<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_1252220</id>
	<title>James Cameron On How <em>Avatar</em> Technology Could Keep Actors Young</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263736200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Suki I writes <i>"An article at EW discusses another use for <em>Avatar's</em> sophisticated motion-capture technology: 'Sure, it's terrific for turning human actors into big blue alien Na'vis. But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected for <em>Avatar</em> could easily be used for other, even more mind-blowing purposes &mdash; like, say, bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life, or <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/01/16/james-cameron-avatar-technology/">making Clint Eastwood look 35 again</a>. "How about another <em>Dirty Harry</em> movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?" Cameron suggests. "Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in <em>Doctor No</em>? How cool would that be?"' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suki I writes " An article at EW discusses another use for Avatar 's sophisticated motion-capture technology : 'Sure , it 's terrific for turning human actors into big blue alien Na'vis .
But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected for Avatar could easily be used for other , even more mind-blowing purposes    like , say , bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life , or making Clint Eastwood look 35 again .
" How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975 ?
" Cameron suggests .
" Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No ?
How cool would that be ?
" ' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles , and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suki I writes "An article at EW discusses another use for Avatar's sophisticated motion-capture technology: 'Sure, it's terrific for turning human actors into big blue alien Na'vis.
But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected for Avatar could easily be used for other, even more mind-blowing purposes — like, say, bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life, or making Clint Eastwood look 35 again.
"How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?
" Cameron suggests.
"Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No?
How cool would that be?
"' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798372</id>
	<title>Re:I'd be happy with them....</title>
	<author>briareus</author>
	<datestamp>1263744300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah.  I have no problems with her tattoos and I'm not into trailer trash.  You don't need sophisticated motion capture to remove tattoos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah .
I have no problems with her tattoos and I 'm not into trailer trash .
You do n't need sophisticated motion capture to remove tattoos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah.
I have no problems with her tattoos and I'm not into trailer trash.
You don't need sophisticated motion capture to remove tattoos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802452</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>shidarin'ou</author>
	<datestamp>1263731400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In case you missed it, *all* the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture. They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG. All those wrinkles on Weaver's human character? CG. They didn't have to put them there. They could make her appear as a 20-year-old, or as a man.</p></div><p>Uhm. No. Most of the actors you saw on screen were keyed and then composited in to CG environments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you missed it , * all * the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture .
They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG .
All those wrinkles on Weaver 's human character ?
CG. They did n't have to put them there .
They could make her appear as a 20-year-old , or as a man.Uhm .
No. Most of the actors you saw on screen were keyed and then composited in to CG environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you missed it, *all* the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture.
They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG.
All those wrinkles on Weaver's human character?
CG. They didn't have to put them there.
They could make her appear as a 20-year-old, or as a man.Uhm.
No. Most of the actors you saw on screen were keyed and then composited in to CG environments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806528</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263819300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?</p></div><p>This must have been the reason that Gladiator did so poorly at the box office</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or why could n't a white guy play a role as a slave ? This must have been the reason that Gladiator did so poorly at the box office</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?This must have been the reason that Gladiator did so poorly at the box office
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798666</id>
	<title>But is it cost-effective?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263746340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar cost US$ 300 million. It's probably cheaper to hire some guy and a make-up artist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar cost US $ 300 million .
It 's probably cheaper to hire some guy and a make-up artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar cost US$ 300 million.
It's probably cheaper to hire some guy and a make-up artist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799682</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 History Fail</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 History Fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 History Fail</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798906</id>
	<title>Bring me to life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263748560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring actors back to life - and have them dance with vacuum cleaners...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring actors back to life - and have them dance with vacuum cleaners.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring actors back to life - and have them dance with vacuum cleaners...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798574</id>
	<title>When Does the Porn Industry Get This?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can only imagine them taking an old porn movie staring Little Oral Annie and substituting a Jennifer Anston avatar. Now tell me, how cool would THAT be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only imagine them taking an old porn movie staring Little Oral Annie and substituting a Jennifer Anston avatar .
Now tell me , how cool would THAT be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only imagine them taking an old porn movie staring Little Oral Annie and substituting a Jennifer Anston avatar.
Now tell me, how cool would THAT be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798482</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this angle, you can bring people back to life that nobody living has ever seen. How about using what we know about historic figures from paintings or skeletal remains to bring them back in CGI? George Washington anyone? You could have characters that look EXACTLY like the real people in those roles. Then the question becomes which is more entertaining, to show people exactly as they were or a hollywood spin on it. I guess you would always have some spin since while they may look identical, the actor would still do their spin on the personallity and manerisms of that person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this angle , you can bring people back to life that nobody living has ever seen .
How about using what we know about historic figures from paintings or skeletal remains to bring them back in CGI ?
George Washington anyone ?
You could have characters that look EXACTLY like the real people in those roles .
Then the question becomes which is more entertaining , to show people exactly as they were or a hollywood spin on it .
I guess you would always have some spin since while they may look identical , the actor would still do their spin on the personallity and manerisms of that person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this angle, you can bring people back to life that nobody living has ever seen.
How about using what we know about historic figures from paintings or skeletal remains to bring them back in CGI?
George Washington anyone?
You could have characters that look EXACTLY like the real people in those roles.
Then the question becomes which is more entertaining, to show people exactly as they were or a hollywood spin on it.
I guess you would always have some spin since while they may look identical, the actor would still do their spin on the personallity and manerisms of that person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805042</id>
	<title>Re:Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the second pan to his face really doesn't work for me. It looked too CG'y. They got greedy, had they just done the first flash it would have been much more believable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the second pan to his face really does n't work for me .
It looked too CG'y .
They got greedy , had they just done the first flash it would have been much more believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the second pan to his face really doesn't work for me.
It looked too CG'y.
They got greedy, had they just done the first flash it would have been much more believable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801694</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1263726180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more I think about it the more I agree with you that this is a bad idea. I'd love to see Humphrey Bogart in a new movie, but he's dead and that's that. CGI Bogey is not an acceptable substitute. There's a big risk for abuse that I think outweighs just about any possible good. The worst I can imagine is something like what was suggested in Thank You For Smoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxIGcpas\_wk see 3:04 for relevant part) where some moral busybody goes back and tries to politically correct old movies...<br> <br>Why not use this technology to create photo-realistic CGI actors that are totally unique? You side-step the "But it's not really him!" problem at the very least, and it guarantees you an actor who will do exactly what the director wants, how the director wants, never lock themself in a trailer, never snort coke, never die unexpectedly. I'd pay to see a totally CGI actor that could pass for a human... assuming it's in a movie that I would want to go and see in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I think about it the more I agree with you that this is a bad idea .
I 'd love to see Humphrey Bogart in a new movie , but he 's dead and that 's that .
CGI Bogey is not an acceptable substitute .
There 's a big risk for abuse that I think outweighs just about any possible good .
The worst I can imagine is something like what was suggested in Thank You For Smoking ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = sxIGcpas \ _wk see 3 : 04 for relevant part ) where some moral busybody goes back and tries to politically correct old movies... Why not use this technology to create photo-realistic CGI actors that are totally unique ?
You side-step the " But it 's not really him !
" problem at the very least , and it guarantees you an actor who will do exactly what the director wants , how the director wants , never lock themself in a trailer , never snort coke , never die unexpectedly .
I 'd pay to see a totally CGI actor that could pass for a human... assuming it 's in a movie that I would want to go and see in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I think about it the more I agree with you that this is a bad idea.
I'd love to see Humphrey Bogart in a new movie, but he's dead and that's that.
CGI Bogey is not an acceptable substitute.
There's a big risk for abuse that I think outweighs just about any possible good.
The worst I can imagine is something like what was suggested in Thank You For Smoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxIGcpas\_wk see 3:04 for relevant part) where some moral busybody goes back and tries to politically correct old movies... Why not use this technology to create photo-realistic CGI actors that are totally unique?
You side-step the "But it's not really him!
" problem at the very least, and it guarantees you an actor who will do exactly what the director wants, how the director wants, never lock themself in a trailer, never snort coke, never die unexpectedly.
I'd pay to see a totally CGI actor that could pass for a human... assuming it's in a movie that I would want to go and see in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</id>
	<title>Perfected</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1263744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected...</p></div><p>
Whoa. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It was damn impressive, but it most certainly wasn't perfect. It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG. It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real. It's come a hell of a long way but we're not yet at "perfected." Not by a long shot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected.. . Whoa. Let 's not get ahead of ourselves .
It was damn impressive , but it most certainly was n't perfect .
It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG .
It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real .
It 's come a hell of a long way but we 're not yet at " perfected .
" Not by a long shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected...
Whoa. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
It was damn impressive, but it most certainly wasn't perfect.
It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG.
It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real.
It's come a hell of a long way but we're not yet at "perfected.
" Not by a long shot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800450</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263761340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the log recording were CGI, it fooled me...But the first scenes, where we see a weightless Jake waking up from coldsleep, attended by spaceship medics....This looked definitely CGI, and still in the uncanny valley.</p><p>Still, each new attempt is more convincing, Avatar is much much better than Beowulf, which was slightly better than Final Fantasy.<br>So, if Cameron is -maybe- a little too enthusiastic today, I think it will not takes more than a few year before most of the virtual "actors" can not be spotted, even by educated audience...</p><p>IMHO, the day of superstars is over, I doubt next generation of actors will share the Lion's part of film budgets as they do today...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the log recording were CGI , it fooled me...But the first scenes , where we see a weightless Jake waking up from coldsleep , attended by spaceship medics....This looked definitely CGI , and still in the uncanny valley.Still , each new attempt is more convincing , Avatar is much much better than Beowulf , which was slightly better than Final Fantasy.So , if Cameron is -maybe- a little too enthusiastic today , I think it will not takes more than a few year before most of the virtual " actors " can not be spotted , even by educated audience...IMHO , the day of superstars is over , I doubt next generation of actors will share the Lion 's part of film budgets as they do today.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the log recording were CGI, it fooled me...But the first scenes, where we see a weightless Jake waking up from coldsleep, attended by spaceship medics....This looked definitely CGI, and still in the uncanny valley.Still, each new attempt is more convincing, Avatar is much much better than Beowulf, which was slightly better than Final Fantasy.So, if Cameron is -maybe- a little too enthusiastic today, I think it will not takes more than a few year before most of the virtual "actors" can not be spotted, even by educated audience...IMHO, the day of superstars is over, I doubt next generation of actors will share the Lion's part of film budgets as they do today...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800316</id>
	<title>Oriville Redenbacher</title>
	<author>PsychoticSpoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263760020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Orville Redenbacher's popcorn already did something like this, and the results were pretty creepy: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcn4p213Zg8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcn4p213Zg8</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orville Redenbacher 's popcorn already did something like this , and the results were pretty creepy : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Fcn4p213Zg8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orville Redenbacher's popcorn already did something like this, and the results were pretty creepy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcn4p213Zg8 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798320</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263743940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that what we call "Hollywood looks" is a sort of uncanny valley we learned to love. Were you in front of someone really as good looking as a movie star after make-up and post-processing, you would certainly have an uncanny valley feeling. But when seen through the screen, that looks okay. Actually, many actors are already being "smoothed" in movies and pictures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that what we call " Hollywood looks " is a sort of uncanny valley we learned to love .
Were you in front of someone really as good looking as a movie star after make-up and post-processing , you would certainly have an uncanny valley feeling .
But when seen through the screen , that looks okay .
Actually , many actors are already being " smoothed " in movies and pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that what we call "Hollywood looks" is a sort of uncanny valley we learned to love.
Were you in front of someone really as good looking as a movie star after make-up and post-processing, you would certainly have an uncanny valley feeling.
But when seen through the screen, that looks okay.
Actually, many actors are already being "smoothed" in movies and pictures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797950</id>
	<title>Like Simone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, pretty much the basic premise of the Pacino movie Simone (or S1m0me)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , pretty much the basic premise of the Pacino movie Simone ( or S1m0me )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, pretty much the basic premise of the Pacino movie Simone (or S1m0me)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006</id>
	<title>Mix The Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries. Since legal issues will arise if a character is duplicated by computer art the trick will be to take the admired characteristics of several stars and combine them into a "new" image. Blending Bogart with Eastwood if done by an artist may well present a new film star to the public and create a complex situation in which the Bogart estate and the Eastwood interests both have little if any claim at all to the proceeds. Finding a way to combine voice characteristics might actually be more difficult than the visual elements of film. The monetary interests are large enough that this work will surely be done. Obviously some of it has already been done such as with John Candy completing a film after his death due to computer replications of his voice and person. The trick is to get the cost of the computer work down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries .
Since legal issues will arise if a character is duplicated by computer art the trick will be to take the admired characteristics of several stars and combine them into a " new " image .
Blending Bogart with Eastwood if done by an artist may well present a new film star to the public and create a complex situation in which the Bogart estate and the Eastwood interests both have little if any claim at all to the proceeds .
Finding a way to combine voice characteristics might actually be more difficult than the visual elements of film .
The monetary interests are large enough that this work will surely be done .
Obviously some of it has already been done such as with John Candy completing a film after his death due to computer replications of his voice and person .
The trick is to get the cost of the computer work down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries.
Since legal issues will arise if a character is duplicated by computer art the trick will be to take the admired characteristics of several stars and combine them into a "new" image.
Blending Bogart with Eastwood if done by an artist may well present a new film star to the public and create a complex situation in which the Bogart estate and the Eastwood interests both have little if any claim at all to the proceeds.
Finding a way to combine voice characteristics might actually be more difficult than the visual elements of film.
The monetary interests are large enough that this work will surely be done.
Obviously some of it has already been done such as with John Candy completing a film after his death due to computer replications of his voice and person.
The trick is to get the cost of the computer work down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</id>
	<title>Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cannot wait till actors are 100\% artificial. Finally we can get rid of most of those grossly overpaid attention whores. This might be the only case where I am glad when the computer destroys a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not wait till actors are 100 \ % artificial .
Finally we can get rid of most of those grossly overpaid attention whores .
This might be the only case where I am glad when the computer destroys a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot wait till actors are 100\% artificial.
Finally we can get rid of most of those grossly overpaid attention whores.
This might be the only case where I am glad when the computer destroys a job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800406</id>
	<title>Re:To cesar...</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1263760980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The meeting ended on a boisterous note. "That fuckin' rocks!" Cameron called out in response to an image of a snarling maw of thin blue-veined tissue, the mouth of the pterodactyl-like banshee that Jake's avatar domesticates for his ride. "Look at the gill-like membrane on the side of the mouth, its transmission of light, all the secondary color saturation on the tongue, and that maxilla bone. I love what you did with the translucence on the teeth, and the way the quadrate bone racks the teeth forward. It's a sharky thing. As wacky as this creature is, it looks completely real. Maybe I'm getting high on my own supply." He was practically out of breath. "The banshee lives! He's a fierce-looking sonuvabitch."</i> <br> <br>

I think Cameron was a motivator and drill sergeant, heavily involved in the technical aspects of the work, and was certainly not someone that just handed the job off to the SF guys to do.  Interesting article <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa\_fact\_goodyear" title="newyorker.com">here</a> [newyorker.com].  I'm not sure I'd want him for a boss, honestly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The meeting ended on a boisterous note .
" That fuckin ' rocks !
" Cameron called out in response to an image of a snarling maw of thin blue-veined tissue , the mouth of the pterodactyl-like banshee that Jake 's avatar domesticates for his ride .
" Look at the gill-like membrane on the side of the mouth , its transmission of light , all the secondary color saturation on the tongue , and that maxilla bone .
I love what you did with the translucence on the teeth , and the way the quadrate bone racks the teeth forward .
It 's a sharky thing .
As wacky as this creature is , it looks completely real .
Maybe I 'm getting high on my own supply .
" He was practically out of breath .
" The banshee lives !
He 's a fierce-looking sonuvabitch .
" I think Cameron was a motivator and drill sergeant , heavily involved in the technical aspects of the work , and was certainly not someone that just handed the job off to the SF guys to do .
Interesting article here [ newyorker.com ] .
I 'm not sure I 'd want him for a boss , honestly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The meeting ended on a boisterous note.
"That fuckin' rocks!
" Cameron called out in response to an image of a snarling maw of thin blue-veined tissue, the mouth of the pterodactyl-like banshee that Jake's avatar domesticates for his ride.
"Look at the gill-like membrane on the side of the mouth, its transmission of light, all the secondary color saturation on the tongue, and that maxilla bone.
I love what you did with the translucence on the teeth, and the way the quadrate bone racks the teeth forward.
It's a sharky thing.
As wacky as this creature is, it looks completely real.
Maybe I'm getting high on my own supply.
" He was practically out of breath.
"The banshee lives!
He's a fierce-looking sonuvabitch.
"  

