to upgrade my suspension of disbelief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bastard.. yoooouuuuuu baaaastarrrrrd..Make ur spoiler alerts bigger , you should have said * * * SPOILER ALERT : WILL FUCK UP HOW YOU LOOK AT ALIENS THE MOVIE * * * I probably would have ignored it anyway , but maybe , just maybe it would have saved me from having to upgrade my suspension of disbelief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bastard.. yoooouuuuuu baaaastarrrrrd..Make ur spoiler alerts bigger, you should have said  ***SPOILER ALERT: WILL FUCK UP HOW YOU LOOK AT ALIENS THE MOVIE***I probably would have ignored it anyway, but maybe, just maybe it would have saved me from having to upgrade my suspension of disbelief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147768</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another cool thing about this particular Youtube channel is that some of the historical vids talk about the Zgrass hardware, which I believe was related to the Zgrass-32 Bally Astrocade add-on.</p><p>I don't know if they ever actually released the Zgrass add-on though; it may have been vaporware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another cool thing about this particular Youtube channel is that some of the historical vids talk about the Zgrass hardware , which I believe was related to the Zgrass-32 Bally Astrocade add-on.I do n't know if they ever actually released the Zgrass add-on though ; it may have been vaporware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another cool thing about this particular Youtube channel is that some of the historical vids talk about the Zgrass hardware, which I believe was related to the Zgrass-32 Bally Astrocade add-on.I don't know if they ever actually released the Zgrass add-on though; it may have been vaporware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147496</id>
	<title>Re:yeah</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1257107400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would just be schematics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would just be schematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would just be schematics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146746</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257103800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.</p></div><p>What made JarJar obnoxious was not how his image was created for the film.  That's like blaming YouTube for the abundance of noisy idiots on-line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.What made JarJar obnoxious was not how his image was created for the film .
That 's like blaming YouTube for the abundance of noisy idiots on-line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.What made JarJar obnoxious was not how his image was created for the film.
That's like blaming YouTube for the abundance of noisy idiots on-line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30160894</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258660260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford being black was not an issue at all, the casting of Mos Def, a terrible rap singer, in a movie role was the only issue with the character for Ford Prefect. The single biggest issue with the movie was the truncation or removal of all the jokes. The basement joke being cut down to: "They were in the cellar." immediately killed any and all enthusiam anyone had watching the film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford being black was not an issue at all , the casting of Mos Def , a terrible rap singer , in a movie role was the only issue with the character for Ford Prefect .
The single biggest issue with the movie was the truncation or removal of all the jokes .
The basement joke being cut down to : " They were in the cellar .
" immediately killed any and all enthusiam anyone had watching the film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford being black was not an issue at all, the casting of Mos Def, a terrible rap singer, in a movie role was the only issue with the character for Ford Prefect.
The single biggest issue with the movie was the truncation or removal of all the jokes.
The basement joke being cut down to: "They were in the cellar.
" immediately killed any and all enthusiam anyone had watching the film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147064</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Godwin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Godwin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Godwin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1257069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*** someone what of a spoiler alert ***</p><p>If you ever watched the making of one of the Aliens movies you found out the slime from he aliens mouths is corn syrup. All that sweet smelling stuff free flowing over everything. After I found that out the aliens lost a lot of their scariness. I seen the slime drooling out of one of those alien's mouths and my brain goes "ooo candy".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * someone what of a spoiler alert * * * If you ever watched the making of one of the Aliens movies you found out the slime from he aliens mouths is corn syrup .
All that sweet smelling stuff free flowing over everything .
After I found that out the aliens lost a lot of their scariness .
I seen the slime drooling out of one of those alien 's mouths and my brain goes " ooo candy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*** someone what of a spoiler alert ***If you ever watched the making of one of the Aliens movies you found out the slime from he aliens mouths is corn syrup.
All that sweet smelling stuff free flowing over everything.
After I found that out the aliens lost a lot of their scariness.
