Search options

My wife said to call the show "IMU" Since the press release said the name should be something Interesting Memorable and Unique.

This has been a great episode so far (I've got about 50 minutes left to listen to).

I was three when Star Wars hit the theaters in 1977. My dad was in to photography and stuff so he enjoyed films and I remember having this Super8 reel of an abridged version of Star Wars. It was black&white and silent but you could watch a few scenes. We also had this LP (record) of the Star Wars soundtrack. I remember being five or six years old and I would load in the record on my families HiFi and sit in front of the speaker and close my eyes and watch the movie clips in my head while I listened to the music.

When I was 13, Cd's were just coming out and my dad took me to Circuit City to get my first CD player and CD. I chose this, a compilation of Star Trek movie soundtracks, as my first CD. It had music from Star Trek the Motion Picture through Final Frontier. This introduced me to James Horner. Unfortunately, this disk, along with half my CD collection, was lost 15 years ago when vandals set fire to my car. But, being inspired by your DiF episode, I just purchased it again from Amazon.

I was in band for seven years (from fifth grade to my Junior year in high school). I played trumpet and french horn but I never did anything in music after high school. I was second trumpet my freshman year and first french horn my Junior year and had three solos in our marching band performance, but I never learned to read music. I could read notes and play the keys on the instrument, but I could not sight-read. I couldn't look at the notes on the page and figure out the melody, I had to hear the music then I could play it. So, even though I was passionate about movie soundtracks, and could play a musical instrument, I never got into composing but instead focused on the camera side of film making.

Now my kids share my interest in soundtracks because I still buy them and listen to them constantly. My twelve year old knows the names of movie composers. His favorite right now is John Powell (How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda, and other Dreamworks flicks). But he also likes Trevor Rabin (National Treasure) and Hans Zimmer.

My favorites have changed over the years. I started with Williams, then Goldsmith and Horner, then to Zimmer. But recently I've really been mesmerized by Steve Jablonski. I could listen to The Island and Transformers all day long.

I had to go to Vegas yesterday for the day so I had eight hours of driving time to fill (4 over and 4 back) so I listened to several older DiFs again and one of them was Super8. After listening to your guys commentary again I think I realized the disconnect.

If you're expecting an alien movie then the kids story doesn't really fit in. Likewise if you are expecting a story about the kids trying to finish their film then the alien story doesn't seem to tie into that. I think you are victims of the advertising. You are trying to find the connection between the footage the kids shot and how it affects the alien plot, or visa versa. But you need to look at it through a different lens. It's not about the alien and it's not about the film. It's a boy meets girl story. In order for the two of them to get together, everyone has to learn how to let go of all the issues they have. The film they are making and the alien train crash are simply the devises used to get the boy and the girl together.

In the beginning of the movie it's the need of a female lead that first brings the girl into this boy's world. Then later it is the alien plot, specifically her being abducted, that finally brings them together in a meaningful way. It's the girl that teaches him to to stand up and not be pushed around by his bossy friend. Its his like for the girl that finally drives him to confront his dad. The plot revolves around the boy getting the girl.

I think the advertising set up an expectation that the footage they shot would have something to do with the alien plot. But if you look passed that with a clean slate, then I think you can see what the movie was really about. The boy gets the girl. And in order for that to happen, everyone had to learn to let go of their issues.

She's perfect. :-)
She was diagnosed with a TAPVR heart defect. The arteries coming from her lungs didn't connect to the heart so the oxygenated blood couldn't get into the left side of the heart and it back flowed into the right side and mixed with the un-oxygenated blood. So the right side of her heart was doing all the pumping and she wasn't getting 100% oxygen-rich blood to her body. They went in and cut the artery and the heart and stitched them together and now her system functions properly. They said there should be no need to ever go back in, it's a one-time fix.

10188 Star Wars Death Star
3803 pieces. It's also the most expensive set I've ever bought at $400. It took me and my kids about a week to build.

Le Freak

(oooooooohhhhhhhhh...   FREAK OUT!)

Super8 is one of my favorite modern movies. I would've loved to have been part of the live chat. Why aren't you guys announcing your sessions anymore? The release/record thread still says you're about to discuss the hunger games in April. There's been no activity on that thread for two months. I sometimes just go the live feed on a sunday afternoon only to find nothing happening. I once stumbled upon your comic con discussion but that was it.

