moviefreakedmind

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

A woman facing you with open arms and legs and/or “looks” like she wants to give you a hug is a good indicator that she’s interested in you?

If you’re on a date with somebody then it usually is.

Well yeah, but if she agreed to go on a date with you, you already knew she was interested in you.

You don’t know if she’s romantically interested just from that.

Somehow I doubt this. For one thing, women give hugs for many reasons having nothing to do with being romantically interested in someone.

You can tell if it’s the latter based on the context and the type of hug.

but he wasn’t basing on the type of hug, he was basing it on the mere fact that she looked like she wanted to hug you.

For another, she could be facing you just because she is talking with you. If I were having this conversation in real life with you, I’d probably be facing you. It doesn’t mean I am interested in you. Finally, she just may not feel like crossing her arms or legs at that time.

You took his explanation 100% literally and that’s why it isn’t making sense. Obviously someone isn’t interested in you just because they’re facing in your direction.

How was I supposed to take it?

Not 100% literally in the sense that every girl who doesn’t cross their arms and legs is interested in the guy they’re facing.

Anti-freedom of speech law in France:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13626/france-passes-speech-law-could-cripple-pro-life-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=013117-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#

Moonraker showed us the side of Bond that was impressively resilient in the realm of space travel.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

The fact that it’s a prequel to the original show and will have a Klingon Captain confuses me greatly.

But what about this?

“he lead character - who will be female”

The funny thing is that the original quote actually spells “the” right. Maybe this was some kind of weird slip.

Warbler said:

A woman facing you with open arms and legs and/or “looks” like she wants to give you a hug is a good indicator that she’s interested in you?

If you’re on a date with somebody then it usually is.

Somehow I doubt this. For one thing, women give hugs for many reasons having nothing to do with being romantically interested in someone.

You can tell if it’s the latter based on the context and the type of hug.

For another, she could be facing you just because she is talking with you. If I were having this conversation in real life with you, I’d probably be facing you. It doesn’t mean I am interested in you. Finally, she just may not feel like crossing her arms or legs at that time.

You took his explanation 100% literally and that’s why it isn’t making sense. Obviously someone isn’t interested in you just because they’re facing in your direction.

I’ve heard that Kubrick destroyed his deleted scenes. I’m not sure if that’s true though.

That’s a fun one. My favorite Bond of the 80s is the Living Daylights though.

That’s a good indicator.

DominicCobb said:

Worst thread ever?

Top three at least.

Handman said:

I played Mario Kart 64 so often it became boringly easy. Sucks because the people I play with are worse than the computer. It is very possible to get back in the lead even if you’re in last place.

Exactly. In Super Nintendo Mario Kart, if you mess up once, you’re down to sixth place if you’re lucky. If you fall off the edge, then you’re in last place and it could take up to three whole laps to catch up, but only if you get good items.

Right, but at least it’s a better attempt at parody than viagra.

Mario Kart 64 cheated a lot but it wasn’t almost completely impossible to get back in the lead if you messed up on the higher difficulties.

Viagra was a terrible example. If she made it about a vasectomy, then it might have made more of a point.

After replaying Super Mario Kart (SNES) I think that it has aged worse than any other classic game ever made. It’s pretty disappointing because it seemed so awesome at the time. I still hate, and always have hated, the impossibly hard difficulty and the computer’s ability to cheat at every turn.

Alderaan said:

They’ve owned Lucasfilm for 5 years. How long do you think it takes to greenlight and execute a film restoration and release exactly?

It’s amazeballs that some of you were carrying your pitchforks to George’s door after a couple years, but after 5 years you’re all card carrying Mouseketeers. Give me more sequel crap!

I don’t care about the sequels at all and I’ve made it clear that I don’t want to see any of the future spinoffs and might not even see the next two ST movies in the theater. You seem to think that the OOT played any role in Disney’s purchase at all. There goal isn’t to greenlight and execute a film restoration and release as soon as possible, but to time it for the maximum savings and profit.

Unless you own Disney, I find it hard to believe that you have such an intimate knowledge of their business plans and reach.

Fang Zei said:

Tyrphanax said:

I assume there will be plenty of editing to be done to an official OOT restoration if we get one.

One nice aspect of Disney waiting until 2020/2021 is that it would give Lucasfilm time to do the most thorough restoration possible.

They can bring in the experts (Robert A. Harris, etc) instead of leaving everything at the mercy of someone who has no clue how these movies should look.

Mike Verta has already said the Reliance clips are nowhere near being accurate to the original look of the film. If their 4k “restoration” was only for George’s SE, then maybe that’s a good thing. It would allow the SE to be whatever George wants and the OOT to be properly restored.

We really have no idea what the Reliance restoration will look like on blu-ray whether it’s the OOT or the SE. We only have it in a compressed Vimeo file and don’t even know if it was a work in progress or not. I personally do not consider a blu ray with colors that look slightly different from an original film print to be “nowhere near being accurate to the original look of the film”.

MathUser said:

Or 1 cent used.

Why would anyone spend that kind of money on that?

DominicCobb said:

To be fair, he is most certainly a piece of shit.

Fair enough

Remember that part of the Bible where Jesus Christ called people who didn’t like his sports team a fat fuck and a piece of shit?

I haven’t read it. Vox just has a history of getting almost everything wrong.

stealthboy said:

Wazzles said:
If we don’t hear anything by the 25th of May, then I will give up hope. Until then, I actively believe that the OUT will get a release this year. Even if it doesn’t, there are always fan preservations.

Seeing what I have now in a box set thanks to Harmy and njvc, I don’t see how an official release can get much better than that!

It could get better because an official release would not vary so much in resolution and picture quality.

To be fair, Vox is fake news.

DominicCobb said:

Young people today care more about current events than previous generations!

Just because they care doesn’t mean that they have any idea of what they’re talking about. If a bunch of young people really care about what’s going on but get all of their information from Buzzfeed, then they are hardly less ignorant than the youth of previous generations.

How do you and the Church handle the Popes who were blatantly corrupt and clearly cared more about political gain than religion? (Alexander VI for example.)