"...that you re-watched on VHS so many times that you can quote every line."
These guys obviously haven't heard about Teague.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Saniss
"...that you re-watched on VHS so many times that you can quote every line."
These guys obviously haven't heard about Teague.
*got a MIDI keyboard a few days ago; having lots of fun with it*
I was fumbling around in Ableton when I stumbled upon a sound which immediately reminded me of a little something from a certain TV show.
Before this thread, I would have thought absolutely everyone knew that. So yeah, not a dumb poll.
Yes.
That's actually how I've always told 3.0 ports from 2.0 ports.
Hell, I've had people come to the astronomy center I used to work at from the village nearby, telling us they had witnessed UFOs. Turned out it was the french Air Force practising for Bastille Day's parade. Can't imagine what a rocket launch would do to these people.
If I don't get to watch a rocket launch IRL in the next 5 years, I'm gonna kill someone.
Probably Teague "I visited SpaceX" Chrystie.
Things are apparently okay so far:
Matthew's eye wall passed Cape Canaveral a bit more offshore than expected, which considerably lessened damage concerns.
I wonder just how much Kennedy Space Center's Vehicle Assembly Building can withstand hurricane conditions. Matthew is expected to hit Cap Canaveral directly today.
Holy altitude, Batman!
Didn't know Britain was allowed to have such lovely weather.
Musk’s Mars moment: Audacity, madness, brilliance—or maybe all three
Great and thorough article on Elon Musk's recent unveiling of his plan to colonize Mars - some interesting points that put a few things in perspective and raise questions for the future.
I have yet to ponder whether this thread is useful or not, but I needed a place to keep these two lines.
Regan: I don't understand the American health system.
Teague: nobody understands the american health system.
Writhyn is eager to see this thing done, but you can hardly tell.
Thanks man! I've been thinking about this, I can't wait to start working on it.
I'm just excited for the first re-use of a Falcon 9 first stage, but hey, if good ol' Elon has some new holy-shit-mankind-is-awesome stuff to shoot at us, really, by all means, Musky, bring it on.
Vapes: from the trailers and overall advertisement, I wouldn't have paid one cent for this Ben-Hur remake. Guess the blockbuster world still has some tricks up its sleeves?
--
I've been using this at-folks'-home-not-doing-a-darn-thing week to catch up on my infinite list of films I need to see.
Bronson
Wow. Lighter on the artsy side of things than later Refn's work, it gives all the room in the world for Tom Hardy to show us the absolute madness of Britain's most notorious prisoner. The film doesn't comment, it just shows, and lets you decide for yourself what to think of Charlie Bronson. Myself? I'm not sure. Hell, I haven't got a clue. But this film is great. The constant contrast between the lightness in music and style (with frequent cuts to a theatrical setting inside Bronson's mind where he addresses an imaginary audience, often disguised in ways that would outshine even Peter Gabriel during his Genesis era) and the unfathomable violence of the character had me laugh at times, and uneasy at others. A bit of both most of the time.
--
Groundhog Day
Lovely. Instant Christmas movie that surprised me by going into darker territories at times.
--
Escape from New York
Great atmosphere, but in the end, I found the whole thing a bit boring. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy films where nothing much seems to go on, but it didn't work with this one for me. I think I expected something different, something along the same lines as Big Trouble in Little China. But this one is more serious - not a bad thing in itself, but although Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken is badass, he felt underused to me, and the movie just doesn't give me enough.
--
Galaxy Quest
Such fun times. A scifi spoof with clever undertones that has a very effective humour and great cast chemistry. There's a bitter Alan Rickman, a too charismatic to be true Tim Allen, a Sigourney Weaver who desperately tries to find an use for herself other than the boobtastic female co-star, a Tony Shalhoub just happy for whatever's going on, a cowardly Sam Rockwell great as a channel for space opera trope reversals. It helped me get over H2G2's failure as a movie.