I think Cameron was a motivator and drill sergeant, heavily involved in the technical aspects of the work, and was certainly not someone that just handed the job off to the SF guys to do.
Interesting article here [newyorker.com].
I'm not sure I'd want him for a boss, honestly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798178</id>
	<title>twentysomething teens</title>
	<author>sophomoric</author>
	<datestamp>1263742500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying. 17 year olds are supposed to look awkward, not like Kristin Kreuk!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying .
17 year olds are supposed to look awkward , not like Kristin Kreuk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying.
17 year olds are supposed to look awkward, not like Kristin Kreuk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800074</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263757920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the movie industry no longer needs actors, it will be freed from their limitations. There being no obligation to a virtual character any more than a character in a novel, this opens up avenues for creativity.</p><p>As for porn makers having no ethics, that depends on ones preferred ethical construct. They have no obligation to avoid story lines you don't like, and laws vary by location.</p><p>The more art and media can use technology to free themselves from anyone who would impose any restraint other than voluntary non-consumption of product, the better IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the movie industry no longer needs actors , it will be freed from their limitations .
There being no obligation to a virtual character any more than a character in a novel , this opens up avenues for creativity.As for porn makers having no ethics , that depends on ones preferred ethical construct .
They have no obligation to avoid story lines you do n't like , and laws vary by location.The more art and media can use technology to free themselves from anyone who would impose any restraint other than voluntary non-consumption of product , the better IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the movie industry no longer needs actors, it will be freed from their limitations.
There being no obligation to a virtual character any more than a character in a novel, this opens up avenues for creativity.As for porn makers having no ethics, that depends on ones preferred ethical construct.
They have no obligation to avoid story lines you don't like, and laws vary by location.The more art and media can use technology to free themselves from anyone who would impose any restraint other than voluntary non-consumption of product, the better IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30808460</id>
	<title>Re:Schwarzenegger inTerminator Salvation</title>
	<author>mackil</author>
	<datestamp>1263833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/" title="imdb.com">S1m0ne</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention S1m0ne [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention S1m0ne [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801966</id>
	<title>less agism and more story</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263727920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see how I can expand on that in a way that would make it any more meaningful, less agism and more story, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see how I can expand on that in a way that would make it any more meaningful , less agism and more story , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see how I can expand on that in a way that would make it any more meaningful, less agism and more story, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798638</id>
	<title>Secret of Vulcan Fury</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263746220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they kept the face caputeres of the TOS Actors after the cancellation of Star Trek: The Secret of Vulcan Fury PC game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they kept the face caputeres of the TOS Actors after the cancellation of Star Trek : The Secret of Vulcan Fury PC game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they kept the face caputeres of the TOS Actors after the cancellation of Star Trek: The Secret of Vulcan Fury PC game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797984</id>
	<title>How cool ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?" Cameron suggests. "Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No? How cool would that be?"'</p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, not that cool. What makes those actors special isn't their face but their acting. Can you generate that as well?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975 ?
" Cameron suggests .
" Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No ?
How cool would that be ?
" ' Actually , not that cool .
What makes those actors special is n't their face but their acting .
Can you generate that as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?
" Cameron suggests.
"Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No?
How cool would that be?
"' Actually, not that cool.
What makes those actors special isn't their face but their acting.
Can you generate that as well?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798106</id>
	<title>The end of prosthetic foreheads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the biggest advance would be to eliminate the prosthetic forehead that has been the distinguishing mark of TV aliens since the original Star Trek.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the biggest advance would be to eliminate the prosthetic forehead that has been the distinguishing mark of TV aliens since the original Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the biggest advance would be to eliminate the prosthetic forehead that has been the distinguishing mark of TV aliens since the original Star Trek.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805162</id>
	<title>Re:Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263756840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Terminator Salvation didn't have "young Arnold" in it, as CGI or old footage. They used a stand-in actor (I think it was <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452199/" title="imdb.com">this guy</a> [imdb.com]) who wore a 'prosthetic' face/mask. The guy's body/physique was a bit off, but it was close!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Terminator Salvation did n't have " young Arnold " in it , as CGI or old footage .
They used a stand-in actor ( I think it was this guy [ imdb.com ] ) who wore a 'prosthetic ' face/mask .
The guy 's body/physique was a bit off , but it was close !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Terminator Salvation didn't have "young Arnold" in it, as CGI or old footage.
They used a stand-in actor (I think it was this guy [imdb.com]) who wore a 'prosthetic' face/mask.
The guy's body/physique was a bit off, but it was close!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798718</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1263746820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that in the actor's contracts there's some sort of clause to use their image in any related film promotion or even future works (i.e. a flashback in the second movie with a scene from the first movie, and the actor does not appear in the second movie otherwise). Such a clause could probably be shoehorned into being used in this manner. Legal battle would ensue and that's where the policy on this sort of thing would ultimately be decided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that in the actor 's contracts there 's some sort of clause to use their image in any related film promotion or even future works ( i.e .
a flashback in the second movie with a scene from the first movie , and the actor does not appear in the second movie otherwise ) .
Such a clause could probably be shoehorned into being used in this manner .
Legal battle would ensue and that 's where the policy on this sort of thing would ultimately be decided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that in the actor's contracts there's some sort of clause to use their image in any related film promotion or even future works (i.e.
a flashback in the second movie with a scene from the first movie, and the actor does not appear in the second movie otherwise).
Such a clause could probably be shoehorned into being used in this manner.
Legal battle would ensue and that's where the policy on this sort of thing would ultimately be decided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798934</id>
	<title>Surrogates</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1263748800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to give this POS film any credit, but they used CGI (and some makeup) to make Bruce Willis look young in his "surrogate" form. Details here: <a href="http://io9.com/5366325/how-to-get-your-future-robot-self-high" title="io9.com">http://io9.com/5366325/how-to-get-your-future-robot-self-high</a> [io9.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to give this POS film any credit , but they used CGI ( and some makeup ) to make Bruce Willis look young in his " surrogate " form .
Details here : http : //io9.com/5366325/how-to-get-your-future-robot-self-high [ io9.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to give this POS film any credit, but they used CGI (and some makeup) to make Bruce Willis look young in his "surrogate" form.
Details here: http://io9.com/5366325/how-to-get-your-future-robot-self-high [io9.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798454</id>
	<title>Re:Schwarzenegger inTerminator Salvation</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1263744840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget Judge Dread.  I'm probably wrong but that may be the first.  They couldn't get the CGI bike to align with Silvester Stallone's body so instead they made a 3D Stallone and put that on the CGI bike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Judge Dread .
I 'm probably wrong but that may be the first .
They could n't get the CGI bike to align with Silvester Stallone 's body so instead they made a 3D Stallone and put that on the CGI bike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Judge Dread.
I'm probably wrong but that may be the first.
They couldn't get the CGI bike to align with Silvester Stallone's body so instead they made a 3D Stallone and put that on the CGI bike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30807906</id>
	<title>Re:All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1263830040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, James Cameron's brother, Mike (an aeronautical engineer and stuntman) has invented a number of special film cameras.  They are mostly for underwater filming: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0131679/otherworks" title="imdb.com">IMDB link</a> [imdb.com].  So I wouldn't be surprised if James and Mike actually invented new camera technology themselves for Avatar as has been reported.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , James Cameron 's brother , Mike ( an aeronautical engineer and stuntman ) has invented a number of special film cameras .
They are mostly for underwater filming : IMDB link [ imdb.com ] .
So I would n't be surprised if James and Mike actually invented new camera technology themselves for Avatar as has been reported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, James Cameron's brother, Mike (an aeronautical engineer and stuntman) has invented a number of special film cameras.
They are mostly for underwater filming: IMDB link [imdb.com].
So I wouldn't be surprised if James and Mike actually invented new camera technology themselves for Avatar as has been reported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</id>
	<title>Ethical?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1263740880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ethical line? It's all business, actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.</p><p>Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.<br>Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries, where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ethical line ?
It 's all business , actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand , but you no longer need to hire filming locations , stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries , where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ethical line?
It's all business, actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries, where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802468</id>
	<title>Re:"ethical line" schmethical line</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1263731460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if this actually works, and makes the expenses that low, what happens to reliability of camera recordings and the like for legal purposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if this actually works , and makes the expenses that low , what happens to reliability of camera recordings and the like for legal purposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if this actually works, and makes the expenses that low, what happens to reliability of camera recordings and the like for legal purposes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798954</id>
	<title>why not?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1263748920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not use this technology to bring back Michael Jackson? I mean, he was mostly plastic anyway, so it should be easier than for others, right? Maybe, we can reprogram him as a real black man this time, and without all the kiddie loving weirdness, too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use this technology to bring back Michael Jackson ?
I mean , he was mostly plastic anyway , so it should be easier than for others , right ?
Maybe , we can reprogram him as a real black man this time , and without all the kiddie loving weirdness , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use this technology to bring back Michael Jackson?
I mean, he was mostly plastic anyway, so it should be easier than for others, right?
Maybe, we can reprogram him as a real black man this time, and without all the kiddie loving weirdness, too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800138</id>
	<title>Re:All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263758400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"don't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology'."</p><p>Quite right. 'Avatech' has a nicer ring to it, like 'Sensurround'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" do n't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology' .
" Quite right .
'Avatech ' has a nicer ring to it , like 'Sensurround' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"don't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology'.
"Quite right.
'Avatech' has a nicer ring to it, like 'Sensurround'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30809572</id>
	<title>Re:Perfected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263838380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you knew it was CG because you knew it was CG.  But my friends that I saw the movie with had no idea; they thought they had put real actors in a CG background, a la Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.  We had an argument about it on the way home from the theater, and I finally had to look it up and show them articles on the internet to prove that the human characters in Avatar were digital.</p><p>So yes, the computer is going to fool some viewers into thinking what they are seeing is real.  Maybe not you, maybe not me.  But some.  I'd say that's worthy of the adjective "photorealistic."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you knew it was CG because you knew it was CG .
But my friends that I saw the movie with had no idea ; they thought they had put real actors in a CG background , a la Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow .
We had an argument about it on the way home from the theater , and I finally had to look it up and show them articles on the internet to prove that the human characters in Avatar were digital.So yes , the computer is going to fool some viewers into thinking what they are seeing is real .
Maybe not you , maybe not me .
But some .
I 'd say that 's worthy of the adjective " photorealistic .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you knew it was CG because you knew it was CG.
But my friends that I saw the movie with had no idea; they thought they had put real actors in a CG background, a la Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
We had an argument about it on the way home from the theater, and I finally had to look it up and show them articles on the internet to prove that the human characters in Avatar were digital.So yes, the computer is going to fool some viewers into thinking what they are seeing is real.
Maybe not you, maybe not me.
But some.
I'd say that's worthy of the adjective "photorealistic.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797936</id>
	<title>To cesar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"tech that cameron perfected"??? Wow. In my eternal ignorance, I always thought that was a merit first from the programmers, followed by the modelers, both being "artists" to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" tech that cameron perfected " ? ? ?
Wow. In my eternal ignorance , I always thought that was a merit first from the programmers , followed by the modelers , both being " artists " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"tech that cameron perfected"???
Wow. In my eternal ignorance, I always thought that was a merit first from the programmers, followed by the modelers, both being "artists" to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</id>
	<title>James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263743220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [...]</p></div><p>James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer, but I'm willing to bet he's even worse at coding, 3D modelling or animation.</p><p>James Cameron did not "perfect" anything. He paid some people to put something together so he could make more money from it. Most of the technology used to streamline the CGI production in Avatar was in fact developed for other films (ex., "Benjamin Button").</p><p>And, in any case, the "new" part about Avatar is the (nearly automatic) "performance capture", not the "photorealistic" rendering, which has been around for ages (how realistic you want it depends on how much time or render nodes you can afford to throw at it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [ ... ] James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer , but I 'm willing to bet he 's even worse at coding , 3D modelling or animation.James Cameron did not " perfect " anything .
He paid some people to put something together so he could make more money from it .
Most of the technology used to streamline the CGI production in Avatar was in fact developed for other films ( ex. , " Benjamin Button " ) .And , in any case , the " new " part about Avatar is the ( nearly automatic ) " performance capture " , not the " photorealistic " rendering , which has been around for ages ( how realistic you want it depends on how much time or render nodes you can afford to throw at it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [...]James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer, but I'm willing to bet he's even worse at coding, 3D modelling or animation.James Cameron did not "perfect" anything.
He paid some people to put something together so he could make more money from it.
Most of the technology used to streamline the CGI production in Avatar was in fact developed for other films (ex., "Benjamin Button").And, in any case, the "new" part about Avatar is the (nearly automatic) "performance capture", not the "photorealistic" rendering, which has been around for ages (how realistic you want it depends on how much time or render nodes you can afford to throw at it).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798782</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>ianalis</author>
	<datestamp>1263747300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you'll love <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">S1m0ne</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you 'll love S1m0ne [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you'll love S1m0ne [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30815678</id>
	<title>Implications of imitation...</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263831060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't want to be immortal if it isn't me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't want to be immortal if it is n't me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't want to be immortal if it isn't me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805020</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>ScaryMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263755280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth? Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?</p></div><p>Ummm... <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">why not indeed?</a> [imdb.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ?
Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people ? Ummm... why not indeed ?
[ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?
Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?Ummm... why not indeed?
[imdb.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800728</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1263719880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.</i> </p><p>The showman has always known that the star is the best guarantee of a return at the box office.</p><p>Tech become routine. You keep reaching for the next big effect. New ways to tie the heroine to the railroad track.</p><p>But that won't be enough to make you care about the character and the story.</p><p>Is Ben Burtt a technician or an actor?</p><p>The lead animators for Eve and Wall-E? The geek who says "tech" doesn't know what acting means. Not in CG and not in live action.</p><p>He doesn't have the "face." He doesn't know how to use the "face."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later .
The showman has always known that the star is the best guarantee of a return at the box office.Tech become routine .
You keep reaching for the next big effect .
New ways to tie the heroine to the railroad track.But that wo n't be enough to make you care about the character and the story.Is Ben Burtt a technician or an actor ? The lead animators for Eve and Wall-E ?
The geek who says " tech " does n't know what acting means .
Not in CG and not in live action.He does n't have the " face .
" He does n't know how to use the " face .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.
The showman has always known that the star is the best guarantee of a return at the box office.Tech become routine.
You keep reaching for the next big effect.
New ways to tie the heroine to the railroad track.But that won't be enough to make you care about the character and the story.Is Ben Burtt a technician or an actor?The lead animators for Eve and Wall-E?
The geek who says "tech" doesn't know what acting means.
Not in CG and not in live action.He doesn't have the "face.
" He doesn't know how to use the "face.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800056</id>
	<title>James Bond "merge branch"</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1263757740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No? How cool would that be?"'</p></div></blockquote><p>That'd be awesome!  I can picture it now:</p><p>Except from Scene XXVI, after Bond disposes of villain's Red Matter
</p><p> <b>Daniel Craig-Bond: </b> How did you persuade M to keep your secret? </p><p> <b>Future/Alternate Uncanny Connery-Bond: </b>I inferred that universe-ending paradoxes would ensue should she break her promise</p><p> <b>Daniel Craig-Bond: </b> You lied. </p><p> <b>F/AU Connery-Bond: </b>I implied.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No ?
How cool would that be ?
" 'That 'd be awesome !
I can picture it now : Except from Scene XXVI , after Bond disposes of villain 's Red Matter Daniel Craig-Bond : How did you persuade M to keep your secret ?
Future/Alternate Uncanny Connery-Bond : I inferred that universe-ending paradoxes would ensue should she break her promise Daniel Craig-Bond : You lied .
F/AU Connery-Bond : I implied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No?
How cool would that be?
"'That'd be awesome!
I can picture it now:Except from Scene XXVI, after Bond disposes of villain's Red Matter
 Daniel Craig-Bond:  How did you persuade M to keep your secret?
Future/Alternate Uncanny Connery-Bond: I inferred that universe-ending paradoxes would ensue should she break her promise Daniel Craig-Bond:  You lied.
F/AU Connery-Bond: I implied.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802656</id>
	<title>Re:All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What Cameron and his colleagues pioneered for Avatar goes well beyond "motion-capture". The camera-helmets that gathered performance data from the actors faces are somewhat new (but the data from them was supplemented by numerous witness cameras and plenty of key-framing). The real innovation was the virtual camera that Cameron used. The headline is that he could walk around the capture stage, look through the "viewfinder" (monitor) on his virtual camera, and see a *real-time preview of the CG world*. E.g., see Sigourney Weaver as her Na'vi character, from the perspective of the camera, with CGI scenery elements (trees, rocks, etc.) included. This is unprecedented, and is likely to be a major efficiency boost to the filming of CGI heavy movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Cameron and his colleagues pioneered for Avatar goes well beyond " motion-capture " .
The camera-helmets that gathered performance data from the actors faces are somewhat new ( but the data from them was supplemented by numerous witness cameras and plenty of key-framing ) .
The real innovation was the virtual camera that Cameron used .
The headline is that he could walk around the capture stage , look through the " viewfinder " ( monitor ) on his virtual camera , and see a * real-time preview of the CG world * .
E.g. , see Sigourney Weaver as her Na'vi character , from the perspective of the camera , with CGI scenery elements ( trees , rocks , etc .
) included .
This is unprecedented , and is likely to be a major efficiency boost to the filming of CGI heavy movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Cameron and his colleagues pioneered for Avatar goes well beyond "motion-capture".
The camera-helmets that gathered performance data from the actors faces are somewhat new (but the data from them was supplemented by numerous witness cameras and plenty of key-framing).
The real innovation was the virtual camera that Cameron used.
The headline is that he could walk around the capture stage, look through the "viewfinder" (monitor) on his virtual camera, and see a *real-time preview of the CG world*.
E.g., see Sigourney Weaver as her Na'vi character, from the perspective of the camera, with CGI scenery elements (trees, rocks, etc.
) included.
This is unprecedented, and is likely to be a major efficiency boost to the filming of CGI heavy movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805406</id>
	<title>Re:Doing to movies what Microsoft did to Programmi</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you give "the average guy" enough credit. After all, good movies are not made popular by movie geeks. They're made popular by the common man (and woman). People would quickly stop going to the movies if every actor were like Dolf Lungden (or w/e his name is). You need a Bruce Willis or Angelina Jolie to sell films.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you give " the average guy " enough credit .
After all , good movies are not made popular by movie geeks .
They 're made popular by the common man ( and woman ) .
People would quickly stop going to the movies if every actor were like Dolf Lungden ( or w/e his name is ) .
You need a Bruce Willis or Angelina Jolie to sell films .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you give "the average guy" enough credit.
After all, good movies are not made popular by movie geeks.
They're made popular by the common man (and woman).
People would quickly stop going to the movies if every actor were like Dolf Lungden (or w/e his name is).
You need a Bruce Willis or Angelina Jolie to sell films.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</id>
	<title>I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263741960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like classic actors and classic films as much as anyone, but, if the United States is to continue, we need to have the arts be alive and stories be retold through new actors, directors and minds.  Like, I'm glad Trek got a new crew, but I think we could go even beyond that.  We need to break out of racial typecasting.  Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?  Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?  Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?  Acting is -acting-.  Screw computers bringing back dead people.  Let's use computers to make it possible for anyone to be Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, let every high school play have great special effects.  Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like classic actors and classic films as much as anyone , but , if the United States is to continue , we need to have the arts be alive and stories be retold through new actors , directors and minds .
Like , I 'm glad Trek got a new crew , but I think we could go even beyond that .
We need to break out of racial typecasting .
Like , why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ?
Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people ?
Or why could n't a white guy play a role as a slave ?
Acting is -acting- .
Screw computers bringing back dead people .
Let 's use computers to make it possible for anyone to be Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock , let every high school play have great special effects .
Let 's mix high art and low , TV and theater , toss it all into the pot , mix things up , and do something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like classic actors and classic films as much as anyone, but, if the United States is to continue, we need to have the arts be alive and stories be retold through new actors, directors and minds.
Like, I'm glad Trek got a new crew, but I think we could go even beyond that.
We need to break out of racial typecasting.
Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?
Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?
Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?
Acting is -acting-.
Screw computers bringing back dead people.
Let's use computers to make it possible for anyone to be Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, let every high school play have great special effects.
Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799724</id>
	<title>Re:Input-Output...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1263755520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Considering that Battle Angel*, which Cameron plans to do as (one of) his next project(s) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I'd say that he is more than "just talking".</p></div> </blockquote><p>Ah, Alita, lovingly nicknamed "The Angel of Death", and the lovely world she inhabits with its two-pupilled (in a single eyeball) mutants. That's one of the few movies that can actually <em>benefit</em> from the uncanny valley. The physics engine is going to be need some extra optimization for soft-body dynamics, considering the amount of guts and assorted organic material flying everywhere in a typical fight Alita gets involved in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that Battle Angel * , which Cameron plans to do as ( one of ) his next project ( s ) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I 'd say that he is more than " just talking " .
Ah , Alita , lovingly nicknamed " The Angel of Death " , and the lovely world she inhabits with its two-pupilled ( in a single eyeball ) mutants .
That 's one of the few movies that can actually benefit from the uncanny valley .
The physics engine is going to be need some extra optimization for soft-body dynamics , considering the amount of guts and assorted organic material flying everywhere in a typical fight Alita gets involved in : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that Battle Angel*, which Cameron plans to do as (one of) his next project(s) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I'd say that he is more than "just talking".
Ah, Alita, lovingly nicknamed "The Angel of Death", and the lovely world she inhabits with its two-pupilled (in a single eyeball) mutants.
That's one of the few movies that can actually benefit from the uncanny valley.
The physics engine is going to be need some extra optimization for soft-body dynamics, considering the amount of guts and assorted organic material flying everywhere in a typical fight Alita gets involved in :).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804496</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263749400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, fair enough. But do you think they are going to charge any less for a film? No.</p><p>So where is all this extra money going to go? To orphaniges? No, to the same greedy people who run the studios and control the MPAA that we all hate, and keep extending copyrights.</p><p>Yeah, that is a fucking brilliant idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , fair enough .
But do you think they are going to charge any less for a film ?
No.So where is all this extra money going to go ?
To orphaniges ?
No , to the same greedy people who run the studios and control the MPAA that we all hate , and keep extending copyrights.Yeah , that is a fucking brilliant idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, fair enough.
But do you think they are going to charge any less for a film?
No.So where is all this extra money going to go?
To orphaniges?
No, to the same greedy people who run the studios and control the MPAA that we all hate, and keep extending copyrights.Yeah, that is a fucking brilliant idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798892</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1263748500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you cross that twain (sic), anything is possible.</p><p>Posting AC obv.</p></div><p>Becky Thatcher and Tom Sawyer?  Not seeing that is blowing up big, but maybe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you cross that twain ( sic ) , anything is possible.Posting AC obv.Becky Thatcher and Tom Sawyer ?
Not seeing that is blowing up big , but maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you cross that twain (sic), anything is possible.Posting AC obv.Becky Thatcher and Tom Sawyer?
Not seeing that is blowing up big, but maybe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800848</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1263720600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations. Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.</i></p><p>But a better analogy would be chaining robots to the floor and making them work 24/7.<br>Luddites might complain, and the people who lose their jobs, but the robots won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that it 's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations .
Case in point : It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money , and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper , yet it would not be ethical.But a better analogy would be chaining robots to the floor and making them work 24/7.Luddites might complain , and the people who lose their jobs , but the robots wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations.
Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.But a better analogy would be chaining robots to the floor and making them work 24/7.Luddites might complain, and the people who lose their jobs, but the robots won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798662</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>el3mentary</author>
	<datestamp>1263746340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [...]</p></div><p>James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer, but I'm willing to bet he's even worse at coding, 3D modelling or animation.</p></div><p>Which is why he has the two highest grossing films of all time to his name... idiot.</p><p>And yes I am well aware of the inflation adjustments but it's still an impressive feat</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [ ... ] James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer , but I 'm willing to bet he 's even worse at coding , 3D modelling or animation.Which is why he has the two highest grossing films of all time to his name... idiot.And yes I am well aware of the inflation adjustments but it 's still an impressive feat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the photorealistic CGI technology James Cameron perfected [...]James Cameron is a mediocre film director and a terrible writer, but I'm willing to bet he's even worse at coding, 3D modelling or animation.Which is why he has the two highest grossing films of all time to his name... idiot.And yes I am well aware of the inflation adjustments but it's still an impressive feat
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804782</id>
	<title>Re:Perfected</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1263752280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG. It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real. It's come a hell of a long way but we're not yet at "perfected." Not by a long shot.</p></div><p>
When you say that, what needs to be done for it to seem "real" for you?  I ask because we all know how fast technology is improving, the CGI in a decade old movie will most likely seem "obvious" compared to a more recent movie, like Avatar say.  If its not ready now, then it will be ready in 10 years, if not then....another 10 years....at some time, surely we will be able to "render in real life resolution" etc.  I'm 22 and expect this will easily happen within my lifetime.
<br> <br>
I think part of the problem is we know how photoshop etc work, so we can almost deconstruct how a photo/movie was made.  I've starting podcasting, and I realise that after editing and producing my episodes, listening to the final result, I realise "ok, so in 2 seconds the first track will fade down..." and be able to visualise what GarageBand looked like at that time.  Its especially obvious to me what effects etc I used, since I did it, but my friend is an ex sound engineer who has worked with absolute A grade productions, Disney movies, famous rappers etc, and she could do a much better job.
<br> <br>
I almost think that CGI "spoils" real miracles, I like butterflies, I like Michael Jackson, but during This Is It, I noticed one of the forest scenes, where a small girl held a (presumably real? I wasnt paying attention) butterfly, and then magically a whole flurry of butterflies spiral about the screen.  It was instantly obvious it was just a computer effect, there were no real butterflies.  Yet, butterflies would move like that in real life!  I think the effect was rather obvious, but done better, it could honestly be identical to real life butterfly movements.  I think about Video Game graphics, I remember when PS1 "looked awesome", I remember when PS2 "looked awesome", how PS3 "looks awesome"....
<br> <br>
Surely in time, and with skilled artists, CGI will be absolutely, positively "better" than real actors, I think its a "Moore's law"-esque rule.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG .
It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real .
It 's come a hell of a long way but we 're not yet at " perfected .
" Not by a long shot .
When you say that , what needs to be done for it to seem " real " for you ?
I ask because we all know how fast technology is improving , the CGI in a decade old movie will most likely seem " obvious " compared to a more recent movie , like Avatar say .
If its not ready now , then it will be ready in 10 years , if not then....another 10 years....at some time , surely we will be able to " render in real life resolution " etc .
I 'm 22 and expect this will easily happen within my lifetime .
I think part of the problem is we know how photoshop etc work , so we can almost deconstruct how a photo/movie was made .
I 've starting podcasting , and I realise that after editing and producing my episodes , listening to the final result , I realise " ok , so in 2 seconds the first track will fade down... " and be able to visualise what GarageBand looked like at that time .
Its especially obvious to me what effects etc I used , since I did it , but my friend is an ex sound engineer who has worked with absolute A grade productions , Disney movies , famous rappers etc , and she could do a much better job .
I almost think that CGI " spoils " real miracles , I like butterflies , I like Michael Jackson , but during This Is It , I noticed one of the forest scenes , where a small girl held a ( presumably real ?
I wasnt paying attention ) butterfly , and then magically a whole flurry of butterflies spiral about the screen .
It was instantly obvious it was just a computer effect , there were no real butterflies .
Yet , butterflies would move like that in real life !
I think the effect was rather obvious , but done better , it could honestly be identical to real life butterfly movements .
I think about Video Game graphics , I remember when PS1 " looked awesome " , I remember when PS2 " looked awesome " , how PS3 " looks awesome " ... . Surely in time , and with skilled artists , CGI will be absolutely , positively " better " than real actors , I think its a " Moore 's law " -esque rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was always clear that what I was looking at was CG.
It is not yet at a point where the computer is going to fool the viewer into thinking that what they are seeing is real.
It's come a hell of a long way but we're not yet at "perfected.
" Not by a long shot.
When you say that, what needs to be done for it to seem "real" for you?
I ask because we all know how fast technology is improving, the CGI in a decade old movie will most likely seem "obvious" compared to a more recent movie, like Avatar say.
If its not ready now, then it will be ready in 10 years, if not then....another 10 years....at some time, surely we will be able to "render in real life resolution" etc.
I'm 22 and expect this will easily happen within my lifetime.
I think part of the problem is we know how photoshop etc work, so we can almost deconstruct how a photo/movie was made.
I've starting podcasting, and I realise that after editing and producing my episodes, listening to the final result, I realise "ok, so in 2 seconds the first track will fade down..." and be able to visualise what GarageBand looked like at that time.
Its especially obvious to me what effects etc I used, since I did it, but my friend is an ex sound engineer who has worked with absolute A grade productions, Disney movies, famous rappers etc, and she could do a much better job.
I almost think that CGI "spoils" real miracles, I like butterflies, I like Michael Jackson, but during This Is It, I noticed one of the forest scenes, where a small girl held a (presumably real?
I wasnt paying attention) butterfly, and then magically a whole flurry of butterflies spiral about the screen.
It was instantly obvious it was just a computer effect, there were no real butterflies.
Yet, butterflies would move like that in real life!
I think the effect was rather obvious, but done better, it could honestly be identical to real life butterfly movements.
I think about Video Game graphics, I remember when PS1 "looked awesome", I remember when PS2 "looked awesome", how PS3 "looks awesome"....
 
Surely in time, and with skilled artists, CGI will be absolutely, positively "better" than real actors, I think its a "Moore's law"-esque rule.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30823956</id>
	<title>Looker</title>
	<author>psych0fred</author>
	<datestamp>1263893040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just track down the movie Looker, directed by Michael Crichton and starring Albert Finney. In it someone is killing supermodels because they've been digitized and the real people are no longer needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just track down the movie Looker , directed by Michael Crichton and starring Albert Finney .
In it someone is killing supermodels because they 've been digitized and the real people are no longer needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just track down the movie Looker, directed by Michael Crichton and starring Albert Finney.
In it someone is killing supermodels because they've been digitized and the real people are no longer needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806136</id>
	<title>Re:Doing to movies what Microsoft did to Programmi</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263814800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, what you describe may be the next killer app. From what I know, there is no such application in the market, but it seems people would be wildly interested in it, judging from the amount of machinima videos floating around the web...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what you describe may be the next killer app .
From what I know , there is no such application in the market , but it seems people would be wildly interested in it , judging from the amount of machinima videos floating around the web.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what you describe may be the next killer app.
From what I know, there is no such application in the market, but it seems people would be wildly interested in it, judging from the amount of machinima videos floating around the web...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800290</id>
	<title>Flawed assumption: We actually want this</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263759840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I really don't go looking for the next $ACTOR movie.  Ever.  Many actors, I've found, have a limited number of characters they can portray, so if you've seen them in a couple movies, you've seen them period.  It's annoying to go to see a story told and you see $ACTOR instead of $CHARACTER.  That's something I liked about Avatar.  With two exceptions, I didn't really recognize actors, so I could get more involved in the characters.</p><p>So, thank you, but no, I don't want a new movie starring Young Sean Connery.  I want a new movie starring someone I've never heard of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I really do n't go looking for the next $ ACTOR movie .
Ever. Many actors , I 've found , have a limited number of characters they can portray , so if you 've seen them in a couple movies , you 've seen them period .
It 's annoying to go to see a story told and you see $ ACTOR instead of $ CHARACTER .
That 's something I liked about Avatar .
With two exceptions , I did n't really recognize actors , so I could get more involved in the characters.So , thank you , but no , I do n't want a new movie starring Young Sean Connery .
I want a new movie starring someone I 've never heard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I really don't go looking for the next $ACTOR movie.
Ever.  Many actors, I've found, have a limited number of characters they can portray, so if you've seen them in a couple movies, you've seen them period.
It's annoying to go to see a story told and you see $ACTOR instead of $CHARACTER.
That's something I liked about Avatar.
With two exceptions, I didn't really recognize actors, so I could get more involved in the characters.So, thank you, but no, I don't want a new movie starring Young Sean Connery.
I want a new movie starring someone I've never heard of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798902</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>yacc143</author>
	<datestamp>1263748560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, if you think about this, all the movie was rendered. Also the scenes where only humans are running around.</p><p>So yes, I realized this already in theatre, it's a quantum leap. The plot was just average, but the rendering was brilliant.<br>The first movie computer rendered movie that is 98\% looking like a real-world movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you think about this , all the movie was rendered .
Also the scenes where only humans are running around.So yes , I realized this already in theatre , it 's a quantum leap .
The plot was just average , but the rendering was brilliant.The first movie computer rendered movie that is 98 \ % looking like a real-world movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you think about this, all the movie was rendered.
Also the scenes where only humans are running around.So yes, I realized this already in theatre, it's a quantum leap.
The plot was just average, but the rendering was brilliant.The first movie computer rendered movie that is 98\% looking like a real-world movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804048</id>
	<title>CGI will not be "perfected" anytime soon.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember a few years ago, when Autotune first came out? There were articles hailing it as a sort of second coming for music that would make even mediocre vocalists "perfect". Flash forward a few years and the only people using Autotune are people playing around with it to make Youtube videos and a handful of hip-hop artists. It will be many, many more years (if ever) that a truly "perfect" CGI film is released - just like it will be a long time before software that truly makes a singer "perfect" will show up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember a few years ago , when Autotune first came out ?
There were articles hailing it as a sort of second coming for music that would make even mediocre vocalists " perfect " .
Flash forward a few years and the only people using Autotune are people playing around with it to make Youtube videos and a handful of hip-hop artists .
It will be many , many more years ( if ever ) that a truly " perfect " CGI film is released - just like it will be a long time before software that truly makes a singer " perfect " will show up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember a few years ago, when Autotune first came out?
There were articles hailing it as a sort of second coming for music that would make even mediocre vocalists "perfect".
Flash forward a few years and the only people using Autotune are people playing around with it to make Youtube videos and a handful of hip-hop artists.
It will be many, many more years (if ever) that a truly "perfect" CGI film is released - just like it will be a long time before software that truly makes a singer "perfect" will show up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798594</id>
	<title>Re:twentysomething teens</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1263745860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying.</p></div><p>Just skinning the actors may not be enough. If they need a teenage character, they should use a teenager (not necessarily a professional actor teenager, although it might help). Gawkiness is hard to get right in acting after you've lost it naturally.<br>
One of the movies with excellent teenage performances was Batoru Rowaiaru / Battle Royale, which concerned a whole class of teenagers placed in an extremely difficult situation. The actors were mostly kids, 14-17 years old during production, and I doubt if older actors could have done better. For many of them it was a first or second or only acting appearance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/fullcredits#cast).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying.Just skinning the actors may not be enough .
If they need a teenage character , they should use a teenager ( not necessarily a professional actor teenager , although it might help ) .
Gawkiness is hard to get right in acting after you 've lost it naturally .
One of the movies with excellent teenage performances was Batoru Rowaiaru / Battle Royale , which concerned a whole class of teenagers placed in an extremely difficult situation .
The actors were mostly kids , 14-17 years old during production , and I doubt if older actors could have done better .
For many of them it was a first or second or only acting appearance ( http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/fullcredits # cast ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they use this to make all those twentysomething actors actually look like the teenagers they are supposed to be portraying.Just skinning the actors may not be enough.
If they need a teenage character, they should use a teenager (not necessarily a professional actor teenager, although it might help).
Gawkiness is hard to get right in acting after you've lost it naturally.
One of the movies with excellent teenage performances was Batoru Rowaiaru / Battle Royale, which concerned a whole class of teenagers placed in an extremely difficult situation.
The actors were mostly kids, 14-17 years old during production, and I doubt if older actors could have done better.
For many of them it was a first or second or only acting appearance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/fullcredits#cast).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804592</id>
	<title>Save Star Trek?</title>
	<author>istewart</author>
	<datestamp>1263750300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the tech is used on a character who's supposed to look slightly inhuman? I'm thinking chiefly of Data from Star Trek, whom Brent Spiner has said he will never play again since an immortal android doesn't age. But if you could reset his looks to 1987, while also setting the character further apart from the normal humans surrounding him, I think that would be an enhancement rather than a drawback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the tech is used on a character who 's supposed to look slightly inhuman ?
I 'm thinking chiefly of Data from Star Trek , whom Brent Spiner has said he will never play again since an immortal android does n't age .
But if you could reset his looks to 1987 , while also setting the character further apart from the normal humans surrounding him , I think that would be an enhancement rather than a drawback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the tech is used on a character who's supposed to look slightly inhuman?
I'm thinking chiefly of Data from Star Trek, whom Brent Spiner has said he will never play again since an immortal android doesn't age.
But if you could reset his looks to 1987, while also setting the character further apart from the normal humans surrounding him, I think that would be an enhancement rather than a drawback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802582</id>
	<title>Technology vs quality</title>
	<author>Raul Acevedo</author>
	<datestamp>1263732600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw Avatar yesterday, and thought it was a terrible movie.  I had a deja vu to watching Titanic: within 15 minutes, the entire plot of the movie was completely obvious.  The entire movie was recycled and there was nothing original or interesting about it.
<br> <br>
I say this because technology doesn't make up for a terrible movie.  You can spend millions of dollars in CG tech, make actors seem young or revive them from the dead, but if you don't have a good story, and the skill to make it real as a director, no amount of technology will cover that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Avatar yesterday , and thought it was a terrible movie .
I had a deja vu to watching Titanic : within 15 minutes , the entire plot of the movie was completely obvious .
The entire movie was recycled and there was nothing original or interesting about it .
I say this because technology does n't make up for a terrible movie .
You can spend millions of dollars in CG tech , make actors seem young or revive them from the dead , but if you do n't have a good story , and the skill to make it real as a director , no amount of technology will cover that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Avatar yesterday, and thought it was a terrible movie.
I had a deja vu to watching Titanic: within 15 minutes, the entire plot of the movie was completely obvious.
The entire movie was recycled and there was nothing original or interesting about it.
I say this because technology doesn't make up for a terrible movie.
You can spend millions of dollars in CG tech, make actors seem young or revive them from the dead, but if you don't have a good story, and the skill to make it real as a director, no amount of technology will cover that up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002</id>
	<title>Oh my dream will come true!</title>
	<author>nanospook</author>
	<datestamp>1263740820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bring back Ronald Reagan!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring back Ronald Reagan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring back Ronald Reagan!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798164</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1263742380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like in terminator salvation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like in terminator salvation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like in terminator salvation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799166</id>
	<title>Feathers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263750720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Submitted an Ask Slashdot question, posted to our blog and a few others too.

