Dek Rollins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPmNlnGNEqw

I like using Sony Vegas Pro 11 for video editing, and I can’t afford to upgrade the version or switch to Premier or Avid or whatever else, but it’s really being a bitch right now and I don’t know why. I mean, it has caused me troubles before just by not supporting some file containers for no reason, but right now it’s just straight up not working. I’m trying to edit and the preview keeps showing conflicting reports on what frame I’m on, as well as showing some frames as corrupted or black, and then it eventually just crashes and closes automatically. It’s very frustrating.

Possessed said:

I can attesticles to a lot of pingus things but for the shake of the thread I’m in I won’t get any more [REDACTED] than that.

People who are unfamiliar would never guess that shot is from the good show.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Collipso said:

I think we should follow the OP’s example.

And rate every movie “fuck out of shit”?

Meesa laughed.

VHS slipcovers are the best way to store movies.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Essentially everything bad about Lynch’s Dune is a direct result of studio mandates to condense the story into a 136-minute runtime. Except for the depiction of the baron. That’s 100% Lynch’s fault.

Truth, but I love Lynch’s Baron! (again, as someone who is not familiar with the source material)

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve seen many people list Bride of Frankenstein as their favorite movie. You gave one of my favorite movies a 3 star rating, Lord of the Flies,

I gave the exact reasons for the missing star. The namesake of the picture is brushed over in a ten second shot that had no purpose.

and gave a really low score to it’s Rob Reiner remake, which I also like.

This I really don’t understand. The acting was almost painful. I will admit that there were moments that I enjoyed.

I have some childhood nostalgia for both since I saw them young, but I think they’re both great. I don’t usually see the point of arguing as to why someone shouldn’t love a movie. That’s why I just resort to saying, “I’m right. You’re wrong.” 😉

That’s why I’m doing both right now. 😛

The acting was (largely though not completely) melodramatic, which annoyed me. It was certainly a product of the time, and I’m glad it is, but I guess some of the more excessive products of the 1930s just aren’t for me, such as over the top acting and haphazard editing and pacing.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I guess I like being able to say how much I liked the movie in a concise and simple manner. It’s not meant to be a precise mathematical representation, just a general ‘how much I liked it’ and I’m sorry that I obviously think differently than you guys do. I suppose I’ll be less lazy and just do a short review in the future.

How about, “I liked it a lot,” “It was technically good, but overall not one of my favorites,” “I hated it!” “I loved it,” or “This is one of my favorites.” Very concise, easy to understand, and probably quicker than typing out the star ratings.

That’s pretty much what I meant in the quoted post.

ray_afraid said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Bride of Frankenstein deserves more than a 75%.

Probably my favorite movie.

Now this I don’t understand. I mean, it’s a fine movie, but I’m thoroughly more entertained by many other pictures.
(not knocking you or anything, I’d just never expect to see someone list it as their favorite of all time)

I guess I like being able to say how much I liked the movie in a concise and simple manner. It’s not meant to be a precise mathematical representation, just a general ‘how much I liked it’ and I’m sorry that I obviously think differently than you guys do. I suppose I’ll be less lazy and just do a short review in the future.

Is this edit still available anywhere? Fanedit.info has dead links.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Dek Rollins said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Dek Rollins said:

It wasn’t perfect. A bit better than the first, though. Funny, Dune is the one I was considering giving four stars,

Unless you’ve somehow seen Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming Dune, or maybe Jodorowsky’s unmade one, I don’t understand.

I don’t understand why people hate Lynch’s film so much. The production looks great, the art design looks great, the music is great, the performances are great, the plot is great, and there are very few moments that it becomes hard to follow in. If I were to check out the workprint fanedit that’s out there somewhere, it would probably be even better.

I mean, I don’t hate it, it just dumbs down the book. It can kinda be summed up by the part where, in the book, Paul says “My name has become a killing word” because he has an army of jihadists killing in his name, but the movie takes that moment and makes it thuddingly literal. I love the production design, the music, the cast, but the movie just doesn’t work for me.

I felt that the exchange in the movie spoke exactly that which you say is meant in the book. There is literal context added in the movie, but the underlying meaning is the same. At least that’s how I, as someone who hasn’t read the book, took it.

double trouble

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s why you just need to say, “I like the movie because . . .” or “I didn’t like the movie because . . .”

That way we actually know your opinion on the movies you’ve watched.

I sometimes actually review the movie under my rating, but I get lazy quite frequently. 😛

suspiciouscoffee said:

Dek Rollins said:

It wasn’t perfect. A bit better than the first, though. Funny, Dune is the one I was considering giving four stars,

Unless you’ve somehow seen Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming Dune, or maybe Jodorowsky’s unmade one, I don’t understand.

I don’t understand why people hate Lynch’s film so much. The production looks great, the art design looks great, the music is great, the performances are great, the plot is great, and there are very few moments that it becomes hard to follow in. If I were to check out the workprint fanedit that’s out there somewhere, it would probably be even better.

It wasn’t perfect. A bit better than the first, though. Funny, Dune is the one I was considering giving four stars, but I felt it just doesn’t quite make it.

Note: 3/4 stars is 75%, but it is not a C. The letter grade system only uses 50% of the percentage scale to rate things, and is therefore incomparable. It would be more akin to a B.

