mac has a point about the towers
except for the fact that the world didnt know what the WTC was until it got blown up either.
uhm, the wtc was well known around the globe.
Eifell Tower is famous, empire state is, even the chrysler building.
not so much WTC
not so much WTC
the new tower will make for a unique skyline anyway
300 was a visual masterpieceMacbeth wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5snafXLzcr0
ugh not this shit again. the first one was shit too
Passed my theory test (again). Seems stupid you have to do it a second time for a bike. There were only about 7 bike questions.
Only got one wrong, but I can't think what the hell it was.
Only got one wrong, but I can't think what the hell it was.
For a while at least.Adams_BJ wrote:
the new tower will make for a unique skyline anyway
Fuck Israel
wow, never realized there were so many architecture critics on bf2s!
no the first WTC was not "world famous" taiwan. you sound like jay when you think new york is the centre of the universe. i can guarantee that before 9/11 not many people knew what the WTC was. i could maybe at a stretech identify the 'new york skyline', but i couldn't tell you that the two giant rectilinear phalluses of financial cockspurt were 'the world trade centre'. (mind you, i was 13). but i'm really not sure your average dude in europe recognized what the WTC were any more than, say, people look at the equally 'famous' chicago skyline and can identify the sears tower. skylines are just that: picture-postcards, visual snapshots, instant 'brand' recognizers. nobody knows about the details. put it another way: if someone looks at a postcard of the pyramids, do they know which specific pyramid they're looking at? no. they're just outlines.
and no, the new WTC design is not 'unique'. don't know how anyone who has ever seen a skyline in the last 10-15 years, after PoMo, could say that is a "unique" design. ironically it looks just like any other skyscraper being put up in the middle-east nowadays-- or maybe even china/asia. it's a generic, mass-exported, 'international style', only the latest high-tech 21st century variation.
no the first WTC was not "world famous" taiwan. you sound like jay when you think new york is the centre of the universe. i can guarantee that before 9/11 not many people knew what the WTC was. i could maybe at a stretech identify the 'new york skyline', but i couldn't tell you that the two giant rectilinear phalluses of financial cockspurt were 'the world trade centre'. (mind you, i was 13). but i'm really not sure your average dude in europe recognized what the WTC were any more than, say, people look at the equally 'famous' chicago skyline and can identify the sears tower. skylines are just that: picture-postcards, visual snapshots, instant 'brand' recognizers. nobody knows about the details. put it another way: if someone looks at a postcard of the pyramids, do they know which specific pyramid they're looking at? no. they're just outlines.
and no, the new WTC design is not 'unique'. don't know how anyone who has ever seen a skyline in the last 10-15 years, after PoMo, could say that is a "unique" design. ironically it looks just like any other skyscraper being put up in the middle-east nowadays-- or maybe even china/asia. it's a generic, mass-exported, 'international style', only the latest high-tech 21st century variation.
rRoc18 wrote:
300 was a visual masterpieceMacbeth wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5snafXLzcr0
ugh not this shit again. the first one was shit too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bIEk58LzI
o
f
l
300 a "visual masterpiece". jesus dude you are a fucking mong. a "masterpiece"! great. some standard hollywood CGI effects-romp, with zero craftsmanship, no cinematographic merit, and wooden acting/display. a "visual masterpiece"! 300 just looks like a special effects studio applied the 'sin city' photoshop filter to everything, then with a hue layer turning it all brown instead of a black/white filter. if that makes a masterpiece for you, you are really really easily impressed. if 300 is a masterpiece, what does that make 'avatar' in your eyes? the direct visual representation of god? rofl.
this film is a "visual masterpiece" - it displays actual craft. it's shot using actual film, with no computers correcting everything, and displays an actual artisanal skill. do you think the directors of 300 had even heard of the term 'mise-en-scène'?
kubrick makes visual masterpieces. hitchcock makes visual masterpieces. godard makes visual masterpieces. 300? ahahaha.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-22 04:42:42)
I would think maybe the 1993 bombing may be when it showed up on the radar of the general public.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
wow, never realized there were so many architecture critics on bf2s!
no the first WTC was not "world famous" taiwan. you sound like jay when you think new york is the centre of the universe. i can guarantee that before 9/11 not many people knew what the WTC was. i could maybe at a stretech identify the 'new york skyline', but i couldn't tell you that the two giant rectilinear phalluses of financial cockspurt were 'the world trade centre'. (mind you, i was 13). but i'm really not sure your average dude in europe recognized what the WTC were any more than, say, people look at the equally 'famous' chicago skyline and can identify the sears tower. skylines are just that: picture-postcards, visual snapshots, instant 'brand' recognizers. nobody knows about the details. put it another way: if someone looks at a postcard of the pyramids, do they know which specific pyramid they're looking at? no. they're just outlines.
and no, the new WTC design is not 'unique'. don't know how anyone who has ever seen a skyline in the last 10-15 years, after PoMo, could say that is a "unique" design. ironically it looks just like any other skyscraper being put up in the middle-east nowadays-- or maybe even china/asia. it's a generic, mass-exported, 'international style', only the latest high-tech 21st century variation.
...
i still don't think that had the worldwide impact and 'tv factor' that the 9/11 attacks did. oklahoma city is more internationally notable for 'splosionz than 93 WTC.
For sure. 9/11 was definitely WAY more notorious for a number of reasons. A more dramatic tactic, more lives lost, WAY more intense media coverage.