I seen the slime drooling out of one of those alien's mouths and my brain goes "ooo candy".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151276</id>
	<title>2005 "Stereo 3D has ruined the movies"</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1257082500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention the impending spector of "dimensionalization" which can convert old flat movies into 3D with variable success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the impending spector of " dimensionalization " which can convert old flat movies into 3D with variable success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the impending spector of "dimensionalization" which can convert old flat movies into 3D with variable success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146536</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Suicyco</author>
	<datestamp>1257102840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those were common in early cadd systems, they didn't have a mouse. They used digitizing tables and 3d inputs like you see in the video.</p><p>I would have liked to know more about the technology, not just how he did it with "a computer". What cadd package was it? What hardware?</p><p>Most likely something from Unigraphics or Intergraph, as those were big 3d modeling packages of the era.</p><p>Nowadays 3d inputs are easier with spaceballs and a simple mouse, or a 3d mouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were common in early cadd systems , they did n't have a mouse .
They used digitizing tables and 3d inputs like you see in the video.I would have liked to know more about the technology , not just how he did it with " a computer " .
What cadd package was it ?
What hardware ? Most likely something from Unigraphics or Intergraph , as those were big 3d modeling packages of the era.Nowadays 3d inputs are easier with spaceballs and a simple mouse , or a 3d mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those were common in early cadd systems, they didn't have a mouse.
They used digitizing tables and 3d inputs like you see in the video.I would have liked to know more about the technology, not just how he did it with "a computer".
What cadd package was it?
What hardware?Most likely something from Unigraphics or Intergraph, as those were big 3d modeling packages of the era.Nowadays 3d inputs are easier with spaceballs and a simple mouse, or a 3d mouse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150540</id>
	<title>Re:Better Tha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148900</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257071160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny about Space 1999.  the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon's Den.  I used to have nightmares.</p><p>Seeing it years later, it was just a flashlight and foam rubber.</p></div><p>"Dragon's Domain," I think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny about Space 1999. the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon 's Den .
I used to have nightmares.Seeing it years later , it was just a flashlight and foam rubber .
" Dragon 's Domain , " I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny about Space 1999.  the scariest thing I ever saw on TV as a kid was the monster in Dragon's Den.
I used to have nightmares.Seeing it years later, it was just a flashlight and foam rubber.
"Dragon's Domain," I think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30164034</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258627020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the slime was KY Jelly.  No joke.  And slightly scarier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/trivia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the slime was KY Jelly .
No joke .
And slightly scarier ; ) http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/trivia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the slime was KY Jelly.
No joke.
And slightly scarier ;)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/trivia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146876</id>
	<title>I used one of those</title>
	<author>The Wooden Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1257104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a job around 1990 using a digitizing pad.  I used one of those four button mice that had the wire ring around cross-hairs that I would put over the point I wanted to capture.  Very cool to see something like that again.  Ah, the memories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a job around 1990 using a digitizing pad .
I used one of those four button mice that had the wire ring around cross-hairs that I would put over the point I wanted to capture .
Very cool to see something like that again .
Ah , the memories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a job around 1990 using a digitizing pad.
I used one of those four button mice that had the wire ring around cross-hairs that I would put over the point I wanted to capture.
Very cool to see something like that again.
Ah, the memories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152204</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257088560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More and more movies are getting made the cheap way: with green screens and computers for the entirety of the environment and some of the actors. The effect is obvious even to someone like me who doesn't watch movies very often. I don't mind poorly-done special effects now and again, but when the whole movie is one gigantic cheesy effect, it really cheapens the experience. The two best examples I can think of are 300 and the latest Indiana Jones installment. I only watched the first half-hour of the latter before giving up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more movies are getting made the cheap way : with green screens and computers for the entirety of the environment and some of the actors .
The effect is obvious even to someone like me who does n't watch movies very often .
I do n't mind poorly-done special effects now and again , but when the whole movie is one gigantic cheesy effect , it really cheapens the experience .
The two best examples I can think of are 300 and the latest Indiana Jones installment .