Where are the Na'vi finding feathers for their clothes and arrows?  They are the only native creatures to Pandora that grow any sort of hair and I didn't see any feathered critters anyplace.  Did I just miss it or is it accounted for elsewhere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Submitted an Ask Slashdot question , posted to our blog and a few others too .
Where are the Na'vi finding feathers for their clothes and arrows ?
They are the only native creatures to Pandora that grow any sort of hair and I did n't see any feathered critters anyplace .
Did I just miss it or is it accounted for elsewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submitted an Ask Slashdot question, posted to our blog and a few others too.
Where are the Na'vi finding feathers for their clothes and arrows?
They are the only native creatures to Pandora that grow any sort of hair and I didn't see any feathered critters anyplace.
Did I just miss it or is it accounted for elsewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798208</id>
	<title>Copyright</title>
	<author>ramjambam</author>
	<datestamp>1263742920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much would actors get paid for the use of their 'trade-marked' names? When does a name become common property? I'm imagining a slew of Marlene Dietrich films, because nobody bothered to keep the copyright going...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would actors get paid for the use of their 'trade-marked ' names ?
When does a name become common property ?
I 'm imagining a slew of Marlene Dietrich films , because nobody bothered to keep the copyright going.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would actors get paid for the use of their 'trade-marked' names?
When does a name become common property?
I'm imagining a slew of Marlene Dietrich films, because nobody bothered to keep the copyright going...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798150</id>
	<title>Re:"How cool would that be?"</title>
	<author>TBoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263742260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how good the actor acting the actor is acting. Otherwise it would be like a tone-deaf Elvis-clone in a wheelchair...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how good the actor acting the actor is acting .
Otherwise it would be like a tone-deaf Elvis-clone in a wheelchair.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how good the actor acting the actor is acting.
Otherwise it would be like a tone-deaf Elvis-clone in a wheelchair...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800470</id>
	<title>Re:All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1263761520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation. This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do?"</p><p>He used the tech to create a movie that made a titanic amount of money.  Even Hollywood accountants might have to acknowledge that this movie made a profit (or they will have to put in some extra hours at work).  In any case, Cameron proved you can make money with the technology.  And making money is the only thing that matters to the beancounters in Hollywood.</p><p>So, yes, Cameron has essentially single handedly invented, revolutionized and prefected 3D animation.  It's a proven technology in Hollywood-someone without the clout of Cameron can now use it.  If the movie had crashed and burned, nobody would have touched it with a ten foot pole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who single handedly invented , revolutionized and perfected 3D animation .
This is the message I 'm getting , what did he really do ?
" He used the tech to create a movie that made a titanic amount of money .
Even Hollywood accountants might have to acknowledge that this movie made a profit ( or they will have to put in some extra hours at work ) .
In any case , Cameron proved you can make money with the technology .
And making money is the only thing that matters to the beancounters in Hollywood.So , yes , Cameron has essentially single handedly invented , revolutionized and prefected 3D animation .
It 's a proven technology in Hollywood-someone without the clout of Cameron can now use it .
If the movie had crashed and burned , nobody would have touched it with a ten foot pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation.
This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do?
"He used the tech to create a movie that made a titanic amount of money.
Even Hollywood accountants might have to acknowledge that this movie made a profit (or they will have to put in some extra hours at work).
In any case, Cameron proved you can make money with the technology.
And making money is the only thing that matters to the beancounters in Hollywood.So, yes, Cameron has essentially single handedly invented, revolutionized and prefected 3D animation.
It's a proven technology in Hollywood-someone without the clout of Cameron can now use it.
If the movie had crashed and burned, nobody would have touched it with a ten foot pole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798764</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1263747120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me, Avatar bridged the uncanny valley.  Ignore the Alien scenes entirely; there were many humans in the picture too.  And they looked incredibly good.  Real enough to appear next to live-filmed humans, probably not, but not "creepy" either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , Avatar bridged the uncanny valley .
Ignore the Alien scenes entirely ; there were many humans in the picture too .
And they looked incredibly good .
Real enough to appear next to live-filmed humans , probably not , but not " creepy " either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, Avatar bridged the uncanny valley.
Ignore the Alien scenes entirely; there were many humans in the picture too.
And they looked incredibly good.
Real enough to appear next to live-filmed humans, probably not, but not "creepy" either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799004</id>
	<title>Virtual Actors are Not Human Actors!</title>
	<author>Anubis333</author>
	<datestamp>1263749280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The studios are pushing hard on this. In order to get actors on the performance capture bandwagon, they have to convince the Academy to give an Oscar to a person for a virtual performance.</p><p>You see this in every frickin' video of Avatar where Cameron or the actors talk about the production. It's almost akin to a Bush-era media blitz how they parrot the same sentences again and again.. "This is not an animation --it was me!"</p><p>We cannot give an Oscar for best performance to a virtual actor.</p><p>This is a slippery slope. One of the entire reasons to use performance capture is to leverage the fact that it's all data. In a split second you can take the smile from take 6 and blend it into the nice squinting eyes from take 8.</p><p>Even the mere 'mapping' of a performance onto a character of different proportions alters it.</p><p>We shall see if their millions in marketing pay off, but I hope that there is no best actor or supporting nominee that didn't actually show up in a single frame of a film.</p><p>And I have worked on performance capture films.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The studios are pushing hard on this .
In order to get actors on the performance capture bandwagon , they have to convince the Academy to give an Oscar to a person for a virtual performance.You see this in every frickin ' video of Avatar where Cameron or the actors talk about the production .
It 's almost akin to a Bush-era media blitz how they parrot the same sentences again and again.. " This is not an animation --it was me !
" We can not give an Oscar for best performance to a virtual actor.This is a slippery slope .
One of the entire reasons to use performance capture is to leverage the fact that it 's all data .
In a split second you can take the smile from take 6 and blend it into the nice squinting eyes from take 8.Even the mere 'mapping ' of a performance onto a character of different proportions alters it.We shall see if their millions in marketing pay off , but I hope that there is no best actor or supporting nominee that did n't actually show up in a single frame of a film.And I have worked on performance capture films .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The studios are pushing hard on this.
In order to get actors on the performance capture bandwagon, they have to convince the Academy to give an Oscar to a person for a virtual performance.You see this in every frickin' video of Avatar where Cameron or the actors talk about the production.
It's almost akin to a Bush-era media blitz how they parrot the same sentences again and again.. "This is not an animation --it was me!
"We cannot give an Oscar for best performance to a virtual actor.This is a slippery slope.
One of the entire reasons to use performance capture is to leverage the fact that it's all data.
In a split second you can take the smile from take 6 and blend it into the nice squinting eyes from take 8.Even the mere 'mapping' of a performance onto a character of different proportions alters it.We shall see if their millions in marketing pay off, but I hope that there is no best actor or supporting nominee that didn't actually show up in a single frame of a film.And I have worked on performance capture films.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798750</id>
	<title>Re:Schwarzenegger inTerminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263747060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also lets <a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=john+wayne+coors+light#" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">John Wayne</a> [google.com] pitch Coors Light and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs\_T\_cEoX6I" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">VW</a> [youtube.com] sing in the rain.</p><p>This isn't some amazing breakthrough as Cameron makes it sound, it's just an evolution of technology that's existed for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also lets John Wayne [ google.com ] pitch Coors Light and VW [ youtube.com ] sing in the rain.This is n't some amazing breakthrough as Cameron makes it sound , it 's just an evolution of technology that 's existed for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also lets John Wayne [google.com] pitch Coors Light and VW [youtube.com] sing in the rain.This isn't some amazing breakthrough as Cameron makes it sound, it's just an evolution of technology that's existed for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797928</id>
	<title>I'd be happy with them....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>removing the tattoos from Megan Fox. It's a shame that that classic beauty had to get those tattoos and look like common white trailer trash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>removing the tattoos from Megan Fox .
It 's a shame that that classic beauty had to get those tattoos and look like common white trailer trash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>removing the tattoos from Megan Fox.
It's a shame that that classic beauty had to get those tattoos and look like common white trailer trash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803144</id>
	<title>Ethics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263737040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere</p></div><p>Yeah, and we all know that Hollywood is known for its ethics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhereYeah , and we all know that Hollywood is known for its ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhereYeah, and we all know that Hollywood is known for its ethics.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798704</id>
	<title>Humphrey Bogart? I don't think so</title>
	<author>hcdejong</author>
	<datestamp>1263746640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This technology may be usable to make actors look younger. But to bring back Humphrey Bogart, you need someone who acts and sounds just like HB. Just using this technology to apply HB's image over a random actor isn't going to cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This technology may be usable to make actors look younger .
But to bring back Humphrey Bogart , you need someone who acts and sounds just like HB .
Just using this technology to apply HB 's image over a random actor is n't going to cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This technology may be usable to make actors look younger.
But to bring back Humphrey Bogart, you need someone who acts and sounds just like HB.
Just using this technology to apply HB's image over a random actor isn't going to cut it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804238</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1263747060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?</p></div><p>There's so many things wrong with this statement. I'll start with it being a British part of the United States canon.

Then I'll mention that MacBeth is Scottish, and a part of the monarchy as well. Not a lot of 'black guys' or 'asian guys' were known to be medieval Scottish monarchs.

You would be hard pressed to find a worse example - unless maybe you wanted to cast Uncle Tom as a genial elderly white guy from Kentucky.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ? There 's so many things wrong with this statement .
I 'll start with it being a British part of the United States canon .
Then I 'll mention that MacBeth is Scottish , and a part of the monarchy as well .
Not a lot of 'black guys ' or 'asian guys ' were known to be medieval Scottish monarchs .
You would be hard pressed to find a worse example - unless maybe you wanted to cast Uncle Tom as a genial elderly white guy from Kentucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?There's so many things wrong with this statement.
I'll start with it being a British part of the United States canon.
Then I'll mention that MacBeth is Scottish, and a part of the monarchy as well.
Not a lot of 'black guys' or 'asian guys' were known to be medieval Scottish monarchs.
You would be hard pressed to find a worse example - unless maybe you wanted to cast Uncle Tom as a genial elderly white guy from Kentucky.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801962</id>
	<title>Re:Doing to movies what Microsoft did to Programmi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263727860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This pretty much parallels what I've been thinking.  It'll be a while before a guy with a home PC can make a full-length photorealistic CGI movie with simulated live humans, but when it's possible, Hollywood will be pretty much obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This pretty much parallels what I 've been thinking .
It 'll be a while before a guy with a home PC can make a full-length photorealistic CGI movie with simulated live humans , but when it 's possible , Hollywood will be pretty much obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This pretty much parallels what I've been thinking.
It'll be a while before a guy with a home PC can make a full-length photorealistic CGI movie with simulated live humans, but when it's possible, Hollywood will be pretty much obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798170</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>xcut</author>
	<datestamp>1263742440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anybody be interested in seeing Sean Connery act in James Bond the same way he did back then? Why would you not just watch the old movie? Does anybody really give a damn if the explosions look slightly more up to date?

If you want to use fancy toys, use them to innovate, and find the icons of the next generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anybody be interested in seeing Sean Connery act in James Bond the same way he did back then ?
Why would you not just watch the old movie ?
Does anybody really give a damn if the explosions look slightly more up to date ?
If you want to use fancy toys , use them to innovate , and find the icons of the next generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anybody be interested in seeing Sean Connery act in James Bond the same way he did back then?
Why would you not just watch the old movie?
Does anybody really give a damn if the explosions look slightly more up to date?
If you want to use fancy toys, use them to innovate, and find the icons of the next generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800356</id>
	<title>Re:"ethical line" schmethical line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about unethical, you fuck. You just made me imagine Carrot Top's AVATAR. Damn you to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about unethical , you fuck .
You just made me imagine Carrot Top 's AVATAR .
Damn you to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about unethical, you fuck.
You just made me imagine Carrot Top's AVATAR.
Damn you to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798198</id>
	<title>Good actors</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1263742800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now they can replace all the pretty people with people that can actually act without affecting the "look" of the movie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now they can replace all the pretty people with people that can actually act without affecting the " look " of the movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now they can replace all the pretty people with people that can actually act without affecting the "look" of the movie?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304</id>
	<title>Doing to movies what Microsoft did to Programming.</title>
	<author>malkavian</author>
	<datestamp>1263743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be the start of the "Quick button click movie maker"?  Something akin to a rather more advanced version of the game "The Movies", where you can set a scene from a variety of landscapes (similar to Vue D'Esprit, or some other landscape renderer), add actors (taken from stock modifiable ones, as per Poser, or similar), add in movements and pathing.. Voices taken from a modifiable bank..  Add in stock effects and so on.. And have the bulk of it in a nice GUI development tool..<br>I get the suspicion that it'll draw a lot of derision from the real movie makers, but as something that'll be the Visual Basic of the movie world..  Hmm..  This could dispense with a lot of the actors in low prices movies, and if it grows, even in big budget ones..  Though the quality will likely still be missing that 'human touch'..  Still in mass market, like with VB, mostly the only people who'll care will be the ones that really understand the skill and craftmanship behind it.. Your average guy on the street wouldn't care two hoots..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be the start of the " Quick button click movie maker " ?
Something akin to a rather more advanced version of the game " The Movies " , where you can set a scene from a variety of landscapes ( similar to Vue D'Esprit , or some other landscape renderer ) , add actors ( taken from stock modifiable ones , as per Poser , or similar ) , add in movements and pathing.. Voices taken from a modifiable bank.. Add in stock effects and so on.. And have the bulk of it in a nice GUI development tool..I get the suspicion that it 'll draw a lot of derision from the real movie makers , but as something that 'll be the Visual Basic of the movie world.. Hmm.. This could dispense with a lot of the actors in low prices movies , and if it grows , even in big budget ones.. Though the quality will likely still be missing that 'human touch'.. Still in mass market , like with VB , mostly the only people who 'll care will be the ones that really understand the skill and craftmanship behind it.. Your average guy on the street would n't care two hoots. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be the start of the "Quick button click movie maker"?
Something akin to a rather more advanced version of the game "The Movies", where you can set a scene from a variety of landscapes (similar to Vue D'Esprit, or some other landscape renderer), add actors (taken from stock modifiable ones, as per Poser, or similar), add in movements and pathing.. Voices taken from a modifiable bank..  Add in stock effects and so on.. And have the bulk of it in a nice GUI development tool..I get the suspicion that it'll draw a lot of derision from the real movie makers, but as something that'll be the Visual Basic of the movie world..  Hmm..  This could dispense with a lot of the actors in low prices movies, and if it grows, even in big budget ones..  Though the quality will likely still be missing that 'human touch'..  Still in mass market, like with VB, mostly the only people who'll care will be the ones that really understand the skill and craftmanship behind it.. Your average guy on the street wouldn't care two hoots..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799206</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anon due to the sensitive nature of the subject.</p><p>Extending this thought in the inevitable way, what about movies that appear to be child porn, where the "underage" actors (who appear to be very young, maybe even prepubescent) are played in real life by 40 and 50 year olds?  Where it's clear that "all the actors used in the making of the film" are well over the legal age, and the appropriate certificates have been filed.</p><p>There are all sorts of moral, legal, and ethical lines to be drawn here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anon due to the sensitive nature of the subject.Extending this thought in the inevitable way , what about movies that appear to be child porn , where the " underage " actors ( who appear to be very young , maybe even prepubescent ) are played in real life by 40 and 50 year olds ?
Where it 's clear that " all the actors used in the making of the film " are well over the legal age , and the appropriate certificates have been filed.There are all sorts of moral , legal , and ethical lines to be drawn here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anon due to the sensitive nature of the subject.Extending this thought in the inevitable way, what about movies that appear to be child porn, where the "underage" actors (who appear to be very young, maybe even prepubescent) are played in real life by 40 and 50 year olds?
Where it's clear that "all the actors used in the making of the film" are well over the legal age, and the appropriate certificates have been filed.There are all sorts of moral, legal, and ethical lines to be drawn here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798126</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1263742020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know for sure but I thought some of the "real" scenes were also CGIed - specifically, the scenes where the jarhead records his log at the various stations - to me they looked completely artificial - and the uncanny valley effect was there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know for sure but I thought some of the " real " scenes were also CGIed - specifically , the scenes where the jarhead records his log at the various stations - to me they looked completely artificial - and the uncanny valley effect was there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know for sure but I thought some of the "real" scenes were also CGIed - specifically, the scenes where the jarhead records his log at the various stations - to me they looked completely artificial - and the uncanny valley effect was there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1263746760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases). They are not hired for their face or body as much as their acting ability. There are a lot of people out there who have great faces and bodies but do not end up as superstar actors. If the goal in casting was to have a perfect-looking human, many of our top actors today would not be where they are.</p><p>The whole point of avatar was that there were good human actors driving the CG effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of human actors are that they 're good at their job - acting ( and marketing themselves , in some cases ) .
They are not hired for their face or body as much as their acting ability .
There are a lot of people out there who have great faces and bodies but do not end up as superstar actors .
If the goal in casting was to have a perfect-looking human , many of our top actors today would not be where they are.The whole point of avatar was that there were good human actors driving the CG effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases).
They are not hired for their face or body as much as their acting ability.
There are a lot of people out there who have great faces and bodies but do not end up as superstar actors.
If the goal in casting was to have a perfect-looking human, many of our top actors today would not be where they are.The whole point of avatar was that there were good human actors driving the CG effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798298</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1263743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but that's illegal. Any company doing this (in the first world, obviously) be forcibly closed down. I don't think ethics figure into the decisions to not doing this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no moneyYes , but that 's illegal .
Any company doing this ( in the first world , obviously ) be forcibly closed down .
I do n't think ethics figure into the decisions to not doing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no moneyYes, but that's illegal.
Any company doing this (in the first world, obviously) be forcibly closed down.
I don't think ethics figure into the decisions to not doing this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800180</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263758700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder why we`re not getting films similar to, say, terminator in breakthrough equivalent every two years if even mediocre director and terrible writer Cameron was able to make one</p><p>seriously, you can produce a metric fuckton of NERDRAGE and still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skills</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder why we ` re not getting films similar to , say , terminator in breakthrough equivalent every two years if even mediocre director and terrible writer Cameron was able to make oneseriously , you can produce a metric fuckton of NERDRAGE and still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skills</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder why we`re not getting films similar to, say, terminator in breakthrough equivalent every two years if even mediocre director and terrible writer Cameron was able to make oneseriously, you can produce a metric fuckton of NERDRAGE and still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skills</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801662</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263726000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean Japanese alternative history movies? The US aided the Chinese in WW2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean Japanese alternative history movies ?
The US aided the Chinese in WW2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean Japanese alternative history movies?
The US aided the Chinese in WW2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799684</id>
	<title>digital Bowfinger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hilarity is about to ensue in the hollywood.</p><p>year 2020, Rocky 10 is released with Balboa fighting the Terminator, and winning!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hilarity is about to ensue in the hollywood.year 2020 , Rocky 10 is released with Balboa fighting the Terminator , and winning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hilarity is about to ensue in the hollywood.year 2020, Rocky 10 is released with Balboa fighting the Terminator, and winning!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802478</id>
	<title>Re:Mmmh</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263731520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good post. I especially like the idea of kids played by adults. I can't wait for the day! But I don't understand why everyone wants this as a tool to reanimate some people from the past. I mean, it's one application, but not the most interesting one in my opinion. </p><p>

Your idea of just using good actors (who may not at all look the part of the characters they play) is much more interesting. But also, the director will just have much more control. If a scene is reduced to a sequence of face-point captures, aspects of different takes could be seamlessly melded into a single sequence, or the captured data could be manipulated directly (to briefly broaden the eyes at the utterance of a certain syllable, for example). Since computers will exist to give a rough render of the results in real time, directors could just play with the underlying data until the performances are perfect.</p><p>

