shimy

anyone watch this show. i think its great but i know alot of stargate fans hate it for its darkness. where is everyone at with it?

TV's Frink said:

Hot.like.fire said:

TVs Frink- Just to clarify, that while I am a science nerd at heart, I hardly meet hot/cute boys in science class... you should probably edit that to "bar or nightclub".

Er...edit what now?

she s talkinga bout in the OT glossary thread.

Robbin Hood,

I thought it was rather good

Inglorious Bastards was great, 

Oh and since i havent been here for a while and dont know what people thought of Avatar. It was good but i was honestly a little underwhelmed by it.

bkev said:

Shimraa sounds familiar... but I didn't recognize Shimy that much I know.

I lost my account after the switch, and the email it was registered to doesn't exist anymore, so i just created an account that was my nick name when i posted.

TV's Frink said:

shimy said:

hahaha yeah i came on here last night to see how the old place was doing. I was SHOCKED that I wasnt in the archives

Care to point me in the right direction?

hahaha hey im shimy(originally Shimraa), i was around a long time ago. then left. My hobbies included bothering dayv and motti, and have them think they turned me into human jigsawpuzzles. Sadly they never figured out that they just couldnt do it. hahaha

NOP no legend hahaha though she is legendary.

man no one here has talked about Super Mario RPG. Possibly the best RPG ever made.

hahaha yeah i came on here last night to see how the old place was doing. I was SHOCKED that I wasnt in the archives

:(

alot of people probably wont agree with me, but the starwars novels are actually pretty good, the ones that arent clone wars related. I recommend, the new jedi order, the legacy of the force, thrawn trilogy, and the news one i forget the series name but they are like on book 3 or 4, its great as well.

oh and for authers, troy denning, james lucinco, tim zhan, are all awesome, so check out there other works.

Hey guys how all you doing. man its been so long since i have been on here, i wonder how many people remember me hahaha

Anyway I might start posting lots again soon, time is starting to free up.

To the point of this thread. I wanted to let all you guys know about this show coming out on MTV next month. What you guys thought about it, it seems like its pretty good, and usually I hate reality TV cause it seems so fake and unrealistic, this show is different though. Its different because I happen to know two of the people. I graduated with Jonnie, and have known him since i was like 12, im 24 now, I also know his brother as he was a very years ahead of us.

Anyway i can tell you this show is the kind of thing I would expect from these guys so check it out, you might actually enjoy it.

Here is a link to the Youtube trailer let me know what you guys think of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRexWE9yBVA

btw i havent seen jonnie or duncan since we graded in 04 so its not like i am a paid person for promoting there show. i just thought it would be something you'd be interested in. Oh and P.S. jay, how awesome would it be if you got them to mention the OT on blu-ray as a dream someone wanted before they died

No no I think richard was refering me as the member from way back lol. i been a member of this site since about 4 months after it came online hahaha shit its 2009, man i am coming up on my 6th OT BDAY. it was july 2003

edit: i think it was july 24th

edit2: oh i realize that it says i joined april 30 2007, but that is just with this username, my old one was SHIMRAA, shimy was the nickname.

Edit3: i am ranting now arent i...

edit4: ill just go...

Hy guys i got a PM from this person, who is she?

god damnit, well there goes them for me. fortunately i have a backup site :D

C3PX said:

Exactly, and as you correct the mistake, you move to the right. :)

You go to the left to erase mistakes made by moving to the right. After the mistake is erased you move to the right make new ones :P

UM excuse me i really take that christian basher line to heart, i suppose you dont know but my best friend is a very religious, non denomination christian( I am his best man for when he gets married next year, you think a chirstian would make a christian basher his bestman, who is assuming now jackass), 3 of my roommates are very devote baptists. You think I have an elitist mindset, I'm sorry you think that way, thats your problem the fact of the matter is, that the argument is going in a circular pattern now, and I dont have the time or effort to argue with people over things like this over a board, sit down and have a coffee with me and ill debate you till the sunset. The fact of the matter is so many of your ideas are contradictory and i just dont want to sit here on a forum debating it all day long cause frackly I dont have the time nor effort for it. if any of you dumbasses(Lj your not included in that) had read my previous posts you'd see that i am not a democrat, and that i see good and bad in both sides.

