This user has been banned.
Bingowings said:
tv bracket: i died 15 years ago with your other older sister, who was my little sister.
Gordon Freeman Who Was John Freeman's Brother!
CO said:
Gaffer Tape said:
In all seriousness, though, I do generally find your attitude in threads to be a bit snide, and while I haven't directly conversed with you often, the few times I have you never really came across as anything other than unpleasant. So I probably am quicker to assume you're copping an attitude than with other members of this forum, even if that's not the case. If I did indeed misinterpret the intention of your response earlier, then I do apologize.
Gaffer, he currently posts on TFN, so I think thats all you need to know about his attitude towards us.
Did he crashed?
TV's Frink said:
Is it possible for a "parody" to be worse than the original, and in fact so-bad-it's-just-awful?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npgdw5Zb7TY
Remember kids, Monday is the day after church.
TV's Frink said:
EDIT: I had to read that post a few times to get what you were driving at, but I think the way the prophecy line is in the movie just sounds stupid.
Not to me ;)
The members have gathered,
great plans are heard chattered,
a brotherhood rises
to heights none realizes.
At long last unveiled,
are the secrets once sealed,
for the world's now prepared
to ensure at least few cared.
Ah, very nice perspective on that!
Although I don't get what the beef with the "prophecy" sentence is - "a prophecy that could've been misread".
The sentence is structured to refer to the prophecy (I honestly don't remember the grammatic term for that) - they talk about the prophecy earlier, and Yoda just kinda throws it in as a commentary: this prophecy you're talking about, that could've been misread you know.
Just saying "this prophecy could've been misread" sounds more disjointed and laconic in that context - it wouldn't if we'd just seen Yoda come out of the meditation room, or the library, or having had some sort of meaningful dialogue or revelation, and announce this new, sharp perspective:
"MISREAD the prophecy could have been!" tum-tum-taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam.
The way the dialog feels, they already kinda know it could've been misread, so a "the x that..." sentence structure makes more sense.
And the "misread" at the place it is, gives it an additional emphasis.
Put Captain Solo in the Cargo Hold said:
I always took it for granted actually. The only line that sticks out for is "Not if anything to say about it, I have!", which sounds too forced.
I actually found that one quite bad-ass, in a cheesy kind of way...
the one with the "perimeter" had no charm at all.
I think what most annoys me about Prequel Yoda (aside from the dumb looking puppet in TPM... the puppet is 50 times worse than the CGI version btw) is the quirky voice they did to make him appear more "youthful".
Delivery is the key, the ultimate linchpin - when the voice already sounds goofy, anything weird about the dialog will hopelessly stand out.
Somehow, though, apart from the II fight scene, CGI Yoda retains his core "dignity", so I can't say I consider him a minus for these movies.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization
Very, very odd results - I had expected the prequels to be somewhere up in the 90% region, and the OT somewhere 20-30% .
I'll pay attention whenever I'm gonna watch it again...
asterisk8 said:
I was always under the impression that Yoda's speech pattern was a result of his age, that he came from a different era. I seem to remember Frank Oz saying something about how and why it makes sense that not every sentence of his should be "backwards". I forget the specifics, or where I heard it, but I seem to remember his point being that variation in syntax is one of the hallmarks of natural speech, that we all do it, and it would be unnatural for Yoda to arrange every sentence backwards like we hear in the PT. When Yoda does reverse the order of a sentence, it's sort of a regression to an "old world" form of speaking.
Just my two credits.
Either that, or he's from Russia - specifically the Moscham region.
WhatsMyName said:
TV's Frink said:
WhatsMyName said:
My favorite episode was prlly...
I now picture WMN as a twelve year old girl.
I'm a 21 yr old boy. I can still enjoy cartoons as an adult.
And the Clone Wars series could be better yes. but it does have its good episodes. even Jar Jar is sometimes tolerable. it would've been better if it were live actors and not animated characters.
Just wait. After the Clone Wars is done, they go one to make another series called the adventures of Luke Skywalker. Basically, him growing up on tatooine as a kid.
I hope he gets it on with that hot pilot friend of his...
And not judging, just saying - you really shouldn't call yourself a "boy" at 21, that is unless you intend to communicate something :pp
SilverWook said:
twooffour said:
Watched a snippet of the "Godzilla" episode the other day - some invincible Moster dinoSuer with an impenetrable metal shell threatened a planet and they started debating over the ethical question whether killing it as the "last of its species" would be justified.
Then, after they got him tranquilized with some gas, Palpatine or something decided that it should be examined scientifically, in the interest of the war... by TAKING IT TO CORUSCANT.
Then to make matters worse, Palpatine obviously does it out of his lust for power, and he actually lets that through while Mace and a few others are watching. You see, they debate over what to do with the monster in the laboratory, and Palpatine names his reasons (weapon technology for the war, indestructible ships etc.), and then he utters to himself "this will bring power, power!" or something like that with that mad, greedy voice, and Mace stands JUST RIGHT NEXT to him and DOESN'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION.