For now, digital technology seems to remove a sense of depth from acting. But in the future, it could serve to create the opposite effect. I think that Cameron should produce a short demonstration film with the technology, maybe a conversation between JFK and MLK in the booth of a diner, something like that. Or how about a portion of a video lecture of Richard Feynman, using a cleaned-up version of the audio that was recorded in 1961?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good post .
I especially like the idea of kids played by adults .
I ca n't wait for the day !
But I do n't understand why everyone wants this as a tool to reanimate some people from the past .
I mean , it 's one application , but not the most interesting one in my opinion .
Your idea of just using good actors ( who may not at all look the part of the characters they play ) is much more interesting .
But also , the director will just have much more control .
If a scene is reduced to a sequence of face-point captures , aspects of different takes could be seamlessly melded into a single sequence , or the captured data could be manipulated directly ( to briefly broaden the eyes at the utterance of a certain syllable , for example ) .
Since computers will exist to give a rough render of the results in real time , directors could just play with the underlying data until the performances are perfect .
For now , digital technology seems to remove a sense of depth from acting .
But in the future , it could serve to create the opposite effect .
I think that Cameron should produce a short demonstration film with the technology , maybe a conversation between JFK and MLK in the booth of a diner , something like that .
Or how about a portion of a video lecture of Richard Feynman , using a cleaned-up version of the audio that was recorded in 1961 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good post.
I especially like the idea of kids played by adults.
I can't wait for the day!
But I don't understand why everyone wants this as a tool to reanimate some people from the past.
I mean, it's one application, but not the most interesting one in my opinion.
Your idea of just using good actors (who may not at all look the part of the characters they play) is much more interesting.
But also, the director will just have much more control.
If a scene is reduced to a sequence of face-point captures, aspects of different takes could be seamlessly melded into a single sequence, or the captured data could be manipulated directly (to briefly broaden the eyes at the utterance of a certain syllable, for example).
Since computers will exist to give a rough render of the results in real time, directors could just play with the underlying data until the performances are perfect.
For now, digital technology seems to remove a sense of depth from acting.
But in the future, it could serve to create the opposite effect.
I think that Cameron should produce a short demonstration film with the technology, maybe a conversation between JFK and MLK in the booth of a diner, something like that.
Or how about a portion of a video lecture of Richard Feynman, using a cleaned-up version of the audio that was recorded in 1961?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803440</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1263739680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every movie is an update of one of the Shakespeare plays.  They're practically axiomatic.  For instance: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;client=opera&amp;rls=en&amp;q=strange+brew+is+hamlet&amp;btnG=Search" title="google.com">this</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every movie is an update of one of the Shakespeare plays .
They 're practically axiomatic .
For instance : this [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every movie is an update of one of the Shakespeare plays.
They're practically axiomatic.
For instance: this [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819762</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1263919260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Porn movies with well known actors</i> <br> <br>
How about <i>personalized</i> celebrity porn, starring the customer?  The only problem is that they would still need a stand-in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn movies with well known actors How about personalized celebrity porn , starring the customer ?
The only problem is that they would still need a stand-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn movies with well known actors  
How about personalized celebrity porn, starring the customer?
The only problem is that they would still need a stand-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803646</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263741480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, despite all the hype it's just another way to do animation.  It's just a cheaper and better way to animate from motion capture than what was used in the 1978 "Lord of The Rings" film (Ralph Bakshi) and before.<br>Differences are plain with examples like "Aladdin" with a good cast and the spin offs without one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , despite all the hype it 's just another way to do animation .
It 's just a cheaper and better way to animate from motion capture than what was used in the 1978 " Lord of The Rings " film ( Ralph Bakshi ) and before.Differences are plain with examples like " Aladdin " with a good cast and the spin offs without one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, despite all the hype it's just another way to do animation.
It's just a cheaper and better way to animate from motion capture than what was used in the 1978 "Lord of The Rings" film (Ralph Bakshi) and before.Differences are plain with examples like "Aladdin" with a good cast and the spin offs without one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798498</id>
	<title>Re:Oh my dream will come true!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring back Ronald McDonald!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring back Ronald McDonald !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring back Ronald McDonald!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799978</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1263757200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I am doing 3d work (not at that level) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong, way to orange. Again, in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that, otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray.</i> <br> <br>Night has always been hardest.  Much of what was made until the 70s was filmed in broad daylight, then underexposed to look like night.  If you look and see the sharp shadows on the ground, they are obviously from the sun, not the moon or stars.  Much the same will happen with CGI.  The colors won't look right, so they change the shader to add an unrealistic color to get the desired effect.  It's been done since long before digital.  It will be done long after digital.  Directors want to show something reality won't let them, so they use effects.<br> <br>At least my least favorite effect wasn't visible.  I didn't ever see the watermarking.  I wondered if they would watermark it, since it's 3D.  Theoretically, someone could put one lens of the glasses over their camera and get half the movie clearly, right?  Or did I just miss it.  I don't ever try to look for it, but I end up seeing it over half the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am doing 3d work ( not at that level ) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong , way to orange .
Again , in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that , otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray .
Night has always been hardest .
Much of what was made until the 70s was filmed in broad daylight , then underexposed to look like night .
If you look and see the sharp shadows on the ground , they are obviously from the sun , not the moon or stars .
Much the same will happen with CGI .
The colors wo n't look right , so they change the shader to add an unrealistic color to get the desired effect .
It 's been done since long before digital .
It will be done long after digital .
Directors want to show something reality wo n't let them , so they use effects .
At least my least favorite effect was n't visible .
I did n't ever see the watermarking .
I wondered if they would watermark it , since it 's 3D .
Theoretically , someone could put one lens of the glasses over their camera and get half the movie clearly , right ?
Or did I just miss it .
I do n't ever try to look for it , but I end up seeing it over half the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am doing 3d work (not at that level) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong, way to orange.
Again, in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that, otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray.
Night has always been hardest.
Much of what was made until the 70s was filmed in broad daylight, then underexposed to look like night.
If you look and see the sharp shadows on the ground, they are obviously from the sun, not the moon or stars.
Much the same will happen with CGI.
The colors won't look right, so they change the shader to add an unrealistic color to get the desired effect.
It's been done since long before digital.
It will be done long after digital.
Directors want to show something reality won't let them, so they use effects.
At least my least favorite effect wasn't visible.
I didn't ever see the watermarking.
I wondered if they would watermark it, since it's 3D.
Theoretically, someone could put one lens of the glasses over their camera and get half the movie clearly, right?
Or did I just miss it.
I don't ever try to look for it, but I end up seeing it over half the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797888</id>
	<title>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263739920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802564</id>
	<title>so we do away with need of 20 million$ actors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263732420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then films should cost 50 cents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then films should cost 50 cents .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then films should cost 50 cents .....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804808</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263752520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar wasn't a "great movie". It was just a bunch of "great special effects" with a pretty lame ass psuedo-political message, and a rediculous price tag.</p><p>How many times do you hear someone say that "Independence Day" is a classic? How about your average Roland Emerich "End of the World" CGI wankfest?</p><p>A great movie? A great movie doesn't need ANY special effects. A great movie can't be created in a lab by groups of pin-headed "analysts" and computer models. Just like the rest of the media, the movie world has completely lost touch with reality. What does George Lucas get criticizes endlessly for? Substituting geeky special effects tricks and technology for any degree of organic greatness. He effectively takes an epic classic series, and uses advances in technology to destroy it and strip it of all of it's charm.</p><p>A good movie is made by artists, who put their hearts and souls into their work. I would not care to see some stupid blending of Bogart and Eastwood, because it wouldn't be a genuine expression of their artistic genius.</p><p>Gee. I wonder why Hollywood is dying. I'm sorry but no amount of 3D wankery, in chair "knob massagers", slick CGI acting, or anything of that nature isn't going to do it. Once the novelty is worn off, the lunatics in Hollywood will again be wondering why they're losing so much cashflow. Funny how I find myself driven more and more toward indie and sub-label releases.</p><p>This whole "transhumanist" crock is an idiotic concept. Ooo ahhh. Instead of figuring out how to give people erections at 100 years old, spy on people, and wreck movies, why don't the developers of such technology use it for... I don't know... SOMETHING GOOD?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar was n't a " great movie " .
It was just a bunch of " great special effects " with a pretty lame ass psuedo-political message , and a rediculous price tag.How many times do you hear someone say that " Independence Day " is a classic ?
How about your average Roland Emerich " End of the World " CGI wankfest ? A great movie ?
A great movie does n't need ANY special effects .
A great movie ca n't be created in a lab by groups of pin-headed " analysts " and computer models .
Just like the rest of the media , the movie world has completely lost touch with reality .
What does George Lucas get criticizes endlessly for ?
Substituting geeky special effects tricks and technology for any degree of organic greatness .
He effectively takes an epic classic series , and uses advances in technology to destroy it and strip it of all of it 's charm.A good movie is made by artists , who put their hearts and souls into their work .
I would not care to see some stupid blending of Bogart and Eastwood , because it would n't be a genuine expression of their artistic genius.Gee .
I wonder why Hollywood is dying .
I 'm sorry but no amount of 3D wankery , in chair " knob massagers " , slick CGI acting , or anything of that nature is n't going to do it .
Once the novelty is worn off , the lunatics in Hollywood will again be wondering why they 're losing so much cashflow .
Funny how I find myself driven more and more toward indie and sub-label releases.This whole " transhumanist " crock is an idiotic concept .
Ooo ahhh .
Instead of figuring out how to give people erections at 100 years old , spy on people , and wreck movies , why do n't the developers of such technology use it for... I do n't know... SOMETHING GOOD ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar wasn't a "great movie".
It was just a bunch of "great special effects" with a pretty lame ass psuedo-political message, and a rediculous price tag.How many times do you hear someone say that "Independence Day" is a classic?
How about your average Roland Emerich "End of the World" CGI wankfest?A great movie?
A great movie doesn't need ANY special effects.
A great movie can't be created in a lab by groups of pin-headed "analysts" and computer models.
Just like the rest of the media, the movie world has completely lost touch with reality.
What does George Lucas get criticizes endlessly for?
Substituting geeky special effects tricks and technology for any degree of organic greatness.
He effectively takes an epic classic series, and uses advances in technology to destroy it and strip it of all of it's charm.A good movie is made by artists, who put their hearts and souls into their work.
I would not care to see some stupid blending of Bogart and Eastwood, because it wouldn't be a genuine expression of their artistic genius.Gee.
I wonder why Hollywood is dying.
I'm sorry but no amount of 3D wankery, in chair "knob massagers", slick CGI acting, or anything of that nature isn't going to do it.
Once the novelty is worn off, the lunatics in Hollywood will again be wondering why they're losing so much cashflow.
Funny how I find myself driven more and more toward indie and sub-label releases.This whole "transhumanist" crock is an idiotic concept.
Ooo ahhh.
Instead of figuring out how to give people erections at 100 years old, spy on people, and wreck movies, why don't the developers of such technology use it for... I don't know... SOMETHING GOOD?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797956</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. It's one easy step to go to popular "celebrities" being "imaged" into a pr0n.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's one easy step to go to popular " celebrities " being " imaged " into a pr0n .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's one easy step to go to popular "celebrities" being "imaged" into a pr0n.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805030</id>
	<title>great!</title>
	<author>greywire</author>
	<datestamp>1263755340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that we have the ability to keep using old and even long dead actor's likenesses, all we need now is some kind of advanced technology for recycling the plots of old movies.  Then we wont have to come up anything new at all.</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we have the ability to keep using old and even long dead actor 's likenesses , all we need now is some kind of advanced technology for recycling the plots of old movies .
Then we wont have to come up anything new at all.Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we have the ability to keep using old and even long dead actor's likenesses, all we need now is some kind of advanced technology for recycling the plots of old movies.
Then we wont have to come up anything new at all.Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802244</id>
	<title>Re:"ethical line" schmethical line</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1263729960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely. The Extras are already on the chopping block - look at the armies in Lord of the Rings, only a few were actors I believe. Once the database of mocap data, skinning data etc is built up, they can be provided for a film without the necessary bother of finding and paying them etc.<br>Actors will be next, at first in niche shots - oh wait, that's been done too already - then in entire roles.<br>Eventually studios will rise and fall based on the film components databases they maintain and the software to support them.<br>Then the hacking of each other's data will begin and we have a new Neal Stephenson novel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
The Extras are already on the chopping block - look at the armies in Lord of the Rings , only a few were actors I believe .
Once the database of mocap data , skinning data etc is built up , they can be provided for a film without the necessary bother of finding and paying them etc.Actors will be next , at first in niche shots - oh wait , that 's been done too already - then in entire roles.Eventually studios will rise and fall based on the film components databases they maintain and the software to support them.Then the hacking of each other 's data will begin and we have a new Neal Stephenson novel : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
The Extras are already on the chopping block - look at the armies in Lord of the Rings, only a few were actors I believe.
Once the database of mocap data, skinning data etc is built up, they can be provided for a film without the necessary bother of finding and paying them etc.Actors will be next, at first in niche shots - oh wait, that's been done too already - then in entire roles.Eventually studios will rise and fall based on the film components databases they maintain and the software to support them.Then the hacking of each other's data will begin and we have a new Neal Stephenson novel :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800222</id>
	<title>Out with remakes, in with reruns!</title>
	<author>Vegan Pagan</author>
	<datestamp>1263759120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be so much simpler than trying to de-age actors would be Hollywood rurunning all their classic movies in theaters using the new DLP projectors in theaters to keep the distribution cost down.  The long tail works not just for new indies, it can also work for old classics.  A steady stream of reruns in theaters would make everybody from movie fans to studio execs question the need for remakes, and then Hollywood could spend more of its current money and talent on more original movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be so much simpler than trying to de-age actors would be Hollywood rurunning all their classic movies in theaters using the new DLP projectors in theaters to keep the distribution cost down .
The long tail works not just for new indies , it can also work for old classics .
A steady stream of reruns in theaters would make everybody from movie fans to studio execs question the need for remakes , and then Hollywood could spend more of its current money and talent on more original movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be so much simpler than trying to de-age actors would be Hollywood rurunning all their classic movies in theaters using the new DLP projectors in theaters to keep the distribution cost down.
The long tail works not just for new indies, it can also work for old classics.
A steady stream of reruns in theaters would make everybody from movie fans to studio execs question the need for remakes, and then Hollywood could spend more of its current money and talent on more original movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1263741420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What ethical line? It's all business, actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.</p><p>Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.<br>Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries, where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models.</p></div><p>The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations. Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.</p><p>In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ethical line ?
It 's all business , actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand , but you no longer need to hire filming locations , stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries , where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models.The fact that it 's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations .
Case in point : It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money , and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper , yet it would not be ethical.In this case , one can question whether the studios have the ( moral and legal ) right to the actors ' image beyond what they 've filmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ethical line?
It's all business, actors are very expensive and often behave like divas so removing the actors and replacing them with rendered models can increase the profit margins for the movie studios.Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries, where hundreds of poorly paid workers beaver away in a callcenter like environment constructing and animating digital models.The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations.
Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800052</id>
	<title>Cameron is going to be richer than Bill Gates</title>
	<author>Nyrath the nearly wi</author>
	<datestamp>1263757740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh lordy. Do you know how much aging actors and actresses pay to hide the ravages of old age? The face-lifts, hair dye, and all?
I have a feeling that they will pay top dollar to Cameron to use this technology to make them look young again on the big screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh lordy .
Do you know how much aging actors and actresses pay to hide the ravages of old age ?
The face-lifts , hair dye , and all ?
I have a feeling that they will pay top dollar to Cameron to use this technology to make them look young again on the big screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh lordy.
Do you know how much aging actors and actresses pay to hide the ravages of old age?
The face-lifts, hair dye, and all?
I have a feeling that they will pay top dollar to Cameron to use this technology to make them look young again on the big screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</id>
	<title>Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*SPOILER*</p><p>As mediocre as the movie was, I couldn't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800, looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film. Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.</p><p>But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young' Sean Connery? I don't think the tech is there yet. The uncanny valley is really hard to get out of. Sure a still shot can be rendered to look flawless, but as soon as they start talking it just feels terribly uncomfortable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* SPOILER * As mediocre as the movie was , I could n't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800 , looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film .
Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young ' Sean Connery ?
I do n't think the tech is there yet .
The uncanny valley is really hard to get out of .
Sure a still shot can be rendered to look flawless , but as soon as they start talking it just feels terribly uncomfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*SPOILER*As mediocre as the movie was, I couldn't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800, looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film.
Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young' Sean Connery?
I don't think the tech is there yet.
The uncanny valley is really hard to get out of.
Sure a still shot can be rendered to look flawless, but as soon as they start talking it just feels terribly uncomfortable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800834</id>
	<title>Re:Oh my dream will come true!</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1263720540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would really be cool would be that they could bring back Ronald Regan and actually make him a good actor. Although probably we'd be more entertained if they used the tech to bring back Bonzo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would really be cool would be that they could bring back Ronald Regan and actually make him a good actor .
Although probably we 'd be more entertained if they used the tech to bring back Bonzo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would really be cool would be that they could bring back Ronald Regan and actually make him a good actor.
Although probably we'd be more entertained if they used the tech to bring back Bonzo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804182</id>
	<title>Re:The end of prosthetic foreheads</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1263746700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Star Trek has the most homogeneous and boring alien design of any sci-fi. "Hey, is that an alien stumbling towards us?" "No, that's just a dude with grilled cheese stuck on his forehead."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek has the most homogeneous and boring alien design of any sci-fi .
" Hey , is that an alien stumbling towards us ?
" " No , that 's just a dude with grilled cheese stuck on his forehead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek has the most homogeneous and boring alien design of any sci-fi.
"Hey, is that an alien stumbling towards us?
" "No, that's just a dude with grilled cheese stuck on his forehead.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797976</id>
	<title>No Thanks</title>
	<author>Khith</author>
	<datestamp>1263740640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great!  I mean, just look at how wonderfully they de-aged Patrick Stewart for his brief role in Wolverine.  Oh, wait..</p><p>As cool as this is for creating aliens and other strange creatures, it does NOT work well.  Even if it ends up looking better in the future, this is NOT something that I would be looking forward to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great !
I mean , just look at how wonderfully they de-aged Patrick Stewart for his brief role in Wolverine .
Oh , wait..As cool as this is for creating aliens and other strange creatures , it does NOT work well .
Even if it ends up looking better in the future , this is NOT something that I would be looking forward to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great!
I mean, just look at how wonderfully they de-aged Patrick Stewart for his brief role in Wolverine.
Oh, wait..As cool as this is for creating aliens and other strange creatures, it does NOT work well.
Even if it ends up looking better in the future, this is NOT something that I would be looking forward to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797962</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</p><p>Eh. No.</p></div><p>Look at all the people that get upset when their favorite pop star is discovered to be lip syncing during a concert - making an otherwise terrible performance tolerable for the most part. Imagine the outrage when they find out that their favorite actor delivered lines in a studio while a "B" actor was on set performing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere. " Eh .
No.Look at all the people that get upset when their favorite pop star is discovered to be lip syncing during a concert - making an otherwise terrible performance tolerable for the most part .
Imagine the outrage when they find out that their favorite actor delivered lines in a studio while a " B " actor was on set performing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."Eh.
No.Look at all the people that get upset when their favorite pop star is discovered to be lip syncing during a concert - making an otherwise terrible performance tolerable for the most part.
Imagine the outrage when they find out that their favorite actor delivered lines in a studio while a "B" actor was on set performing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799360</id>
	<title>Tales from the Crypt brought Bogart back.</title>
	<author>taxman\_10m</author>
	<datestamp>1263752340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, Murderer (1995)<br><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0716912/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0716912/</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , Murderer ( 1995 ) http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0716912/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, Murderer (1995)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0716912/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30810100</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar's CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263840660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Pixar guys were focusing on developing the technology they made films like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2yYw83hzo</p><p>Nowadays they're focusing more on content and thank god for that. Let the tech be developed by engineers, that's what they are for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Pixar guys were focusing on developing the technology they made films like this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Tn2yYw83hzoNowadays they 're focusing more on content and thank god for that .
Let the tech be developed by engineers , that 's what they are for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Pixar guys were focusing on developing the technology they made films like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2yYw83hzoNowadays they're focusing more on content and thank god for that.
Let the tech be developed by engineers, that's what they are for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803598</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1263741120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct, but it just so happens that a pretty large number of actors and actresses also happen to be in the Very Attractive to Smoking Hot range....probably more true for women than it is for men.  There may be some exceptions, but I can't think of any films with young women in lead roles who are downright ugly.  I think audiences in general have a tendency to like/sympathize a character who is at least marginally attractive.</p><p>Perhaps this technology could be used in a way that would give otherwise talented actresses (awesome ability with speaking/perfect mannerisms) that don't have that Hollywood friendly face a chance to go in and make a career of what they do best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , but it just so happens that a pretty large number of actors and actresses also happen to be in the Very Attractive to Smoking Hot range....probably more true for women than it is for men .
There may be some exceptions , but I ca n't think of any films with young women in lead roles who are downright ugly .
I think audiences in general have a tendency to like/sympathize a character who is at least marginally attractive.Perhaps this technology could be used in a way that would give otherwise talented actresses ( awesome ability with speaking/perfect mannerisms ) that do n't have that Hollywood friendly face a chance to go in and make a career of what they do best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, but it just so happens that a pretty large number of actors and actresses also happen to be in the Very Attractive to Smoking Hot range....probably more true for women than it is for men.
There may be some exceptions, but I can't think of any films with young women in lead roles who are downright ugly.
I think audiences in general have a tendency to like/sympathize a character who is at least marginally attractive.Perhaps this technology could be used in a way that would give otherwise talented actresses (awesome ability with speaking/perfect mannerisms) that don't have that Hollywood friendly face a chance to go in and make a career of what they do best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799566</id>
	<title>Re: uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1263754020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have yet to see a believable CG human character.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you just have yet to see a CG human character who was unbelievable enough for you to notice.
</p><p>Come on, it's been two years already and you still think that Barack Obama is real.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see a believable CG human character.No , you just have yet to see a CG human character who was unbelievable enough for you to notice .
Come on , it 's been two years already and you still think that Barack Obama is real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see a believable CG human character.No, you just have yet to see a CG human character who was unbelievable enough for you to notice.
Come on, it's been two years already and you still think that Barack Obama is real.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798108</id>
	<title>We don't need no stinkin actors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few years from now all movies will be cartoons. Next will politicians, they're already puppets anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years from now all movies will be cartoons .
Next will politicians , they 're already puppets anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years from now all movies will be cartoons.
Next will politicians, they're already puppets anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800656</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1263719460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.</p></div><p>Actually, it wouldn't.  Slave labour is bad for an economy, because you have to feed and house your slaves (and you generally can't treat them badly, as they are expensive and difficult to replace), which is costly, and by allowing slavery the market for your product is smaller by the total number of slaves in the economy.  You don't have to bother invoking ethics: it's just a dumb idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point : It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money , and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper , yet it would not be ethical.Actually , it would n't .
Slave labour is bad for an economy , because you have to feed and house your slaves ( and you generally ca n't treat them badly , as they are expensive and difficult to replace ) , which is costly , and by allowing slavery the market for your product is smaller by the total number of slaves in the economy .
You do n't have to bother invoking ethics : it 's just a dumb idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.Actually, it wouldn't.
Slave labour is bad for an economy, because you have to feed and house your slaves (and you generally can't treat them badly, as they are expensive and difficult to replace), which is costly, and by allowing slavery the market for your product is smaller by the total number of slaves in the economy.
You don't have to bother invoking ethics: it's just a dumb idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802206</id>
	<title>Re:Perfected</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263729660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you mean in the future, films will make us think that 9' tall anatomically impossible blue aliens are <i>real</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you mean in the future , films will make us think that 9 ' tall anatomically impossible blue aliens are real ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you mean in the future, films will make us think that 9' tall anatomically impossible blue aliens are real?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798580</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1263745740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>James Cameron connected the funding to the people who assembled a team of programmers. That's an important step. All sorts of projects sit around there and just don't get done because someone doesn't have six-figure salaries handy to pay the programmers.
<p>
Jay Gould didn't actually physically build any railways, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James Cameron connected the funding to the people who assembled a team of programmers .
That 's an important step .
All sorts of projects sit around there and just do n't get done because someone does n't have six-figure salaries handy to pay the programmers .
Jay Gould did n't actually physically build any railways , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Cameron connected the funding to the people who assembled a team of programmers.
That's an important step.
All sorts of projects sit around there and just don't get done because someone doesn't have six-figure salaries handy to pay the programmers.
Jay Gould didn't actually physically build any railways, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798456</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1263744840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actors are pretty much made by the movie companies, in future you will see the movie companies creating virtual actors (ie artificially created characters) that get reused in multiple movies...</p><p>This already happens, but only with cartoon characters because the level of realism hasn't been there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actors are pretty much made by the movie companies , in future you will see the movie companies creating virtual actors ( ie artificially created characters ) that get reused in multiple movies...This already happens , but only with cartoon characters because the level of realism has n't been there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actors are pretty much made by the movie companies, in future you will see the movie companies creating virtual actors (ie artificially created characters) that get reused in multiple movies...This already happens, but only with cartoon characters because the level of realism hasn't been there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800572</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1263719040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch the 2006 Chinese film "The Banquet".... about halfway through, it dawned on me that it was Hamlet set in the Forbidden City.</p><p>And there's been many many productions setting ethnic actors in Shakespearean roles. Just because you haven't seen it just means you need to get out more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch the 2006 Chinese film " The Banquet " .... about halfway through , it dawned on me that it was Hamlet set in the Forbidden City.And there 's been many many productions setting ethnic actors in Shakespearean roles .
Just because you have n't seen it just means you need to get out more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch the 2006 Chinese film "The Banquet".... about halfway through, it dawned on me that it was Hamlet set in the Forbidden City.And there's been many many productions setting ethnic actors in Shakespearean roles.
Just because you haven't seen it just means you need to get out more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805512</id>
	<title>Gaia Cult</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1263848340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not going to see. It's pretty obvious what that film is about. More earth worship religion propaganda. Humanity is evil for the poor spiritual planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not going to see .
It 's pretty obvious what that film is about .
More earth worship religion propaganda .
Humanity is evil for the poor spiritual planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not going to see.
It's pretty obvious what that film is about.
More earth worship religion propaganda.
Humanity is evil for the poor spiritual planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799312</id>
	<title>And the winner is...</title>
	<author>OpinionatedDude</author>
	<datestamp>1263751860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now they will have to start CGI animating the Golden Globe and Emmy shows too...

Nobody wants to see a 60 year old grandmother accepting an award for a movie where she played hotness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they will have to start CGI animating the Golden Globe and Emmy shows too.. . Nobody wants to see a 60 year old grandmother accepting an award for a movie where she played hotness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they will have to start CGI animating the Golden Globe and Emmy shows too...

Nobody wants to see a 60 year old grandmother accepting an award for a movie where she played hotness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</id>
	<title>All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation. This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do? He told some engineers he wanted a motion capture camera smacked on the forehead of the actors to capture their facial expressions better, he co-developed some camera system for 7 years (I doubt he did any coding).<br>For crying out loud, he's a 'director' with lots of cash and a name with huge momentum. I don't flame him for making CG flicks, but taking glory for the whole franchise like some demigod, please, don't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who single handedly invented , revolutionized and perfected 3D animation .
This is the message I 'm getting , what did he really do ?
He told some engineers he wanted a motion capture camera smacked on the forehead of the actors to capture their facial expressions better , he co-developed some camera system for 7 years ( I doubt he did any coding ) .For crying out loud , he 's a 'director ' with lots of cash and a name with huge momentum .
I do n't flame him for making CG flicks , but taking glory for the whole franchise like some demigod , please , do n't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation.
This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do?
He told some engineers he wanted a motion capture camera smacked on the forehead of the actors to capture their facial expressions better, he co-developed some camera system for 7 years (I doubt he did any coding).For crying out loud, he's a 'director' with lots of cash and a name with huge momentum.
I don't flame him for making CG flicks, but taking glory for the whole franchise like some demigod, please, don't start calling motion-capture 'Avatar-technology'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801576</id>
	<title>Rain Man</title>
	<author>Leo Sasquatch</author>
	<datestamp>1263725520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still remember a dream I had about 10 years ago, in which I went into my local video store and asked for a copy of Rain Man, but with Arnold Schwarzenegger in both lead roles, and being asked to wait 5 minutes while the computer re-formatted the film appropriately and applied his voice pattern.
<br> <br>
Not long to wait, it would seem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still remember a dream I had about 10 years ago , in which I went into my local video store and asked for a copy of Rain Man , but with Arnold Schwarzenegger in both lead roles , and being asked to wait 5 minutes while the computer re-formatted the film appropriately and applied his voice pattern .
Not long to wait , it would seem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still remember a dream I had about 10 years ago, in which I went into my local video store and asked for a copy of Rain Man, but with Arnold Schwarzenegger in both lead roles, and being asked to wait 5 minutes while the computer re-formatted the film appropriately and applied his voice pattern.
Not long to wait, it would seem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</id>
	<title>Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>shidarin'ou</author>
	<datestamp>1263740100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features. The uncanny valley was not addressed, so we have no idea how this "photoreal" technology stands up to that close inspection.</p><p>I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were n't humans , they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features .
The uncanny valley was not addressed , so we have no idea how this " photoreal " technology stands up to that close inspection.I 'm far far FAR from unbiased on this , but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger , you 'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features.
The uncanny valley was not addressed, so we have no idea how this "photoreal" technology stands up to that close inspection.I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799028</id>
	<title>Benjamin Button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263749460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features. The uncanny valley was not addressed, so we have no idea how this "photoreal" technology stands up to that close inspection.</p><p>I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.</p></div><p> <em>Benjamin Button</em> is a good example. They shot real actors on location (and set?), but did post to change their appearance. I wouldn't call it CGI per se, but maybe something like "computer-generated enhancements" (CGE)--'regular' make up being non-computer enhancements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were n't humans , they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features .
The uncanny valley was not addressed , so we have no idea how this " photoreal " technology stands up to that close inspection.I 'm far far FAR from unbiased on this , but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger , you 'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button .
Benjamin Button is a good example .
They shot real actors on location ( and set ?
) , but did post to change their appearance .
I would n't call it CGI per se , but maybe something like " computer-generated enhancements " ( CGE ) --'regular ' make up being non-computer enhancements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features.
The uncanny valley was not addressed, so we have no idea how this "photoreal" technology stands up to that close inspection.I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.
Benjamin Button is a good example.
They shot real actors on location (and set?
), but did post to change their appearance.
I wouldn't call it CGI per se, but maybe something like "computer-generated enhancements" (CGE)--'regular' make up being non-computer enhancements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800102</id>
	<title>Re:Oh my dream will come true!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bring back Ronald Reagan!"</p><p>To hell with that, make my dream Golden Girls/Roseanne Barr 3D high def. Crisco party!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bring back Ronald Reagan !
" To hell with that , make my dream Golden Girls/Roseanne Barr 3D high def .
Crisco party !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bring back Ronald Reagan!
"To hell with that, make my dream Golden Girls/Roseanne Barr 3D high def.
Crisco party!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798864</id>
	<title>What new technology??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263748140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new forest flora in Avatar were nothing more than CGI copies of sea life.  Want to see the original???  Watch Planet Earth and/or Blue Planet.</p><p>The CGI for the flying lizards and horses were "borrowed" from Jurassic Park (which explains why Spielberg was constantly on the set)</p><p>The "natives" are not even new technology.  Just CGI movements of somebody with a suite.  Nothing new.</p><p>IMAX is not new.  3D is not new.  The story was highly predictable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and nothing but a copy of others.</p><p>So what the hell is the new technology in Avatar???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new forest flora in Avatar were nothing more than CGI copies of sea life .
Want to see the original ? ? ?
Watch Planet Earth and/or Blue Planet.The CGI for the flying lizards and horses were " borrowed " from Jurassic Park ( which explains why Spielberg was constantly on the set ) The " natives " are not even new technology .
Just CGI movements of somebody with a suite .
Nothing new.IMAX is not new .
3D is not new .
The story was highly predictable .... and nothing but a copy of others.So what the hell is the new technology in Avatar ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new forest flora in Avatar were nothing more than CGI copies of sea life.
Want to see the original???
Watch Planet Earth and/or Blue Planet.The CGI for the flying lizards and horses were "borrowed" from Jurassic Park (which explains why Spielberg was constantly on the set)The "natives" are not even new technology.
Just CGI movements of somebody with a suite.
Nothing new.IMAX is not new.
3D is not new.
The story was highly predictable .... and nothing but a copy of others.So what the hell is the new technology in Avatar??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798218</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>malkavian</author>
	<datestamp>1263743100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Shrug*  You can have whoever you want in any act role.  Depends if you're going for historical accuracy, or put anyone into the role.<br>By the same token, you could redo the stories of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and have them cast as a white skinhead with swastikas on his arm.  I'm guessing that it'll detract from the canon of the story.<br>Hey, much better idea.  Why bother with rehashing the old stories, which have a vast amount of accepted roles behind them, and create NEW stories, where the hero is a particular person from a particular background?  That's what art is supposed to be, creating new.  There are a goodly many 'updates' to the Shakespearean plays, with all kinds of people playing the roles.  And that works nicely..<br>Personally, I've seen Shakespearean plays with black leads, and they were good.. Have you watched any movies at all?  There are a goodly many that spring to mind with white slaves (contemporary Human Trafficking stories, or older ones circa Roman Empire, and there were plenty)..  Greedy white kings?  Watch the news!  There are still stories on that in real life, not to mention god alone knows how many movies.. No idea where you're getting this concept that all this can't happen in stories, movies and shows when it already does..  To be honest, I think people just need to get over this absolute obsession with race, and wondering why people of a colour skin can't do something (when they blatantly do), and just get on with putting the good people in the right places.<br>That little rant aside, the mixing of various artforms is absolutely alive and vibrant out there..  Not for everyone, but it's good to see people experimenting with it..  Long may it continue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Shrug * You can have whoever you want in any act role .
Depends if you 're going for historical accuracy , or put anyone into the role.By the same token , you could redo the stories of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King , and have them cast as a white skinhead with swastikas on his arm .
I 'm guessing that it 'll detract from the canon of the story.Hey , much better idea .
Why bother with rehashing the old stories , which have a vast amount of accepted roles behind them , and create NEW stories , where the hero is a particular person from a particular background ?
That 's what art is supposed to be , creating new .
There are a goodly many 'updates ' to the Shakespearean plays , with all kinds of people playing the roles .
And that works nicely..Personally , I 've seen Shakespearean plays with black leads , and they were good.. Have you watched any movies at all ?
There are a goodly many that spring to mind with white slaves ( contemporary Human Trafficking stories , or older ones circa Roman Empire , and there were plenty ) .. Greedy white kings ?
Watch the news !
There are still stories on that in real life , not to mention god alone knows how many movies.. No idea where you 're getting this concept that all this ca n't happen in stories , movies and shows when it already does.. To be honest , I think people just need to get over this absolute obsession with race , and wondering why people of a colour skin ca n't do something ( when they blatantly do ) , and just get on with putting the good people in the right places.That little rant aside , the mixing of various artforms is absolutely alive and vibrant out there.. Not for everyone , but it 's good to see people experimenting with it.. Long may it continue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Shrug*  You can have whoever you want in any act role.
Depends if you're going for historical accuracy, or put anyone into the role.By the same token, you could redo the stories of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and have them cast as a white skinhead with swastikas on his arm.
I'm guessing that it'll detract from the canon of the story.Hey, much better idea.
Why bother with rehashing the old stories, which have a vast amount of accepted roles behind them, and create NEW stories, where the hero is a particular person from a particular background?
That's what art is supposed to be, creating new.
There are a goodly many 'updates' to the Shakespearean plays, with all kinds of people playing the roles.
And that works nicely..Personally, I've seen Shakespearean plays with black leads, and they were good.. Have you watched any movies at all?
There are a goodly many that spring to mind with white slaves (contemporary Human Trafficking stories, or older ones circa Roman Empire, and there were plenty)..  Greedy white kings?
Watch the news!
There are still stories on that in real life, not to mention god alone knows how many movies.. No idea where you're getting this concept that all this can't happen in stories, movies and shows when it already does..  To be honest, I think people just need to get over this absolute obsession with race, and wondering why people of a colour skin can't do something (when they blatantly do), and just get on with putting the good people in the right places.That little rant aside, the mixing of various artforms is absolutely alive and vibrant out there..  Not for everyone, but it's good to see people experimenting with it..  Long may it continue!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544</id>
	<title>Avatar's CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yes, oh so advanced. Subsurface scattering and high-resolution textures. WOW! Who EVER thought that was possible?

