I started drawing when I was big into Super Mario Bros.
I would draw really bad mario and luigi faces. I eventually got better, but still nothing to brag about.
TV's Frink said:
bkev said:
TV's Frink said:
bkev said:
I won't say I don't find it strange, but - to coin a phrase from the Man of the Year - who am I to judge? Especially when I'm already gay.
Did you just come out? Or are you saying the Pope is gay?
Coming out.
Congratulations!
@ESF, my apologies. I seem to be searching for meanings in words that aren't there.
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
I...ok, whatever. You don't agree with it but you don't have a problem with it.
Some of you people are even weirder than me.
Is it weird for a conservative/liberal person to support another person's right to be liberal/conservative even though they don't support their politics?
He might as well have said he doesn't agree with people being black but he doesn't have a problem with it.
I didn't even say it that way. Now I think you are just trying to find something wrong in everything I said. I do not agree with homosexual acts, but I do not hate a person for it. Is that hard to understand?
It's almost like you're hoping to expose some underlying bigotry. My beliefs do not support homosexual acts, am I supposed to throw away my beliefs to become politically correct? To tolerate doesn't mean to support. Why don't people understand the difference?
Again, the classic "let's fight for freedom, but stone the Christian because he doesn't agree with us."
I can't be liberal or conservative these days. Both sides of the fence are driving me nuts.
TV's Frink said:
Define "support."
I don't wave a flag for it, fight for it, finance it, march for it, agree with it, etc.
This discussion is always best avoided if you don't want to lose friends. Both sides of the fence will not change. I'm not saying they need to scrap their beliefs, we should just end the violence surrounding it. We can't disagree without a fight these days.
It's like pretending racism is over. If you think racism is gone, you live in a cave. Sexism is strong, on both fronts as well.
I could care less if you don't agree with me. I'd hate myself for being politically correct these days.
I firmly believe people are either born gay, or become that way after an event changes them. I've had friends I remember in grade school that had came out of the closet as an adult, and in hindsight, I think "That makes a lot of sense."
Do I agree with homosexual sex? No. Is it my place to tell somebody they can't have sex? NOT AT ALL.
As long as I have the right to believe what I believe, I'm a happy camper. Not gonna stone somebody else for what they believe.
If the word "opossum" starts with an "o", but is pronounced with a hard "p", are we supposed to say "an" or "a" when using it in a sentence?
I saw an oppossum.
I saw a oppossum.
I never could get a straight answer from anybody on this.
My absolute favorite traditional telling: 1984 George C. Scott
Absolute favorite non-traditional telling: 1989 Scrooged
TV's Frink said:
EyeShotFirst said:
[edit] I don't support it, however I won't look down on somebody for being that way.I'm not sure I understand this.
I worded it poorly.
It's not something I would personally do, or even wave a flag for. Let people make their own decisions. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. worry too much about what homosexuals are doing, when they should really be worrying about other things.
It's not my place to tell somebody what they can and can't do. I don't support it, but I cannot look down on somebody for what they do. I am a Christian, but I also am a human. Sure, most Christians like to single out the gays for what they do, but that's just not the Christian way. Many will sit and judge the gays, and they will turn around and lie, they'll be a glutton, they'll cheat, they'll even turn their back on the needy. All of those things are bad, but because being gay is so taboo to these people, they single it out, because it's something they don't personally do.
I've had many gay friends growing up, and I love them just the same. It is not my place to judge them.
Years and years ago, I said Arnold Vosloo would've been an amazing Lex Luthor, but the subject of Blofeld coming up, why couldn't a South African play Blofeld?
He's in his early 50's, he's got sort of that Telly Savalas/Yul Brynner thing going on. He's got an interesting voice, that just fits the intellectual bad guy. He's also had the ability to get in shape for a role, so he could be a fighting Blofeld like Telly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riq_1avVozE
White Heat (1949)
I absolutely love the noir movies of the 30's and 40's, and it doesn't get much better than this one. James Cagney gives an amazing performance as the emotional and psychotic mob boss, Cody Jarrett.
