- Chronicle -
It was okay. Not exactly bad but the "showing it from the perspective of a camera that's actually in the scene" thing brings it down. The entire thing would've been better had they not attempted to do that. Granted I only watched the Directors cut. So maybe it's more toned down in the theatrical but there are a lot of moments where it's like "really you're going to keep the camera going through that?" Like when you have an argument with your friends or anyone really the last thing you're gonna think is "gotta keep my camera filming this!" It does work for some of it but for the most part I wish they just dropped that angle in the film.
darth_ender said:
<a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Trek-Renegades/topic/14764/">Star Trek: Renegades</a> - Of Gods and Men really looks cool, and I've been meaning to watch it since twister111 first mentioned it. I'm excited about the upcoming Renegades.
I've seen this gif before and I think there's a valuable life lesson to be learned from it. Really. Sometimes it's just best to let the little things slide. By trying to "fix" things that aren't a problem in the grand scheme of things you may end up causing a problem you didn't anticipate. By being focused on something that didn't matter you just may end up messing something up that does.sean wookie said:
Why
I saw a vid with a "144p" quality option and assumed that's what you were talking about. Then I researched it and saw the actual option. Wow whoever designed this really underestimates VHS or had really awful luck with videos.
I don't know but I tried searching google with it and choosing the visually similar option. Got these things instead:
So from google's perspective it may as well be a spider, or a magikarp in a suit....
Having now read your post makes this rather meta.CP3S said:
You know how you read different posters' posts in different voices? I'm having a hard time not reading this post in the voice I read Twister's posts in. Weird.
I haven't watched the prequels in a long time but it feels like AOTC ignition number should be higher than ROTS. I would've thought the arena scene would drive that number up.
Another forum I visit had an error message showing for several days. I visited today and it's back up. Only some of it's content has gone missing. Sad.
CP3S said:
You're invalidating demonstrable studies based on a series of assumptions stacked on one another. Working at your assumptions backwards; for the sake of argument, we'll just presume God does actually exist, but now you are taking it a stretch further and assuming near-death experiences happen when people out will God and force him to reschedule their death? You're also assuming that God has a time table or schedule for our deaths. A lot of things you could never know for sure, and you are taking them as fact and using them to explain why scientific testing on this matter is bogus. If there is a God, maybe the phenomena we describe as "near death experience" is a nifty feature he built into our brains, and not us defying him after "he calls us" and our spirit returning to our body after departing.
Like I said, you're all over the place. We can trigger the near death experience, but you claim it isn't the same thing even though physiologically it is 100% the same thing. It isn't just the same in looks (toy gun), but it is the exact same in functionality. The brain does the same things, the person experiences the same strange experience.
CP3S said:
Whoa! Twis, I feel like you are comparing apples to chocolate bars to belugas. You're all over the place.
I'm sorry but throwing a whole bunch of G-forces on the body and taking them out at a time when you're certain they'll survive and inducing a heart attack are two different things. "Near death experience" well it's pretty much in the title itself. Unless you're doing something to the person that there's only a 1% margin where they'll actually survive. Hell even less than that might be required it's not entirely valid as a reconstruction of said "near death experience". After all the basic idea behind it is that God or some other supernatural force has decided "it's your time to die" and only through some extraordinary free will determination are you saved. That is impossible for humans to fully recreate. It's basically your time on the schedule of death being rescheduled due to massively unlikely free will choice being exerted. Or at least it's supposed to be. Consequently if it does hold relevance at all and if any of them are true supernatural occurrences it's simply impossible for us to really recreate such events. We lack the essential data of exactly "when" we should test for such a thing. Also if we ever did obtain access to such data the testing would be futile. The proof that a supernatural entity can plan a time for our deaths and has an afterlife waiting for us would be the result that any such testing would be looking for.CP3S said:
It isn't a case of something artificial imitating something real, it is a case of something real being understood to a degree that we know how to make it happen. We can replicate heart attacks too, because we know exactly what is happening to the heart during a myocardial infarction. This doesn't mean "faking" a heart attack, this means we have the ability to force a real heart attack. At one point we may have thought a heart attack was any one of many gods striking someone dead, now we know better.
Bingowings said:
Every stage can be explained with what is happening to the brain and can be replicated without near death.
TV's Frink said:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/assure-ensure-insure.aspxThe verbs assure, ensure, and insure all have the general meaning "to make sure," and even though <a href="http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/im-so-stylish.aspx">some argue</a> that they are interchangeable (1,2), many maintain that their usage is dependent on context (3,4,5,6):
Assure is something you do to a person, a group of people, or an animal to remove doubt or anxiety, as in Squiggly assured Aardvark that he'd come to the party early. You can remember that assure can only be used with things that are alive (and both assure and alive start with a). Only things that are alive can feel doubt or anxiety, so only they can be assured.
Ensure is something you do to guarantee an event or condition, as in To ensure there'd be enough food, Aardvark ordered twice as much food as last year. You can remember that guarantee has those two e's on the end to help you remember that to ensure (with an e) is to guarantee something.
Insure can be done to a person, place, or thing, but it's reserved for limiting financial liability, most commonly by obtaining an <a href="http://moneygirl.quickanddirtytips.com/what-insurance-do-I-need.aspx">insurance policy</a>, as in Aardvark wondered if the caterers were insured against loss. You can remember that we take out insurance to protect our income if we become unemployed, disabled, or injured in an accident. Both insure and income begin with -in. Finally, the related verb secure is used when you take possession of a thing or place, as in Aardvark secured a beautiful hall for his party, or when you make something stable or safe, as in Aardvark secured the welcome banner to the wall.
I'll define my own pet peeves, thank you very much.
Assure is something you do to a person, a group of people,
assure. verb (used with object), -sured, -sur?ing.
to secure; render safe or stable: to assure a person’s position.
Ensure is something you do to guarantee an event or condition,
insurance
b. the state of having such protection
TV's Frink said:
twister111 said:True the current media climate pretty much insures his status for the years to come. Sure it may be possible for someone to achieve such notoriety but it's unlikely as the many screens available vie for our attention.
SilverWook said:
Truly the end of an era. Now all we have left are mostly anonymous internet based movie reviewers. I don't think anyone else will ever have his level of recognition or prominence.
Rest in peace Mr. Ebert.
*ensures*
/petpeeve
ensure or insure
— vb
1. ( may take a clause as object ) to make certain or sure; guarantee: this victory will ensure his happiness
2. to make safe or secure; protect
insure or insure
— vb
en'surer or insure
— n
insure
c.1440, variant of ensuren (see ensure). Took on its particular sense of "make safe against loss by payment of premiums" 1635 (replacing assure in that meaning).
It's okay.SilverWook said:
Truly the end of an era. Now all we have left are mostly anonymous internet based movie reviewers. I don't think anyone else will ever have his level of recognition or prominence.
sean wookie said:
Fuck,
sean wookie said:
never mind.
sean wookie said:
NVM
WHY IS THIS APRIL FOOLS!? Why, is, this, april, fools!?!?!?!AntcuFaalb said:
Funny stuff!
doubleKO said:
Wait, in Firefox I do! But I've never used it :(
DuracellEnergizer said:
back to the future parallel universes
BuzzOnline said:Well it was quite confusing when I watched when I was small but I understood it later. what I like most about it is that the Graphics were good than the Old but still the story was soo good did not care about it at all :)