Oh, wait, that's right, this technology has existed for years it's just most firms, like Pixar, are happy making cheap cartoons rather than trying to push the boundaries of photorealism.

I'm not going to say I have anything against Pixar or Dreamworks or the other "big" CG production houses, but I will say they havn't really contributed anything truly innovative in the last 10 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , oh so advanced .
Subsurface scattering and high-resolution textures .
WOW ! Who EVER thought that was possible ?
Oh , wait , that 's right , this technology has existed for years it 's just most firms , like Pixar , are happy making cheap cartoons rather than trying to push the boundaries of photorealism .
I 'm not going to say I have anything against Pixar or Dreamworks or the other " big " CG production houses , but I will say they hav n't really contributed anything truly innovative in the last 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, oh so advanced.
Subsurface scattering and high-resolution textures.
WOW! Who EVER thought that was possible?
Oh, wait, that's right, this technology has existed for years it's just most firms, like Pixar, are happy making cheap cartoons rather than trying to push the boundaries of photorealism.
I'm not going to say I have anything against Pixar or Dreamworks or the other "big" CG production houses, but I will say they havn't really contributed anything truly innovative in the last 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802780</id>
	<title>Tron Legacy</title>
	<author>Purity Of Essence</author>
	<datestamp>1263733740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney appear to be doing exactly this with the new Tron movie. Check out the end of the concept trailer for Tron Legacy to see an avatar (CLU?) portrayed by a youthful-looking Jeff Bridges.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dHhktFLPs" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dHhktFLPs</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney appear to be doing exactly this with the new Tron movie .
Check out the end of the concept trailer for Tron Legacy to see an avatar ( CLU ?
) portrayed by a youthful-looking Jeff Bridges.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = e1dHhktFLPs [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney appear to be doing exactly this with the new Tron movie.
Check out the end of the concept trailer for Tron Legacy to see an avatar (CLU?
) portrayed by a youthful-looking Jeff Bridges.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dHhktFLPs [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802148</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1263729420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features</p></div><p>He's talking about the human characters. ( and not the ones in avatars.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.</p></div><p>Man, for all the geeks on slashdot, nobody really understands what they saw.
<br> <br>
In case you missed it, *all* the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture. They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG. All those wrinkles on Weaver's human character? CG. They didn't have to put them there. They could make her appear as a 20-year-old, or as a man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were n't humans , they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial featuresHe 's talking about the human characters .
( and not the ones in avatars .
) I 'm far far FAR from unbiased on this , but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger , you 'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.Man , for all the geeks on slashdot , nobody really understands what they saw .
In case you missed it , * all * the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture .
They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG .
All those wrinkles on Weaver 's human character ?
CG. They did n't have to put them there .
They could make her appear as a 20-year-old , or as a man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial featuresHe's talking about the human characters.
( and not the ones in avatars.
)I'm far far FAR from unbiased on this, but if you wanted to speculate on making actors look younger, you'd still be better served looking at Benjamin Button.Man, for all the geeks on slashdot, nobody really understands what they saw.
In case you missed it, *all* the actors you saw on screen were CG'ed from motion capture.
They captured the muscle movements of the actors and used that as the basis for CG.
All those wrinkles on Weaver's human character?
CG. They didn't have to put them there.
They could make her appear as a 20-year-old, or as a man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938</id>
	<title>uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley</a> [wikipedia.org] ) by making the navi different enough from people. I have yet to see a believable CG human character.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny \ _valley [ wikipedia.org ] ) by making the navi different enough from people .
I have yet to see a believable CG human character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley [wikipedia.org] ) by making the navi different enough from people.
I have yet to see a believable CG human character.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800876</id>
	<title>Ethics?</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1263720840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen from commercials employing the likeness of dead actors, that line will be drawn at the exact point where it's most profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen from commercials employing the likeness of dead actors , that line will be drawn at the exact point where it 's most profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen from commercials employing the likeness of dead actors, that line will be drawn at the exact point where it's most profitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805298</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?</p> </div><p>How about an Othello re-imaging with a black male lead? ("O", 2001)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?</p></div><p>No, guy in blackface (or something similar) <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/" title="imdb.com">in that role</a> [imdb.com] played a Persian in that role a couple years ago. (If we're going to keep repeating the lie as a society that "race doesn't matter" the least we could do is not give any credence to claims of racism for something like blackface).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?</p></div><p>Because we have been told, as a society, that it is racist/socially unacceptable/whatever to have films which are such racially insensitive to those who "actually have been enslaved" (as if blacks enslaved by whites are the only kind of slaves).</p><p>Besides, there's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/" title="imdb.com">Sparticus</a> [imdb.com], if you haven't seen it. Good film.</p><p>(Also, are you a troll? I can't think of a single "slavery" movie since Gladiator, and there was only one notable black slave throughout that film. Seems to me you're race baiting.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Acting is -acting-.</p></div><p>Ah, I see. Seems to me you don't understand how it works, and would likely be one of about 5 people who would enjoy watching purple dome-headed aliens which speak Bulgarian and wear kilts invade the alps on flying carpets.</p><p>Acting is not just acting, it's creating a character. It has to be believable, or it will suck. That is why studios can't just pull anyone off the streets, or hire any old SAG member: they won't accomplish the same thing as a name brand actor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.</p></div><p>I'm so tired of recycled culture. Can we let Grease die already and stop using it for high school musicals, reimaging franchise after franchise, and so on? We're getting to the point of mixing franchises (AVP, which was, coincidentally, very profitable due to the lack of a name-brand actor/actress) and regular franchise parodies (the "dog" in Planet 51),  reimaging of books into films... all of this having a near-spiritual cultural significance to many. It's fucking nuts.</p><p>I'm glad at least a couple newer films are mostly original, like Law Abiding Citizen or the stuff put out by Pixar and Dreamworks. But for the most part, the best we have to look for is a reimaging of a 20-year-old franchise (AVP, Terminator), another sequel to a majorly overdone franchise (Spiderman 23), or some such thing.</p><p>I know a lot more becomes capable with CG, and some good films have resulted from it (LotR trilogy comes to mind). But c'mon, lets not raid the popular fiction of the past for the popular fiction of the future: let's make something interesting and new, and not nostalgic. I'm tired of having flashbacks to my childhood as a direct result of the stuff coming out of the studios today.</p><p>Failing that (very likely), how about we go outside and do something with our hands, sit and do something with our minds, and make something new? Failing that, go fuck around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ? Like , why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ?
How about an Othello re-imaging with a black male lead ?
( " O " , 2001 ) Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people ? No , guy in blackface ( or something similar ) in that role [ imdb.com ] played a Persian in that role a couple years ago .
( If we 're going to keep repeating the lie as a society that " race does n't matter " the least we could do is not give any credence to claims of racism for something like blackface ) .Or why could n't a white guy play a role as a slave ? Because we have been told , as a society , that it is racist/socially unacceptable/whatever to have films which are such racially insensitive to those who " actually have been enslaved " ( as if blacks enslaved by whites are the only kind of slaves ) .Besides , there 's Sparticus [ imdb.com ] , if you have n't seen it .
Good film .
( Also , are you a troll ?
I ca n't think of a single " slavery " movie since Gladiator , and there was only one notable black slave throughout that film .
Seems to me you 're race baiting .
) Acting is -acting-.Ah , I see .
Seems to me you do n't understand how it works , and would likely be one of about 5 people who would enjoy watching purple dome-headed aliens which speak Bulgarian and wear kilts invade the alps on flying carpets.Acting is not just acting , it 's creating a character .
It has to be believable , or it will suck .
That is why studios ca n't just pull anyone off the streets , or hire any old SAG member : they wo n't accomplish the same thing as a name brand actor.Let 's mix high art and low , TV and theater , toss it all into the pot , mix things up , and do something new.I 'm so tired of recycled culture .
Can we let Grease die already and stop using it for high school musicals , reimaging franchise after franchise , and so on ?
We 're getting to the point of mixing franchises ( AVP , which was , coincidentally , very profitable due to the lack of a name-brand actor/actress ) and regular franchise parodies ( the " dog " in Planet 51 ) , reimaging of books into films... all of this having a near-spiritual cultural significance to many .
It 's fucking nuts.I 'm glad at least a couple newer films are mostly original , like Law Abiding Citizen or the stuff put out by Pixar and Dreamworks .
But for the most part , the best we have to look for is a reimaging of a 20-year-old franchise ( AVP , Terminator ) , another sequel to a majorly overdone franchise ( Spiderman 23 ) , or some such thing.I know a lot more becomes capable with CG , and some good films have resulted from it ( LotR trilogy comes to mind ) .
But c'mon , lets not raid the popular fiction of the past for the popular fiction of the future : let 's make something interesting and new , and not nostalgic .
I 'm tired of having flashbacks to my childhood as a direct result of the stuff coming out of the studios today.Failing that ( very likely ) , how about we go outside and do something with our hands , sit and do something with our minds , and make something new ?
Failing that , go fuck around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?
How about an Othello re-imaging with a black male lead?
("O", 2001)Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people?No, guy in blackface (or something similar) in that role [imdb.com] played a Persian in that role a couple years ago.
(If we're going to keep repeating the lie as a society that "race doesn't matter" the least we could do is not give any credence to claims of racism for something like blackface).Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave?Because we have been told, as a society, that it is racist/socially unacceptable/whatever to have films which are such racially insensitive to those who "actually have been enslaved" (as if blacks enslaved by whites are the only kind of slaves).Besides, there's Sparticus [imdb.com], if you haven't seen it.
Good film.
(Also, are you a troll?
I can't think of a single "slavery" movie since Gladiator, and there was only one notable black slave throughout that film.
Seems to me you're race baiting.
)Acting is -acting-.Ah, I see.
Seems to me you don't understand how it works, and would likely be one of about 5 people who would enjoy watching purple dome-headed aliens which speak Bulgarian and wear kilts invade the alps on flying carpets.Acting is not just acting, it's creating a character.
It has to be believable, or it will suck.
That is why studios can't just pull anyone off the streets, or hire any old SAG member: they won't accomplish the same thing as a name brand actor.Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.I'm so tired of recycled culture.
Can we let Grease die already and stop using it for high school musicals, reimaging franchise after franchise, and so on?
We're getting to the point of mixing franchises (AVP, which was, coincidentally, very profitable due to the lack of a name-brand actor/actress) and regular franchise parodies (the "dog" in Planet 51),  reimaging of books into films... all of this having a near-spiritual cultural significance to many.
It's fucking nuts.I'm glad at least a couple newer films are mostly original, like Law Abiding Citizen or the stuff put out by Pixar and Dreamworks.
But for the most part, the best we have to look for is a reimaging of a 20-year-old franchise (AVP, Terminator), another sequel to a majorly overdone franchise (Spiderman 23), or some such thing.I know a lot more becomes capable with CG, and some good films have resulted from it (LotR trilogy comes to mind).
But c'mon, lets not raid the popular fiction of the past for the popular fiction of the future: let's make something interesting and new, and not nostalgic.
I'm tired of having flashbacks to my childhood as a direct result of the stuff coming out of the studios today.Failing that (very likely), how about we go outside and do something with our hands, sit and do something with our minds, and make something new?
Failing that, go fuck around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803178</id>
	<title>Re: uncanny valley</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1263737400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about CG Arnold in Terminator 4?  While making believable virtual actors might be a bit further in the future, bad actors are a lot easier.  Joking aside, it looked pretty cool in the movie (he really does suck at acting though)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about CG Arnold in Terminator 4 ?
While making believable virtual actors might be a bit further in the future , bad actors are a lot easier .
Joking aside , it looked pretty cool in the movie ( he really does suck at acting though )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about CG Arnold in Terminator 4?
While making believable virtual actors might be a bit further in the future, bad actors are a lot easier.
Joking aside, it looked pretty cool in the movie (he really does suck at acting though)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806000</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263812940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other point being of course, that if you can map someone onto a CGI mannequin, anyone could be a big box-office ; being a successful actor now only requires acting ability and not a fortuitous convergence of acting ability AND looks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other point being of course , that if you can map someone onto a CGI mannequin , anyone could be a big box-office ; being a successful actor now only requires acting ability and not a fortuitous convergence of acting ability AND looks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other point being of course, that if you can map someone onto a CGI mannequin, anyone could be a big box-office ; being a successful actor now only requires acting ability and not a fortuitous convergence of acting ability AND looks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805786</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I've always though of Avatar was an entire movie down up like Gollum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I 've always though of Avatar was an entire movie down up like Gollum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I've always though of Avatar was an entire movie down up like Gollum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800816</id>
	<title>Re:Input-Output...</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1263720360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facial-capture DOESN'T work. They didn't use ANY tracking data for the faces in Avatar. They only filmed the actors with crappy NTSC web cams, for REFERENCE as the footage was UNUSABLE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facial-capture DOES N'T work .
They did n't use ANY tracking data for the faces in Avatar .
They only filmed the actors with crappy NTSC web cams , for REFERENCE as the footage was UNUSABLE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facial-capture DOESN'T work.
They didn't use ANY tracking data for the faces in Avatar.
They only filmed the actors with crappy NTSC web cams, for REFERENCE as the footage was UNUSABLE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798270</id>
	<title>That doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263743520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of what makes life interesting is that things and people change ?</p><p>Sean Connery was my favorite James bond, but what makes him so is that the ones after him were not as good, and that he stopped doing it ?</p><p>I already find today's entertainers way to artificial, what with all the nip tucks, the postprocessing,  and the training... the last thing I'd like would be for them to be REALLy artificial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of what makes life interesting is that things and people change ? Sean Connery was my favorite James bond , but what makes him so is that the ones after him were not as good , and that he stopped doing it ? I already find today 's entertainers way to artificial , what with all the nip tucks , the postprocessing , and the training... the last thing I 'd like would be for them to be REALLy artificial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of what makes life interesting is that things and people change ?Sean Connery was my favorite James bond, but what makes him so is that the ones after him were not as good, and that he stopped doing it ?I already find today's entertainers way to artificial, what with all the nip tucks, the postprocessing,  and the training... the last thing I'd like would be for them to be REALLy artificial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799524</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1263753780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.</i></p><p>That would be rather odd given that China and the US were on the same side in World War 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.That would be rather odd given that China and the US were on the same side in World War 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.That would be rather odd given that China and the US were on the same side in World War 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801064</id>
	<title>Re:"ethical line" schmethical line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263721980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats all true except you got some of it backwards.  10,000 extras cost *LESS* than  1 prima donna actor.  Its cheaper to replace the primas first, and the extras second.  The only other thing you need to know is that, as the technology to do all this magic and wonder gets cheaper (and you can bet your silicon heart, that every 1.5 years the cost is being cut in half), so that in 20 years, the cost won't be 200 million, it will be $19377.45.  Twenty grand to do a movie like Avatar.  In 30 years it will cost $190.74.  You will see people doing it at home.  The cost of high end video cameras dropped like a rock when everything went digital.  The RedOne is expensive as hell, but it has a much higher resolution than a camera I can get from bestbuy that will do 1080p.  The ok cameras are 'good enough', the software is more than good enough, and the special effects are matching what can be done in Hollywood, but much cheaper.  ProTools has put a serious hurt on recording studios.  Cheap versions of Final Cut Pro will put a serious hurt on editing and post production.  The magic Hollywood is buying now, is paving the way for a glut of film done on the cheap in 15 years.  Expensive actors could be anyone tweaked photoshop-like, and putting out 20 episodes per week.  Too many channels and nothing on?  It will fix that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats all true except you got some of it backwards .
10,000 extras cost * LESS * than 1 prima donna actor .
Its cheaper to replace the primas first , and the extras second .
The only other thing you need to know is that , as the technology to do all this magic and wonder gets cheaper ( and you can bet your silicon heart , that every 1.5 years the cost is being cut in half ) , so that in 20 years , the cost wo n't be 200 million , it will be $ 19377.45 .
Twenty grand to do a movie like Avatar .
In 30 years it will cost $ 190.74 .
You will see people doing it at home .
The cost of high end video cameras dropped like a rock when everything went digital .
The RedOne is expensive as hell , but it has a much higher resolution than a camera I can get from bestbuy that will do 1080p .
The ok cameras are 'good enough ' , the software is more than good enough , and the special effects are matching what can be done in Hollywood , but much cheaper .
ProTools has put a serious hurt on recording studios .
Cheap versions of Final Cut Pro will put a serious hurt on editing and post production .
The magic Hollywood is buying now , is paving the way for a glut of film done on the cheap in 15 years .
Expensive actors could be anyone tweaked photoshop-like , and putting out 20 episodes per week .
Too many channels and nothing on ?
It will fix that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats all true except you got some of it backwards.
10,000 extras cost *LESS* than  1 prima donna actor.
Its cheaper to replace the primas first, and the extras second.
The only other thing you need to know is that, as the technology to do all this magic and wonder gets cheaper (and you can bet your silicon heart, that every 1.5 years the cost is being cut in half), so that in 20 years, the cost won't be 200 million, it will be $19377.45.
Twenty grand to do a movie like Avatar.
In 30 years it will cost $190.74.
You will see people doing it at home.
The cost of high end video cameras dropped like a rock when everything went digital.
The RedOne is expensive as hell, but it has a much higher resolution than a camera I can get from bestbuy that will do 1080p.
The ok cameras are 'good enough', the software is more than good enough, and the special effects are matching what can be done in Hollywood, but much cheaper.
ProTools has put a serious hurt on recording studios.
Cheap versions of Final Cut Pro will put a serious hurt on editing and post production.
The magic Hollywood is buying now, is paving the way for a glut of film done on the cheap in 15 years.
Expensive actors could be anyone tweaked photoshop-like, and putting out 20 episodes per week.
Too many channels and nothing on?
It will fix that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799202</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.</p></div><p>How about US alternative history movies where the US takes credit for the capture of an Enigma machine even though in reality the British did it? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Oh, wait...</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.How about US alternative history movies where the US takes credit for the capture of an Enigma machine even though in reality the British did it ?
Oh , wait... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.How about US alternative history movies where the US takes credit for the capture of an Enigma machine even though in reality the British did it?
Oh, wait... [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It needs to be drawn, then it will be halved, quartered, burned, crushed, pulverized, vulcanized, and otherwise obliterated, and probably all on this sick pit called the internet.</p><p>The future that \_I\_ see is much more realistic and unethical. For instance, when this becomes cheaper to use, the porn<br>industry will be all over it. Once you cross that twain, anything is possible. These people have no ethics and no limits.<br>Marilyn Monroe? Sure, we can do that. Hitler butt fucking Stalin? Yes, we can definfitely do that. What about adults controlling<br>the likeness of non adults. Is that child porn?</p><p>Posting AC obv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs to be drawn , then it will be halved , quartered , burned , crushed , pulverized , vulcanized , and otherwise obliterated , and probably all on this sick pit called the internet.The future that \ _I \ _ see is much more realistic and unethical .
For instance , when this becomes cheaper to use , the pornindustry will be all over it .
Once you cross that twain , anything is possible .
These people have no ethics and no limits.Marilyn Monroe ?
Sure , we can do that .
Hitler butt fucking Stalin ?
Yes , we can definfitely do that .
What about adults controllingthe likeness of non adults .
Is that child porn ? Posting AC obv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs to be drawn, then it will be halved, quartered, burned, crushed, pulverized, vulcanized, and otherwise obliterated, and probably all on this sick pit called the internet.The future that \_I\_ see is much more realistic and unethical.
For instance, when this becomes cheaper to use, the pornindustry will be all over it.
Once you cross that twain, anything is possible.
These people have no ethics and no limits.Marilyn Monroe?
Sure, we can do that.
Hitler butt fucking Stalin?
Yes, we can definfitely do that.
What about adults controllingthe likeness of non adults.
Is that child porn?Posting AC obv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799342</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>bigdavex</author>
	<datestamp>1263752100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</p><p>Eh. No.</p></div></blockquote><p>That was also my first instinct, but I can see some problems.  Can a person sell his likeness?  What if he sells his likeness and the movie studio uses it in a way that he finds morally repugnant?  What are the implications of creating CGI films containing models of public figures?  Or models just strikingly similar to yourself or a friend?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere. " Eh .
No.That was also my first instinct , but I can see some problems .
Can a person sell his likeness ?
What if he sells his likeness and the movie studio uses it in a way that he finds morally repugnant ?
What are the implications of creating CGI films containing models of public figures ?
Or models just strikingly similar to yourself or a friend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."Eh.
No.That was also my first instinct, but I can see some problems.
Can a person sell his likeness?
What if he sells his likeness and the movie studio uses it in a way that he finds morally repugnant?
What are the implications of creating CGI films containing models of public figures?
Or models just strikingly similar to yourself or a friend?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798816</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1263747720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*The uncanny valley was not addressed

I haven't herd of this until just now, so I wiki'd it. You make a very good point. However looking at the graph on the wiki page, at the bottom of the graph I see zombie and corpse. A little higher I see prosthetic hand, and then almost level with the line before the dip I see a life like puppet. I think the face capture technology can probably beat a puppet.<br> <br>
Failing that, I would say that many of us doubt the abilities why have to have compassion and empathy in the littlest and most inhuman of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* The uncanny valley was not addressed I have n't herd of this until just now , so I wiki 'd it .
You make a very good point .
However looking at the graph on the wiki page , at the bottom of the graph I see zombie and corpse .
A little higher I see prosthetic hand , and then almost level with the line before the dip I see a life like puppet .
I think the face capture technology can probably beat a puppet .
Failing that , I would say that many of us doubt the abilities why have to have compassion and empathy in the littlest and most inhuman of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*The uncanny valley was not addressed