People often argue that James Cagney played the bad gangster too many times, but it's his thing. John Wayne was usually a cowboy, and nobody calls him out for that. I think if you're good at it, why not stick with it.
Cagney's performance in this film deserves every ounce of praise.
8.5 out of 10,
ah who am I kidding 10 out of 10
I don't know what could've made it better, I don't know what makes a film perfect, but this film is great.
dlvh said:
dlvh said:
bump...any new updates?
What exactly were you planning on doing really? Were you planning on doing a "Never Say McClory Again" type edit, or what? Did you have a set of music that you wanted/decided on using?
Let me know..I may be able to help out. This project doesn't need a lot of color editing (IMHO) just maybe an overall warming-up, like you showed in one of your earlier posts....and a good Gun Barrel opening:
I was going to use the gun barrel from Thunderball, as it was actually Connery and it was shot in color.
Music wise I mostly grabbed a lot of music from the John Barry Seven and even from collections like the Ultra Lounge. I didn't want to stray far outside of the 60's music though. I feel it suites Connery's Bond. I was also going to keep some of the music that is already in the film, as it isn't all bad. It just needs some cues that remind you of what you are watching. Classic ones like Bond is Back, or 007, or even some from the under appreciated Lazenby Bond (which is probably the best Soundtrack for a Bond film).
I even have a CD called Basie Plays Bond that I pulled from. I even planned on having some cues from the Dr. No soundtrack to use for the bahamas scenes.
I just wanted to really scrub out as much of the 80's from the film. I wanted to find a way to cut out Rowan Atkinson, but watching it several times, I don't think I could. It's not that I don't like him as an actor, I cannot stand the character he played in the film. Should've been much more straight faced. He could've even been a good substitute for Q.
The Silencers (1966)
2 of my favorite things. 007 and Dean Martin. When you throw them together, you get Matt Helm the star of this James Bond spoof.
While I never felt that this movie was going an all out Austin Powers route in making fun of every single tiny little thing, because they could, I felt it sort of respected the subject and actually made a fairly decent flick.
This film is mostly a vehicle for Dean Martin's overall likeability, regardless of whether you like the man or his music, it's undeniable he had talent. It was once said that he would've had a great career as a comedian if he wasn't such a good singer.
While this film is pushing 50 years old, it still has laughs, at least to Bond fans. Really, the bulk of jokes that could be made about Bond films weren't yet filmed. Austin Powers had decades of Bond films to draw from, even though it mostly focused on the 60's to early 70's.
While it might not make you spill your popcorn in laughter, you should at least crack a grin or two. It has some scenes that might not be politically correct, like ripping of dresses or drinking and driving, but if you are sensitive to political incorrectness, you shouldn't be watching Dean Martin or Bond films, or anything from the 60's for the most part.
I didn't see it as much of a parody, just a fun film. Was it a masterpiece? Not at all, but if you start running out of good masterpieces to watch, grab this one.
My computer just can't handle the work load. I don't want to say I quit, but I also don't want to get anybody's hopes up.
I still want to do it, I just can't until I can afford to. This computer might be good to do some simple cuts, but it cannot handle something this intense. All I can do at the moment is edit the audio blindly, and that's not a very good way of doing things.
I thought this computer could do it, but it protests doing the simplest things now. I'm strapped for cash at the moment. I was making good money when I started the project, but life kind of takes a dump on your finances sometimes.
I don't come on here enough, and it's a shame. You folks are much nicer to talk to than anywhere else.
I've been on a Howard Hughes kick, because I am near where he was born, and am currently living in the city he was raised, so I thought I would watch as many movies and documentaries about them man as possible.
I chose 2 films that represent his life. What I will mostly judge them on is accuracy. While I think they are both great films, that's not the point.
The Aviator (2004)
Leonardo DiCaprio is the first real actor's actor we've had since Gary Oldman's early career. Martin Scorsese is for the most part, a great director. This film really succeeds thanks to these 2 men. Now for the accuracy. One could argue that Howard Hughes life is a mystery, and film can take certain liberties. While that might be the case for his life from 50's until his death, this film focuses on his early, in the press years. This film really shows him as being nutty early on, and fails to show the fact that he was rich before he ever lifted a hand. Instead, the film seems to suggest that he had to work to become wealthy, as he states later "You hate money, because you've always had it" Howard inherited a fortune when his father passed.
