Bossk

User Group: Members
Join date: 10-Mar-2003
Last activity: 13-Jan-2008
Posts: 9,501

Post History

Post: #29091
Topic: Worst Movies of 2003
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29091/action/topic#29091
Time: 9-Jan-2004 3:10 AM

Grinch I could watch once and that was about it. The only reason it was tolerable was because it was Carrey. Plus, the Grinch character is supposed to be scary, so making that horrific Grinch suit was fine. Whereas the Cat in the Hat is supposed to be friendly and good and all that jazz, but the movie version looked just as, if not more, horrific than the Grinch.

Post: #29090
Topic: Beautiful Women
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29090/action/topic#29090
Time: 9-Jan-2004 3:07 AM

I don't know who it is either (I've got an idea but don't want to say it), but I'd like to know.

Post: #29089
Topic: BushIn30Seconds.org
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29089/action/topic#29089
Time: 9-Jan-2004 2:59 AM

You guys have gotta check this out. These are commercials created against George Bush and they're hilarious.

BushIn30Seconds.org

So far, the best are the ones about "the children" like "Child's Pay" and "What Are We Teaching Our Children?"

Let me know what you think.

Post: #29059
Topic: Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow!!! Seen the Trailer?!?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29059/action/topic#29059
Time: 8-Jan-2004 10:42 AM

The RIAA and the MPAA are going to be the downfalls of music and movies, respectively. Neither of them think logically.

Post: #29058
Topic: Top Ten of 2003.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29058/action/topic#29058
Time: 8-Jan-2004 10:41 AM

Find a theater that's showing Lost in Translation. That should warrant your ten.

Post: #29056
Topic: Worst Movies of 2003
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29056/action/topic#29056
Time: 8-Jan-2004 10:40 AM

I can't believe you watched that piece of cat crap.

Post: #29055
Topic: Wanted: Vintage Cardbacks
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29055/action/topic#29055
Time: 8-Jan-2004 10:39 AM

Okay, I'll try for more utilitarian this time... have you checked out eBay for cardbacks?

Post: #29048
Topic: Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow!!! Seen the Trailer?!?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29048/action/topic#29048
Time: 8-Jan-2004 9:08 AM

This is the only time I have not been able to steal a trailer. This sucks. You'd think filmhouses would make trailers readily available for download. They're not losing money from them as they would if it was an entire movie. In fact, it's just free advertising for them. Because you save it and show it to friends offline. Why do they have to go through this intricate embedding of the file? Bat rastards.

Post: #29044
Topic: Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29044/action/topic#29044
Time: 8-Jan-2004 7:26 AM

I feel these movies do stand alone and you do not need to read the books. It does help for the sake of comparison or supplemental information, but there is absolutely no need to read them to know what's going on.

I agree with you that a movie should be able to stand alone without supplemental multimedia to aid in the understanding of it. Maybe that's why I hate Mulholland Drive so much. It made absolutely no sense and everyone I talked to about it said that there was some online source that helps you understand it. What kind of BS movie requires you to do outside reading to understand it? Load of crap. Fortunately, LOTR was not like that. I saw FOTR before reading anything and I followed it just fine.

Post: #29043
Topic: Who Have You Met?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29043/action/topic#29043
Time: 8-Jan-2004 7:24 AM

Was Carrey cool to you or did you not really have a chance to talk with him?

Post: #29042
Topic: EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29042/action/topic#29042
Time: 8-Jan-2004 7:23 AM

ST3K... happy to see you back finally.

However, didn't I already cover your presence in this thread at the very beginning? If you don't like it, don't come here to diss it. This is for people who appreciate HP and want to discuss it rationally without dealing with people's BS.

Post: #29041
Topic: Wanted: Vintage Cardbacks
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29041/action/topic#29041
Time: 8-Jan-2004 7:21 AM

I've got three. Unfortunately for you, they are still connected to the bubbles with the figs inside. And I only have one of each of these three figs. No dupes. Sorry.

Post: #29035
Topic: EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29035/action/topic#29035
Time: 8-Jan-2004 5:51 AM

Bill Murray? Yes, that would have been different. I wonder how he would have done with that 70 lb suit on him.

Post: #29034
Topic: Beautiful Women
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29034/action/topic#29034
Time: 8-Jan-2004 5:50 AM

I've seen that one before. I've seen them in a few different forums before. I think there was one on puregonzojournalism.com at some point too. Maybe even on AICN. Who knows?

