SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Ghost Rider, Hannibal Rising, and Bridge to Terabithia

Title: Nothing Special Joined: Oct 25 2006 Posts: 396

So if we're talking inanimate objects, would I be wrong in saying something like "a mountain's northern face"? Does this imply that it owns a face, or am I just slightly personifying an object like a mountain?

Posted: Feb 23 2007 11:44 pm

Depends. Is this Mount Rushmore we're talking about?

Posted: Feb 23 2007 11:59 pm

jonnymorgue wrote:

So if we're talking inanimate objects, would I be wrong in saying something like "a mountain's northern face"? Does this imply that it owns a face, or am I just slightly personifying an object like a mountain?

I think you're personifying the mountain.

The whole owndership by an inanimate object thing has always kind of irked me, I guess. I'd be more likely to say "the northern face of the mountain" than "the mountain's northern face", only because the latter sounds more possessive than the former. The former assumes that the face is a part of the mountain, not owned by the mountain. There's a difference.

Posted: Feb 24 2007 12:08 am

I love the argument. I read it and had a auto-emission session in my lower garb.

In terms of the argument, I usually think of grammatical possession like subclasses. If it were true that referring to inanimate objects as having possession either directly or abstractly was improper, it would, as I see it, defeat the purpose of the possessive pronoun "its". I've often heard "in the trunk of the car," which is technically the same as "in the car's trunk." I feel possession in grammar deals with the relation of objects and events in general, not necessarily any kind of "ownership."

Posted: Feb 24 2007 01:19 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Actually, only Blackheart was cool looking in the comics. Mephisto looked like a fucking goober:

And stop fucking saying it was a comedy. It wasn't. You know how I know it wasn't? Because BlackZarak isn't bitching about it.

And also... BECAUSE IT WASN'T.

He's right you know. I actually liked Ghostrider and thought it was pretty dark for a superhero movie. Yeah, it sucks that it's Nick Cage and it sucks that Black Heart looks like he's fronting an emo band, but the effects were badass and the guy playing Mephisto was really evil. It wasn't a frickin' comedy Jeebus, you're touched in the head.

Posted: Feb 24 2007 06:04 pm

Rycona wrote:

I love the argument. I read it and had a auto-emission session in my lower garb.

In terms of the argument, I usually think of grammatical possession like subclasses. If it were true that referring to inanimate objects as having possession either directly or abstractly was improper, it would, as I see it, defeat the purpose of the possessive pronoun "its". I've often heard "in the trunk of the car," which is technically the same as "in the car's trunk." I feel possession in grammar deals with the relation of objects and events in general, not necessarily any kind of "ownership."

I see what you're saying, but the pronoun "its" can still be used for animals as they are living things and most pets aren't referred to as "he" or "she", although it happens. Usually I refer to my cat with the "it" mentality even though it is alive. There is a reason they call the pronouns such as his, hers, its, and their "possessive pronouns". You could use "its" to take the place of "the car's" in your above sentence, but that would imply possession or ownership. But like I said, I can see where your coming from using it to describe relation of objects; there are just other ways to say that type of thing without using the possessives.

Posted: Feb 24 2007 09:02 pm

S. McCracken wrote:

Rycona wrote:

I love the argument. I read it and had a auto-emission session in my lower garb.

In terms of the argument, I usually think of grammatical possession like subclasses. If it were true that referring to inanimate objects as having possession either directly or abstractly was improper, it would, as I see it, defeat the purpose of the possessive pronoun "its". I've often heard "in the trunk of the car," which is technically the same as "in the car's trunk." I feel possession in grammar deals with the relation of objects and events in general, not necessarily any kind of "ownership."

I see what you're saying, but the pronoun "its" can still be used for animals as they are living things and most pets aren't referred to as "he" or "she", although it happens. Usually I refer to my cat with the "it" mentality even though it is alive. There is a reason they call the pronouns such as his, hers, its, and their "possessive pronouns". You could use "its" to take the place of "the car's" in your above sentence, but that would imply possession or ownership. But like I said, I can see where your coming from using it to describe relation of objects; there are just other ways to say that type of thing without using the possessives.