...
the whole thing with 9/11 was that it was a very cleverly designed (if one can credit the perpetrators with that) attack. it was made for tv, and bin laden knew that america/americans are a tv-mediated and televisual society. the sight of a plane flying into a skyscraper inspires way more shock and awe than any bomb - even a dirty bomb or deadly chemical attack. it has a definite visceral effect, and a hollywood feel to it. it didn't help that after the 9/11 attacks, the neocon administration quickly framed the whole thing in clumsy narrative/rhetoric that set it up as some hollywood action-movie thriller between 'good and evil', or the 'shadowy foe that is everywhere', or the 'nightmare of terrorism' or whatever. 9/11 was what a philosopher would call hyper-real.
I reckon I learned about it because of C&C: Red Alert 2 and/or The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. New York and Chicago have some really recognizable skylines, though, Uzi. If you've got some of the tallest buildings in the world a city, that's going to appear on peoples radar if someone even has the most cursory look into it. Certainly much more recognizable than some place with more nondescript buildings like, say, Boston.tuckergustav wrote:
I would think maybe the 1993 bombing may be when it showed up on the radar of the general public.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
wow, never realized there were so many architecture critics on bf2s!
no the first WTC was not "world famous" taiwan. you sound like jay when you think new york is the centre of the universe. i can guarantee that before 9/11 not many people knew what the WTC was. i could maybe at a stretech identify the 'new york skyline', but i couldn't tell you that the two giant rectilinear phalluses of financial cockspurt were 'the world trade centre'. (mind you, i was 13). but i'm really not sure your average dude in europe recognized what the WTC were any more than, say, people look at the equally 'famous' chicago skyline and can identify the sears tower. skylines are just that: picture-postcards, visual snapshots, instant 'brand' recognizers. nobody knows about the details. put it another way: if someone looks at a postcard of the pyramids, do they know which specific pyramid they're looking at? no. they're just outlines.
and no, the new WTC design is not 'unique'. don't know how anyone who has ever seen a skyline in the last 10-15 years, after PoMo, could say that is a "unique" design. ironically it looks just like any other skyscraper being put up in the middle-east nowadays-- or maybe even china/asia. it's a generic, mass-exported, 'international style', only the latest high-tech 21st century variation.
i named new york and chicago specifically because they have 'trademark' skylines. however if you even read my fucking post you would see that my point is people don't bother to learn all of the buildings that make up a 'postcard view'. outside of america, where the height of your tallest skyscrapers means precisely dick to anyone, they don't care what the buildings are.
They may not care what the buildings are, but when they're big bastards like that, it's something that you learn regardless.
can you name them? they're wonders of the world. a skyscraper isn't. bet you can't name them without googling.
well then. people don't give a fuck about american skyscrapers. jesus. your self-regard is dumbfounding. "it's something you learn regardless". oh yes, top of the school syllabus in europe!
Could have picked a lesser known wonder then, though I probably still would know it. Of the individual pyramids, I'll admit I only know Great Pyramid of Khufu by name. I'm not saying you learned it in school either, it's just something I've run across in the course of being on this world for a couple decades.
i'm glad the WTC was bombed so we wouldn't be laboured with the expectation to learn american city-sights.
So I shouldn't enroll you in Advanced American Sightseeing? There's so much more!
i'm still a little dumbfounded as to why you think anyone who isn't going to new york on a business-trip (from europe, that is), would know what the world trade centre is. i know the image may be pervasive in america - especially with new york occupying such a central place in the culture, being much more than just a city on the east coast, etc.etc. - but in europe, really, it's kind of inane. it's like asking someone to name a famous building in paris, or rome, or berlin. it's really not high on the cultural consciousness.
I was being sarcastic about the visual masterpiece stuff. But I loved the movie.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
rRoc18 wrote:
300 was a visual masterpieceMacbeth wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5snafXLzcr0
ugh not this shit again. the first one was shit too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bIEk58LzI
o
f
l
300 a "visual masterpiece". jesus dude you are a fucking mong. a "masterpiece"! great. some standard hollywood CGI effects-romp, with zero craftsmanship, no cinematographic merit, and wooden acting/display. a "visual masterpiece"! 300 just looks like a special effects studio applied the 'sin city' photoshop filter to everything, then with a hue layer turning it all brown instead of a black/white filter. if that makes a masterpiece for you, you are really really easily impressed. if 300 is a masterpiece, what does that make 'avatar' in your eyes? the direct visual representation of god? rofl.
this film is a "visual masterpiece" - it displays actual craft. it's shot using actual film, with no computers correcting everything, and displays an actual artisanal skill. do you think the directors of 300 had even heard of the term 'mise-en-scène'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DlogbN-wBI
kubrick makes visual masterpieces. hitchcock makes visual masterpieces. godard makes visual masterpieces. 300? ahahaha.
To me it doesn't seem to be a part of culture at all, but just strikes me as common knowledge that goes along with learning about a city in general. You learn that London is on the Thames, you learn to pronounce "Thames" correctly, then learn a few of the landmarks that make the city unique. The WTC towers might have appeared in the background of films shot there, but I don't recall it being namedropped in any of those at all (besides the aforementioned Simpsons episode). Fair play, though, I don't think I could name a single famous building in Paris built within the last 75 years, although before that I could rattle off a few, same with Rome where I'd more easily name you some from the time of the Republic.