xhonzi

zombie84 said:

I just finished watching the Exorcist and there's a scene where Linda Blair's neck begins inflating like a bullfrog and it looks pretty much exactly like that. If George Lucas is possessed by a demon it might at least explain a few things. Okay, now get me an old priest and a young priest.

Did you see that Robot Chicken where young, curly topped, black Michael Jackson appears and accuses old, skinny, white Michael Jackson of being an impostor?

Your post reminds me of it.

xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

Sluggo said:

The only correct way to watch then is by viewing Wookiee Groomer's Addicted to Star Wars. 

 

That looks AWESOME!! What sound plays? 

One of the six or all six.  Your choice.

I had this with me this weekend on my working vacation.  I showed a coworker I almost never see and he was quite impressed/concerned.  The next day, he saw me with TWO laptops and wondered if I was watching Addicted to Star Wars on both of them.  It would cut the six movies down to an hour total...  Maybe that's the way to do it.

Yeah... I can't go near that thread.  Too much awesomez.

For a second there... yes just a second, I thought Moth3r's and CMG's wortstest nightmare had COME TRUE!

Wait... I love sunshine!

:)

ChainsawAsh said:

... "Super 35," which is 35mm film, shot full aperture, and then cropped to conform to whatever aspect ratio the director/cinematographer wanted.  ... This also meant that fullscreen versions have more information on top and bottom, but less on the sides.  (See Terminator 2 and the Harry Potter flicks - at least the first two - for other examples of films shot on Super 35.)

This is sometimes true.  Have you looked closely at LotR to see if it was true?  Generally speaking, the more post processing on any given shot, the less likely it is that the P&S version will have more visual info top & bottom.  Given the heavy post on LotR, I would hazzard that there are not many scenes with additional data available in the P&S versions.

TV's Frink said:

For xhonzi:

Yay?

Leonardo said:

Saw "The Money Pit" (1986) with Tom Hanks, last night. Pretty nice flick.

I quite enjoyed the Money Pit before I became a homeowner.  Now, I can't watch it and find it anything other than depressing.  :(

Father of the Bride (1991) was really popular when my sister was getting married.  Everyone was really into it except my father, who was, *ahem*, the father of a bride.  I thought he was mostly joking, about how he couldn't stand watching it... but now I totally understand what he meant.

We watched The Band's Visit.  I don't dislike foreign films on principal, but I do tend to dislike a lot of them individually.  I just find that they don't mesh my gears...  The movie had some really good parts, but at the end... I think I must have missed the point.  It seemed to have a bunch of whimsical things happen to people without a real resolution to anything at the end.   It just sort of ended.

Warbler said:

stunk at the quiz again. 

You should listen to more classical music, like Paralyzer by Finger 11.

dark_jedi said:

I heard this will be released like Blade Runner, ALL versions of each film on its own BD, ALL previously released extras from VHS,LD's and DVD's plus some we have not seen, ALL audio mixes, ALL color the way it is supposed to be, and the entire BD set is going to be packaged in a HUGE Collector's quality Millenium Falcon, I am ALL OVER that!

So pre order now.

I hope that it only costs $1 and that the Millennium Falcon collector's case is LIFE SIZE!

And that it's in DTS.

I've been told none of that will happen, but I hope it does anyways.

I sure hope they fix the colour.  I have been told that they won't, but I'm still pretty sure that they will.

TheBoost said:

Sluggo said:

The only correct way to watch then is by viewing Wookiee Groomer's Addicted to Star Wars. 

 

That looks AWESOME!! What sound plays? 

One of the six or all six.  Your choice.

Sluggo said:

xhonzi makes more money than Sluggo.  I don't like that.  Why don't I like that?  I don't know.  I'm pretty sure that's the right answer.

 Fixed?

No, I'm sure they were MasterCard folk.

You know, I actually thought about editing it to be stobbed after I posted...  looks like I should have.  ;)

Yep.  That's what I watch.  Everytime.  I try to make sure the OT is less than 1% of my total SW experience.

bkev was... but he stopped.  :(

TheBoost said:

 A message of "THEY" are out there threatening "US" tends to sound very liberal in America. Welfare moms, immigrants, mosques, homos getting married; being threatened by an internal "THEM" and being pissed about it resonates with a lot of conservative political messages in the media.

A message of "THEY" are out there threatening "US" tends to sound very liberal in America.  Fox news, evil corporations, white people, conservatives, the "man", churches, right wing radio hosts, the tea party movement, global warmers, oil companies, Glenn Beck, drug companies, drug restriction fascists, fee charging Fire Departments, etc...; being threatened by an external "THEM" and being pissed about it resonates with a lot of liberal political messages in the media.

?

And Al Franken doesn't disapprove of anybody?

Thanks, Adywan... You really know how to ruin a girl's day.

TheBoost said:

xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

But if you're talking a character who is a yelling, angry, hate-spewing talk radio guy, there aren't a lot of liberal types in that genre.

I guess that's my point.  It's almost as if the liberal showrunners are nodding to the (presumed?) liberal audience and saying, "Man have you had enough of how wrong all of those idiot right wing radio hosts are?  Amiright, folks?!?!"  For a minute, it had me thinking, "Yeah, those stupid conservatives" until I realized I WAS a conservative.  

