I just got a birthday card from my mom. It said:
"I love you and I am proud of you. I just think you are making wrong life choices,"
followed by,
"Don't know why this envelope is greasy. It was on my dining room table."
I feel so loved right now... =P
You should pole dance. It would help break you out of your shell.
And you'd also meet chicks.
I just took my first pole dancing class. I can't believe how much fun I had!
Leonardo said:
Gaffer Tape said:
Just thought this rough clip from my next video was worth sharing. Some things have been/will be reshot, and some of the effects hadn't been finished, but it's still flamboyantly silly/awesome.
Also, YouTube wouldn't let me post it... :(
Hilarious!
YouTube won't let you? Probably because of the copyrighted song.
I could record a cover version for you, if you'd like, I've had that backtrack in the works for ages!
Which is strange because, surprise of surprises, I got the song *from* YouTube. =P
And I would totally say yes to that awesome offer, but I've already come up with a plan to work around it and have one version of facebook and one version for YouTube. Thank you, though.
Just thought this rough clip from my next video was worth sharing. Some things have been/will be reshot, and some of the effects hadn't been finished, but it's still flamboyantly silly/awesome.
Also, YouTube wouldn't let me post it... :(
SilverWook said:
Why do people keep harping on young Kirk driving his late father's car off the cliff? It was a perfectly reasonable way to keep his jackass stepfather(?) from ever getting his clutches on it.
Wow. I think that's the first time I've seen anyone describe the act of "driving a car off a cliff" as "reasonable". =P
That said, I've seen the movie at least 4 times, and I can't recall it ever being established it was George Kirk's car. I always thought it was his stepfather's car. Not that that changes anything, other than adding one more inadequately explained plot point to the pile. And again I say =P
TV's Frink said:
skyjedi2005 said:
trek 09 was supposed to come out in 2008
But the title wouldn't have made sense.
Tee-hee.
As for me, I'm pretty much in agreement with CP3S. Well, to be honest, I'm so over Star Wars at this point that I really can't be bothered to care all that much. It doesn't anger me, but I'm not excited about it or even all that interested. I guess I'll wait and see what happens, but you won't see me expending too much emotion over it.
I admit, though, to being a bit wary over Abrams simply because I thought Trek 09 was a pretty bad movie. Still, like others have said, I feel that was more because of the writing: its story was sophomoric, needlessly nonsensical in almost every conceivable way, and went nowhere. But while I hated all those damned lens flares, Abrams's directing seemed otherwise pretty good. He made an exciting picture with a lot of passion, and he obviously did a good job with his actors. I'm not entirely sure how much input he had on the story, though, and, by extension, how much he'd have on this movie. I guess that makes some of the difference to me...
Still, though, I'm digging the review Confused Matthew is currently working on for it.
Wow. Can't believe I re-read that whole thing...
In between shows on Sunday, my co-workers and I had some downtime, so they started talking about sports because there was a Bucs game going on (that they apparently lost very badly), but I found myself sitting smack dab in the middle of this conversation and immediately thought of this thread, as it was more interesting. But then they switched from football to hockey, and it almost caught my interest as someone mentioned "Badger Hockey." Sadly, it turned out "Badgers" is a team name. I really thought it was some new kind of hockey that involved badgers and told them so. They seemed to think this was a fun idea and talked about that for a while, so I guess it all ended up okay.
I'm only a minute and a half into this, and I'm already agreeing with everything he's said. :)
I suppose I've always been a purist, but I wasn't against the SEs at first. I had gotten into the trilogy when the '95 boxset came out and was crazy excited in '97 to see the SEs in theatres and to collect them on VHS when those came out. So I now had both, and I'd alternate between both of them, but I still saw the originals as the "real" movies and the SEs as a fun alternative, where I enjoyed picking out all the changes and new effects. And when the SEs came out on video, I immediately remembered the "One Last Time..." marketing slogan and put two and two together. But I was a kid then and didn't really understand the differences between home video and film. I figured VHS tapes lasted forever, so it was never going to be a big deal. And the quality was the same as in the theatres, right?
It was around 2000, when I'd become a bit older, a bit more educated, and the SE re-release happened, minus the term "Special Edition," that I got a sick feeling in my stomach realizing what was happening, and I began to resent the SEs for it. But it wasn't until soon after the '04 DVDs came out that I started looking for a way to get the original on DVD and found my way here. The rest is history.
I don't drink. I've never smoked... anything. I've never taken any mind-altering substances. Well, except for when my wisdom teeth were taken out when I was 16. That was fun!
