Gaffer Tape

Oh, yeah, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion to like it.  I'm not criticizing you for liking it.  While I think there is an overabundance of non-thinking popcorn fluff, I can find popcorn fluff enjoyable.  But for some reason, I just found this movie completely devoid of any intellectual processes to the point that I just couldn't enjoy it.

Yeah, yeah, he could become a powerful ally.  Too bad we missed the boat on that by banning him twice.  Oh, well.

Naboobian?!  NaBOOBian?!  Haha, that's pretty funny actually, but the correct adjectival form of Naboo is Nubian.

Well, as long as I have everyone's attention, I have a question.  I've begun at least THINKING about my next video, and I need some technical assistance.  I still has no job, so is there a freeware equivalent of Photoshop out there?

Well, twenty isn't that far off from teenager.  I mean, you know, nineteen is a teenager.

My use of Scarborough Fair in the intro was called out a few months ago, but, unlike Warner Music, Sony was pretty cool with it.  They just added an advertisement for the song in my video, which I thought was really nice of them, but apparently Germany wasn't having it.  At least, that's what it seems to me to be.

Eh, I wouldn't worry.  Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ioR0HneF4

I just had to repost a link to Batman and Robin Part 3 because I just found out that IT HAS BEEN BANNED BY GERMANY!  That just tickled me so much that a country hates me so much that I just had to make it known to the world!  ^_^

Hey, Luke was over 20 when Vader claimed he was "just a boy."

Well, I'd agree with me except for the fact that little Anakin is saying that flying a Naboo fighter on an attack mission is podracing.  Quite an inaccurate observation if you ask me.  Little dumbass...

Yeah, I remember the 5th of November for being the day that Doc Brown invented time travel.

Johnboy3434 said:

To me, a good movie is something that keeps me entertained for the ~2 hours you invest in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Make a film with as much symbolism and underlying themes as you want. Congratulations, you've made "art". I don't pay 10 bucks a head for art. In that respect, I immensely enjoyed both Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe.

Well, that was my problem.  I simply didn't enjoy G.I. Joe.  I agree with you that movies don't have to be art to be enjoyable, but I didn't find this at all enjoyable.  I was squirming in my seat the entire time hoping it would end soon and wondering why I had let my friends talk me into seeing it.  It's been, what, three months now, and I'm still scarred over that!

Nanner Split said:

xhonzi said:

Don't you think GafferTape would be slightly offended by this topic?  Or, if she isn't, what about Davnes?

Gaffer Tape's a MAN, BABY!

Sniff.  You just have to rub it in, don't you?  I'll never win the Miss Hoth Beauty Contest looking like this!

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.  I'd never heard that before!  Thanks for enlightening me.

Sluggo said:

Now THIS is pod racing!

Are you sure that's not a Ric Olie quote?  It sounds like something he would say.

Yeah, he should have gone through Jay, not tried to take matters into his own hands.  Chances are we won't see a Janskeet 3:  Turtles in Time.  Why did he get banned, anyway?

I could have sworn you and I had been through this already... ^_~

But, for a little bit of history, back in the day, Hot.Like.Fire had a Hot Guys Thread or something similar to compensate.  I don't think it ever really caught on, unfortunately for her.

Ah, Kate Jackson was always my favorite Angel.  The show suffered, in my opinion, more after Sabrina left than it did when Jill (Farrah) did.

I'd never heard that about Jedi before.  Honestly, I never noticed any difference between the lightsabers in the two sequels (other than Luke's being green).  Care to elaborate on this?  Obviously the first film's problem lay in the fact that they weren't sure whether they were going to be a later visual effect or an on-camera reflective effect, but by the sequels they had settled on rotoscoping (since the reflecting didn't work).

Nashville, TN

Aaaah!  Ric got a makeover!  Scared me for a moment there...

zombie84 said:

In photography, when you copy a negative you get a positive. When you copy a positive, you get a negative.

So you have an original negative. You make a copy, which is a positive; this is the IP. But you can't make prints off of this, because they will be negative. You copy it, making the IN, and then from this negative you can now make positive prints for projection. The result is that they are copies of a copy (IN) of a copy (IP) of the original.

Does this make sense? It is indeed a bit convoluted.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I knew that negatives go to positives and to negatives.  Haha, for some reason it all seems clearer now, and I'm having a harder time understanding what it was I didn't understand, especially since, as I said, I've learned all this before!  Perhaps my confusion was answered further on in the article where it states that you don't want to use the Oneg to make prints because you want to limit your interaction with it, hence the copies of copies.  But I think it was just the wording, the "you can't make a copy of the interpositive (to make prints)" immediately followed by, "make a copy of the interpositive (to get the internegative)."  The seeming paradox in the wording was what threw me, I think.  So, yes, thank you for explaining further.  I'm back in the loop.

Like I said in the other thread, it was a great read, and I really appreciate you putting this all together.  I learned about interpositives and internegatives in college, but, unfortunately, it's not part of my everyday vocabulary anymore, so the terms sometimes get muddied to me.  For that, I am thankful for the quick recap.  That said, there was one part that I found to be a little muddied: 

"This is called an Interpositive (IP), and is the second-highest-quality source of the film. Copying this will give us another negative image, however, so it cannot be used to make theatrical prints (the colors will be reversed). So it is copied, resulting in an Internegative (IN), which theatrical prints can then be made from (copies of a copy of a copy of the original negative)."

For some reason, I'm having a little bit of trouble deciphering that.  I think it has something to do with the uses of the word "copy."

That was great.  I had been looking forward to reading that for several days now.  Thanks!

Heh, all I know is that the "in hyperspace" effects is achieved with aluminum foil.