Anyway, about Super8, I found the theme of "letting go" very clear. The creature just wanted to get home. By keeping him here and not letting go, the government turned him into an enemy. By blaming the drunk for his wife's death and not letting go of his bitterness, the dad made an enemy out of the drunk. The boy couldn't let go of his mom and thus made an enemy of his dad. Everyone needed to learn to let go.

Now about the creature and his ship, he needed some sort of energy source to reconstitute his ship, he couldn't just do it on his own. The airforce knew that, that's why it was no issue to transport them together. The creature still needed some sort of energy source to work with, that's why he was taking all of that hardware. They brought the cubes back into town to catch the creature. The airforce guy tells the Dr. That they are going to bait him and catch him. The cubes were the bait to lure the creature out. What they didn't know was that the creature had built a machine to reconstitute his ship. Maybe the creature had some sort of electrical aura or magnetic field around him that caused all the tech around him to go haywire. Maybe the machine he made just enhances and focuses that energy, I don't know. That part of the story isn't explained very well I agree.

I just love the feel of this movie. It definitely has some imperfections but it just feels good. It's a sappy, Spielberg, 80's, feel good movie. If I could walk out of the theater feeling this good after any movie then I say it's a success.

I really didn't think it was possible for it to be as good as it was. I'm glad I was wrong. I saw it last night with my brother and I'm taking my wife and kids to see it tonight. I just didn't think there was a way to incorporate all those disparate characters without it feeling lame like the fantastic four. But it worked. Hulk's payoff was especially awesome.

How about an episode covering gear?

I feel that a lot of users here are aspiring filmmakers looking to get a foot in the industry, (if they don't already.) With all the new digital cinema cameras hitting the market, maybe the DiF crew can discuss what trends they are seeing in what gear is being used prevelently. What are their opinions on the different options out there. Red, Canon or Nikon HDSLR, Canon or Sony cinema cameras? Strengths vs weaknesses. I'm curious where you guys think the digital cinema camera formats will settle? Will they converge to a common format/sensor size/codec or will certain formats be dominant in certain media fields, (ie features leaning towards the likes of the Red and TV shows leaning toward HDSLR or something else?) What would be a wise investment for someone who's looking to buy some entry level cinema gear for indie films?

You know, basically a show for gear-heads.

(I know that Story is King and a good story doesn't care what camera it is shot on, but good gear certainly makes telling the story easier.)

What is the history and/or meaning of the "day of six" thing in reference to a surprise reveal. You guys have made that reference a lot recently and I can't find it in your glossary. You usually say it so fast that I can't clearly make out what you are saying...
Day of six makena?
Day of sex macana?

Help me out here

I am sooooo down for Waterworld. It's my favorite movie that people love to hate. I think I like it because I was really into sailing when this movie came out and the mariners trimaran absolutely kicked butt.

Obviously I work on Sundays so I am excited to see that you guys are doing this commentary on Saturday. I work a little on Saturdays too but hopefully I can be around to watch.

I have to admit Dorkman, I'm quite surprised at your aggression and lack of attention to detail.

You will find that I try to be very specific in my posts. I type what I mean and I mean what I type. I go over my posts three or four times to make sure I've worded it the way I mean to. However, this is a very limited form of communication and easily mis-interpreted so I will clarify and repeat myself as necessary.

I believe you are trying to insinuate that God is not faithful because He has not been faithful to you. I ask you, why would He be faithful to you? What agreement do you have with Him? What has He promised you and what have you promised Him?

Lets look at it this way...
Could you say whether or not I am a faithful person? After all, you don't know me. But actually you might. I go under the name "JediPastor" at the TFN boards. I made "The Conflict Within" and "Warriors of the Spirit" (in LCC4 and LCC5 respectively). Two years ago I announced that I was going to make an LCC entry to go up against Ryan. Because of one reason or another I couldn't. Last year I said I was going to try to make an LCC entry. It turns out I didn't then either. Based on my now known track record, would you consider me to be faithful? No. I have proven myself to be unfaithful to you and the TFN boards based on our (limited) relationship and the expectations I gave and failed to fulfill.

