Dek Rollins

Frank your Majesty said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

4 / 2 = 2

Take it to the out of context thread.

Or the irrelevant thread, if you prefer.

How is that irrelevant? Two is exactly, irrefutably half of four.

Half =/= halfway

Halfway between 1 and 4 is (1+4)/2 = 5/2

You guys are thinking about using a specific increment for each level of response to the film. We are thinking in numbers and percentages. It’s just different ways of looking at it.

50% is average. That’s what two stars indicates.

DuracellEnergizer said:

• The Lost Skeleton Returns Again (2009)

It’s probably not worth watching. It’s a little boring and not nearly as funny as the first one. All the good stuff is in the trailer. Though your mileage may vary.

Bruce is correct. 2/4 is exactly half score.

If you don’t use zero it is.

Tobar said:

Yeah, I can’t stand four point ratings. With five points, it can be broken down as:

1. Hated
2. Disliked
3. Liked/Decent
4. Really liked
5. Loved

With four points there’s no middle ground and so I can’t parse them properly.

Two stars is half way. And I’ve considered using zero stars rendering it as effectively five stars, though I’ve never done that.

Are you certain the “blue tint” wasn’t part of the original color timing? I mean, if even the old LD has it that way, I’m inclined to believe that. It was 1982 after all.

EDIT: didn’t see you said you were uncertain.

★★★☆

moviefreakedmind said:

Rating things on a scale of 1 to 4 confuses me.

Why?

Handman said:

I’ve wanted to see a lot of those for a long time, Dek.

I would definitely recomend finding Havana and Angels if you haven’t seen those ones. Havana has a magnificent depth to every shot, which is impressive considering it’s mostly dudes talkin to eachother.

Amadeus is an all-time favorite, and I’m glad you managed to see the theatrical version.

Yeah, like many others, I think the DC is too long and the nude scene sucks. I got ahold of a certain someone’s OT.com project to finally watch the theatrical cut and it was much better! Quite a classic.

★★★☆

★★★★

★★★☆

★★★★

★★★★

★★★★

★★★★
(Theatrical Version)

EDIT: Yes, I’m stealing Duracell’s [REDACTED].

dahmage said:

If not, then I declare war on not just the weathermen, but the weatherwomen and the weatherchildren too.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

doubleofive said:

Yesterday marks a decade here for me. Insane.

I was six when you began posting here.

I bet you got right to building your computer so you could join him. A year late, but who’s always on time anyway?

I wasn’t trying to say that the revision was inherently bad, I was just saying, from the point of view of someone who hasn’t read it, that it may be better for someone to read the unrevised version of something if it was a case similar to the SE films.

Also considering this post:

ChainsawAsh said:

He’s already like halfway through, though, and the revised came out right before books 5-7, so people were able to deal with the inconsistencies for decades without much trouble.

And I’m not going to be ashamed of my generally purist nature! 😉

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.

I’ve never read anything by Stephen King (and I don’t really plan to), but wouldn’t the original version be what he intended to be published after originally finishing the book? Like, wouldn’t all that extra material just be essentially filler? It just seems like a Special Edition situation from the POV of someone who’s never read them.

The revised version fits much better within the seven-part story. Supposedly the original book was more of a collection of five loosely connected short stories (so he says) than it was the first entry in one epic novel.

Pretty much my point. He changed the story and made additions to make it align with the sequels, rather than letting people read the book for what it was. Not that it would be nearly as bad as the SE situation, I just thought it sounded like the same sort of jimmerjammering Lucas did.

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.

I’ve never read anything by Stephen King (and I don’t really plan to), but wouldn’t the original version be what he intended to be published after originally finishing the book? Like, wouldn’t all that extra material just be essentially filler? It just seems like a Special Edition situation from the POV of someone who’s never read them.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Boy, I sure love how the oscars are in some way important and how people should definitely care about whether the progression of conversation in this thread is on topic!

FTFM

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

Wouldn’t “sound editing” be, well, the editing of the audio? In conjunction with the editing of the image? Like, you put one bang here, and then another bang three seconds later. There, you’ve done some sound editing.

Not exactly.

JEDIT: this seems to explain it pretty well https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/movies/sound-mixing-sound-editing-explainer.amp.html

Well, that’s pretty much what I meant. I guess looking back at my post I didn’t do too good a job. 😃

Sound editing is finding the right sounds and placing them where they’re supposed to go, mixing is of course layering all the different sounds with proper volume levels and, in the case of three-dimensional sound, panning the different sounds across different speakers.

I guess I don’t remember anything about the SE sound mix, so I wouldn’t know.

Though some of the 2004/2011 sound editing is bad, like the replacement dragon calls.

Wouldn’t “sound editing” be, well, the editing of the audio? In conjunction with the editing of the image? Like, you put one bang here, and then another bang three seconds later. There, you’ve done some sound editing.

Sound mixing is entirely different.

Isn’t the difference between sound mixing and sound editing pretty self explanatory?

0verholt said:

For the love of God can someone please hook me up with this release? People have been calling me crazy for years because I claim that every good action movie (Die Hard, Scarface, Terminator etc.) has been incrementally changed over the years. Why the frigg do they have to change gun noises? It’s retarded. Please someone point me in the right direction. My VCR took a shit around Christmas when I was trying to watch Ren and Stimpy Christmas and now I can’t watch my old Terminator tape. Thanks in advance.

Since this project probably isn’t around anywhere right now, would you be interested in checking out my project of the first Terminator? I don’t mean to self advertise, but I thought you might like it if you can’t get the Team Blu stuff.

He obviously wasn’t in any way serious when he said that last part.

The remarks, delivered inside the ballroom at his Mar-a-Lago estate during a lunch and fundraiser, were upbeat, lengthy, and peppered with jokes and laughter.

^I actually laughed out loud.