Guess what, Godzilla escapes after they try to kill it, and starts roaming the city.
Everything I've see from CW until now, was absolute dogshit.
I think that was kind of the low point of the season. But, if you're making the show, and George drops by with a story idea that reeks, you're kind of screwed. ;)
I'm pretty sure the Baron Papanoida episodes were also another "keep the boss man happy" doom task.
Heh, well then.
Seems like synchronicity conspired against me enjoying any of this show, apparently ;)
But he didn't say sound made it better ;)
Watched a snippet of the "Godzilla" episode the other day - some invincible Moster dinoSuer with an impenetrable metal shell threatened a planet and they started debating over the ethical question whether killing it as the "last of its species" would be justified.
Then, after they got him tranquilized with some gas, Palpatine or something decided that it should be examined scientifically, in the interest of the war... by TAKING IT TO CORUSCANT.
Then to make matters worse, Palpatine obviously does it out of his lust for power, and he actually lets that through while Mace and a few others are watching. You see, they debate over what to do with the monster in the laboratory, and Palpatine names his reasons (weapon technology for the war, indestructible ships etc.), and then he utters to himself "this will bring power, power!" or something like that with that mad, greedy voice, and Mace stands JUST RIGHT NEXT to him and DOESN'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION.
Guess what, Godzilla escapes after they try to kill it, and starts roaming the city.
Everything I've see from CW until now, was absolute dogshit.
doubleofive said:
My eyes have been opened!TV's Frink said:
You've taken your first step into a larger world.
doubleofive said:
I've never used the word "wank", I hope I'm using it correctly
Rejoice as long as you can still use them...
sexyloser said:
I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner. But I just want to thank anybody that replied and to this site that allows Star War fans to vent their frustrations. To those saying that Homer or Shakespeare isn't a comparable example. Well maybe The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. My point is that I feel that Star Wars is an iconic piece of art that could potentially survive the far test of time.
It's sad that the stories I imagine in my mind is better, or at least more consistent, than whats shown on the big screen. The only way I can reconcile what I feel Star Wars should be and what it is, is to literally block out what I dislike out of my head and rewrite the blank spaces.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity
As probably a huge number of Star Wars fans had to do as evidenced by the large number of "Rewrite the Prequels" threads on other Star Wars forums.
Well, Mendelssohn contributed a huge chunk of lot to J.S.Bach surviving the "far" test of time (after having been virtually forgotten and discarded as "old-fashioned" with the onset of (pre-)classicism), by basically single-handedly reviving his works on the concert stage.
Bach hadn't "ruined" or tainted his reputation by writing something shitty, and yet apparently he was in danger of staying obscure for a long, long time without active hands seeking to prevent that - my point being, if you want the OT to stand the "test of time" in spite of the prequels, you can work for that ;)
Which I think this site is all about :D
bkev said:
[quote=Darth Bizarro]
...I Chuckled at Jar Jar running away from the blue glowy balls. Am I there yet?
I'll admit it, that probably still gives me a chuckle. Not every Gungan antic was entirely stupid.
I dunno. I think the only Jar Jar antic I might've liked (not when I was 10, but you know... in the here and now) was when Qui-Gon caught his tongue.
His rant about the Force and loss of energy was cool, too. Kinda.
TMBTM said:
twooffour said:
TMBTM said:
I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".
I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.
Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.
Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?
Yep. See this picture:
Here depth of fields "forces" your eyes to focus on the foreground object. It's a 2D way to simulate what your eyes do in real life. There are shots like this in Avatar but I feel it is "redundant" when used in 3D movies.
What I would call "real life 3D" would be to have the background as clear and precise as the foreground. Resulting the eyes of the audience to focus on what they want. With depth of fields in 3D movies you of course can focus on the background BUT it still looks blurry, and that is not how we see 3D in real life.
Agreed - the illusion is stronger in the lower picture, even though the other one obviously still has it.
Can't judge about the 3D, but complete realism would allow people to shift focus between the various "distance", as opposed to seeing everything equally focused or blurry. Not sure how to achieve it - probably something with flexible mini-lenses inside the glasses... wait, how's that supposed to AH FUCK it.
Not sure what to say about that - the entirety of the picture being precise and clear would certainly result in a prettier image, though.
DuracellEnergizer said:
twooffour said:
So if it's his opinion that he likes 3D better, he should go screw himself?
No. His denigration of older methods of filmmaking and the either/or mentality behind it all is the reason he should go screw himself.
okay :)
Thanks for the article. But really, the beef I had with your post is that you basically said (maybe not really meant it, but I ain't Professor X) that this 3D technology was "redundant" for the reasons stated.
