MacLeod Dave wrote:

>> At least conlangers are taking a look at it before moving on. Don't expect
>> John Q. Average to give much more than a passing glance because he's not a
>> language geek and is just watching the movie for its entertainment value.
> No, conlangers look at the mechanics of a language and little else.
> I'm sure a lot of us have also noticed that we tend to look at natural
> languages in a similar way after learning auxlangs - that part of
> language x is a bit vague, this could use a little improvement, etc.
> Regular people don't do that.

Actually no, *auxlangers* are more prone to picking them apart feature 
by feature.  Conlangers tend to look at the mechanics to see what might 
be usuable in their next creations.

>> I'm not looking for sensationalism in films.  In fact that's what turns me
>> off to modern films.  These days it's all about putting on an some type of
>> fashion and stunt show, and forget about having any type of an interesting
>> plot.  If the story is good and portrayed in a believable manner then the
>> movie has done its job.  Again, when the film was made Mel Gibson stated
>> that the point was to highlight the end of Jesus' life and the suffering he
>> went through.  It wasn't about his teachings or philosophy.  I haven't seen
>> the film so I can't yet judge its artistic merits. Maybe it is boring, maybe
>> not.  I will have to say I haven't felt compelled to go out and rent it, or
>> any other recent films for that matter.  I did find it interesting that a
>> filmaker would pay enough attention to authenticity to even attempt a film
>> in Aramaic.
> Right, you might like it. All I'm saying is that it wasn't the kind of
> film that even I (the intended audience) would want to watch a second
> time. And it certainly didn't have much to do with Aramaic besides
> having the language itself there.
> Avatar had a lot more to do with the process of learning languages,
> not just simply having the language there. It looks like you haven't
> seen it though and I don't want to spoil it for anyone here so no more
> detail.

I'm not likely to see it either.  I don't go to movie theaters any more 
(been 3 times in the past 20 years) and for numerous reasons I refuse to 
pay the ridiculous prices for cable or satellite channels, so if/when I 
ever see any movie it will be when it's on free television or when I 
find the DVD on the $3 table at the store.  You really wouldn't spoil 
anything for me.  One reason I don't go to movies any more is I find all 
of them very predictable, but it's really not so much the story but how 
well it's told that matters and these days filmakers do a very poor job 
of that.