I only watched the first half-hour of the latter before giving up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more movies are getting made the cheap way: with green screens and computers for the entirety of the environment and some of the actors.
The effect is obvious even to someone like me who doesn't watch movies very often.
I don't mind poorly-done special effects now and again, but when the whole movie is one gigantic cheesy effect, it really cheapens the experience.
The two best examples I can think of are 300 and the latest Indiana Jones installment.
I only watched the first half-hour of the latter before giving up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146852</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1257104220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get a bunch of these:  <a href="http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/" title="griffintechnology.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/</a> [griffintechnology.com]</p><p>These used to be common, long ago:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial\_box" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial\_box</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The "3Dmouse" mentioned above is not a dial.  It is a puck that's spring-loaded to stay centered.<br>You cannot rotate it freely, so it is a relative control and not an absolute control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get a bunch of these : http : //www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/ [ griffintechnology.com ] These used to be common , long ago : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial \ _box [ wikipedia.org ] The " 3Dmouse " mentioned above is not a dial .
It is a puck that 's spring-loaded to stay centered.You can not rotate it freely , so it is a relative control and not an absolute control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get a bunch of these:  http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/ [griffintechnology.com]These used to be common, long ago:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial\_box [wikipedia.org]The "3Dmouse" mentioned above is not a dial.
It is a puck that's spring-loaded to stay centered.You cannot rotate it freely, so it is a relative control and not an absolute control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147238</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point isn't that you are trying for the most photorealistic aliens ever.  The point is, Yoda is a space alien who is also a Buddhist master who is also a muppet!  (The muppets used to be quite popular, despite looking like rag dolls, they had their own TV show with its own little culture, and at the time it was quite witty and groundbreaking to have a muppet playing a straight role in an otherwise conventional fantasy movie.)  I don't remember anyone complaining about the cantina aliens because, let's face it, what are aliens supposed to look like, anyway?<p>The real issue is that people like Jim Henson were masters of their trade.  Today, any idiot can fire up some software and make an alien who looks 100x "better" than Yoda.  However, the mastery isn't there, and it's obvious to everyone except those to whom newer means better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is n't that you are trying for the most photorealistic aliens ever .
The point is , Yoda is a space alien who is also a Buddhist master who is also a muppet !
( The muppets used to be quite popular , despite looking like rag dolls , they had their own TV show with its own little culture , and at the time it was quite witty and groundbreaking to have a muppet playing a straight role in an otherwise conventional fantasy movie .
) I do n't remember anyone complaining about the cantina aliens because , let 's face it , what are aliens supposed to look like , anyway ? The real issue is that people like Jim Henson were masters of their trade .
Today , any idiot can fire up some software and make an alien who looks 100x " better " than Yoda .
However , the mastery is n't there , and it 's obvious to everyone except those to whom newer means better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point isn't that you are trying for the most photorealistic aliens ever.
The point is, Yoda is a space alien who is also a Buddhist master who is also a muppet!
(The muppets used to be quite popular, despite looking like rag dolls, they had their own TV show with its own little culture, and at the time it was quite witty and groundbreaking to have a muppet playing a straight role in an otherwise conventional fantasy movie.
)  I don't remember anyone complaining about the cantina aliens because, let's face it, what are aliens supposed to look like, anyway?The real issue is that people like Jim Henson were masters of their trade.
Today, any idiot can fire up some software and make an alien who looks 100x "better" than Yoda.