Post: #29031
Topic: EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29031/action/topic#29031
Time: 8-Jan-2004 5:09 AM

I read that Alec Baldwin was an original consideration for Batman. While Robin Williams and Tim Curry were original considerations for Joker (as per IMDb).

Post: #29030
Topic: Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29030/action/topic#29030
Time: 8-Jan-2004 5:06 AM

They digitally shrunk them. Those shots don't bother me (referring to Frodo leaping in cart, Merry and Pippen tackling Boromir, etc.). They are better because you can see faces. Yes, they look awkward in terms of scale, but then again, Hobbits are supposed to be awkward in terms of scale when compared to humans, elves, and wizards. Looking at the stand ins that were used in ROTK, they just didn't appear the same. They were stockier than they appeared when they are either by themselves or facing forward in a composite shot. They don't look like who they are supposed to be standing in for. It felt like PJ was copping out at the last second and said, "screw it, skip the effects, let's save money and use a body double." It really irked me.

Post: #29029
Topic: Worst Movies of 2003
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29029/action/topic#29029
Time: 8-Jan-2004 5:03 AM

I enjoyed Hulk more than Daredevil though. Aside from Jen Garner, of course.

Post: #29022
Topic: Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow!!! Seen the Trailer?!?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29022/action/topic#29022
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:49 AM

Damn, just tried it myself and it still didn't work. I'll fiddle some more.

Post: #29020
Topic: Top Ten of 2003.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29020/action/topic#29020
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:48 AM

Hope you liked 'em.

Post: #29019
Topic: DVDs of 2004?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29019/action/topic#29019
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:47 AM

Congrats Jango.

I'm looking forward to Seinfeld s1, Simpsons s4 (if it actually comes out), Freaks and Geeks: complete series SE (for us subscribers -- Yeah, Dayv and Gundark!!), ROTK: EE, Lost in Translation, Sex and the City s6, Bad Santa, and a few others that I can't think of at the moment. That's a lot of TV shows.

By the way guys, the Alien movies are now on DVD outside the Quadrilogy box. Just came out two days ago.

Post: #29018
Topic: Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow!!! Seen the Trailer?!?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29018/action/topic#29018
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:42 AM

Yes you can. There are ways around everything if you can read source code and you have the patience to sift through tons of crap...

Try this link... Sky Captain trailer broken from QT popup window.

It should work. I use this method all the time when I want to download trailers and the option isn't given. You just gotta sift through the code for the proper trailer link (there can be several that you need to discern between). It helps to have a high-speed connection when doing this as well in case you accidentally pick the wrong link.

Let me know if it works.

Post: #29017
Topic: EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29017/action/topic#29017
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:36 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
REMEMBER, BOSSK, THAT KEATON WAS THE VILLIAN IN PACIFIC HEIGHTS. MAYBE ATKINSON CAN PULL OFF VOLDEMORT.

I remember that, but I didn't see Pacific Heights until well after Batman. So, at the time, I was having trouble seeing Keaton in a serious, dark, comic book role because I hadn't, up to that point, seen him in anything but comedies.

Post: #29016
Topic: Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29016/action/topic#29016
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:35 AM

Did anyone else who saw ROTK notice the sudden overreliance on rear shots of Hobbits walking with humans/wizards/elves and notice how awkwardly they were shot? Especially with regards to all the scenes of Pippen with Gandalf. You can tell it's a stand in and it just doesn't look right. Almost like PJ was too ashamed to show the two together from the front. I know that it's easier from the back because you can use a stand in as opposed to paying for the SFX to "shrink" Billy Boyd. But instead of using this awkward shot, why not just eliminate it entirely and just cut back and forth to close ups of Gandalf and Pippen as the move, for example, into Denethor's throne room?

Post: #29015
Topic: Beautiful Women
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29015/action/topic#29015
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:31 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: RRS-1980
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Ahhhh yes. Should have expected no less from you.

Darn! Now I'm boring & predictable? Just wait, I'll show you....

FROM NOW ON I'M SWITCHING TO MEN!

Ha-ha, now that was something you could not forsee!!!

Well, if you want the truth...

Post: #29012
Topic: Make fun of shimraa thread and other stuff we can think of!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29012/action/topic#29012
Time: 8-Jan-2004 3:28 AM

Or a good translator... I quit. Benefits suck and the hours are horrible.