526

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I can be back-up if anyone can't make it/has to drop out unexpectedly, let me know in the chat.

527

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Another amazing 60seconds speed run, this time of Aliens.

528

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cor blimey!

You wait years for hard sci-fi to come along and then two come along the same year (the other being Gravity).

529

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I've been on the fence about Magic Lantern for years now, so if it's possible to listen in on the youtube stream I'd appreciate a link, otherwise I can wait for the podcast release. Real shame I've not installed it on my camera yet.

530

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I believe the TNG movies are up next. If you turn around 3 times and whisper my name into a mirror I can be summoned to *gulp* defend Generations.

531

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I've found that a lot of the problems with these sorts of contemporary action movies stem from an apparent lack of questioning in the writing room. No-one seems to have asked why such and such is happening. And perhaps more importantly, no-one seems to have asked whether the same effect can be achieved by other 'better' means that don't undermine story or character. On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with most of the stuff that happens in this and the previous Trek, it's just that the actions preceding and leading to that moment or scene aren't efficiently thought out or drafted. For instance, there's nothing wrong with

  Show
Spock being in a volcano and the Enterprise having to rescue him
, it's just the set up for that isn't done as well it could be. No-one appears to have sat down and thought about why all the bits are the way they are and how they fit together to arrive at X, and analysed the problems that arise from doing so.

It's no wonder the story does things that feel arbitary, the construction of the story is arbitary.

Maybe this questioning does all occur and it simply gets dismissed and/or ignored...

532

(40 replies, posted in Episodes)

I'm a bit hard of hearing so the first few seconds with the talking over the music (fortunately, it doesn't last long) was quite difficult to make out, just saying.

Great ep otherwise!

533

(84 replies, posted in Episodes)

From the picture I saw, I can't really see an hourglass figure and bedroom eyes. Or the messier hair or bigger breasts that I've read about elsewhere. Are there other pictures that reveal the changes more clearly?

The 'changes' I do see appear to stem more from the transition from 3D CGI model to 2D drawing than a deliberate attempt to sexy her up. And really, that's sexy? Seems to me to be going too far to call this an insult to the character, as if Merida would never a nice dress and not be carrying her bow. Isn't that missing the point of the story, where Merida learns that she has responsibility and cannot always just do what she wants when she wants?

Rahh! Outrage! Loud noises! Because of course, the film itself remains untouched and impressionable girls aged 5-10 are probably, I don't know, going to be watching the film a lot more than they go visiting Disney parks and browsing the princess-themed website.

534

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Guys, come on, enough with the jokes. It's because Uhura is in the captain's chair!

535

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm not so sure I'd consider it objectively worse (especially since I prefer it). And whilst most of the criticism I've heard/read is justified, the Trek 09 has just as long a list of similar flaws. It's just done better more confidently and competently this time around, helped enormously by the fact that it's not a poorly done 'origin' story where the original crew arrive on the Enterprise by various strokes of happenstance as if ordained by destiny (wink wink).

On another note, I did not like the Starfleet uniform hats.

536

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh man, now I'm the guy you can't hear and have to turn up the volume to hear, and then it's too loud when the others speak... I hate that guy.

537

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh yeah, I was totally, completely and utterly wrong about who Benedict Cumberbitches was playing. It was months ago and maybe no-one remembers my faux confidence, but that was a bad call.

538

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

And I really appreciated that Jimmy, thanks. So my volume was pretty low huh? I'm always worried that if it's set too loudly it'll pick up others (it's an xbox headset!) which has happened when playing games or using Teamspeak. If I'm allowed a next time, I'll turn it up more or speak louder.

Will look into the webcam as that's a pretty easy old school solution - "you at the back there with your hand raised?"

539

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, I found it quite difficult to find the right time to jump in to say something, and inevitably ended up talking over someone else who had also just started talking or vice versa. No-one wants there to be a moment of silence, so you've got 3 others all eager to avoid that by speaking as soon as the 4th has finished or seems to be. There seemed to be a slight delay too, possibly with my mic, where I would start talking and I don't think you guys could hear until that crucial millisecond too late. I really hate interrupting other people, hence the sometimes rather long stretches where you wonder whether I'm still there! We need a 'want to talk' flashing notification on the hangout smile

There are things I think of now which I wish I had said, like how the main weakness of The Motion Picture is that the dominant Decker-Kirk and Decker-Ilia relationships replace the core Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic and simply aren't as fun, making the film much more dull that it should have been. And to add to this, Shatner and Nimoy are playing their roles with almost deadly seriousness (relative to the other films). Oh well, live and learn. Did any of you take notes? I ended up jotting down my ratings at the beginning but a few times I forgot about something I had thought of whilst waiting to jump in. Did you guys get that?