However, the mastery isn't there, and it's obvious to everyone except those to whom newer means better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148446</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1257069060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we all agree never to mention JarJar again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we all agree never to mention JarJar again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we all agree never to mention JarJar again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147372</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>LowG1974</author>
	<datestamp>1257106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Found one on eBay...<br>
<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ATARI-2600-Game-Controller-ORIGINAL-Paddles-Accessory\_W0QQitemZ320410729123QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVideo\_Games\_Accessories?hash=item4a99f7baa3" title="ebay.com" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ATARI-2600-Game-Controller-ORIGINAL-Paddles-Accessory\_W0QQitemZ320410729123QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVideo\_Games\_Accessories?hash=item4a99f7baa3</a> [ebay.com]
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found one on eBay.. . http : //cgi.ebay.com/ATARI-2600-Game-Controller-ORIGINAL-Paddles-Accessory \ _W0QQitemZ320410729123QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVideo \ _Games \ _Accessories ? hash = item4a99f7baa3 [ ebay.com ] : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found one on eBay...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ATARI-2600-Game-Controller-ORIGINAL-Paddles-Accessory\_W0QQitemZ320410729123QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVideo\_Games\_Accessories?hash=item4a99f7baa3 [ebay.com]
 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. I think it's called a mouse.</p><p>Really, you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier (hold a key on the keyboard) that would rotate whatever plane (X/Y/Z) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I think it 's called a mouse.Really , you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier ( hold a key on the keyboard ) that would rotate whatever plane ( X/Y/Z ) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I think it's called a mouse.Really, you could just use the mouse wheel combined with a single key modifier (hold a key on the keyboard) that would rotate whatever plane (X/Y/Z) you wanted when you spun your mouse wheel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1920's Sound has Ruined movies, they are so in your face you can't enjoy the movie.<br>1940's Color has Ruined Movies, they are so in you face you can't enjoy the movie.<br>1960's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....<br>1980's Animtronics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>2000 CGI...</p><p>It is just a new toy that its use hasn't been fully realized yet.  And excuse to hate something new.  They made bad movies in the past and they will do so in the future.  It is not CGI but bad use of it. Jar-Jar was a stupid character who wasn't needed especially as they kept the droids.  Having him as not a CGI character wouldn't make him any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1920 's Sound has Ruined movies , they are so in your face you ca n't enjoy the movie.1940 's Color has Ruined Movies , they are so in you face you ca n't enjoy the movie.1960 's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....1980 's Animtronics ...2000 CGI...It is just a new toy that its use has n't been fully realized yet .
And excuse to hate something new .
They made bad movies in the past and they will do so in the future .
It is not CGI but bad use of it .
Jar-Jar was a stupid character who was n't needed especially as they kept the droids .
Having him as not a CGI character would n't make him any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1920's Sound has Ruined movies, they are so in your face you can't enjoy the movie.1940's Color has Ruined Movies, they are so in you face you can't enjoy the movie.1960's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....1980's Animtronics ...2000 CGI...It is just a new toy that its use hasn't been fully realized yet.
And excuse to hate something new.
They made bad movies in the past and they will do so in the future.
It is not CGI but bad use of it.
Jar-Jar was a stupid character who wasn't needed especially as they kept the droids.
Having him as not a CGI character wouldn't make him any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148608</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257069660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, what stops you from just writing a small midi-to-mouse or -to-joystick mapper. I bet something like that already exists. And if not, it&rsquo;s <em>really</em> easy to do in Linux.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , what stops you from just writing a small midi-to-mouse or -to-joystick mapper .
I bet something like that already exists .
And if not , it    s really easy to do in Linux .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, what stops you from just writing a small midi-to-mouse or -to-joystick mapper.
I bet something like that already exists.
And if not, it’s really easy to do in Linux.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148338</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Tynin</author>
	<datestamp>1257068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't cry during Wall-E? I mean, didn't either, it was just I hadn't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't cry during Wall-E ?
I mean , did n't either , it was just I had n't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't cry during Wall-E?
I mean, didn't either, it was just I hadn't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146262</id>
	<title>Star Wars sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that Star Trek is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that Star Trek is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that Star Trek is better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146052</id>
	<title>Hollywood ?</title>
	<author>middlemen</author>
	<datestamp>1257100860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>George Look Arse presents <br>
STAR WHORES <br> <br>
starring<br>
Topless Robot</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Look Arse presents STAR WHORES starring Topless Robot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Look Arse presents 
STAR WHORES  
starring
Topless Robot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146534</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>theaveng</author>
	<datestamp>1257102840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes my ancient 1985 Amiga at just 7 megahertz  has a pirate demo like that.  It showed a 3D rabbit, and you could spin him in any direction using just your mouse and the right button.   It was impressive in the 80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes my ancient 1985 Amiga at just 7 megahertz has a pirate demo like that .
