226

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

DorkmanScott wrote:
Gregory Harbin wrote:

2012 made $800 million, plus DVD sales. That's 600 million dollars more than they spent on it.

One hundred and twenty really good movies can be made with that.

Yes, but more likely, they'll just make four more 2012s.

Obviously a studio doesn't need to be convinced to make more movies that make them back a 400% return.

But there's only so many slots on the schedule for a gigantic summer release. They can't support exponential releases:

2009: 1 2012
2010: 4 2012s
2011: 16 2012s
2012: 64 2012s
2013: 256 2012s
2014: 1,024 2012s

You start running out of weekends in the year. Which is why—surprise—small, good movies still get made, even though 2012s and Transformerses make them more money.

227

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

2012 made $800 million, plus DVD sales. That's 600 million dollars more than they spent on it.

One hundred and twenty really good movies can be made with that.

It's the same way SyFy can afford to make 22 episodes of Caprica even though no one watches the show. They know that wrestling and ghosts aren't sci-fi, but they know two things:

1. They can make those shows
2. They will make money on those shows

You can't convince a studio that has no money to make your $20 million indie movie. You CAN convince a studio that has a ton of money because they just released 2012 to do so.

Not to mention all the kids of grips and sound guys and electricians and boom mike operators that that $200 million put food into the mouths of.

228

(35 replies, posted in Episodes)

redxavier wrote:

I thought it was up and to the right (according to Samuel L  Jackson in The Negotiator), which is you accessing the creative part of the brain.

This site kinda backs up what I said: up and to the left is recall.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/bod … nguage.htm

Not sure where I heard the 'down' thing for constructed images—well, I do remember, but it's not scientific or germane.

229

(35 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:
Down in Front wrote:

Where did you get the factoid about Sam 2 marrying the original Sam's daughter?

Uhhh [looks upward and to the left] Deleted scenes Easter egg. [shifts eyes]

big_smile

Although actually, the 'make something up' is actually eyes pointed down. Up and to the left is recall.

230

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Matt Vayda wrote:

We all here love movies, but not all movies are loved by all.  Still there are those that the general consensus is that, if you really love movies, you need to see these certain films, even if you don't have any particular interest in them.  For my part, I say this is one of those.

Good post. I might actually check out the film now. It's downloaded now, anyway.

231

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Down in Front wrote:

I know you listen to episodes for movies you haven't seen, I'm not sure why this time that stopped you fully in your tracks.

This is the first time you've done a movie that I've never even heard of before. I was hoping that when you finally posted the release thread, you'd include some sort of description or explanation of why the movie is worth checking out, if it was.

I didn't start out being uninterested, I started out just not knowing what it was. When I did a Google search to find out what it was, all I found was people saying it was mediocre at best.

So I continued to try to get from someone here a description of the movie or a recommendation that wasn't 'buy this movie to support indie movies.'

You pull my 'Nope, not interested' completely out of context to help your point. I wasn't uninterested because it was an indie movie, I was uninterested because the review I found (it has a 62 on Metacritic, including reviews such as "Wait a second, is this a horror movie or an episode of The Hills?") gave me the impression that the movie wasn't worth looking into. And yet, I still asked you guys for a recommendation, because I trust your judgement.

But as ShadowDuelist said:

You've recorded commentaries for Transformers 2 and Surrogates. Also, all of your urging seems to be along the lines of "Support this because it's an indie film" not "go see this because it's good."

232

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Such a weird way to run a website.

233

(24 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Holden Hill wrote:

I can go to Engadget on my web browser, too, but I like using the app more. tongue

I think his point was that he can use the iTunes app on his iPhone to download the podcast file just like from iTunes on his PC, not that he can access the site from his phone.

Holden Hill wrote:

This brings up an interesting question, though. What would you guys like to see in the app that would sway you to using it more than a generic podcast player? Stuff like show notes? I dunno, pitch something at me.

I'm actually not sure. Show notes come in the file that I can download through iTunes on my phone, and just playing the file with my music player rather than in a streaming app runs down my battery less. I'm not sure what you could add. The only apps I really use are ones that don't require connecting to the Internet, or are Twitter or IM clients.

234

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

DorkmanScott wrote:

Whereas you could have spent thirty seconds or less Googling the film instead of demanding that we get down and beg you to watch/listen.

I Googled the film. Nothing I saw made me want to watch the film. So I thought I'd ask the people who are telling me I should watch it why they think so. But those people decided to insult me. Weird.

235

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Greg, you sounded like a dick in your first post and sounded more like a dick as things progressed, that's why I treated you like a dick and not someone innocently asking for more information about the movie.