The Howard Hughes in this film pretty much starts out with a lot of his personality disorders. Sure, they do make note to amplify it after his last crash, but in real life that was what set off most of his problems. His germ phobia wasn't as bad as people made it out to be, he was leery of germs, but not to the extent the film showed. Now, after his last crash, he had serious issues with germs, and being touched. He was also in intense pain at all times.
The Amazing Howard Hughes (1977)
This film, starring Tommy Lee Jones, was made for television after Howard Hughes' death. It was made with help from long time assistant Noah Dietrich. Unlike The Aviator, this film spans Hughes' entire life. The first half is mostly like The Aviator, but it plays out more accurately. The only true problem it shows is his OCD. The second half focuses on his reclusive years, and what can be described as anybody's guess as to accuracy.
Tommy Lee Jones gives a brilliant performance, and manages to make you forget that it's him. What better person to play a Texan, than a Texan?
While this film wasn't shot as brilliantly as The Aviator, nor did it have the emotional impact either, it still has solid performances. The acting was amazing, and as much as I've researched on the man, I can't think of a casting decision that was bad. Whoever was playing Katherine Hepburn had her down perfectly.
This film also shows Hughes' personality decline at a more accurate pace.
Anybody who has seen The Aviator, should check this one out as well. It's Tommy Lee Jones for cryin' out loud. Appearance wise, he was perfect for the part. Dark hair, super tall, and southern.
Can't decide which is the best film, but the Tommy Lee Jones flick is a much better biography.
Count me as odd, but it's the first Superman movie in years that actually interested me.
Good luck to you sir!
For me, the easiest way to lose weight, is to get away from good cooks. I always said I would either marry me a woman who can't cook, or a crazy health nut.
Luckily I don't crave bad foods, but still, don't put them in front of me. Same with smoking, I've been off of cigarettes since 2009, and even though I don't get cravings anymore, I don't allow myself to stand around with smokers.
Into The Wild (2007)
For some reason I avoided this film like the plague when it came out. The thought of having to decypher Eddie Vedder's vocals during a 2-3 hour movie didn't sound like something I would enjoy too much. I had never heard the story of Chris McCandless. It was hearing Survivorman Les Stroud talking about the film that made me decide to watch.
Going into the wilderness with nothing but your clothes, a gun, and fishing equipment is something that's interested me for years. To get away from society for a while and sort of just work for the simplest things. So in a way, I relate to Chris. I'm not going to do any spoilers just in case there are a few people out there who might still want to watch it.
The movie I will say is pretty good. I still had issues with the soundtrack. I like Pearl Jam just fine, but I still don't quite get the appeal of hearing Eddie Vedder and an acoustic guitar for 3 hours. Sean Penn as an actor has proven himself over the years to be a great talent, and judging buy this, I'd say he definitely has a good eye for film.
Emile Hirsch is an actor that I'm not terribly familiar with, but I've seen him in the past. I highly doubt I would've liked this movie near as much if anybody else had played the part. Absolutely solid acting. Actually felt like watching a human being for once. You feel his struggles.
8.5 balls out of 10.
^ Good job and good choice.
Did more work on it than I planned, but I am proud of the results.
^You should add the sounds of the military going "Hut hut hut hut" to one of your edits
Bingo don't like nuthin.
The Blues Brothers
Decided to give this classic a spin after not watching for so long. I watched 2000 more recently, and I remember being mostly disappointed in the fact that many of the gags were repeated. Watching this movie was more about the music. God, this movie had a soundtrack. To be a movie about a band who was actually an established and successful group beforehand is one of those miraculous things like Spinal Tap. It's so much better to play a musician when you are actually part of that.
The movie is just packed with great actors and comedians, and each look like they are really enjoying themselves.
It's hard for me to say why I think this movie is so fun and entertaining. I guess because of how legit it is for a comedy. It's probably why I liked Spinal Tap as well.
4 fried chickens out of 5.