It showed a 3D rabbit , and you could spin him in any direction using just your mouse and the right button .
It was impressive in the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes my ancient 1985 Amiga at just 7 megahertz  has a pirate demo like that.
It showed a 3D rabbit, and you could spin him in any direction using just your mouse and the right button.
It was impressive in the 80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153132</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1257098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; People got so hung up on the "Ford isn't supposed to be black" thing<br>&gt; that they seem to have forgotten about the "Ford is supposed to be funny" thing...</p><p>Screw Ford being black or not funny; the <b>movie</b> was supposed to be funny (and wasn't).</p><p>Still, I was impressed with it, because at no time did I want to gouge out my eyeballs, as I expected I would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; People got so hung up on the " Ford is n't supposed to be black " thing &gt; that they seem to have forgotten about the " Ford is supposed to be funny " thing...Screw Ford being black or not funny ; the movie was supposed to be funny ( and was n't ) .Still , I was impressed with it , because at no time did I want to gouge out my eyeballs , as I expected I would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; People got so hung up on the "Ford isn't supposed to be black" thing&gt; that they seem to have forgotten about the "Ford is supposed to be funny" thing...Screw Ford being black or not funny; the movie was supposed to be funny (and wasn't).Still, I was impressed with it, because at no time did I want to gouge out my eyeballs, as I expected I would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150732</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>Digital Vomit</author>
	<datestamp>1257079500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1920's Sound has Ruined movies, they are so in your face you can't enjoy the movie.<br>
1940's Color has Ruined Movies, they are so in you face you can't enjoy the movie.<br>
1960's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....<br>
1980's Animtronics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
2000 CGI...</p></div></blockquote><p>2020 Orgasmo-seats...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1920 's Sound has Ruined movies , they are so in your face you ca n't enjoy the movie .
1940 's Color has Ruined Movies , they are so in you face you ca n't enjoy the movie .
1960 's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves... . 1980 's Animtronics .. . 2000 CGI...2020 Orgasmo-seats.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1920's Sound has Ruined movies, they are so in your face you can't enjoy the movie.
1940's Color has Ruined Movies, they are so in you face you can't enjoy the movie.
1960's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....
1980's Animtronics ...
2000 CGI...2020 Orgasmo-seats...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147580</id>
	<title>Re:Looker</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257107760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looker was also way ahead of its time in foreseeing a future where it was possible to have all-digital productions where the actors were just CGI'ed in. Now we're seeing the unfortunate results with dead celebs trying to sell me vacuum cleaners (Fred Astaire, I'm looking at you bud).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looker was also way ahead of its time in foreseeing a future where it was possible to have all-digital productions where the actors were just CGI'ed in .
Now we 're seeing the unfortunate results with dead celebs trying to sell me vacuum cleaners ( Fred Astaire , I 'm looking at you bud ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looker was also way ahead of its time in foreseeing a future where it was possible to have all-digital productions where the actors were just CGI'ed in.
Now we're seeing the unfortunate results with dead celebs trying to sell me vacuum cleaners (Fred Astaire, I'm looking at you bud).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30163126</id>
	<title>Re:Lucasfilm VAX</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1258624500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Genesis was done by Sega...?</p><p>I kid, I kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Genesis was done by Sega... ? I kid , I kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Genesis was done by Sega...?I kid, I kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30157634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146476</id>
	<title>Re:Dials for manipulating 3D objects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could buy a vintage Battlezone, the first FPS, designed in 1979 by Ed Rotberg for Atari.  It's an elegant design.  No dials, but the control schema of the sticks are beautiful to behold.  Most of the XY technology used in those early Atari vector machines are nearly identical to the tech described in this video.  The math required for real time manipulation of XY displays is far simpler than what Jim Blinn was doing around the same time.  He was a wizard for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could buy a vintage Battlezone , the first FPS , designed in 1979 by Ed Rotberg for Atari .