So you made assumptions about what I was asking rather than just spending thirty seconds answering a legitimate question that other people in this thread also had? Nice.

236

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Brian Finifter wrote:

I'm not sure what exactly you want us to say. It's a movie a guy made for seven something grand. It's an indie science fiction do-it-yourself film. The story is such and such and such and such (copy and paste from whatever website you prefer).

Would you like our thoughts on it as a movie and a story? Because we have that. In podcast form.

It's a notable film of modern cinema. One we feel deserves some attention. If you value our judgment in these areas, then check it out. If not, *shrug*

See, that's basically what wanted from Teague in the original post. I'm not going to listen to the podcast without watching the movie first, and I'm not going to watch the movie unless someone can actually tell me 'it's a good movie that you should watch.' If you read the thread, you'll see that nobody actually bothered to say that. And a quick Google search that I did found no one that actually recommended it, either.

237

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Brian Finifter wrote:

Well, doing this was an experiment - going back to Trey's adage -trying to get you kids to check out something you might not have otherwise. Maybe nobody will, but that'd be a shame.

And my point is, if you want me to try something that I otherwise might not, you should try to pitch the movie a bit. Not just tell me that it'll help your business if I throw money at it, not just copy-paste the ad copy, but actually tell me what about it might interest me. If I tell someone to check out Down In Front, I don't just tell them 'listen to it because it'll support podcasting; do a Google search if you want to know what it is.'

238

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

OK, see? Yes, that's helpful. That's what I was asking Teague for in the first place. I'll check it out, although to be honest it does just sound like a District 9 clone.

239

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Down in Front wrote:

We get it. You're an independent thinker who can't be cajoled into watching any damn movie the world makes. Standards, etc. Let's stay on the topic of discussing the film, and not very admirable reasons not to see it.

No one in this thread can even tell me what the premise of the movie is? Is that really too much to ask?

240

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

I think my point is that I have no idea what the movie is. Zombieland is about a guy fighting zombies. Star Wars is about a guy fighting an evil empire in space. Silence of the Lambs is about Anthony Hopkins being creepy to Jodie Foster.

Monsters is about...what. What is it? Tell me what it is.

You can't convince someone to watch a movie just because it's an indie movie. That is not a credential, that's a handicap.

A Google search turned up this:

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/ … or_it.html

But ultimately there is nothing here that “District 9” didn’t do better, or smarter.
All “Monsters” has going for it is that it did it cheaper.

Nope, not interested.

241

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

Matt Vayda wrote:

iTunes link.  Only $8 for HD now.

And yet $8 is way too much if no one has bothered to make me care about seeing it. I mean, I get 'help the indie filmmaking' as an argument, but, as far as me being a filmGOER, and not a filmMAKER, I'm more likely to want to see a movie that costs $300 million than one that cost $15K, so why would I spend my $8 on one of those instead of one of those?

242

(54 replies, posted in Episodes)

You realllllllllly gotta tell me what 'Monsters' is before I'm going to care.

243

(32 replies, posted in Episodes)

So the pilot episode of Walking Dead leaked, but I've been trying to will myself not to watch it. Mostly because the file quality is really low, but I also think it's missing a lot of the effects. When does the actual show premiere?

244

(14 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I can't believe Chad rented a helicopter.

245

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Matt Vayda wrote:

Dammit Jim!  Seems dear Mr. Cameron might have had something to do with this. Link

That is an extremely thin article…all Cameron said is that he encouraged Lucas to convert the whole trilogy after seeing some test footage Lucas had done.

246

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

If Brian wanted to talk about The Shining, is there a reason he couldn't pull together three others and go for it?

Better yet, Brian could just do the entire episode himself.

He could call it Finifter In Front.

Down In Finifter?

Down In Finiftront?

247

(6 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This was not the thread to happen upon whilst pretty girls are in the room attempting to eat dinner.

248

(93 replies, posted in Episodes)

switch wrote:

I just hope he doesn't do it with one person's voice on one channel and one voice on the other.  Very bad for hearing impaired folk w/headphones.

*cough*DIF*cough*

249

(93 replies, posted in Episodes)

I love (love) Avatar, and can't wait to see the extended version of the movie.

This 'family language audio track,' is this something they're doing these days?

250

(90 replies, posted in Episodes)

If the script says that a crazy survivor emerges from Icarus I and starts killing them all, I can't see how the finished film could have done it in any other way that what we saw in the final film - without changing the story completely.

If 'Surrogates' can be completely changed in editing because of a trailer, then 'Sunshine' could be completely changed in editing because the ending just isn't working.