^That’s why I find it funny. lawel

lawl

★★★☆

★★★☆

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I played Mario 64 as a kid once, and it was probably the most boring and confusing time I had ever encountered in a videogame. I just didn’t get it, but maybe I should revisit it some time.

I don’t want to sound rude, genuinely I don’t, but you obviously have played very, very few video games in your lifetime if you think that Mario 64 is the most confusing. Either that or you’ve primarily only played games that have come out since 2010. Strictly linear, hand-holding game design is a pretty new phenomenon.

I’m not sure you understood me. In about 2006 (pre-2010), when I was a child, I played it at a friend’s house once. At the time I was playing, I didn’t know what I was supposed to be doing, it confused me, and, get this, at that time, it was probably the most boring and confusing game I had encountered, again, at that time. I, as the target audience, was bored. That doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad game. That’s just my experience with it. Hence, “maybe I should revisit it some time.”

Also, I almost never play videogames that were made post-2010, and even then few that were made post-2005.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1184033

Not out of principle, but out of interest. Very few modern games actually gather my interest enough to spend time playing. Recently I haven’t been playing any videogames very often.

I enjoy old platformers, spaceship shooters (though I suck at them), first person shooters (when they gather my interest), text adventures, impossible to figure out LucasArts adventure games, and Videlectrix games 😉. I go right by most modern games.

chyron8472 said:

Dek Rollins said:

the most running speeds he has is three, which means the game puts very specific boundaries around the speed and ability to gain momentum.

Which would be a problem if the chief aspect of Mario centers around speed and momentum. But it doesn’t. Mario can also fly, shoot fireballs, duck, punch, butt-stomp, triple-jump, wall-jump, et al.

Speed and momentum are not the primary aspects of Mario games as they are with Sonic. So arguing that physics in Sonic are superior is rather an apples to oranges comparison since the platforming is wholly dissimilar.

That’s what I was saying earlier, the two games are fundamentally different. My point about superiority was that I just feel that the technical achievement behind the physics-driven gameplay in Sonic is greater than that of Mario.

chyron8472 said:

The problem with Sonic is he’s a one-trick pony. The point of Sonic games is to run fast. Complete the level as quickly as possible by running as fast as possible without stopping and without hitting anything. Collecting rings in Sonic is pointless because he loses all of them as soon as he gets hit.

This is not true. The point of Sonic is not to run fast. That’s one of the major aspects of the game, as well as the biggest marketing point, but it’s not “the point.” Just like any other platformer, it’s about using skill to get to the right side of the map. Now, like I said, speed is a major aspect of gameplay, because the momentum based design is meant to lend itself to that. But, try speeding through Marble Zone fast. Well, you can’t. That environment is actually more reminiscent of Mario maps than Green Hill Zone. That stage is about platforming skill, which will buy you speed if you know what you’re doing. It’s people who think Sonic is just about speed that get turned off by the game after playing the first two levels and getting a gameover because they were just trying to go fast instead of building skill and using the environment to their advantage.

Mario translates much better to 3D than Sonic does. Sonic’s penchant for running fast doesn’t translate well to an environment that isn’t on rails; while to say open-world Mario games are fun is an understatement to say the least.

I agree with this (almost) entirely. I’ve always thought Sonic was better off not joining the 3D bandwagon, but, that said, Sonic Adventure is probably the funnest broken game I’ve ever played. I don’t really like any of the other 3D titles, despite my nostalgia for Sonic Heroes. The “Boost” gameplay of the past several years is really where the 3D entries started to show their lack of anything to offer.

I played Mario 64 as a kid once, and it was probably the most boring and confusing time I had ever encountered in a videogame. I just didn’t get it, but maybe I should revisit it some time.

Possessed said:

Nope, Mario has at least two running speeds, sometimes three depending on the game, and the only game that’s “Flat” is the very first one. And it’s only even partly true here, there is plenty beyond flat ground to do even here. And lots of hills and different terrains and heights in the sequels. Have you even played any besides the first one? And his jump also changes depending on your momentum, you can jump both higher and farther depending on how fast you’re running and how long you’ve been running and that’s even true for the first and second games, which I might add are the only two where he only has two running speeds as opposed to three.

I just stated my opinion that I think Mario feels better. If you like sonic better there is certainly nothing wrong with that they are well designed games for sure, but you don’t have to make up facts that are in no way true to do so.

I’ve played the first and second games (the one that’s a reskin of some other game 😛), and I’ve seen plenty of gameplay from the other ones. All of the terrain variation in the Mario sequels is still built out of straight lines. From World:

I was simply unaware that the sequels utilized any momentum based ability. Still, as you say, the most running speeds he has is three, which means the game puts very specific boundaries around the speed and ability to gain momentum. Speed and momentum are very natural and gradual in the Sonic games, allowing the player to even gain a faster speed than one could achieve just by running straight for enough time. That’s what I was referring to; the vast amount of control you have of the character and the existence of a complete physics engine that mimics natural momentum rather than reaching set precise speeds.

I apologize that my statement may have been uninformed, but my opinion still stands. And once again, I wasn’t trying to say it’s objective and you can’t prefer Mario.