DuracellEnergizer said:
I wish more women didn't pluck their eyebrows.
Agreed.
Hmm. Disney's pretty well-known for "touching up" their old films too, so I have a feeling this won't exactly help much in regards to getting the original versions. I mean, that's if Lucas doesn't have a specific in this deal prohibiting such a thing.
Also... yeesh, episode 7. We just have to keep going, don't we? I for one was holding out the smallest hope that at least, despite all the terrible Star Wars shit of late, that the live-action, episodic film franchise was mercifully done before it was run into the ground any further.
On the other hand, though, this does have two positives/potential positives I can think of: without Lucas at the helm, they might stand a chance of actually be good, a la Gene Roddenberry's "creative consultant" gigs. Also, I can't wait for the reporters to start zeroing in on Lucas's statements of the past decade in regards to Star Wars being and having always been this six chapter story of "The Tragedy of Darth Vader." Mm-hmm. Yeah, how is episode 7 going to fit into this? Is Darth Vader coming back as a ghost for more "tragedy"?
Well, I'd still rather take someone seriously and be proven wrong than treat someone like a joke and be proven wrong.
I can't put it any better than timdiggerm already did.
Sigh...
Back to the Future at Universal Studios's CityWalk Theatre. I was so excited to find this was playing. I was just barely old enough to see this in theatres, but my mother's womb kept getting in the way, and I probably didn't have eyes yet, so I wanted to actually get to see the movie in theatres. Sadly, I couldn't get anyone interested to drive an hour to Orlando to see it with me, so I went alone last night. Here's my assessment (as quoted from facebook):
Got off work at VS early and headed to tonight's showing of Back to the Future at Universal. Geez, you'd think the company that owns BTTF would have access to a 35mm print and not just pop in the Blu-ray, which, honestly, didn't look that great on a screen that size. And the colors were far too dark. And the sound was pumped up so high that, for the first time, I actually agreed with Hewy Lewis when he told Marty, "I'm afraid you're just too darn loud." But all that aside, it was still an awesome experience. It was a whole new, extremely exciting time experiencing it with a pumped up audience. And even the guy who felt compelled to say all the funny lines before the characters said them and then laugh uproariously when the characters regurgitated them back to him in a way added to the charm. And, hey, tickets were only $5, and I didn't even have to pay to park. Definitely worth it.
Yay. Frink released a gif on me after starting a childish argument on semantics and then declared I was wrong. Good fucking grief, do I miss Warb. At least he actually debates me on legitimate points rather than just acting like an immature buffoon with his fingers in his ears.
Ok, yes, I read where you said they cheated her out of a medal, but that's not the same thing as saying they cheated.
And this I totally don't get. You might as well be saying, "They ate breakfast together, but no eating occurred." At that point this whole argument turns into a Lewis Carroll poem, and I'm apparently going to need some serious mind-altering substances to even begin to understand the logic involved in such a statement.
The rules were violated in such a way that a player gained an unfair advantage. How is this not simple? The definition does not specify that it has to be perpetrated by the one receiving the advantage, that the ones perpetrating the cheating have to be doing it on purpose, or that the ones perpetrating it have to directly benefit by it. Were the rules broken? Yep. Did it directly lead to someone gaining an unfair advantage? Yep. Did those in charge attempt to rectify the situation so that a player did not have an unfair advantage over another? Nope. Looks like cheating to me.
(Reason: The silly game of semantics continues...)
Again, then, why did you start this silly game of semantics, and why are you continuing it? Why is my use of the concept of "cheating" such anathema to you? I stand by my use of the term. I truly believe it applies and matches the definition point for point. But I'd much rather you actually debate my stance on the subject at hand than whether or not you think "cheating" is an appropriate term for it. Do you think that the outcome of the match did not conclude within its one second of remaining time? Do you think that point scored was outside of the boundaries of the match? If so, good, then we're in agreement. I'll call it unintentional cheating, and you can call it hippopotamus balloons if you want to. If not, fine, talk to me about your opinions on that, rather than continuing your silly game of semantics.
Sorry, Warb. I'm not trying to press the issue, and you certainly don't have to agree with me, but it is frustrating having to basically just repeat what I've already said. I'm sure you can relate.
At any rate, I do apologize if I was unclear. If so, I hope that my point has now been made clear.
Anyway, I find the 1972 issue interesting, and I'm doing further reading right now to make sure I understand it before I really give you my thoughts on it.