When did sydlexia.com evolve into Grammatical Errors Ate My Brain???

Title: Nothing Special Joined: Oct 25 2006 Posts: 396

It may not be so much of a "grammatical error" discussion as an attempt to define and refine the concept of "ownership." I can understand where Spanky's coming from with this, and I never gave it much thought before then, but I'm sure I'm just as likely to slip up and say the car's trunk or the mountain's face. For once we derailed a thread to an intro to philosophy topic instead of a flame war.

I dig it.

Posted: Feb 26 2007 04:06 am

Hannibal Rising:I haven't seen this and I probably wont until it shows up on TV.Why?Simple.Because Hannibal doesn't have an origin. One of the main points of the series is that hes just evil.No back story,no evil childhood,nothing.Hes just pure evil,simple as that. Now they've given him the "broken childhood origin". Fuck you Thomas Harris,Hannibal's not a supervillain.

Ghost Rider: Never read the comics,but I should get around to it. Looks so cheesy that you'd need a gallon of wine in order to supplement it,but I might see it at the local 5$ theater.

Bridge to Terabithia:Now I read this as a kid,so this (short) review will probably be biased.Now let me put all doubtful fans to rest,this is damn close to the book.Sure,theres more CGI,but its really close.Its such a good movie.Now I'm not a tearjerker person,but the ending had my crying like a baby.Go see it now.

Posted: Feb 27 2007 12:30 am

Actually, hannibals broken childhood has been hinted at since red dragon. They cut out quite a bit from the book. The ending where hannibal and clarise get together, and I think they get a restaurant. They also nix the sister of the rich man with no face.

Posted: Feb 27 2007 01:13 am

jonnymorgue wrote:

It may not be so much of a "grammatical error" discussion as an attempt to define and refine the concept of "ownership." I can understand where Spanky's coming from with this, and I never gave it much thought before then, but I'm sure I'm just as likely to slip up and say the car's trunk or the mountain's face. For once we derailed a thread to an intro to philosophy topic instead of a flame war.

I dig it.

Gotta keep up images you know! Cool

Posted: Feb 27 2007 12:12 pm

Posted: Mar 03 2007 11:13 pm

Well I finally went and saw Ghost Rider and I was satisfied. Though some parts kinda bugged me like the fight near the end with the water nephilim guy (WAAAY too easy for being the last minion). Mephisto's actor kept reminding me of Lance Henrikson with Johnny Cash's voice. And I'm in total agreement with the observations on Blackheart's look, though I think the Legion version was acceptable.

I'll probably wind up seeing 300 next, then whittle down the other two movies and Black Snake Moan.

Posted: Apr 18 2007 09:17 pm

You know, I don't get it. Why spread porn and viruses on the internet? Most people have safe porn sites, and viruses shouldn't be spread at all. So, what the fuck, hmm?

Posted: Apr 19 2007 02:23 am

Yeah, and why revive this thread? Although, most of these will be on video like next month...

Tebor wrote:

I saw Hannibal and I believe it's a movie that only I like.

Hey, past Tebor, I still agree with you. While everyone we knew (outside of family) hated the film, I agree that it was an entertaining film... although it sounds super-awesome when you tell people about it.

"So, Tebor, where did Hannibal live after his parents died?"
"Oh, he moved back into his old home which got turned into an orphanage."
Shocked

"What's up with that Asian chick?"
"Oh, she's Hannibal's Asian aunt who teaches him the ways of the Samurai... Wait, I'm serious."

Posted: Apr 19 2007 08:32 am

I didn't, the spambot did.

Posted: Apr 19 2007 03:52 pm

Char Aznable wrote:

I didn't, the spambot did.

I was referring to the spambot. Kind of a random thread for it to be reviving, don't ya think?

Posted: Apr 19 2007 06:10 pm

I think that they run on some algorithm that randomly picks one.

Posted: Apr 19 2007 06:39 pm

Char Aznable wrote:

I think that they run on some algorithm that randomly picks one.

Are they random? Or do they pick their victims with a pattern... Hm, better call Dr. Lecter....

Posted: Apr 19 2007 06:45 pm

Maybe they're switching to bumping movies instead of toys.