Here is an example of a contradiction I see, now i am assuming you are religious here in the view point. you are opposed to abortion, cause its a unborn life (thats fine and noble i have no problem with that however keep in mind you don't know the kid, you have no idea about any about him/her). however when it comes to your money all you care about are those who are directly around you(LJ when i said me me me, i was including your family in that lump sum sry of that wasn't clear) and you dont want your money going into medicare, or welfare or anything like that(again i am assuming you are against wellfare if you arent i am sry), Now i am assuming the reason for that is because you dont want to give money to these people because you feel they dont work hard(get me some stats on that to back up your veiwpoint if that is the case). So often the case i find here is that you dont know these people so you dont want to give money to them, why are these people so different from the baby. You care for one but not the other, and dont kid yourself, so many of these people would be dead, without medicare or welfare so dont think you can ride the high horse and say the baby's life is in question. There are worse things out there then death, and if you are so keen on judging these people, oh there is a line out there some guy said it, i think his name iwas JESUS, "Let ye without sin cast the first stone" people make mistakes in there life, and thats how they end up on welfare, i am sure you made mistakes not as big as they did but still, every person was once that little fetus you want to save so badly, and you want to not give them money cayse you worked hard for it and they didn't you may not think like this, but thats the way I see it when i hear people saying they dont support welfare or medicare because the poeple that use it are crackheads or whatever the excuse is. In my opinion there is no excuse that isnt selfish unless you are giving more then you can afford to give, because these people are less fortunate then you, and being a good person you help them. Thats what we do in Canada and America, we help people that are less fortunate then us. You may argue that oh the welfare and medicare are the governments way of forcing us to give charity. IT SHOULDNT BE A PROBLEM,you are giving your money to help people that are less fortunate. And you know what after allt hat if you still have a problem how about you just think like this. Not everyones money goes to medicare and welfare only part of the taxes go there. Just assume, or think, that your money went to buying that cruise missle that blew up the poor families house cause it missed its target. or that your money went towards buying the bullets that have killed so many people in a country you probably have never even been to. what about thoy se peoples lives you have no problem apposing abortion but you are all about supplying money to your army that yes may save some lives, but are designed to kill. They may be different issues but a life is a life. And here you may argue oh well those are the bad guys they want to kill us. EVER wonder hmm why do thewant to kill us. So many issues it can jump all over the place but thats the thing that frustrates me. You hold your views so strongly on all fronts when at the basic purist level they are so contradictory. On one hand you care about the babys life, on the other hand you dont give a fuck for someone who had a rough life, ever wonder why they got addicted to crack, you gotta start somewhere, nor do you care about the people dieing around the world due to the american military yeah they may be 'bad guys' but ever wonder why they are the way they are. A life is a LIFE. you dont know those people that your money goes towards hurting or killing yet you judge them as bad right away and justify your armies actions, or so it seems please correct me if i am wrong. I would be a much happier person if i was wrong.

and thats it i am done, cause now your pissing me off, calling me a christian basher, OH i could bash the fuck out of your religion if i wanted to but i choose not to cause i was respectful of your beliefs, fucking douche go hump your womanising, slavery condoning, cencored(oh yes your holy book has been 'modified' many a time) book.

now seeing as i broke probably about a dozen forum roles, insulting other forum member, and what not, jay i await your banning me.

anyway i am done in here, you just don't get it, and from this point on, its my own problem if i continue to argue with you. Your beleifs span from some fundemental values(i am not saying those values are wrong but... i donno if they are the best kind to have living in our world today), and i have little or no hope of changing your even persuading you of another veiwpoint especially on an internet forum. The only thing that will do that is if you have a real experience and go and see stuff for yourself.

lordjedi

I'm sorry but you are a very selfish man. Go travel the world a little and see what happens in those countries where the government does not take care of the poor. And you wonder why democrats have some a low opinion of some republicans, its the ME ME ME additude, the 'i don't care for anyone except myself' veiw point that just causes them so much grief. 

I live in canada, and we have a universal healthcare system, and very hightaxes, and you know what yeah its not perfect, but we have a much cleaner society, we dont have people dieing on the side of the streets(as would happen without medicare), or getting kicked out of hospitals with major injuries just because they dont have insurance.

I personally am heading into the medical feild. Maybe you should be the one to tell the person with a broken leg that they have to leave. Or tell the girl that got raped face to face, tough luck missy, you now need to be an incubator for the next nine months and have your vagina stretched wide enough for a beachball to come through. You speak with little to no empathy for others. Yes it is unfortunate that your father died, but we are not talking about brain cancer(which does suck i am sorry about that, I currently am working at the BC Cancer agency, research cancer treatment) but you are dealing with apples and oranges, medicare will not cover someones costs ever if they have cancer. medicare is for more common everyday things. Flu medicine, antibiotics. You say your not very weathly. Well you have a job that pays enough for you to get a computer and have the internet. That puts you head and shoulders above alot of other people.

And for the record, how much biology have you studied, what do you consider to be a new life. I am literally shocked at how appalled people get at abbortion, you know how many embryos they through in the trash at fertility clinic. Yet you never hear anyone outlawing those, hmm. If you want to call a embryo a life because it has the potiental to grow into a new person, why not take it a step further, sperm and eggs have the same potiental. Hmm, its not a cut and dry subject when it comes to what you define as 'new life'. I wonder really what your opinion would be if you had to an incubator for 9 months.

lordjedi said:

shimy said:

state constitution vs federal law, how is there a conflict there?