On the other hand, I have a different agreement with my boss. He expects me to work certain hours. He expects me to get certain videos done in a certain amount of time. Why does he expect that from me and doesn't expect it from you? Because he knows me. I made an agreement with him. My boss doesn't know you. Why would he think you are faithful?

Likewise, God has proven himself in my life. He has proven Himself faithful based on the promises He has given me, based on the agreement I have made with Him. I know from His Word what He expects from me and I also know form His Word what I should expect form Him. We have an agreement. We have a relationship. He is faithful. You do not see His faithfulness because you do not have a relationship with Him.

No, read what I said again. Faith is the inevitable OUTCOME of proof. When something is proven to us, we have faith in it. I have proven myself to my boss and he has faith in me. I think some confusion comes from our limited language. Our language allows for one to be called faithful after they have proven themselves. That definition doesn't exactly concur with the definition you described, but it is still referring to a form of faith.

I would accept that as a true statement. I cannot expect you to have faith in something you have never experienced. However, has that ever kept you from experiencing something new before? Have you ever gone to a new restaurant, or went to go see a movie based on someone else's description of their experience there? Just because you've never experienced it before doesn't mean you can't take someone else's word for it and try to experience it for yourself.

You didn't read my words thoroughly. You instead read what you thought I meant. Read my words.

God doesn't ask us to have blind faith in HIM. He instead describes Himself as faithful and shows you His track record. He tells us to remember His feats in the past. Where He does ask for us to have blind faith is in future events. Not who He is, but what He promises to do. (that is the difference in what I said earlier that you missed) Sometimes He promises us things that look impossible. Take this fictional story as an illustration...

A stranger sends me a text message that says "tomorrow at 3pm, there will be a knock at your door" Do I have any reason to believe that this will happen? Not really, no. However the next day at 3pm there is a knock on my door. Interesting. I get another text from the same person saying the same thing. Sure enough, the next day at 3pm there is a knock on my door. Let's say this goes on for a week. On the eighth day the text message reads "at 8pm tomorrow your doorbell will ring" Do I have any reason to believe that this will happen? My doorbell hasn't rung before this. There is no evidence that my doorbell has rung up to this point. However, I am more apt to believe this will happen now. Why? Because of the proof of the ringing doorbell? No. Because of the faithfulness of the messenger. His messages have been right in the past and I am willing to have more faith in his promises for the future.

Does God ask us to have blind faith in Him? No. Does He sometimes ask us to have blind faith in His promises? Yes. You see, He is not unreasonable. We are able to have blind faith in His promises because He has proven Himself to us to be faithful.

Try this one...Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? I know that science has proven that the earth spins at a certain rate and that can be measured. However, that's all in the past. This very moment is now in the past. How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you see the future? Is the future measurable? How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you BELIEVE the sun will rise tomorrow? If so why?

You see it's easy to believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has. It's been measured, it's been recorded and it is a scientific fact and there is no reason to think it won't continue to do so into the future. However, faith is still required in any belief in any future event. No future event has proof in the present. Proof only exists after the fact. Faith is what we ALL hold onto until the fact has occurred. That fact then gives us more faith for the next time.

You have faith that the sun will rise in the morning because it has been proven to you day after day.

Again, it all comes down to the person telling the story. Do you trust them? You don't know me, you don't trust me. Fair enough. But what do you do when someone you do trust starts having these experiences over and over and over and over? At some point you either have to call them a liar or truly question your own stance. It's up to you. believe me or don't. It makes no difference to the fact that those things actually happened to me.

That is a very good point and a very good way of wording it. I suppose my only answer is that no one event has led me to believe in God. It is an entire conglomeration of experiences. So I would have to say that no one event could get me to not believe in God. As long as my life's experiences continue to follow the promises God has given me in the Bible, I will continue to believe. There have been times when things didn't make sense to me. Where I really doubted some of the things I believed. In the end, the overwhelming majority of my experiences coincide with what God has promised me in His Word. Because of that, I am willing to accept the small things I don't understand on blind faith because I trust the Faithful One who has proven Himself to me over and over.

Now you got onto me pretty aggressively so I responded in kind. I hope in the future you can have an open mind to really read what I am saying and not what you are expecting to hear. I try to be very careful in my wording and I would love to continue our discussion on a more reasonable note.