I enjoyed it, always fun to actually chat with people about something like Trek and putting voices to names, as it were, was great to do after all this time.

540

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

My favourite shot from Immortals is during Perseus' battle with some henchman in the first act, when he jumps off a rock and throws a spear in slow motion. Very cool.

Here it is, starts about thirty seconds in.

I could watch this over and over, and the some of the battles in the climax are ok too, but I agree the rest of the film is pretty average. I don't know why they can't really exploit Greek mythology to create a good movie, it seems that the writing/acting/directing always fall short. Maybe they try to be too many things to too many people?

541

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So... yeah... moo-moo?

542

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm guessing starting the discussion about the best/worst movies, see if there are any outliers and why? I like the Motion Picture for instance, and would place it higher than most others would. With the age dispersal on the forums, it might also be interesting to see which movie everyone started with.

543

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just got back and loved it. Miles, miles better than the previous. Whilst it does have a couple of 'huh?' moments and it doesn't start as strongly, it has a great twisty-turney entertaining story and hits a lot of good notes (Enterprise dropping through clouds, oh my!).

It's still a lot more whizz bang than I'd like my Trek to be and was possibly more Star Wars than before, and but then I like the Motion Picture. I wish the next movie had that same kind of wonder, at the universe and discovery in general.

544

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ooh! Might try to turn up to this one, if only to listen in and nod or shake my head at appropriate moments. Might see if my xbox controller headset will work...

545

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Except he doesn't even to seem to be aware that they are commonly called smart phones, or are frequently referred to by their brand name (e.g. i-phone). So he's ignoring all the name changing that has indeed taken place. Further, it's sort of like a guy coming down from the mountains saying that he needs a new name for his car because it has air-conditioning, radio, a sat nav, and a tv and dvd player. It's still a car, like a phone that does other stuff is still a phone.

I don't think there's much to be gained from thinking whether a name is appropriate - that seems to be the pursuit of marketing people when they want to sell you something or, as in this case, want to earn some kind of legacy by coining a new word/term.

546

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So this guy was once considered a presidential candidate huh? What's with the bar being so low these days, did George Bush Jnr open the door to any old fool?

Is he genuinely puzzled, just posing a rhetorical question, or manufacturing an issue out of nothing (which appears to be the Republican way)?

547

(45 replies, posted in Episodes)

I thought the Soloman Kane film was quite good, and did a 'Van Helsing' type character better than this Van Helsing. Which sort of makes me wonder if Huge Axman was right for the role and whether someone like James Purefoy would have done it better.

548

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I imagine a lot of the incentive in 3D comes from the higher cost of admission. Here in the UK, a regular 2D ticket will cost about £10 ($15), at least in the southeast, and a 3D ticket can cost up to £15 ($23). It's a small increase but when multipled several thousand times over it makes a difference. This is probably why Avatar is the highest grossing movie.

Will be interesting to get the exact figures (a breakdown for something like the Hobbit might show an interesting pattern). Found this article which mentions that: 3D showings made up 49 percent of ticket sales this weekend, which according to Box Office Mojo is about the standard for most major releases these days.
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2012/12/17/the … e-formats/

So it could be that only half of one's audience are seeing the 3D version.

Logic would dictate that converting to 3D would cost more, just by virtue of the fact that your post-production is longer and you've got more people working on it, who all have to be paid. But maybe shooting in 3D introduces its own problems during principal photography, or requires a longer pre-production time to properly prepare?
It seems that in the few major examples, conversion has occurred because the studio wants to cash in on the fad, it's an afterthought, and that shooting in the 3D is often a director choice from the beginning (though I may be wrong and directors get pressured).

549

(25 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I can't even fathom seeing this movie in 3D. "Oh, you like your movies with depth? How about THE INFINITE DEPTH OF SPACE."

The only time I've truly liked 3D is when I watched an IMAX show at the Kennedy Space Station, being in a star field or so close to an astronaut I felt I could reach out and touch them was one of the greatest things I've ever experienced.

550

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The thread certainly looks interesting. smile

I've not seen the film, but does it suffer from the same sorts of problems as the previous one, or is this a new crop of problems?