I haven't herd of this until just now, so I wiki'd it.
You make a very good point.
However looking at the graph on the wiki page, at the bottom of the graph I see zombie and corpse.
A little higher I see prosthetic hand, and then almost level with the line before the dip I see a life like puppet.
I think the face capture technology can probably beat a puppet.
Failing that, I would say that many of us doubt the abilities why have to have compassion and empathy in the littlest and most inhuman of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798338</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263744000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most actors are cheaper than the &gt;$300 million it took to poop out avatar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most actors are cheaper than the &gt; $ 300 million it took to poop out avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most actors are cheaper than the &gt;$300 million it took to poop out avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800044</id>
	<title>Re:Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263757680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the first flick, and Arnold was huge then having just come off of the Mr Olympia contests, but the scale seemed a bit off to me in Terminator Salvation, he seemed a bit too wide/thick.  I know they also used a body double for those shots, and it's true, the new body may have been much larger due to advances over the last 25 years in steroid and HGH technology<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the first flick , and Arnold was huge then having just come off of the Mr Olympia contests , but the scale seemed a bit off to me in Terminator Salvation , he seemed a bit too wide/thick .
I know they also used a body double for those shots , and it 's true , the new body may have been much larger due to advances over the last 25 years in steroid and HGH technology ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the first flick, and Arnold was huge then having just come off of the Mr Olympia contests, but the scale seemed a bit off to me in Terminator Salvation, he seemed a bit too wide/thick.
I know they also used a body double for those shots, and it's true, the new body may have been much larger due to advances over the last 25 years in steroid and HGH technology ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803372</id>
	<title>Re:All bow to the Great Cameron</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1263739140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed it is an audacious and temptingly original idea by Cameron.  Truly groundbreaking.  I hope the first film they remake is "Simone."  That would be great to see in a modern setting with the "original" actors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed it is an audacious and temptingly original idea by Cameron .
Truly groundbreaking .
I hope the first film they remake is " Simone .
" That would be great to see in a modern setting with the " original " actors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed it is an audacious and temptingly original idea by Cameron.
Truly groundbreaking.
I hope the first film they remake is "Simone.
"  That would be great to see in a modern setting with the "original" actors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798294</id>
	<title>You've got to ask yourself one question ...</title>
	<author>maestroX</author>
	<datestamp>1263743700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...  do I feel lucky?
<br>
just isn't that impressive when Clint carries a baby-face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... do I feel lucky ?
just is n't that impressive when Clint carries a baby-face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  do I feel lucky?
just isn't that impressive when Clint carries a baby-face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802418</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Gage With Union</author>
	<datestamp>1263731100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But doesn't the company have an ethical obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits, and doesn't that trump all potential human suffering?  </p><p>Though what you suggest is deeply unethical, you can certainly find it in labor camps in totalitarian states where it's perfectly legal.  Special bonus for businesses operating in circumstances like these: no risk of investigative journalism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does n't the company have an ethical obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits , and does n't that trump all potential human suffering ?
Though what you suggest is deeply unethical , you can certainly find it in labor camps in totalitarian states where it 's perfectly legal .
Special bonus for businesses operating in circumstances like these : no risk of investigative journalism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But doesn't the company have an ethical obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits, and doesn't that trump all potential human suffering?
Though what you suggest is deeply unethical, you can certainly find it in labor camps in totalitarian states where it's perfectly legal.
Special bonus for businesses operating in circumstances like these: no risk of investigative journalism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799226</id>
	<title>Re:Schwarzenegger inTerminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this was a case of technology catching up to The Running Man, where they mapped the runners' faces onto stuntmen...<br>A technology predicted in a movie staring Arnie that was used to put Arnie into a movie....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this was a case of technology catching up to The Running Man , where they mapped the runners ' faces onto stuntmen...A technology predicted in a movie staring Arnie that was used to put Arnie into a movie... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this was a case of technology catching up to The Running Man, where they mapped the runners' faces onto stuntmen...A technology predicted in a movie staring Arnie that was used to put Arnie into a movie....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</id>
	<title>Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>IronDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263743700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something tells me that being able to take virtually any actor and use them virtually in a film is going to open up two rather annoying types of movies:</p><p>Porn movies with well known actors</p><p>Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me that being able to take virtually any actor and use them virtually in a film is going to open up two rather annoying types of movies : Porn movies with well known actorsChinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me that being able to take virtually any actor and use them virtually in a film is going to open up two rather annoying types of movies:Porn movies with well known actorsChinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802460</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263731460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're either spending $20 million on an actor with a temper or a hundred CG artists in a VFX studio with all kinds of different issues.  Assuming the uncanny valley is successfully crossed, there's not a lot of financial savings, if any.</p><p>Avatar has no ultra expensive stars in it or physical locations, but it still cost $300 million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're either spending $ 20 million on an actor with a temper or a hundred CG artists in a VFX studio with all kinds of different issues .
Assuming the uncanny valley is successfully crossed , there 's not a lot of financial savings , if any.Avatar has no ultra expensive stars in it or physical locations , but it still cost $ 300 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're either spending $20 million on an actor with a temper or a hundred CG artists in a VFX studio with all kinds of different issues.
Assuming the uncanny valley is successfully crossed, there's not a lot of financial savings, if any.Avatar has no ultra expensive stars in it or physical locations, but it still cost $300 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800130</id>
	<title>Is there a point?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263758340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly don't get the point of this drive to photorealism for characters. Some of the best CGI human characters have been in Pixar films where they deliberately avoid realism, and some of the worst have been the attempted real ones in the Zemeckis works (Polar Express, Beowulf, etc). The Na'vi were fine because they were alien enough, and I think we're all tired of the StarTrekish, latex-faced humanoid species of the week. Only the Harry Knowles crowd still orgasms over men in rubber alien suits.</p><p>If you want real looking humans, there's these things called "humans" you can use. Save the CGI for everything else like "300" or "Sky Captain" did.</p><p>Another Sean Connery Bond film? Why? We did that already. You really want the second century of films to star all the actors from the first century?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't get the point of this drive to photorealism for characters .
Some of the best CGI human characters have been in Pixar films where they deliberately avoid realism , and some of the worst have been the attempted real ones in the Zemeckis works ( Polar Express , Beowulf , etc ) .
The Na'vi were fine because they were alien enough , and I think we 're all tired of the StarTrekish , latex-faced humanoid species of the week .
Only the Harry Knowles crowd still orgasms over men in rubber alien suits.If you want real looking humans , there 's these things called " humans " you can use .
Save the CGI for everything else like " 300 " or " Sky Captain " did.Another Sean Connery Bond film ?
Why ? We did that already .
You really want the second century of films to star all the actors from the first century ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't get the point of this drive to photorealism for characters.
Some of the best CGI human characters have been in Pixar films where they deliberately avoid realism, and some of the worst have been the attempted real ones in the Zemeckis works (Polar Express, Beowulf, etc).
The Na'vi were fine because they were alien enough, and I think we're all tired of the StarTrekish, latex-faced humanoid species of the week.
Only the Harry Knowles crowd still orgasms over men in rubber alien suits.If you want real looking humans, there's these things called "humans" you can use.
Save the CGI for everything else like "300" or "Sky Captain" did.Another Sean Connery Bond film?
Why? We did that already.
You really want the second century of films to star all the actors from the first century?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802336</id>
	<title>Re:Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>caitsith01</author>
	<datestamp>1263730680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*SPOILER*</p><p>As mediocre as the movie was, I couldn't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800, looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film. Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.</p></div><p>See, I thought this looked really fake and obviously rendered.  I reckon if you put a gun to their heads and made people choose which was real on pain of death between that and some old footage of real Arnie (with both appropriately degraded to look the same quality wise etc) I think 99\% would still pick it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* SPOILER * As mediocre as the movie was , I could n't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800 , looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film .
Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.See , I thought this looked really fake and obviously rendered .
I reckon if you put a gun to their heads and made people choose which was real on pain of death between that and some old footage of real Arnie ( with both appropriately degraded to look the same quality wise etc ) I think 99 \ % would still pick it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*SPOILER*As mediocre as the movie was, I couldn't help but smile when Arnold shows up as a fresh T-800, looking like he just stepped off the set of the original film.
Granted while there are only brief shots of his face - the rest of the scenes using typical hide-a-stunt-double camera angles - it was still a really cool scene in my opinion.See, I thought this looked really fake and obviously rendered.
I reckon if you put a gun to their heads and made people choose which was real on pain of death between that and some old footage of real Arnie (with both appropriately degraded to look the same quality wise etc) I think 99\% would still pick it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800690</id>
	<title>these kinds of comments always make me laugh</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263719700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where the random internet troll heavily bashes some of the most successful politicians/ directors/ writers/ musicians/ businessmen/ programmers/ etc</p><p>based on his vast reserves of authority, based on his obvious advanced knowledge of a given genre</p><p>you don't have to like cameron, but he's obviously extremely successful and knowledgeable. and you are...?</p><p>and then it gets modded 5, Insightful! LOL</p><p>hilarious</p><p>its the great useless ignorant mass of human drek, moved to its great unifying passion: tearing other people down in howling unison</p><p>moronic mindless internet hate is the great dependable resource of our generation. lets put it to political work, harness it for power! oh wait, the tea baggers beat me to it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p><p>some of you loud negative losers: why don't you try for once in your life actually making a small positive effort on your own? and redeem your sorry pathetic asses</p><p>this is your chance to bash this comment. you do it SO well. its all you know how to do, mindless negative feedback, to everything vaguely positive in your empty pointless lives</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where the random internet troll heavily bashes some of the most successful politicians/ directors/ writers/ musicians/ businessmen/ programmers/ etcbased on his vast reserves of authority , based on his obvious advanced knowledge of a given genreyou do n't have to like cameron , but he 's obviously extremely successful and knowledgeable .
and you are... ? and then it gets modded 5 , Insightful !
LOLhilariousits the great useless ignorant mass of human drek , moved to its great unifying passion : tearing other people down in howling unisonmoronic mindless internet hate is the great dependable resource of our generation .
lets put it to political work , harness it for power !
oh wait , the tea baggers beat me to it... ; -Psome of you loud negative losers : why do n't you try for once in your life actually making a small positive effort on your own ?
and redeem your sorry pathetic assesthis is your chance to bash this comment .
you do it SO well .
its all you know how to do , mindless negative feedback , to everything vaguely positive in your empty pointless lives</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where the random internet troll heavily bashes some of the most successful politicians/ directors/ writers/ musicians/ businessmen/ programmers/ etcbased on his vast reserves of authority, based on his obvious advanced knowledge of a given genreyou don't have to like cameron, but he's obviously extremely successful and knowledgeable.
and you are...?and then it gets modded 5, Insightful!
LOLhilariousits the great useless ignorant mass of human drek, moved to its great unifying passion: tearing other people down in howling unisonmoronic mindless internet hate is the great dependable resource of our generation.
lets put it to political work, harness it for power!
oh wait, the tea baggers beat me to it... ;-Psome of you loud negative losers: why don't you try for once in your life actually making a small positive effort on your own?
and redeem your sorry pathetic assesthis is your chance to bash this comment.
you do it SO well.
its all you know how to do, mindless negative feedback, to everything vaguely positive in your empty pointless lives</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798688</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>iwaybandit</author>
	<datestamp>1263746520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does your comment make this movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">S1m0ne</a> [imdb.com] prophetic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your comment make this movie S1m0ne [ imdb.com ] prophetic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your comment make this movie S1m0ne [imdb.com] prophetic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800304</id>
	<title>Not for me</title>
	<author>dave\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1263759900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would I want to watch ageless actors? Really? I haven't seen Avatar, but from the previews, I'm not that impressed by Cameron's "photorealistic" cgi. It seems to be a big deal over nothing to me, but I'd rather watch a movie with a good plot and character substance rather than some fancy cgi effects....maybe that's just me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I want to watch ageless actors ?
Really ? I have n't seen Avatar , but from the previews , I 'm not that impressed by Cameron 's " photorealistic " cgi .
It seems to be a big deal over nothing to me , but I 'd rather watch a movie with a good plot and character substance rather than some fancy cgi effects....maybe that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I want to watch ageless actors?
Really? I haven't seen Avatar, but from the previews, I'm not that impressed by Cameron's "photorealistic" cgi.
It seems to be a big deal over nothing to me, but I'd rather watch a movie with a good plot and character substance rather than some fancy cgi effects....maybe that's just me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798480</id>
	<title>MARE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>numbers. The loss every chance I got Fear the 8eaper were compounded may be hurtinVg the non-fucking-existant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>numbers .
The loss every chance I got Fear the 8eaper were compounded may be hurtinVg the non-fucking-existant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>numbers.
The loss every chance I got Fear the 8eaper were compounded may be hurtinVg the non-fucking-existant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800566</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Backward Z</author>
	<datestamp>1263719040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wah, this kid tried to deliver my paper this morning and he only managed to throw it halfway up my driveway so I yelled at "MWAH! Don't you kids these days know how to throw?  My infant niece can throw better than that!"</p><p>Then I went to Starbucks to get my regular drip coffee but they didn't leave enough space at the top of the cup for me to put my cream so I asked the barista, "Where the fuck am I supposed to put my cream?  Are you stupid or something?  How hard is it to make a cup of coffee with enough room for the cream?"</p><p>Then that night, when I didn't think things could get any worse, my wife wanted to bring me to some new steak restaurant with "new and innovative" cooking techniques.  I was like, "What the fuck?  You take the meat, you put it on the grill.  You grill the meat, then it's cooked, then you eat it.  What needs to be new or innovative about that?  YOU COOK THE STEAK THEN YOU EAT IT."</p><p>So then I drowned myself in scotch and called it a night.  Where do all these stupid people get off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wah , this kid tried to deliver my paper this morning and he only managed to throw it halfway up my driveway so I yelled at " MWAH !
Do n't you kids these days know how to throw ?
My infant niece can throw better than that !
" Then I went to Starbucks to get my regular drip coffee but they did n't leave enough space at the top of the cup for me to put my cream so I asked the barista , " Where the fuck am I supposed to put my cream ?
Are you stupid or something ?
How hard is it to make a cup of coffee with enough room for the cream ?
" Then that night , when I did n't think things could get any worse , my wife wanted to bring me to some new steak restaurant with " new and innovative " cooking techniques .
I was like , " What the fuck ?
You take the meat , you put it on the grill .
You grill the meat , then it 's cooked , then you eat it .
What needs to be new or innovative about that ?
YOU COOK THE STEAK THEN YOU EAT IT .
" So then I drowned myself in scotch and called it a night .
Where do all these stupid people get off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wah, this kid tried to deliver my paper this morning and he only managed to throw it halfway up my driveway so I yelled at "MWAH!
Don't you kids these days know how to throw?
My infant niece can throw better than that!
"Then I went to Starbucks to get my regular drip coffee but they didn't leave enough space at the top of the cup for me to put my cream so I asked the barista, "Where the fuck am I supposed to put my cream?
Are you stupid or something?
How hard is it to make a cup of coffee with enough room for the cream?
"Then that night, when I didn't think things could get any worse, my wife wanted to bring me to some new steak restaurant with "new and innovative" cooking techniques.
I was like, "What the fuck?
You take the meat, you put it on the grill.
You grill the meat, then it's cooked, then you eat it.
What needs to be new or innovative about that?
YOU COOK THE STEAK THEN YOU EAT IT.
"So then I drowned myself in scotch and called it a night.
Where do all these stupid people get off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798434</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1263744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?</p></div><p>It's been done. It's been done more than once, and not just as "modern" reinterpretations. For example, there was a 1937 U.S. theater production of Macbeth in which the whole cast was black, and the setting was Haiti rather than Scotland. Orson Welles did the adaptation which employs bullwhips and muskets as well as swordplay, but kept the spoken words unchanged from Shakespeare's version. It was apparently quite successful, and toured widely. There's a video excerpt of one performance at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PiZYGfRDgo" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PiZYGfRDgo</a> [youtube.com] and the Orson Welles script is available at <a href="http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/60695/Macbethdisplay.pdf" title="wrlc.org">http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/60695/Macbethdisplay.pdf</a> [wrlc.org] Note that the PDF is a scanned version of the typewritten original, and hence rather large.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ? It 's been done .
It 's been done more than once , and not just as " modern " reinterpretations .
For example , there was a 1937 U.S. theater production of Macbeth in which the whole cast was black , and the setting was Haiti rather than Scotland .
Orson Welles did the adaptation which employs bullwhips and muskets as well as swordplay , but kept the spoken words unchanged from Shakespeare 's version .
It was apparently quite successful , and toured widely .
There 's a video excerpt of one performance at http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4PiZYGfRDgo [ youtube.com ] and the Orson Welles script is available at http : //dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/60695/Macbethdisplay.pdf [ wrlc.org ] Note that the PDF is a scanned version of the typewritten original , and hence rather large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?It's been done.
It's been done more than once, and not just as "modern" reinterpretations.
For example, there was a 1937 U.S. theater production of Macbeth in which the whole cast was black, and the setting was Haiti rather than Scotland.
Orson Welles did the adaptation which employs bullwhips and muskets as well as swordplay, but kept the spoken words unchanged from Shakespeare's version.
It was apparently quite successful, and toured widely.
There's a video excerpt of one performance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PiZYGfRDgo [youtube.com] and the Orson Welles script is available at http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/60695/Macbethdisplay.pdf [wrlc.org] Note that the PDF is a scanned version of the typewritten original, and hence rather large.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798526</id>
	<title>Sounds Dreadful</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1263745380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure that some in the studios would love to do this, and I am also sure that it will lead to results that James Cameron won't like.</p><p>To see why, just imagine that this technology had been invented in the 1930's, and that every "major" motion picture today only used actors that had been dead for 30 - 50 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure that some in the studios would love to do this , and I am also sure that it will lead to results that James Cameron wo n't like.To see why , just imagine that this technology had been invented in the 1930 's , and that every " major " motion picture today only used actors that had been dead for 30 - 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure that some in the studios would love to do this, and I am also sure that it will lead to results that James Cameron won't like.To see why, just imagine that this technology had been invented in the 1930's, and that every "major" motion picture today only used actors that had been dead for 30 - 50 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801374</id>
	<title>Mr Cameron needs to learn...</title>
	<author>Orlando</author>
	<datestamp>1263724080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..that technology alone does not make a good film.  In the case of Avatar, not even a mediocre one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..that technology alone does not make a good film .
In the case of Avatar , not even a mediocre one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that technology alone does not make a good film.
In the case of Avatar, not even a mediocre one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798512</id>
	<title>the new voice actors</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1263745260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will reduce star-power to that of voice actors... and copyright of an actor's image will become even more valuable.  Studios will like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will reduce star-power to that of voice actors... and copyright of an actor 's image will become even more valuable .
Studios will like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will reduce star-power to that of voice actors... and copyright of an actor's image will become even more valuable.
Studios will like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797906</id>
	<title>A certain fly comes to mind..</title>
	<author>Ricken</author>
	<datestamp>1263740040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they can finally continue FireFly. No need for actors any more!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they can finally continue FireFly .
No need for actors any more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they can finally continue FireFly.
No need for actors any more!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803270</id>
	<title>no fun</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1263738120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that <i>an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere</i>.</p></div></blockquote><p>What a spoil-sport.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles , and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.What a spoil-sport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.What a spoil-sport.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801204</id>
	<title>Re:Perfected</title>
	<author>mathx314</author>
	<datestamp>1263723000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'd like to agree with you, I'm not sure I can.  This raises the following question: was the reason that parts of Avatar looked unrealistic the fault of the technology, or the fault that we couldn't suspend disbelief to the point of believing in tall blue aliens riding on miniature pterodactyls?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'd like to agree with you , I 'm not sure I can .
This raises the following question : was the reason that parts of Avatar looked unrealistic the fault of the technology , or the fault that we could n't suspend disbelief to the point of believing in tall blue aliens riding on miniature pterodactyls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'd like to agree with you, I'm not sure I can.
This raises the following question: was the reason that parts of Avatar looked unrealistic the fault of the technology, or the fault that we couldn't suspend disbelief to the point of believing in tall blue aliens riding on miniature pterodactyls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800758</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1263720060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even Benjamin Button looked like ass, and they still couldn't de~age Brad Pitt and coped out using a child actor for the end.
<br>
Agreed. Uncanny Valley was not crossed with Avatar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Benjamin Button looked like ass , and they still could n't de ~ age Brad Pitt and coped out using a child actor for the end .
Agreed. Uncanny Valley was not crossed with Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Benjamin Button looked like ass, and they still couldn't de~age Brad Pitt and coped out using a child actor for the end.
Agreed. Uncanny Valley was not crossed with Avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800256</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263759420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's next?</p><p>Movies bred by genetic algorithms. Everything will be allowed to evolve: the actors, the script, the story, everything!</p><p>Successful films could be put out to stud.</p><p>The fitness of each generation will be determined by focus groups.</p><p>So we'll still have "Saw XXXVI" and "Big Momma's House 29" and "Terminator: What The Fuck Were We Doing Again?", but we'll get there via awesome technology!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next ? Movies bred by genetic algorithms .
Everything will be allowed to evolve : the actors , the script , the story , everything ! Successful films could be put out to stud.The fitness of each generation will be determined by focus groups.So we 'll still have " Saw XXXVI " and " Big Momma 's House 29 " and " Terminator : What The Fuck Were We Doing Again ?
" , but we 'll get there via awesome technology !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next?Movies bred by genetic algorithms.
Everything will be allowed to evolve: the actors, the script, the story, everything!Successful films could be put out to stud.The fitness of each generation will be determined by focus groups.So we'll still have "Saw XXXVI" and "Big Momma's House 29" and "Terminator: What The Fuck Were We Doing Again?
", but we'll get there via awesome technology!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798152</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>EnglishTim</author>
	<datestamp>1263742320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they've got to a place where actors can be completely replaced, I think it's safe to assume that by that time every single other profession will have been replaced as well. What is it that you do, exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 've got to a place where actors can be completely replaced , I think it 's safe to assume that by that time every single other profession will have been replaced as well .
What is it that you do , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they've got to a place where actors can be completely replaced, I think it's safe to assume that by that time every single other profession will have been replaced as well.
What is it that you do, exactly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798342</id>
	<title>Paul Newman leads attack on the acting clones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263744060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From 2006:  <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/mar/28/news" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Newman leads attack on the acting clones</a> [guardian.co.uk] <br>
&nbsp; <br>An Excerpt:</p><blockquote><div><p>Paul Newman has lent his support to an image protection bill that prohibits the use of a person's image or voice for up to 70 years after their death. The veteran actor warned that recent advances in digital technology meant that his work could be re-edited, enabling his image to appear in "a whole movie" without his consent. "They could make a whole movie that looked like me, talked like me, acted like me, sounded like me, but wasn't me," Newman, 81, told the Connecticut state assembly last Friday. However, the bill is opposed by the Motion Picture Association of America, which fears that it could infringe on film-makers' rights of expression and their ability to use old footage in their movies.</p></div></blockquote><p>I also remember reading that when Newman died his will contained a clause that specifically prohibited him ever being digitally "re-animated."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From 2006 : Newman leads attack on the acting clones [ guardian.co.uk ]   An Excerpt : Paul Newman has lent his support to an image protection bill that prohibits the use of a person 's image or voice for up to 70 years after their death .
The veteran actor warned that recent advances in digital technology meant that his work could be re-edited , enabling his image to appear in " a whole movie " without his consent .
" They could make a whole movie that looked like me , talked like me , acted like me , sounded like me , but was n't me , " Newman , 81 , told the Connecticut state assembly last Friday .
However , the bill is opposed by the Motion Picture Association of America , which fears that it could infringe on film-makers ' rights of expression and their ability to use old footage in their movies.I also remember reading that when Newman died his will contained a clause that specifically prohibited him ever being digitally " re-animated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From 2006:  Newman leads attack on the acting clones [guardian.co.uk] 
  An Excerpt:Paul Newman has lent his support to an image protection bill that prohibits the use of a person's image or voice for up to 70 years after their death.
The veteran actor warned that recent advances in digital technology meant that his work could be re-edited, enabling his image to appear in "a whole movie" without his consent.
"They could make a whole movie that looked like me, talked like me, acted like me, sounded like me, but wasn't me," Newman, 81, told the Connecticut state assembly last Friday.
However, the bill is opposed by the Motion Picture Association of America, which fears that it could infringe on film-makers' rights of expression and their ability to use old footage in their movies.I also remember reading that when Newman died his will contained a clause that specifically prohibited him ever being digitally "re-animated.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799006</id>
	<title>Mmmh</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1263749340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I have been thinking about a new Star Trek series. To get back to the root, something between TOS and TNG.
</p><p>But what would you do if you wanted a cross-over. Actors are expensive or dead. But you could create a CGI model of past actors, have them acted out by an impressionist and voila, continuety with no timeline problems.
</p><p>And you could also finally make aliens that look really good without just slapping some plastic on their face. And you could have kids played by adults so you get rid of the horrible acting, wesley acted by an adult. All you need to do now is to hire better writers and you are done.
</p><p>You could also get rid of the need to cast actors for their similar looks to historical actors. Anyone could play Churchill, they would only be selected on how well they can act not their looks.
</p><p>Finally we could cast women in Sci-Fi who can act, not just by how far their nipples poke through their jumpsuit.
</p><p>I can see plenty of future for this tech. Not so much to make a new Dirty Harry movie (Clint Eastwood couldn;t act it even with CGI, he is an old man and moves like an old man) but to seperate the looks of an actor from their talent to ACT. Mind you, a lot of current actors would be out of a job.
</p><p>For gaming another advance needs to be made. Voice acting. Imagine what you could do if the voices in a game were computer generated. No more commander Sheppard. You could pick whatever name you want, without it needing to be pre-recorded.
</p><p>Oh and for those who think it is a really bad idea, Doctor Who essentially made this a part of the story. Change the actor whenever you want because the character can continue, so what would be that different if the actor changed but the face stayed the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I have been thinking about a new Star Trek series .
To get back to the root , something between TOS and TNG .
But what would you do if you wanted a cross-over .
Actors are expensive or dead .
But you could create a CGI model of past actors , have them acted out by an impressionist and voila , continuety with no timeline problems .
And you could also finally make aliens that look really good without just slapping some plastic on their face .
And you could have kids played by adults so you get rid of the horrible acting , wesley acted by an adult .
All you need to do now is to hire better writers and you are done .
You could also get rid of the need to cast actors for their similar looks to historical actors .
Anyone could play Churchill , they would only be selected on how well they can act not their looks .
Finally we could cast women in Sci-Fi who can act , not just by how far their nipples poke through their jumpsuit .
I can see plenty of future for this tech .
Not so much to make a new Dirty Harry movie ( Clint Eastwood couldn ; t act it even with CGI , he is an old man and moves like an old man ) but to seperate the looks of an actor from their talent to ACT .
Mind you , a lot of current actors would be out of a job .
For gaming another advance needs to be made .
Voice acting .
Imagine what you could do if the voices in a game were computer generated .
No more commander Sheppard .
You could pick whatever name you want , without it needing to be pre-recorded .
Oh and for those who think it is a really bad idea , Doctor Who essentially made this a part of the story .
Change the actor whenever you want because the character can continue , so what would be that different if the actor changed but the face stayed the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I have been thinking about a new Star Trek series.
To get back to the root, something between TOS and TNG.
But what would you do if you wanted a cross-over.
Actors are expensive or dead.
But you could create a CGI model of past actors, have them acted out by an impressionist and voila, continuety with no timeline problems.
And you could also finally make aliens that look really good without just slapping some plastic on their face.
And you could have kids played by adults so you get rid of the horrible acting, wesley acted by an adult.
All you need to do now is to hire better writers and you are done.
You could also get rid of the need to cast actors for their similar looks to historical actors.
Anyone could play Churchill, they would only be selected on how well they can act not their looks.
Finally we could cast women in Sci-Fi who can act, not just by how far their nipples poke through their jumpsuit.
I can see plenty of future for this tech.
Not so much to make a new Dirty Harry movie (Clint Eastwood couldn;t act it even with CGI, he is an old man and moves like an old man) but to seperate the looks of an actor from their talent to ACT.
Mind you, a lot of current actors would be out of a job.
For gaming another advance needs to be made.
Voice acting.
Imagine what you could do if the voices in a game were computer generated.
No more commander Sheppard.
You could pick whatever name you want, without it needing to be pre-recorded.
Oh and for those who think it is a really bad idea, Doctor Who essentially made this a part of the story.
Change the actor whenever you want because the character can continue, so what would be that different if the actor changed but the face stayed the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803200</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263737520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?</p><p>Because it is historically inaccurate.</p><p>If you transposed it into modern times (eg like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet) then you could change the races of some characters, just like he did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; why ca n't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth ? Because it is historically inaccurate.If you transposed it into modern times ( eg like Baz Luhrmann 's Romeo and Juliet ) then you could change the races of some characters , just like he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth?Because it is historically inaccurate.If you transposed it into modern times (eg like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet) then you could change the races of some characters, just like he did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797972</id>
	<title>Bad Idea</title>
	<author>hfsys</author>
	<datestamp>1263740640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."<br> <br>