But if the character is a big blowhard screaming fearmongering radio guy brewing irrational hatred, is it somehow the writers fault that is automatically assumed to be a conservative?

You saw the episode, right?  He was described, in words, as being right winged.  And I don't think he screamed, though he might have been a blowhard, and I suppose you could call him fearmongering...  But wait, if I said "big blowhard screaming fearmongering senator guy brewing irrational hatred" or "big blowhard screaming fearmongering TV guy brewing irrational hatred" or "big blowhard screaming fearmongering newspaper guy brewing irrational hatred", would anything about their profession indicate their political preference?  I mean, talk radio is sort of the domain of the right wing pundit, regardless of how much vitriol is in play.

And I have to imagine that a disproportionally large fanbase for superhero stuff is conservatives, due to the traditional values represented therein.

What traditional values exactly?

The clear distinction between right and wrong, foremost.  Objective morality.  The identification of good guys and bad guys.  However, a lot of modern comics/superheroes are less like this.  One of the things I didn't like about Spider-Man 2 was that Dr. Octopus was no longer "bad" he was just the victim of his AI controlled arms taking over his brain.  Because all criminals are just victims, right?  None of them are actually bad people.

TheBoost said:

But if you're talking a character who is a yelling, angry, hate-spewing talk radio guy, there aren't a lot of liberal types in that genre.

I guess that's my point.  It's almost as if the liberal showrunners are nodding to the (presumed?) liberal audience and saying, "Man have you had enough of how wrong all of those idiot right wing radio hosts are?  Amiright, folks?!?!"  For a minute, it had me thinking, "Yeah, those stupid conservatives" until I realized I WAS a conservative.  And I have to imagine that a disproportionally large fanbase for superhero stuff is conservatives, due to the traditional values represented therein.  So, it just seems odd to me that (I'm assuming) that the liberal show runners are assuming that their audience is also liberal.

You're right about Green Arrow being the liberal hippie.  I had forgotten about that when, again on Smallville, he recently starting spouting off on how the only thing illegal aliens (Clark excluded, I guess) wanted was the same freedoms that our forefathers sought when they came to this country.  *rolls eyes*  Yeah, it's totally the same thing.

Interesting.

Man, this is hard work!  To come up with all of the names and crap.  Anyways, here's what I'm working with and a lot of the new names are placeholders until something better comes along.

There are returing characters, semi-returning characters, and new characters.  Also, some of the characters get more definition in the actual story description than they do here in the character description.  The reasons for that should be obvious.

Okay, no more stalling:

I said:

How much does sound quality, invisible music, video quality, video resolution, colour, screen size, etc... all play into our emotional response to things?  It probably doesn't affect our rational response, right?  But it can totally change our emotional response.

I know the thread has been wandering a little bit into other territories since I posted this, but I wanted to come back to it.

When sound, colour, widescreen, surround sound, digital sound, DTS, etc. were introduced, movie goers reviewed the merits of the new technology to their favourite art-form objectively, or with their rational mind.  Perhaps people considered seeing the movie in B&W and then seeing the movie in colour, and while they could see the obvious 'gimmick' or 'novelty' in adding colour, they were forced to admit that it was basically the same movie.  You could tell the same story in B&W- so theoretically you weren't adding anything by putting it in colour.  But what they couldn't rationally measure was the emotional element.  Perhaps people thought they liked the story better in a movie that was in colour, or they thought the actors were better, or the action was more intense.  People might have come up with a lot of reasons that they thought a movie was better without correctly identifying which factor brought them into it emotionally.

I was thinking of this recently because I bought and added a "D-Box motion simulator" to my home theatre.  It's basically what you think: it's a mechanical chair that "moves" in synch with the movie you're watching.  (Think a smaller scale Star Tours, but for an entire movie, and you're on the right track.)  It's gimmicky as heck, and I love it.  I mentioned it to someone at work, and they thought it sounded like fun, but then they asked if made movies more enjoyable?  And when it's working correctly, I think the proper response to that is: I don't know.

I assume that when most of us get new sound equipment, we watch specific scenes out of specific movies to "demo" the sound equipment.  You might get down and put an ear next to the new speaker, or close your eyes and focus on what you're listening to, or any variety of bizzare things during the "demo".  You might take a special kind of enjoyment from this, but that's not how you actually plan on "using" the new equipment, right?  You plan, hopefully, on not thinking about the equipment as you sit down and get engrossed in a movie or whatever, right?  That's the difference between demoing and using.  During the demo phase, you focus on the hardware, or the technique itself, but during use: you almost want to forget it's there at all, right?  Any attention the equipment draws to itself is distracting, right?  So how can you rationally determine the value that the new sound equipment adds to the experience, when you shouldn't consciously notice that it's there?

I've "demoed" lots of cool scenes in my new chair, and they ARE AWESOME.  But I've actually sat down and used it a couple times too.  We watched Prince of Persia in the chair, and I have to say I liked the movie.  7.8/10.  Did I like it because the sound was nice and loud, the picture was nice, bright and big, because I watched it on BD instead of DVD, because there were no commercial breaks, because my chair rocked back and forth when there was action on the screen, or because it was just a fun time?  Or maybe my belly was full and my wife and I were having a nice little break from the kids.  Or maybe I just got paid.

I don't know.  I think that's the right answer.