Acting performances.
4,777 2010-09-02 21:14:57
Re: Top Five thread. (313 replies, posted in Off Topic)
1. Kyle versus Maul2 and Jeffery Harrell. Kyle gets one foot of a broom handle, they both get throwing stars, but no shoes. Kyle cannot have facial hair.
2. Indiana Jones versus Han Solo. Indy has his right arm tied behind his back, there is a flying wing involved, but the props aren't spinning. (Yet.)
3. The cast of Mean Girls versus the cast of Down in Front. None have arms.
4. Tyler Durden versus Hobbes. Hobbes has the power of mind control.
5. Mater versus a juvenile tyrannosaurus. No alterations.
Top five indie performances.
4,779 2010-09-02 20:44:19
Re: Webcam stalking? (35 replies, posted in Off Topic)
What would DIFTrax be?
4,780 2010-09-01 05:59:39
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
No, you know what, I can do this.
Yes, you missed the point.
So just because you don't HAVE to drink or eat or what have you when you are a surrogate, that doesn't mean that you are just going to give it up entirely
It's a piece of complicated electronics that he's pouring liquid into, and the implication is that he puts food in there, too. Not only is there no reason for this, though you seem to think there is, there's also a lot of problems with this. Give it a second. It'll come to you.
you guys keep bringing up this concept of turning into a pterodactyl or car or whatever the fuck
We were kidding. Do you really think the experience of being a diner, as was suggested, is something we would plausibly consider?
even the concept of why they still need video screens, etc etc
Surrogates, were they a considered, real invention, would have no need for monitors or input devices because they provide both of those services to the user, because the user is looking through HUD goggles and clearly able to operate an impossibly complicated robot with thought alone - thinking some search terms into the configuration is not gonna be a big deal.
I'm sure I could eventually learn to be a car. But in a world where everyone would rather lay at home only experiencing the world through a robot, do you think ANYONE will be willing to put in the time to learn how to be?
It...it was a joke, remember?
Or hell, even on a strictly business level, what business is going to manufacture a car surrogate, do all the R&D, manufacture testing, and spend all that cash, on a product that isn't going to sell. It's simple math.
Oh my god, dude.
(Please note, I am not defending the movie in any way, I am simply trying to point out, that just because it is a bad movie, does not instantly mean that every single thing in it is wrong and should be assumed so at face value.)
We're guilty of assuming an awful lot here (as is the very nature of the original Surrogates joke) but it turns out, yeah, most of this movie is wrong.
I just had a massive build up of hate towards DiF that needed to be expelled, which I have only ever experienced once before... I don't enjoy it.
Terribly sorry. We don't either.
4,781 2010-09-01 05:44:51
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
*blink*
Wow, thanks, John!
4,783 2010-08-31 22:30:29
Re: Color coding. (27 replies, posted in Off Topic)
I think Eddie is perfectly mixed as is.
4,785 2010-08-31 21:27:55
Re: Monsters (11 replies, posted in Off Topic)
But, and this is the point, it was hard to do.
4,786 2010-08-31 21:08:14
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
That's what we're here for. Welcome to the conversation, sir. 
(I would say welcome to the forums, but you've been around.)
4,787 2010-08-31 20:49:06
Re: Color coding. (27 replies, posted in Off Topic)
What if we changed what is currently the archive to a "browse" page, where you can identify traits you're looking for. Eddie. Dissection. Making-of. Animation. Maybe mix and match.
4,788 2010-08-31 19:20:37
Re: Star Wars (Not-so-special edition.) (122 replies, posted in Episodes)
He'sa let Vader finish, but the Death Star was the most bad thing of all time.
What? Too much of a stretch, or are we not doing that one anymore?
4,790 2010-08-31 16:27:00
Re: The old "next week" thread. (301 replies, posted in Episodes)
Ha, good point.
4,791 2010-08-31 16:26:06
Re: Color coding. (27 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Well, some sort of tagging or description scenario would be nice, so if someone realized "hey, I really like this Eddie guy," or "the ones where they examine the structure and fix the writing are cool," or "every time Dorkman is on an episode, I cry" they could sort through what's there and find new ones they might not have listened to. Problem is making that work in a subtle, unobtrusive way.
This isn't a huge problem now, but will be when the website back-end overhaul completes and I can start linking to individual episodes from places like IMDb. Then when someone who was looking for reviews on The Truman Show finds Down in Front, there's even more of a chance that they'll stick around.
The answer might be suggested commentaries based on internal categorization. When you go to Truman Show, it brings up several others like it. Hm.
4,792 2010-08-31 16:21:05
Re: Monsters (11 replies, posted in Off Topic)
No, but I'm looking forward to it.
4,793 2010-08-31 03:30:49
Topic: Color coding. (27 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Hey folks, I'm trying something out. Right now it's perfectly functional, but your browser's cache settings might prohibit you from seeing all of the posters done up this way. A force refresh or clearing your cache should resolve it.
Here's what's up. I've (temporarily) wrapped all of the posters with a colored stroke outline, in one of four colors, indicating what the bulk of the episode is.
Blue indicating general discussion and analysis, red indicating us ripping into the movie, green indicating an episode wherein we address and try to fix story problems and re-write, and yellow being a movie where someone on the panel has first-hand experience with something relating to the flick.
What do you think? Obviously the intention here is to make it easy for a listener, especially a new one, to find the type of conversation they want to hear. (Also obviously, somewhere easy to find will be something to explain the color system, an image on the home page or something.)
4,794 2010-08-30 22:44:27
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
PAL version with delightfully high pitched voices.
4,795 2010-08-30 22:14:04
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
Cooking one up just for you.
4,796 2010-08-30 22:07:56
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
Zap wrote:
By my math, 25 / 24 is 1.0416666 so the percentage would be 4.17% instead.
But that depends what the percentage is of. If you want to speed something that is NTSC up to PAL, you should speed it up 4.17%.
Or if you want to do it the other way around, and think about it as a time-stretch, it's 25/24 which is 0.96, meaning it should be exactly 96% (no decimals!) as long as the original. Which means you are "removing" exactly 4% of the original length.
So the question is what your software is using for input.
4,797 2010-08-30 21:53:01
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
We experimented for months trying to find the magic number by which you could compress the time of an NTSC episode and have it line up with PAL copies of the movie.
The result? Three separate times very smart people came up with a number, the first was twice revised, and people still couldn't get it to line up some of the time. Not out of user error, but for some reason there isn't the linear conversion you'd expect. Either some movies are differently PALified (IE, some sped up, some just have frames excised, etc.) or a magic leprechaun comes along just to fuck with us when we try to help out a non-US viewer, but in any case, the PAL conversion techniques we've tried in the past have not been worth it.
4,798 2010-08-30 19:37:33
Re: Surrogates. (56 replies, posted in Episodes)
Welcome to the forums, sir!
4,799 2010-08-30 18:47:09
Re: *Suggestion Box Poll* (41 replies, posted in Episodes)
30 replies. The top row have 10 votes.