Here's the relevant article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF113EF933A2575BC0A960958260

And here's the relevant portion:

The constitutional provision, Amendment 68, was approved by voters in 1989. At the time, its ban on public money for abortions except when a mother's life was endangered was in harmony with Federal law.

But in 1993, Congress extended abortion benefits to poor women who were victims of rape or incest.

In addition, there are those people who don't think tax money, which is essentially what Medicaid is, should be used for abortions period.  People like me don't really like it when our tax dollars are used to kill an unborn child.

It all comes down to States rights vs Federal rights.  Once again, the Federal govt needs to get its hands out of where it doesn't belong.

so you condon his actions there and feel that this girlsmoney should have been taken after being raped by her step father and being extemely young. You're part of the UNITED states, not a union of states. I would think that any federal law would override a state law. That being said, I would tend to agree with you if it was all abortions, however, its rape, incest, and mothers life, I think those are justified. Thats just my opinion though.

My comment might be a little ignorant I know there are certain matters that are part of a states jurisdiction and other that are federal. I just have very strong feelings for this cause on the fundemental level its such a moral outrage. This girl was already going to have problems as it was, making her carried a baby for 9 months, afterwards it just seems like you would effectively be distroying her life(mentally), for the life of an unborn child, which it could be argued would fall under the original decree.

state constitution vs federal law, how is there a conflict there?

Tiptup said:

Rob said:

The fact that you would even entertain such laughable stereotypes makes you sound like a real dunce. And a big queer.

The stereotype may be laughable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be true:

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

This is from the fourth page:

"The attentive audience for political, international and financial news tends to be better educated and middle-aged. Whites and blacks express comparable levels of interest (32% for whites, 35% for blacks), but Hispanics are less apt to follow hard news closely (23%). Republicans pay somewhat more attention (at 38%) than do Democrats or independents (30% each)."

I don't how they calculate that last bit, but PEW is a pretty respected source. Perhaps you can tell me how they're wrong.

Anecdotally speaking, my experiences have backed up these studies and so i've never felt the need to look at them closely. (That's probably not something I should do, but . . . eh.) If I want to know which side is arguing hard data, events, and logic, I look to the republican and conservative side. If I want to see who is repeating mindless chants and phrases at rallies, dinging chimes over dead soldiers, or simply expressing raw emotion or general nastiness, I look to socialists. If that makes me a dunce and a queer, then perhaps I need to be educated. In the meantime I don't think my perception is wrong.

I like how both of them are under the majority. So the majority of people on either side have no idea waht the hell is going on, and thats very dangerous.

Rob said:

Jay said:

It never ceases to amaze me how much people will bitch and complain about something that costs them nothing to use and in which their participation is entirely optional.

 

Don't let these bitches get you down Jay.  Most of them are just here to twist pickles.  You're far to sexy to trouble yourself with these fags.

awesome rob, you never can not give me a smile on here.

hahahaha janskeet,

You are wasting your time(I have found its very hard to argue with some people on here so I just in general don't anymore). Most of the people here probably don't know me, but I have been around since the start(2003) of the site despite it saying i joined last year(hey my 5 site birthday was only july 24th yay. Anyway back to my point. I am Canadian so all I have is an external POV to the American system. As someone from a different country I personally think America would be better off with a democrat like Obama in power in the next term.

As for my presonally veiws. I find that more often then not I line up better with democrates then republicans, but thats not to say that there isnt stuff thats republican which i really agree with as well. For example right now I think the offshore oil drilling should go through(america needs to stop being so relient onthe middle east), however substancial money should be put into alternate energy, and also the 36 Nuclear power plants is a great idea. Most people dont know that newest generations of NPP, are almost completely waste free, the french are the best with those. Now if you look at it that way, I am more inline with john macCain then obama.

I think the reason why so many democrats get frustrated with republicans is because the politicans are so, shall we say, tainted. From what I have seen, and keep in mind I do not put MacCain in either of these catagories,  but i either see SUPER rich old families like the bushes, OR i see completely intolerable neo-christians with veiws that are so far right that they might as well have gone around the world are a starting to be left(that was a joke), Mike hucabee comes to mind here a man that talked about love, kindness and charity but that pulled medicare from a teenage girl cause she got raped became pregnant and wanted an abortion. Now the same goes with people on the left but i see a greater upside and less extremes in the democrat ranks.

Another point i wanted to talk about was this, I noticed someone say that when taxes are low charity donations go up. I always thought that it was the same in the US as in canada but i guess it isnt. Here in canada when you fill your taxes out, you get certain deductions from the money you pay. Just to make it easy ill give an example. If i make 100 000, I am in the highest tax bracket, so i pay 50% tax. So my bill to the gov is 50 000. Now say during the year i made 5000 worth of donations. Most if not all of the 5000 is deducted from my taxes, so i only pay 45 000. Is that not how it works down south?

