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.