And really, Nolan's quote there is a flat-out strawman. No one ever said that normal films in "2D" were, for all intents and purposes, "flat". Everyone gets the natural illusion of 3D. Most know about a few camera tricks like zoom and distance combos, depth of field / focus (if I remember correctly, in the Matrix movies they shot the Real and the Matrix scenes differently so that in the Real, there was a bigger contrast of focus between characters and background), lighting, camera movements, and blah blah blah.
We all know the difference between 3D animation and 2D cartoons. Everyone knows that live-action movies always deal with depth and 3D space.
So getting offended at 2D movies being called "flat" is as illogical and snobby as finding the need to mention that, in the so-called "black and white movies", there are actually shades off grey (and cinematography and lighting play a great role in that)!
When at the end of the day, a movie that is shown in 2D on a flat screen, without any ACTUAL 3D illusion based on feeding different signals to the eyes, is, well, FLAT, and providing this illusion DOES make a difference which you CAN tell from cinematography tricks.
This is basically all a giant case of pure hairsplitting. Sure, the glasses look goofy - but do you care when you have them on? ;)
I dunno. Nolan's objections seem to be rather of technical and practical nature, but in general, when I hear opinions like "great movies have been made for decades in 2D and no one felt the need for fancy stupid illusion tricks! this is just the new cheap Hollywood gimmick, ohh where's culture coming to" (i.e. objection against 3D without any real reasons about its current quality of execution, side-effects ect.), I usually just laugh, because it reminds me too much of the typical "grumpy ol' man" who just feels the need to assert that some "old school" thing was definitely better than this new crap.
Oh, what are these guys doing with all the amplifiers and electronic instruments... this is all mediocre, now the old masters with their real, acoustic instruments, now that was the real deal!
Guess I'm just carrying too much baggage on my back, eh?
Basically, as already pointed out in this thread, different stuff has advantages and disadvantages. From what I've heard about 3D (incl. I thing Avatar) is that it can cause unpleasant side-effects in more sensitive viewers due to the eyes receiving different information in an unusual way, or something like that.
I think it was headaches and slight nausea in the lighter cases; could be that those prone to epileptic seizures weren't recommended to watch 3D, but I'm not sure right now. Don't quote me on this last paragraph :D
TMBTM said:
I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".
I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.
Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.
Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?
I don't think it stands, because "artificially forcing a 3D simulation with multiple images and GOOFY glasses" sounds like a horribly biased and contemptful way of describing the simple fact of what's happening.
Somehow you think that stating the fact of the 3D effect in Avatar being an artificial illusion and pairing it up with manipulative assessments like "goofy glasses" will actually MAKE it sound goofy?
So yea, it's a simulation. An illusion. What's wrong about THAT in itself?
We all realize it's not an actual projected hologram (and I don't mean that kind of flat holograms that deceive you by having each pixel send slightly different signals to your eyes), the action still takes place on a flat screen. SO WHAT?
The "goofy glasses" still make you actually see things in 3D, by having your two eyes receive different images. This effect differs from an appeal to "natural interpretation", because even if you forget about it when watching 3D animation or actual footage (although I admit to even forgetting about it when watching 2D cartoons sometimes), you'll still see a FLAT IMAGE, no matter how many "shadowings" there are. You won't see a 3D image.
Which gives the "goofy glasses" an actual point and purpose. It's not redundant. And it's not "dumb".
*nothing oops*
canofhumdingers said:
I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.
Probably one of the stupidest opinions I've read about anything in a long time.
Hey, can I ask you a question: have you ever tried shutting one of your eyes (or blocking it with your hand if it's too difficult) and looking at your environment that way? The lighting, shadows and shapes, already make it appear 3D! Pfft, why need two eyes then?? Evolution was kinda dumb... but then again, it was blind, hahahahahahaa.
Hi, if you paint a cube on paper, it'll already look 3D without any fancy shadowing or whatever. If you take a picture of your room with your cheap 19$ steadycam, it'll still look, guess what, 3D. Shadowing is already provided by reality.
___________
/ / l
/ / l
/_________ / l
l l l
l l /
l l /
l l /
l_________ l/
DuracellEnergizer said:
Digital is like the invention of sound, 3D is like the invention of color. Sound changed everything in movies while color made it better. Just like when you see a 2D movie you’ll feel like you’re watching a black-and-white film. Ultimately everything will completely be in 3D.
Sound isn't better than silent, colour isn't better than B&W, and digital is not better than traditional. They are different mediums, but they are equal in every way, with their own particular strengths. All should coexist, with one never being discarded in favour of another.
Lucas can go screw himself. He's no artist; he's an fickle-minded vandal with a paint-filled Super Soaker.
So if it's his opinion that he likes 3D better, he should go screw himself?
The preservation of original works aside, artists will make the movies they want, and movies will be made according to what people want to see. If 90% percent of the population decides they now like 3D better (minus the epileptic seizures), then I guess most big dumb popcorn-flicks will be made in 3D and that's too bad for you ;)
I'm good sucker for good joke of dick!