Yeah.  The line is, 'Don't do it'.<br> <br>

Hollywood has plenty of new, undiscovered, actors.  This only allows for the studio executives to cash in on famous titles, by developing terrible sequels that should never be made.  i.e. Terminator 3, or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls.<br> <br>..Or maybe this great power could be used for the forces of good.  Ooh! I know!  They could finally make Rocky X.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere .
" Yeah .
The line is , 'Do n't do it' .
Hollywood has plenty of new , undiscovered , actors .
This only allows for the studio executives to cash in on famous titles , by developing terrible sequels that should never be made .
i.e. Terminator 3 , or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls .
..Or maybe this great power could be used for the forces of good .
Ooh ! I know !
They could finally make Rocky X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.
" 

Yeah.
The line is, 'Don't do it'.
Hollywood has plenty of new, undiscovered, actors.
This only allows for the studio executives to cash in on famous titles, by developing terrible sequels that should never be made.
i.e. Terminator 3, or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls.
..Or maybe this great power could be used for the forces of good.
Ooh! I know!
They could finally make Rocky X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800118</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263758220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Synthetic attention whores will then fill the demand for such drama.</p><p>As technology becomes more accessible, fanfics may also improve in quality...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Synthetic attention whores will then fill the demand for such drama.As technology becomes more accessible , fanfics may also improve in quality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Synthetic attention whores will then fill the demand for such drama.As technology becomes more accessible, fanfics may also improve in quality...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801300</id>
	<title>Re:Feathers?</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1263723540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, you're suggesting that the dozen species portrayed in the film would be the entirety of the fauna on that world?</p><p>They didn't show people gathering plants for food either, but I'd guess they weren't exclusively carnivorous.</p><p>They didn't show how alien reproduction occurred, or even whether they had genitalia, but I'd guess it's possible as there distinct sexes and there were children around.</p><p>You'll be telling me next that there's an issue in Blade Runner that the police spinners were never seen refuelling and asking whether the perpetual motion machine is accounted for elsewhere.</p><p>Hint: It's made up.<br>Hint 2: It doesn't fucking matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , you 're suggesting that the dozen species portrayed in the film would be the entirety of the fauna on that world ? They did n't show people gathering plants for food either , but I 'd guess they were n't exclusively carnivorous.They did n't show how alien reproduction occurred , or even whether they had genitalia , but I 'd guess it 's possible as there distinct sexes and there were children around.You 'll be telling me next that there 's an issue in Blade Runner that the police spinners were never seen refuelling and asking whether the perpetual motion machine is accounted for elsewhere.Hint : It 's made up.Hint 2 : It does n't fucking matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, you're suggesting that the dozen species portrayed in the film would be the entirety of the fauna on that world?They didn't show people gathering plants for food either, but I'd guess they weren't exclusively carnivorous.They didn't show how alien reproduction occurred, or even whether they had genitalia, but I'd guess it's possible as there distinct sexes and there were children around.You'll be telling me next that there's an issue in Blade Runner that the police spinners were never seen refuelling and asking whether the perpetual motion machine is accounted for elsewhere.Hint: It's made up.Hint 2: It doesn't fucking matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802510</id>
	<title>Groucho Marx and Sheena Easton</title>
	<author>Kittenman</author>
	<datestamp>1263731760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't they dance together in a coke/pepsi advert about 20 years ago? And one of them was dead. And I don't just mean professionally.
<p>
At that time the media and us contemporaries wondered about how owned the actors' images.  "If Groucho was alive, would he have done the advert?".  Yatta yatta yatta...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't they dance together in a coke/pepsi advert about 20 years ago ?
And one of them was dead .
And I do n't just mean professionally .
At that time the media and us contemporaries wondered about how owned the actors ' images .
" If Groucho was alive , would he have done the advert ? " .
Yatta yatta yatta.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't they dance together in a coke/pepsi advert about 20 years ago?
And one of them was dead.
And I don't just mean professionally.
At that time the media and us contemporaries wondered about how owned the actors' images.
"If Groucho was alive, would he have done the advert?".
Yatta yatta yatta...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799108</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263750180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without actors, the corporate suits will be able to create entertainment based on surveys. We're heading to a place where movies are made the same way food is, by factories, with scripts created from lab studies done to find out what people like, to maximize appeal and profits.</p><p>And after that, we'll all be connected to an interface and have the movie dynamically change while we watch, based on our responses.</p><p>And with years of data collected on each of us, the options for selling us more crap, I mean, just wow. Have kids? The car in the movie is a sedan. Single? Now it's a sports car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without actors , the corporate suits will be able to create entertainment based on surveys .
We 're heading to a place where movies are made the same way food is , by factories , with scripts created from lab studies done to find out what people like , to maximize appeal and profits.And after that , we 'll all be connected to an interface and have the movie dynamically change while we watch , based on our responses.And with years of data collected on each of us , the options for selling us more crap , I mean , just wow .
Have kids ?
The car in the movie is a sedan .
Single ? Now it 's a sports car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without actors, the corporate suits will be able to create entertainment based on surveys.
We're heading to a place where movies are made the same way food is, by factories, with scripts created from lab studies done to find out what people like, to maximize appeal and profits.And after that, we'll all be connected to an interface and have the movie dynamically change while we watch, based on our responses.And with years of data collected on each of us, the options for selling us more crap, I mean, just wow.
Have kids?
The car in the movie is a sedan.
Single? Now it's a sports car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798376</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263744300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, jealous much? Like him or not, but given how successful he is, Cameron must be doing SOMETHING right.</p><p>Put another way: if he can't direct, can't write, can't code, can't model and can't animate, and if the only thing he did is to get certain people (Fox) give money to other people so that those other people would then do all the things necessary to make a movie... why aren't you doing the same thing? Obviously, if it takes no effort, no skill and no talents, then every random Joe should be able to do it.</p><p>Go on, try it. I'm waiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , jealous much ?
Like him or not , but given how successful he is , Cameron must be doing SOMETHING right.Put another way : if he ca n't direct , ca n't write , ca n't code , ca n't model and ca n't animate , and if the only thing he did is to get certain people ( Fox ) give money to other people so that those other people would then do all the things necessary to make a movie... why are n't you doing the same thing ?
Obviously , if it takes no effort , no skill and no talents , then every random Joe should be able to do it.Go on , try it .
I 'm waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, jealous much?
Like him or not, but given how successful he is, Cameron must be doing SOMETHING right.Put another way: if he can't direct, can't write, can't code, can't model and can't animate, and if the only thing he did is to get certain people (Fox) give money to other people so that those other people would then do all the things necessary to make a movie... why aren't you doing the same thing?
Obviously, if it takes no effort, no skill and no talents, then every random Joe should be able to do it.Go on, try it.
I'm waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800582</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Howitzer86</author>
	<datestamp>1263719100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, however, some actors can be reproduced.  A CGI version of Keanu Reeves (such as the one created almost 10 years ago), would never be noticed as odd, unsettling, or surreal.
<br> <br>
- because he already looks that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , however , some actors can be reproduced .
A CGI version of Keanu Reeves ( such as the one created almost 10 years ago ) , would never be noticed as odd , unsettling , or surreal .
- because he already looks that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, however, some actors can be reproduced.
A CGI version of Keanu Reeves (such as the one created almost 10 years ago), would never be noticed as odd, unsettling, or surreal.
- because he already looks that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798306</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention porn.</p><p>Black Market Anna Farisbot in Cybersluts 15? Yes please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention porn.Black Market Anna Farisbot in Cybersluts 15 ?
Yes please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention porn.Black Market Anna Farisbot in Cybersluts 15?
Yes please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798452</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>briareus</author>
	<datestamp>1263744840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts"</p><p>You clearly don't understand what motion capture is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but you no longer need to hire filming locations , stage stunts " You clearly do n't understand what motion capture is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts"You clearly don't understand what motion capture is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128</id>
	<title>Input-Output...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1263742080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Input part - the facial-capture tech is obviously ready. At most it may need some tweaking.</p><p>The output part... Like you said. Uncanny valley effect may still be present with humans. BUT..<br>Considering that Battle Angel*, which Cameron plans to do as (one of) his next project(s) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I'd say that he is more than "just talking".</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt> *The main character is a 200+ year old cyborg girl that changes several bodies throughout the story while keeping the same face and similar body size)</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Input part - the facial-capture tech is obviously ready .
At most it may need some tweaking.The output part... Like you said .
Uncanny valley effect may still be present with humans .
BUT..Considering that Battle Angel * , which Cameron plans to do as ( one of ) his next project ( s ) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I 'd say that he is more than " just talking " .
* The main character is a 200 + year old cyborg girl that changes several bodies throughout the story while keeping the same face and similar body size )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Input part - the facial-capture tech is obviously ready.
At most it may need some tweaking.The output part... Like you said.
Uncanny valley effect may still be present with humans.
BUT..Considering that Battle Angel*, which Cameron plans to do as (one of) his next project(s) is based around exactly that kind of implementation of the technology - I'd say that he is more than "just talking".
*The main character is a 200+ year old cyborg girl that changes several bodies throughout the story while keeping the same face and similar body size) 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798808</id>
	<title>The Death of Movies</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1263747600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The deal with these great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deal with these great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience , that 's something that ca n't be replicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deal with these great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800274</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263759660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.</p></div><p>Actually, it wouldn't be. Slave labor is actually significantly less productive than free labor, even after you factor in the wages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point : It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money , and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper , yet it would not be ethical.Actually , it would n't be .
Slave labor is actually significantly less productive than free labor , even after you factor in the wages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.Actually, it wouldn't be.
Slave labor is actually significantly less productive than free labor, even after you factor in the wages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801572</id>
	<title>Re:Input-Output...</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1263725460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So he is doing the Battle Angel Alita film? Cool.</p><p>However, the most recent example of this I can think of is the Original Arnie Terminator they included in Terminator: Salvation.</p><p>That, too, only got away with being CGI because it was MEANT to look a little bit alien and disturbing. Try the same thing with Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood, and you're still going to have trouble getting it realistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So he is doing the Battle Angel Alita film ?
Cool.However , the most recent example of this I can think of is the Original Arnie Terminator they included in Terminator : Salvation.That , too , only got away with being CGI because it was MEANT to look a little bit alien and disturbing .
Try the same thing with Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood , and you 're still going to have trouble getting it realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he is doing the Battle Angel Alita film?
Cool.However, the most recent example of this I can think of is the Original Arnie Terminator they included in Terminator: Salvation.That, too, only got away with being CGI because it was MEANT to look a little bit alien and disturbing.
Try the same thing with Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood, and you're still going to have trouble getting it realistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805204</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263757320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the studios like those attention whores: they sell movies. A big-name actor is more than just someone in a movie: they're a sales aid, a movie feature, a plot device, etc. They're good for business.</p><p>You realize that studios used to "own" actors through exclusive contracts, right? The problem is that studios do not "own" the actors exclusively anymore, as they did then. They would "trade" actors amongst each other, but at the end of the day, a studio would essentially/mostly profit from a single actor's work. There was none of the diversity that there is now.</p><p>So yeah, if studios went to artificial actors, you could expect to see 20 of increasingly generic films with the same actors in them. The new and exciting would likely go away, and the cost of movies would likely go up, if anything. But the studios (you know, the same ones which pushed the DMCA?) would, at least, own all of the film assets again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the studios like those attention whores : they sell movies .
A big-name actor is more than just someone in a movie : they 're a sales aid , a movie feature , a plot device , etc .
They 're good for business.You realize that studios used to " own " actors through exclusive contracts , right ?
The problem is that studios do not " own " the actors exclusively anymore , as they did then .
They would " trade " actors amongst each other , but at the end of the day , a studio would essentially/mostly profit from a single actor 's work .
There was none of the diversity that there is now.So yeah , if studios went to artificial actors , you could expect to see 20 of increasingly generic films with the same actors in them .
The new and exciting would likely go away , and the cost of movies would likely go up , if anything .
But the studios ( you know , the same ones which pushed the DMCA ?
) would , at least , own all of the film assets again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the studios like those attention whores: they sell movies.
A big-name actor is more than just someone in a movie: they're a sales aid, a movie feature, a plot device, etc.
They're good for business.You realize that studios used to "own" actors through exclusive contracts, right?
The problem is that studios do not "own" the actors exclusively anymore, as they did then.
They would "trade" actors amongst each other, but at the end of the day, a studio would essentially/mostly profit from a single actor's work.
There was none of the diversity that there is now.So yeah, if studios went to artificial actors, you could expect to see 20 of increasingly generic films with the same actors in them.
The new and exciting would likely go away, and the cost of movies would likely go up, if anything.
But the studios (you know, the same ones which pushed the DMCA?
) would, at least, own all of the film assets again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802466</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>caitsith01</author>
	<datestamp>1263731460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features.</p></div><p>And they still looked animated to me.  Apart from one or two extreme close up shots, which admittedly looked amazing, a great deal of the time the Navi still had that odd, plastic, overly smooth look that is a telltale sign that CGI is in effect.</p><p>I seriously question the sanity of anyone who claims they couldn't pick which bits of Avatar were rendered.</p><p>The real breakthrough was the 3D, which was phenomenal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were n't humans , they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features.And they still looked animated to me .
Apart from one or two extreme close up shots , which admittedly looked amazing , a great deal of the time the Navi still had that odd , plastic , overly smooth look that is a telltale sign that CGI is in effect.I seriously question the sanity of anyone who claims they could n't pick which bits of Avatar were rendered.The real breakthrough was the 3D , which was phenomenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those weren't humans, they were blue skinned aliens with very different facial features.And they still looked animated to me.
Apart from one or two extreme close up shots, which admittedly looked amazing, a great deal of the time the Navi still had that odd, plastic, overly smooth look that is a telltale sign that CGI is in effect.I seriously question the sanity of anyone who claims they couldn't pick which bits of Avatar were rendered.The real breakthrough was the 3D, which was phenomenal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934</id>
	<title>"How cool would that be?"</title>
	<author>Laxitive</author>
	<datestamp>1263740280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How cool would that be?"</p><p>I don't know.  Depends on how good the movie is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How cool would that be ?
" I do n't know .
Depends on how good the movie is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How cool would that be?
"I don't know.
Depends on how good the movie is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819718</id>
	<title>Re: uncanny valley</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) by making the navi different enough from people. I have yet to see a believable CG human character.</i></p><p>The scenes with the humans were artificial too.  At least some of them, like with the grumpy old guy giving the briefing.  Either that or they forced some bad 3D on the scenes in post.</p><p>How about the scene when they first tried transference with SW's character?  Was that just a composite?  It certainly looked like SW was done as a younger version of herself (that, or she's quite an amazing 60-year-old.  Has somebody published a scene/effects list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny \ _valley [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] ) by making the navi different enough from people .
I have yet to see a believable CG human character.The scenes with the humans were artificial too .
At least some of them , like with the grumpy old guy giving the briefing .
Either that or they forced some bad 3D on the scenes in post.How about the scene when they first tried transference with SW 's character ?
Was that just a composite ?
It certainly looked like SW was done as a younger version of herself ( that , or she 's quite an amazing 60-year-old .
Has somebody published a scene/effects list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameron sidestepped the uncanny valley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) by making the navi different enough from people.
I have yet to see a believable CG human character.The scenes with the humans were artificial too.
At least some of them, like with the grumpy old guy giving the briefing.
Either that or they forced some bad 3D on the scenes in post.How about the scene when they first tried transference with SW's character?
Was that just a composite?
It certainly looked like SW was done as a younger version of herself (that, or she's quite an amazing 60-year-old.
Has somebody published a scene/effects list?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</id>
	<title>Ethical line ?  In movies ?</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1263740100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</p><p>Eh. No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere. " Eh .
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."Eh.
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798238</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar did not address the uncanny valley</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1263743280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct but still, for the most part the Na'vi did look real and more importantly they looked alive.</p><p>I've looked at the movie and at high-res stills and I never thought "this looks so fake". In fact, one scene with  a Samson helicopter and a bunch of mercenaries did look like CGI to me; then, reading Cinefex I saw a picture of the scene and it was real (1:1 model of the helicopter, the people and even some of the grass)</p><p>I am doing 3d work (not at <em>that</em> level) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong, way to orange. Again, in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that, otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct but still , for the most part the Na'vi did look real and more importantly they looked alive.I 've looked at the movie and at high-res stills and I never thought " this looks so fake " .
In fact , one scene with a Samson helicopter and a bunch of mercenaries did look like CGI to me ; then , reading Cinefex I saw a picture of the scene and it was real ( 1 : 1 model of the helicopter , the people and even some of the grass ) I am doing 3d work ( not at that level ) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong , way to orange .
Again , in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that , otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct but still, for the most part the Na'vi did look real and more importantly they looked alive.I've looked at the movie and at high-res stills and I never thought "this looks so fake".
In fact, one scene with  a Samson helicopter and a bunch of mercenaries did look like CGI to me; then, reading Cinefex I saw a picture of the scene and it was real (1:1 model of the helicopter, the people and even some of the grass)I am doing 3d work (not at that level) and I usually know where to look for imperfections... the only place I could spot things looking fake was in the night scenes with the Na'vi tribesmen by the fire... the light on their faces was wrong, way to orange.
Again, in the Cinefex article this was alluded - they had to make a special shader for that, otherwise blue skin + orange light = zombie gray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800896</id>
	<title>End of the Cult of Celebrity?</title>
	<author>Zobeid</author>
	<datestamp>1263721020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this technology becomes widespread (which is far from certain, because the price needs to come down a lot). . .   It could mean an end to the Cult of Celebrity, or the Cult of Stardom, that actors today enjoy.</p><p>Human beings are instinctively "hard-wired" to recognize and respond to faces.  When we see the faces of actors on the screen, and become familiar with them, we begin to feel -- falsely -- as if we know them.  They start to seem like friends.  They become trusted.  And thus the Cult of Celebrity begins.</p><p>The Avatar technology could eventually lead to actors being treated more like voice actors in animated features, or like the puppeteers who made The Muppet Show and The Dark Crystal.  Because that's effectively what they become. . .  Puppeteers.  They lend their voices and actions to characters, but you don't see their real faces.  Such persons can be recognized, and often are recognized, for their talents.  However, we tend not to look toward them for. . .  political endorsements. . .   social activism. . .  gossip about their private lives. . .  and so forth.  They don't get the Cult of Celebrity.</p><p>And I think that's healthy.  I'd like to see the Cult of Celebrity lay down and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this technology becomes widespread ( which is far from certain , because the price needs to come down a lot ) .
. .
It could mean an end to the Cult of Celebrity , or the Cult of Stardom , that actors today enjoy.Human beings are instinctively " hard-wired " to recognize and respond to faces .
When we see the faces of actors on the screen , and become familiar with them , we begin to feel -- falsely -- as if we know them .
They start to seem like friends .
They become trusted .
And thus the Cult of Celebrity begins.The Avatar technology could eventually lead to actors being treated more like voice actors in animated features , or like the puppeteers who made The Muppet Show and The Dark Crystal .
Because that 's effectively what they become .
. .
Puppeteers. They lend their voices and actions to characters , but you do n't see their real faces .
Such persons can be recognized , and often are recognized , for their talents .
However , we tend not to look toward them for .
. .
political endorsements .
. .
social activism .
. .
gossip about their private lives .
. .
and so forth .
They do n't get the Cult of Celebrity.And I think that 's healthy .
I 'd like to see the Cult of Celebrity lay down and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this technology becomes widespread (which is far from certain, because the price needs to come down a lot).
. .
It could mean an end to the Cult of Celebrity, or the Cult of Stardom, that actors today enjoy.Human beings are instinctively "hard-wired" to recognize and respond to faces.
When we see the faces of actors on the screen, and become familiar with them, we begin to feel -- falsely -- as if we know them.
They start to seem like friends.
They become trusted.
And thus the Cult of Celebrity begins.The Avatar technology could eventually lead to actors being treated more like voice actors in animated features, or like the puppeteers who made The Muppet Show and The Dark Crystal.
Because that's effectively what they become.
. .
Puppeteers.  They lend their voices and actions to characters, but you don't see their real faces.
Such persons can be recognized, and often are recognized, for their talents.
However, we tend not to look toward them for.
. .
political endorsements.
. .
social activism.
. .
gossip about their private lives.
. .
and so forth.
They don't get the Cult of Celebrity.And I think that's healthy.
I'd like to see the Cult of Celebrity lay down and die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798134</id>
	<title>Rebirth of Firefly!</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1263742140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now they can finally resurrect Firefly with CGI reproductions of the original cast! It could work as long as the industry does not get too greedy and hire Gilbert Gottfried for Mal and Miley Cyrus for Inara.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they can finally resurrect Firefly with CGI reproductions of the original cast !
It could work as long as the industry does not get too greedy and hire Gilbert Gottfried for Mal and Miley Cyrus for Inara .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they can finally resurrect Firefly with CGI reproductions of the original cast!
It could work as long as the industry does not get too greedy and hire Gilbert Gottfried for Mal and Miley Cyrus for Inara.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805566</id>
	<title>Re:I'd go the opposite.</title>
	<author>k-macjapan</author>
	<datestamp>1263806160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was recently in Vienna and went to see an opera(The Barber of Seville) performed at the Wiener Staatsoper. The lead charcter was played by a Korean by the name of Tae Joong Yang(http://www.zagovec-artists.de/index.php?s=kuenstler&amp;g=4&amp;IDK=68&amp;lang=sp2). I really enjoyed his performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was recently in Vienna and went to see an opera ( The Barber of Seville ) performed at the Wiener Staatsoper .
The lead charcter was played by a Korean by the name of Tae Joong Yang ( http : //www.zagovec-artists.de/index.php ? s = kuenstler&amp;g = 4&amp;IDK = 68&amp;lang = sp2 ) .
I really enjoyed his performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was recently in Vienna and went to see an opera(The Barber of Seville) performed at the Wiener Staatsoper.
The lead charcter was played by a Korean by the name of Tae Joong Yang(http://www.zagovec-artists.de/index.php?s=kuenstler&amp;g=4&amp;IDK=68&amp;lang=sp2).
I really enjoyed his performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800782</id>
	<title>We should be scanning actors like mad today</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1263720180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before the concept of their 3d image as protected property comes into play.</p><p>Forget Sean Connery. Imagine a young Angelina Jolie and a young Megan Fox in a hardcore remake of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, pick the movie yourselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before the concept of their 3d image as protected property comes into play.Forget Sean Connery .
Imagine a young Angelina Jolie and a young Megan Fox in a hardcore remake of ... well , pick the movie yourselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before the concept of their 3d image as protected property comes into play.Forget Sean Connery.
Imagine a young Angelina Jolie and a young Megan Fox in a hardcore remake of ... well, pick the movie yourselves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803276</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263738180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.</p><p>FYI both the Chinese and the US were attacked by Japan in WW2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.FYI both the Chinese and the US were attacked by Japan in WW2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Chinese alternative history movies where well known US actors find themselves on the losing side of World War 2.FYI both the Chinese and the US were attacked by Japan in WW2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800836</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes the bootleg porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263720540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Porn movies with well known actors</p></div><p>Why is that annoying? How long have we dreamt about that? Hot grits down <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie\_Portman" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Natalie Portman's</a> [wikipedia.org] pants, please!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn movies with well known actorsWhy is that annoying ?
How long have we dreamt about that ?
Hot grits down Natalie Portman 's [ wikipedia.org ] pants , please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn movies with well known actorsWhy is that annoying?
How long have we dreamt about that?
Hot grits down Natalie Portman's [wikipedia.org] pants, please!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804170</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar's CGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263746580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, considering that the last 'photorealistic" animated movie was Final Fantasy, I'm not surprised Pixar are making non-photorealisitic movies. Final fanasty looked awesome (there were times I wasn't sure I was watching animation) except when they opened their mouths or moved. You get a lot of talking and walking in Pixar movies. As well as clothing simulations, water simulations, one had a character with stretchy arms. I totally disagree they have contributed nothing to the advance in CGI in the last 10 years, given how wide a field it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering that the last 'photorealistic " animated movie was Final Fantasy , I 'm not surprised Pixar are making non-photorealisitic movies .
Final fanasty looked awesome ( there were times I was n't sure I was watching animation ) except when they opened their mouths or moved .
You get a lot of talking and walking in Pixar movies .
As well as clothing simulations , water simulations , one had a character with stretchy arms .
I totally disagree they have contributed nothing to the advance in CGI in the last 10 years , given how wide a field it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering that the last 'photorealistic" animated movie was Final Fantasy, I'm not surprised Pixar are making non-photorealisitic movies.
Final fanasty looked awesome (there were times I wasn't sure I was watching animation) except when they opened their mouths or moved.
You get a lot of talking and walking in Pixar movies.
As well as clothing simulations, water simulations, one had a character with stretchy arms.
I totally disagree they have contributed nothing to the advance in CGI in the last 10 years, given how wide a field it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30847378</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Rui del-Negro</author>
	<datestamp>1264095900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skills</p></div><p>Absolutely. He's an <i>excellent</i> producer. He's just a so-so director and a terrible, terrible writer. In fact, by now even he has figured out the last part, and doesn't really try to write anything anymore.</p><p>I'm sure "Aliens" made a lot more money than "Alien". And yet the latter is a suspense classic with a solid script and a consistent atmosphere, while the former is a mad race between bullet holes and plot holes. Entertaining at times, but hardly on the same level in terms of storytelling (you know, that part of the film that makes you <i>feel</i> things, not just go "Whoa! Geat explosions, dude!").</p><p>I'm always amused (though not amazed anymore) by that fact that, whenever someone says "X is a pretty low quality product", someone (usually an american - maybe it's a cultural thing) immediately replies "no, it's great quality because it made a lot of dollars".</p><p>I guess heaven must be eating a Big Mac while you use Microsoft Windows to watch Oprah Winfrey.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skillsAbsolutely .
He 's an excellent producer .
He 's just a so-so director and a terrible , terrible writer .
In fact , by now even he has figured out the last part , and does n't really try to write anything anymore.I 'm sure " Aliens " made a lot more money than " Alien " .
And yet the latter is a suspense classic with a solid script and a consistent atmosphere , while the former is a mad race between bullet holes and plot holes .
Entertaining at times , but hardly on the same level in terms of storytelling ( you know , that part of the film that makes you feel things , not just go " Whoa !
Geat explosions , dude !
" ) .I 'm always amused ( though not amazed anymore ) by that fact that , whenever someone says " X is a pretty low quality product " , someone ( usually an american - maybe it 's a cultural thing ) immediately replies " no , it 's great quality because it made a lot of dollars " .I guess heaven must be eating a Big Mac while you use Microsoft Windows to watch Oprah Winfrey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>still Cameron will be where he is now - on the freaking movie Olympus for his organisational and fundraising skillsAbsolutely.
He's an excellent producer.
He's just a so-so director and a terrible, terrible writer.
In fact, by now even he has figured out the last part, and doesn't really try to write anything anymore.I'm sure "Aliens" made a lot more money than "Alien".
And yet the latter is a suspense classic with a solid script and a consistent atmosphere, while the former is a mad race between bullet holes and plot holes.
Entertaining at times, but hardly on the same level in terms of storytelling (you know, that part of the film that makes you feel things, not just go "Whoa!
Geat explosions, dude!
").I'm always amused (though not amazed anymore) by that fact that, whenever someone says "X is a pretty low quality product", someone (usually an american - maybe it's a cultural thing) immediately replies "no, it's great quality because it made a lot of dollars".I guess heaven must be eating a Big Mac while you use Microsoft Windows to watch Oprah Winfrey.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30913148</id>
	<title>Re:Perfected</title>
	<author>linuxpyro</author>
	<datestamp>1264522140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, it was still kind of obvious that it was rendered for most of it.  But I thought they used that too their advantage.  For me, at least, it was enough that most of the time suspension of disbelief kicked in and I didn't think about it.  I thought they did a good job making it that.</p><p>Then again I did end up thinking instead about the plot similarities to Pocahontas, but that's another matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , it was still kind of obvious that it was rendered for most of it .
But I thought they used that too their advantage .
For me , at least , it was enough that most of the time suspension of disbelief kicked in and I did n't think about it .
I thought they did a good job making it that.Then again I did end up thinking instead about the plot similarities to Pocahontas , but that 's another matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, it was still kind of obvious that it was rendered for most of it.
But I thought they used that too their advantage.
For me, at least, it was enough that most of the time suspension of disbelief kicked in and I didn't think about it.
I thought they did a good job making it that.Then again I did end up thinking instead about the plot similarities to Pocahontas, but that's another matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740</id>
	<title>"ethical line" schmethical line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263747000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is HOLLYWOOD we're talking about, where they f*ck their best friend over 2x before breakfast.</p><p>I'm pretty certain that this technology will be used to REPLACE extras by the 000's within 10 years, and prima donna actors within 25 years.</p><p>Once you've mo-capped 10,000 people walking in a straight line in your database, how hard would it be for a director to tell his cgi guy 'yeah, I want the actor to cross the room', and the cgi can pull up a menu and reply 'you want a sashay, swagger, jaunty gait, stalk, slide, stomp, amble, limp,or other sort of walk; also, do you want John Wayne, Johnny Depp, Jack Nicholson, or Carrot Top as the main feel?'</p><p>Sure, you might need/want mo-cap for some sort of core framework, but any doofus off the street could do that for 0.0001\% of what Tom Cruise would want for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is HOLLYWOOD we 're talking about , where they f * ck their best friend over 2x before breakfast.I 'm pretty certain that this technology will be used to REPLACE extras by the 000 's within 10 years , and prima donna actors within 25 years.Once you 've mo-capped 10,000 people walking in a straight line in your database , how hard would it be for a director to tell his cgi guy 'yeah , I want the actor to cross the room ' , and the cgi can pull up a menu and reply 'you want a sashay , swagger , jaunty gait , stalk , slide , stomp , amble , limp,or other sort of walk ; also , do you want John Wayne , Johnny Depp , Jack Nicholson , or Carrot Top as the main feel ?
'Sure , you might need/want mo-cap for some sort of core framework , but any doofus off the street could do that for 0.0001 \ % of what Tom Cruise would want for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is HOLLYWOOD we're talking about, where they f*ck their best friend over 2x before breakfast.I'm pretty certain that this technology will be used to REPLACE extras by the 000's within 10 years, and prima donna actors within 25 years.Once you've mo-capped 10,000 people walking in a straight line in your database, how hard would it be for a director to tell his cgi guy 'yeah, I want the actor to cross the room', and the cgi can pull up a menu and reply 'you want a sashay, swagger, jaunty gait, stalk, slide, stomp, amble, limp,or other sort of walk; also, do you want John Wayne, Johnny Depp, Jack Nicholson, or Carrot Top as the main feel?
'Sure, you might need/want mo-cap for some sort of core framework, but any doofus off the street could do that for 0.0001\% of what Tom Cruise would want for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805132</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263756480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.</p></div><p>You haven't thought this one through, I don't think. You still need to hire big-name actors, especially if you want a "character franchise" (which many people like due to the continuity and studios like due to compulsive sales - "oh look, another Clint Eastwood film!").</p><p>Once a character is developed, they're stuck with the same actor unless they want to kill the character in the process of finding a new actor. I doubt that's something they'd want to do.</p><p>On the other hand, the character - arguably something very close to IP in the movie world would remain with the studio which develops it, which is a bit of a throwback towards what studios have been after since it stopped: "owned" actors who worked for one studio, and one studio only. So maybe they'd push it through anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand , but you no longer need to hire filming locations , stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.You have n't thought this one through , I do n't think .
You still need to hire big-name actors , especially if you want a " character franchise " ( which many people like due to the continuity and studios like due to compulsive sales - " oh look , another Clint Eastwood film !
" ) .Once a character is developed , they 're stuck with the same actor unless they want to kill the character in the process of finding a new actor .
I doubt that 's something they 'd want to do.On the other hand , the character - arguably something very close to IP in the movie world would remain with the studio which develops it , which is a bit of a throwback towards what studios have been after since it stopped : " owned " actors who worked for one studio , and one studio only .
So maybe they 'd push it through anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using rendered models not only saves you the millions that big name actors typically demand, but you no longer need to hire filming locations, stage stunts etc... Actors face becoming obsolete sooner or later.You haven't thought this one through, I don't think.
You still need to hire big-name actors, especially if you want a "character franchise" (which many people like due to the continuity and studios like due to compulsive sales - "oh look, another Clint Eastwood film!
").Once a character is developed, they're stuck with the same actor unless they want to kill the character in the process of finding a new actor.
I doubt that's something they'd want to do.On the other hand, the character - arguably something very close to IP in the movie world would remain with the studio which develops it, which is a bit of a throwback towards what studios have been after since it stopped: "owned" actors who worked for one studio, and one studio only.
So maybe they'd push it through anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799568</id>
	<title>This has been a topic for ages</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1263754020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been a topic for ages and certainly there is still a long way to go on the road to perfection.  This is very good marketing, no doubt, but on the whole it sounds like Cameron had a few hits of what Peter Molyneux is smoking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been a topic for ages and certainly there is still a long way to go on the road to perfection .
This is very good marketing , no doubt , but on the whole it sounds like Cameron had a few hits of what Peter Molyneux is smoking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been a topic for ages and certainly there is still a long way to go on the road to perfection.
This is very good marketing, no doubt, but on the whole it sounds like Cameron had a few hits of what Peter Molyneux is smoking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798602</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical line ? In movies ?</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1263745980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.</i>"</p><p>Haven't you figured out movie speak yet ? In movieland,</p><p>"<i>yes</i>" means  "<i>maybe</i>"</p><p>"<i>maybe</i>" means  "<i>no</i>"</p><p>"<i>soon</i>" means  "<i>never</i>"</p><p>and "<i>somewhere</i>" means  "<i>elsewhere</i>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere .
" Have n't you figured out movie speak yet ?
In movieland , " yes " means " maybe " " maybe " means " no " " soon " means " never " and " somewhere " means " elsewhere "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.
"Haven't you figured out movie speak yet ?
In movieland,"yes" means  "maybe""maybe" means  "no""soon" means  "never"and "somewhere" means  "elsewhere"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798582</id>
	<title>Simone?</title>
	<author>DarkofPeace</author>
	<datestamp>1263745800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought this topic was covered already.