--
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Yeah, I'm that late on classics. Kubrick's dark satire on the nuclear balance of terror is a continuous display of incredible performances (with a special shout-out to Peter Sellers doing three different main characters) shot with masterful cinematography. The writing makes you laugh out loud at times, but leaves you uncomfortable; after all, most of the film is only a slight exaggeration of the reality. It especially resonated with me as I'm currently reading works from Hubert Reeves, a Canadian astrophysicist who between explanations on how the universe was formed reminds us of the incredible dangers of annihilation mankind has gone through and still is today.
--
Top Gun
I put off watching this one for a long time because I was expecting an overly cheesy pro-military fuck-yeah-America flick. It fared better than this, although never straying far from it. Despite not being Aaron Sorkinesque, the dialogues do their job as well as the actors.
What hurts the movie the most, to me, is the music. Sure, the 80s distorted guitar solos are cool and give the movie nostalgia features, but the more serious scenes get their vibes completely destroyed by the darker side of 80s music filled with chorus-and-reverb-cranked-to-110% guitar chords. The camaraderie between Cruise's Maverick and Edwards' Goose is transformed into homoerotic awkwardness, and the romantic scenes feel much cheesier than they ought to.
Still, fantastically shot aerial combats. Inside of these 80s Navy fun times, there's actually an interesting arc for Tom Cruise's character that managed to keep me involved.
Walter Peck had no dick. Gregory Peck, on the other hand...
/filmsplaining
Wikipedia may have the answer you're looking for:
Musical films characteristically contain elements reminiscent of theater; performers often treat their song and dance numbers as if there is a live audience watching. In a sense, the viewer becomes the diegetic audience, as the performer looks directly into the camera and performs to it.
Inside Llewyn Davis doesn't do that, because it's singers singing in their real world. I haven't seen O Brother, Where Art Thou? yet, but from what I've seen I'd say it does a bit of both, so it's somewhere in between. Moulin Rouge! has a setting that justifies music, yet it's definitely a musical.
There are two songs in Inside Llewyn Davis that are played "just because", without the backdrop of a stage show, an audition, or a recording session as justification—Llewyn plays "Green, Green Rocky Road" in the passenger seat of the car he's taking to Chicago, and later plays "The Shoals of Herring" for his aging, institutionalized father.
I disagree. Playing in a car or bus is pretty much normal for a musician, whether he's practicing or using the atmosphere of the moment. When he plays for his dad, he's trying to communciate with him. He's not playing for the viewer (as if he were aware of their existence). He's doing stuff that makes sense in the real world.
I'd say this awareness of a viewer that's not a part of their world is what draws the line between a musical and a film that contains music.
Hope this brings you some answers.
I think I did that the last time this thread happened. Not proud of it. I've changed my ways since then.
That was awesome. A million high-fives and back-pats to the class. The shading on the ship at the end was wonderful, the lighting in space was wonderful, the re-entry flames coming up over the shield were wonderful, it's all wonderful.
The "class" you're referring to being 3 guys only, other films are coming
The first ArtFx 2016 graduation film is up, and Holy Mother of God.
It's incredible.
Xavier Delorme, aka the #1 french stormchaser, just released a series of slow-mo captures of lightning (7000fps with a Phantom camera). It perfectly shows the whole process of a lightning strike.
I would argue that Game of Thrones is neither excellent nor profound.
I'm gonna need a "Goddammit, Writhyn" reaction picture.
I have a vague understanding of what this is...but what does it actually, like, do to do it's thing?
A light sensor at the front detects very sudden changes in luminosity and triggers the DSLR it's connected to. Since it actually detects the first phase (invisible to the naked eye) of a lightning discharge process, it sends the instruction to the DSLR before the actual lightning bolt happens, giving time to the camera (generally much slower than the sensor) to begin shooting and capture the bolt.
I've wanted to open a thread about verious storm chasing/photography topics (how to capture lightning, how lightning works, the different types of storm cells and how they work, etc.) for some time now, and now that I have time and money for this whole thing again it'll probably happen during this season.
New lightning sensor in the mailbox today.
Just look at how ridiculously tiny it is.
Can't wait to try it under real conditions.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Saniss
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.