It 's an elegant design .
No dials , but the control schema of the sticks are beautiful to behold .
Most of the XY technology used in those early Atari vector machines are nearly identical to the tech described in this video .
The math required for real time manipulation of XY displays is far simpler than what Jim Blinn was doing around the same time .
He was a wizard for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could buy a vintage Battlezone, the first FPS, designed in 1979 by Ed Rotberg for Atari.
It's an elegant design.
No dials, but the control schema of the sticks are beautiful to behold.
Most of the XY technology used in those early Atari vector machines are nearly identical to the tech described in this video.
The math required for real time manipulation of XY displays is far simpler than what Jim Blinn was doing around the same time.
He was a wizard for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147370</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian. If anything, it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd go along with that... these are the same people who decided that the definitive battle of the 3rd movie should take place on Endor rather than Kashyyk as originally planned.... Oh, and while we're at it, let's cut the Wookiee in half. I mean, seriously... taking out an AT-ST by throwing rocks at it?</p><p>Jar Jar was an attempt to appeal to a younger audience. And y'know what? I knew a whole bunch of 4-year olds who absolutely adored the character at the time.</p><p>That said, I think his point was that over-reliance on CGI has led to a decline in the quality of the scripts that studios end up making. Why blow the budget on writers when the audience has shown, time and again, that they will just as easily part with their money for special effects? Coupled with a general tendency against taking risks with scripts, and you can see the general quality of movies being made has gone *way* downhill over the last 30 years. But I'd argue that while CGI has been a contributing factor to that decline, it's also been a contributing factor to some of the really high quality work that's been done, too. Done well, CGI compliments the work in question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian .
If anything , it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.I 'd go along with that... these are the same people who decided that the definitive battle of the 3rd movie should take place on Endor rather than Kashyyk as originally planned.... Oh , and while we 're at it , let 's cut the Wookiee in half .
I mean , seriously... taking out an AT-ST by throwing rocks at it ? Jar Jar was an attempt to appeal to a younger audience .
And y'know what ?
I knew a whole bunch of 4-year olds who absolutely adored the character at the time.That said , I think his point was that over-reliance on CGI has led to a decline in the quality of the scripts that studios end up making .
Why blow the budget on writers when the audience has shown , time and again , that they will just as easily part with their money for special effects ?
Coupled with a general tendency against taking risks with scripts , and you can see the general quality of movies being made has gone * way * downhill over the last 30 years .
But I 'd argue that while CGI has been a contributing factor to that decline , it 's also been a contributing factor to some of the really high quality work that 's been done , too .
Done well , CGI compliments the work in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian.
If anything, it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.I'd go along with that... these are the same people who decided that the definitive battle of the 3rd movie should take place on Endor rather than Kashyyk as originally planned.... Oh, and while we're at it, let's cut the Wookiee in half.
I mean, seriously... taking out an AT-ST by throwing rocks at it?Jar Jar was an attempt to appeal to a younger audience.
And y'know what?
I knew a whole bunch of 4-year olds who absolutely adored the character at the time.That said, I think his point was that over-reliance on CGI has led to a decline in the quality of the scripts that studios end up making.
Why blow the budget on writers when the audience has shown, time and again, that they will just as easily part with their money for special effects?
Coupled with a general tendency against taking risks with scripts, and you can see the general quality of movies being made has gone *way* downhill over the last 30 years.
But I'd argue that while CGI has been a contributing factor to that decline, it's also been a contributing factor to some of the really high quality work that's been done, too.
Done well, CGI compliments the work in question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147048</id>
	<title>Re:Better Then CGI</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gollum was pretty good, IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gollum was pretty good , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gollum was pretty good, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30170894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30164034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30157634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30163126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30172392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30182526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30158818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30160894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1624214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30160894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30164034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30170894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30153322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151706
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30155494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30158818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30157634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30163126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30182526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30172392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30149022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30148050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30150834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30152346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30151512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1624214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30146876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1624214.30147958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