<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought this topic was covered already .
http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought this topic was covered already.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799300</id>
	<title>Re: uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're getting really close: http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're getting really close : http : //gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're getting really close: http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798910</id>
	<title>Re:"How cool would that be?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263748560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not so cool in Debbie Does Dallas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not so cool in Debbie Does Dallas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not so cool in Debbie Does Dallas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800598</id>
	<title>Mix The Best-Do the Bartman.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases). "</p><p>A point demonstrated by the voice actors of The Simpsons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The point of human actors are that they 're good at their job - acting ( and marketing themselves , in some cases ) .
" A point demonstrated by the voice actors of The Simpsons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases).
"A point demonstrated by the voice actors of The Simpsons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>omgarthas</author>
	<datestamp>1263740100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, for example, we'll have a secondary actor who plays the role of a big star who is also playing the role of an historical character...<br> <br>If thats the future of Hollywood actors/movies, looks quite depressing....</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , for example , we 'll have a secondary actor who plays the role of a big star who is also playing the role of an historical character... If thats the future of Hollywood actors/movies , looks quite depressing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, for example, we'll have a secondary actor who plays the role of a big star who is also playing the role of an historical character... If thats the future of Hollywood actors/movies, looks quite depressing....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798468</id>
	<title>Re:Using existing actors is only the first step</title>
	<author>briareus</author>
	<datestamp>1263744960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not gonna happen.  To truly get rid of grossly overpaid celebrities (whether they're actors, athletes, whatever) you'd have to get rid of the grossly overpaying audiences.  Not everyone's a slashdot geek eager to watch artificial actors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not gon na happen .
To truly get rid of grossly overpaid celebrities ( whether they 're actors , athletes , whatever ) you 'd have to get rid of the grossly overpaying audiences .
Not everyone 's a slashdot geek eager to watch artificial actors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not gonna happen.
To truly get rid of grossly overpaid celebrities (whether they're actors, athletes, whatever) you'd have to get rid of the grossly overpaying audiences.
Not everyone's a slashdot geek eager to watch artificial actors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797996</id>
	<title>There is no ethical line left to draw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you get someone "playing" in a new movie where Clint looks like he was at his 35, there is really no ethical line left to draw. Could that movie win an Oscar? Who would really get the statue? The "motion-host actor"? Cameron? Someone who sits in front of a computer to produce the "magic"?</p><p>I am sure the studios would love to make all these movies, packed with cheaply played former movie stars - just like Disney ripped off and created copyright for the stories under the studio for all the great works of classic tales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get someone " playing " in a new movie where Clint looks like he was at his 35 , there is really no ethical line left to draw .
Could that movie win an Oscar ?
Who would really get the statue ?
The " motion-host actor " ?
Cameron ? Someone who sits in front of a computer to produce the " magic " ? I am sure the studios would love to make all these movies , packed with cheaply played former movie stars - just like Disney ripped off and created copyright for the stories under the studio for all the great works of classic tales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get someone "playing" in a new movie where Clint looks like he was at his 35, there is really no ethical line left to draw.
Could that movie win an Oscar?
Who would really get the statue?
The "motion-host actor"?
Cameron? Someone who sits in front of a computer to produce the "magic"?I am sure the studios would love to make all these movies, packed with cheaply played former movie stars - just like Disney ripped off and created copyright for the stories under the studio for all the great works of classic tales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798162</id>
	<title>Not yet</title>
	<author>comm2k</author>
	<datestamp>1263742380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One example I know - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7edm5fkD1E" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7edm5fkD1E</a> [youtube.com] - looks very uncanny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One example I know - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Q7edm5fkD1E [ youtube.com ] - looks very uncanny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One example I know - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7edm5fkD1E [youtube.com] - looks very uncanny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801200</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263723000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical."</p><p>And yet, historically, that's pretty much exactly what did happen in 18th century England - to the point of actual slavery, in America. And the manufacturers generating that profit from abuse of their workers not only found no ethical problems with it, but argued that 1) profit was an ethical imperative for the improvement of society (Adam Smith), and 2) they were doing the workers a favour by improving their living conditions - 'why, if not for us they'd be living in mud huts in bogs in Ireland/jungles in Africa!'</p><p>(Hey there, Roald Dahl! Willy Wonka mouths EXACTLY those platitudes in his 'Oompa-Loompa' speech in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Only apparently without a trace of irony.)</p><p>So, in *our* history, yes, 'the fact that it's profitable' did very much sidestep all ethical considerations. The manufacturers simply got to redefine ethics in their favour. That was neat! Ah, the golden age of Classical Liberal Economics.</p><p>And guess what, that's exactly what's happening today in China and Mexico and the Phillipines. Same kind of conditions, same kind of ethical arguments put forward about how the rigors of low-wage industrialisation is 'doing the workers a favour by giving them jobs they couldn't get elsewhere'. Have we raised our ethical standards as a society? No we have not, we have dropped them. Back to the Dickens era.</p><p>What stopped that kind of insanity in our history was when workers and anti-slavery campaigners started organising and *forced* the manufacturers to change their ways. But that's Communism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Case in point : It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money , and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper , yet it would not be ethical .
" And yet , historically , that 's pretty much exactly what did happen in 18th century England - to the point of actual slavery , in America .
And the manufacturers generating that profit from abuse of their workers not only found no ethical problems with it , but argued that 1 ) profit was an ethical imperative for the improvement of society ( Adam Smith ) , and 2 ) they were doing the workers a favour by improving their living conditions - 'why , if not for us they 'd be living in mud huts in bogs in Ireland/jungles in Africa !
' ( Hey there , Roald Dahl !
Willy Wonka mouths EXACTLY those platitudes in his 'Oompa-Loompa ' speech in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory .
Only apparently without a trace of irony .
) So , in * our * history , yes , 'the fact that it 's profitable ' did very much sidestep all ethical considerations .
The manufacturers simply got to redefine ethics in their favour .
That was neat !
Ah , the golden age of Classical Liberal Economics.And guess what , that 's exactly what 's happening today in China and Mexico and the Phillipines .
Same kind of conditions , same kind of ethical arguments put forward about how the rigors of low-wage industrialisation is 'doing the workers a favour by giving them jobs they could n't get elsewhere' .
Have we raised our ethical standards as a society ?
No we have not , we have dropped them .
Back to the Dickens era.What stopped that kind of insanity in our history was when workers and anti-slavery campaigners started organising and * forced * the manufacturers to change their ways .
But that 's Communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.
"And yet, historically, that's pretty much exactly what did happen in 18th century England - to the point of actual slavery, in America.
And the manufacturers generating that profit from abuse of their workers not only found no ethical problems with it, but argued that 1) profit was an ethical imperative for the improvement of society (Adam Smith), and 2) they were doing the workers a favour by improving their living conditions - 'why, if not for us they'd be living in mud huts in bogs in Ireland/jungles in Africa!
'(Hey there, Roald Dahl!
Willy Wonka mouths EXACTLY those platitudes in his 'Oompa-Loompa' speech in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Only apparently without a trace of irony.
)So, in *our* history, yes, 'the fact that it's profitable' did very much sidestep all ethical considerations.
The manufacturers simply got to redefine ethics in their favour.
That was neat!
Ah, the golden age of Classical Liberal Economics.And guess what, that's exactly what's happening today in China and Mexico and the Phillipines.
Same kind of conditions, same kind of ethical arguments put forward about how the rigors of low-wage industrialisation is 'doing the workers a favour by giving them jobs they couldn't get elsewhere'.
Have we raised our ethical standards as a society?
No we have not, we have dropped them.
Back to the Dickens era.What stopped that kind of insanity in our history was when workers and anti-slavery campaigners started organising and *forced* the manufacturers to change their ways.
But that's Communism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798546</id>
	<title>Re:Doing to movies what Microsoft did to Programmi</title>
	<author>Schadrach</author>
	<datestamp>1263745560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...unless they start doing it to porn, in which case he'll give two hooters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless they start doing it to porn , in which case he 'll give two hooters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unless they start doing it to porn, in which case he'll give two hooters...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801394</id>
	<title>Re:Terminator Salvation</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1263724260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young' Sean Connery?</i> </p><p>The Connery Bond films are as firmly anchored in the sixties as the classic image of Bogart is in the forties.</p><p>An actor with a minimum of common sense abandons these roles as he grows older and their time is past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young ' Sean Connery ?
The Connery Bond films are as firmly anchored in the sixties as the classic image of Bogart is in the forties.An actor with a minimum of common sense abandons these roles as he grows older and their time is past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as far as doing something more elaborate like a new Bond film starring a 'young' Sean Connery?
The Connery Bond films are as firmly anchored in the sixties as the classic image of Bogart is in the forties.An actor with a minimum of common sense abandons these roles as he grows older and their time is past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798532</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Aredridel</author>
	<datestamp>1263745440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new ractor overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new ractor overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new ractor overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798024</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Max Headroom:</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1263741120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My Word. You could have all your politicians in little boxes - very handy."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My Word .
You could have all your politicians in little boxes - very handy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My Word.
You could have all your politicians in little boxes - very handy.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30818058</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1263907140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.</p></div><p>Which actor are you talking about? GP was talking about rendered models. Which don't even necessarily look like an existing human being: it could be totally imaginary. There is no "actor" involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , one can question whether the studios have the ( moral and legal ) right to the actors ' image beyond what they 've filmed.Which actor are you talking about ?
GP was talking about rendered models .
Which do n't even necessarily look like an existing human being : it could be totally imaginary .
There is no " actor " involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.Which actor are you talking about?
GP was talking about rendered models.
Which don't even necessarily look like an existing human being: it could be totally imaginary.
There is no "actor" involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799708</id>
	<title>Re:James Cameron perfected... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Medicore? Well, he made most of the most profitable films. You might not like his movies but that does not make him bad at what he does.</p><p>I wish I could be as medicore as him in anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Medicore ?
Well , he made most of the most profitable films .
You might not like his movies but that does not make him bad at what he does.I wish I could be as medicore as him in anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medicore?
Well, he made most of the most profitable films.
You might not like his movies but that does not make him bad at what he does.I wish I could be as medicore as him in anything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804452</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263748920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it ethical to out source work to India?</p><p>Is it ethical to replace workers in factories with machines?</p><p>Is it ethical to replace horses and there carers with cars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it ethical to out source work to India ? Is it ethical to replace workers in factories with machines ? Is it ethical to replace horses and there carers with cars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it ethical to out source work to India?Is it ethical to replace workers in factories with machines?Is it ethical to replace horses and there carers with cars?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805094</id>
	<title>Re: Mix The Best</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263756120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries.</p></div><p>Will. Not. Happen.</p><p>The studios have been trying to "kill off" the movie star for almost 50 years now. It's a wet dream that keeps resurfacing, and is not likely to be possible at any time.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Stars become stars due to their on-screen personas. That persona is partially the script, but it largely the personality of the actor shining through. That personality is not something which can be 'manufactured' in a studio: it belongs to an individual. Imagine: another Die Hard movie in 30 years, but with someone who not only has the ability of someone like Christopher Lambert, but the personality. Yeah, not going to happen: you'll need that original 'personality'.</p><p>Star actors sell movies, not only by their looks but also by the characters they play, and their personalities. There will always be "we need a Harrison Ford type" (I think Shia LaBeouf is it, currently, until he gets replaced, the brand/variety dies, or it becomes the "Shia LaBeouf type"), but there will never be "another John Wayne".</p><p>That, and if it could be done, it would be prohibitively expensive. They'd still need actors to display emotions and personality, and would likely at least want good ones so pulling it off wouldn't be completely half-assed. People would stop going to movies if they were bad.</p><p>You most certainly could not do "studio developed characters". Even if done well, such attempts seem to come off kind of generic and 'plastic' - and not due to technology limitations. There are enough generic people in the world; most of them do not watch movies to see more of themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries.Will .
Not. Happen.The studios have been trying to " kill off " the movie star for almost 50 years now .
It 's a wet dream that keeps resurfacing , and is not likely to be possible at any time.Why ? Stars become stars due to their on-screen personas .
That persona is partially the script , but it largely the personality of the actor shining through .
That personality is not something which can be 'manufactured ' in a studio : it belongs to an individual .
Imagine : another Die Hard movie in 30 years , but with someone who not only has the ability of someone like Christopher Lambert , but the personality .
Yeah , not going to happen : you 'll need that original 'personality'.Star actors sell movies , not only by their looks but also by the characters they play , and their personalities .
There will always be " we need a Harrison Ford type " ( I think Shia LaBeouf is it , currently , until he gets replaced , the brand/variety dies , or it becomes the " Shia LaBeouf type " ) , but there will never be " another John Wayne " .That , and if it could be done , it would be prohibitively expensive .
They 'd still need actors to display emotions and personality , and would likely at least want good ones so pulling it off would n't be completely half-assed .
People would stop going to movies if they were bad.You most certainly could not do " studio developed characters " .
Even if done well , such attempts seem to come off kind of generic and 'plastic ' - and not due to technology limitations .
There are enough generic people in the world ; most of them do not watch movies to see more of themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious goal is the elimination of human actors which will assure higher profit margins for the film industries.Will.
Not. Happen.The studios have been trying to "kill off" the movie star for almost 50 years now.
It's a wet dream that keeps resurfacing, and is not likely to be possible at any time.Why?Stars become stars due to their on-screen personas.
That persona is partially the script, but it largely the personality of the actor shining through.
That personality is not something which can be 'manufactured' in a studio: it belongs to an individual.
Imagine: another Die Hard movie in 30 years, but with someone who not only has the ability of someone like Christopher Lambert, but the personality.
Yeah, not going to happen: you'll need that original 'personality'.Star actors sell movies, not only by their looks but also by the characters they play, and their personalities.
There will always be "we need a Harrison Ford type" (I think Shia LaBeouf is it, currently, until he gets replaced, the brand/variety dies, or it becomes the "Shia LaBeouf type"), but there will never be "another John Wayne".That, and if it could be done, it would be prohibitively expensive.
They'd still need actors to display emotions and personality, and would likely at least want good ones so pulling it off wouldn't be completely half-assed.
People would stop going to movies if they were bad.You most certainly could not do "studio developed characters".
Even if done well, such attempts seem to come off kind of generic and 'plastic' - and not due to technology limitations.
There are enough generic people in the world; most of them do not watch movies to see more of themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100</id>
	<title>Schwarzenegger inTerminator Salvation</title>
	<author>Kenz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1263741900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hasn't tech like this already been used to put a younger looking Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation?<br> <br>

Video clip (may spoil the movie): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY57vJOQIlE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY57vJOQIlE</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't tech like this already been used to put a younger looking Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation ?
Video clip ( may spoil the movie ) : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = aY57vJOQIlE [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't tech like this already been used to put a younger looking Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation?
Video clip (may spoil the movie): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY57vJOQIlE [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799288</id>
	<title>Sigourney Weaver?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1263751740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only person who thought Sigourney Weaver's body looked surprisingly hot, considering her age?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person who thought Sigourney Weaver 's body looked surprisingly hot , considering her age ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person who thought Sigourney Weaver's body looked surprisingly hot, considering her age?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798796</id>
	<title>How about..... NO!</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1263747600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..., bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life, or making Clint Eastwood look 35 again. "How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?" Cameron suggests. "Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No? How cool would that be?"' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</p><p>I say NO!</p><p>If I want to see a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry movie I will get the DVD out.</p><p>Same goes with Bogey! Bond or anything else you dolts might dream up....</p><p>Go do something original for once instead of the same old tired stuff. And head my warning LEAVE THE REAL CLASSIC CINEMA ALONE! Just like turner and his idiotic "colorization" stint just LEAVE MY CLASSICS ALONE! ! ! !</p><p>Some of us don't think your tech is so great or useful, or the movie was all that.. that would be ME.</p><p>"... and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."</p><p>There IS and SHUOLD BE, and this proposal CROSSED IT, no BLEW PAST IT!</p><p>NO NO NO NO NO NO!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... , bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life , or making Clint Eastwood look 35 again .
" How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975 ?
" Cameron suggests .
" Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No ?
How cool would that be ?
" ' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles , and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere .
" I say NO ! If I want to see a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry movie I will get the DVD out.Same goes with Bogey !
Bond or anything else you dolts might dream up....Go do something original for once instead of the same old tired stuff .
And head my warning LEAVE THE REAL CLASSIC CINEMA ALONE !
Just like turner and his idiotic " colorization " stint just LEAVE MY CLASSICS ALONE !
! !
! Some of us do n't think your tech is so great or useful , or the movie was all that.. that would be ME. " .. .
and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere .
" There IS and SHUOLD BE , and this proposal CROSSED IT , no BLEW PAST IT ! NO NO NO NO NO NO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..., bringing Humphrey Bogart back to life, or making Clint Eastwood look 35 again.
"How about another Dirty Harry movie where Clint looks the way he looked in 1975?
" Cameron suggests.
"Or a James Bond movie where Sean Connery looks the way he did in Doctor No?
How cool would that be?
"' The article goes on to quote Cameron as saying you would still need actors to play the roles, and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.
"I say NO!If I want to see a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry movie I will get the DVD out.Same goes with Bogey!
Bond or anything else you dolts might dream up....Go do something original for once instead of the same old tired stuff.
And head my warning LEAVE THE REAL CLASSIC CINEMA ALONE!
Just like turner and his idiotic "colorization" stint just LEAVE MY CLASSICS ALONE!
! !
!Some of us don't think your tech is so great or useful, or the movie was all that.. that would be ME."...
and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere.
"There IS and SHUOLD BE, and this proposal CROSSED IT, no BLEW PAST IT!NO NO NO NO NO NO!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30913148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30810100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30807906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30847378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30818058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30809572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30808460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1252220_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30847378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30810100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30807906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30819762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30808460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30799226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30818058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30805094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30806000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30803598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30800598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30797888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30823956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1252220.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30798436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30809572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30802206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30804782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30801204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1252220.30913148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