I'll start by giving you my arguement, cause maybe thats not clear. I am not saying that the other movies are bad. I am saying that some things in ratatullie were revolutionary. And unfortunately I cannot provide you with internet sources for that opinion, because I got them from my roommate, who I beleive may have a greater insight on the issue then some film critic website, a timeline that includes nothing of the CGI developments after the the 80s and includes things like steve jobs buy pixar(not exactly CG development related), and a wikipedia timeline that excludes things like episode 2 with the first use of all blue screen. Infact there are alot of things missing from the 2000s in the wiki website.

that was quite the post, I appreciate the time and effort put into it. I wont go throught quote by quote but I'll hit the major issues here.

Firstly, my impressions come from what I see as being really interesting I have an arts(visual graphics i.e. sketching, painting), biology and engineering background so I have alot of appreciation for some of the thought that goes on behind creating the effects, and making them life like. My opinions on ratatullie come from my roommate who like i said is doing masters work in the feild.

Now I am not saying that Pixar is god, however anything that is published in a paper is new PERIOD, that I can tell you for a fact, as I am doing research right now and have some appreciation for publishing papers(even though I am in a different field the same standards are applied). The link you provided was a list of revolutionary things done from a cinimatic point of veiw. Some of the things from what I gather in Ratatullie were things like the physics and rendering of choping vegtables, and as I mentioned before there was the object impact deformation. Things like this aren't going to wow the audience because they are small things that are expected where if i didn't point them out to you, you wouldnt notice right away cause they're very subtile. Be that as it may it does not change the fact that they are things that have not been done before, and are still in some sense revolutionary.

When your dealing with papers its not quite the same as reading a discription of a product. Abstracts are not sales pitches, they are meant to explain the real relevence and outline of what is in the paper. They are peer reviewed so you don't just get a company spouting out grabage just to make themselves look good. I am not sure what more you want from me. Its not about the quantity of sources but the quality. I just happened to send you a link with all the papers on it. Would you like links for all the seperate papers?

I will make this concession. The stuff done in ratatuille, isn't as insanely revolutionary as say. Making a dinosaur, but you have to realise that the days of those kinds of steps are gone. All future revolutionary advances will be small things that improve the physics, feel, and realism of the effects. Most of these won't be specifically noticed by people unless they are directly pointed out, but these same people will still have the feeling that the graphics are good and better then something they have seen before. I guess the last step is making something so real that one cannot tell that its CG, but something like that will come not in one leap and bound as say having a CG space battle may have been, but it will come from many smaller, yet major protocols developed for movies like ratatullie.

I think we can just agree to disagree here because I don't see how this is going to develop further. I have stated what I thought, given you academic sources, as opposed to internet blogs, and I don't really have much more to add as I personally am not an expert in the field. Talk to my about cell Biology and we can go day and night there :P

oh and I just want to add as well Pixar as far as I know is the only major Animation studio, with an entire division set aside for research. Disney, dreamworks etc do not nessarily have this. Pixar and disney are one in the same now so that eg might not count.

negative1 said:

shimy said:

here is a link to papers published on ratatuie

 

http://graphics.pixar.com/

 yes, i know the papers are there..

again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,

it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars

techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....

go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...

later

-1

Wow did you just say that. i thought you had all this back ground in CG, you of all people should be able to appreciate that. what do you want thats revolutionary. hell if your standards of revolutionary are that high i should point out that thought toy story was the first animated movie of that length. they had been making short movies like that for a long time. so you could call that evolutionary too. What was so revolutionary in all the other movies then.

I also just want to point out, i have minimal experience with actual computer animation, and i can at least appreciate some of the stuff they are talking about in the abstracts. Did you even look at the abstracts?

I am also curious what your opinion of a huge break through is going to be. Some of the stuff in that movie had huge breakthroughs. Techniques they used to develop ways to have object deformation due to impact is pretty big. As they talked about in the paper, In movies before directors and animators would try to avoid direct contact as much as possible because it was hard to make it look like you had actual contact, not floating objects.

I'm sorry but you just dont seem very credible anymore, you're making these blanket statements, using flash words like revolutionary, and Breakthroughs, but what exactly are your problems with the movies. Surely you are not just looking directly at the finished product and judging it on the broad aspects the overall look, and not paying attention to detail. Because as you said yourself your very interested in CG. It almost seems like you dislike the stylization as apposed to the actual computer graphics, and if thats your arguement. Then your critiziums need to be a little more accurate and not say things like "the graphics are ok" when really they are spectacular. because the CG style, vs the real word physics and the stimulation is great.

here is a link to papers published on ratatuie

http://graphics.pixar.com/