redxavier wrote:

So I guess the question is, have you ever watched a bluray or HD-DVD, perhaps at a friend's house?

Well, I worked at both Circuit City and Best Buy in my day, so I've walked past a lot of displays showing off the power of high definition input.  If I remember correctly I watched Tropic Thunder on Blu-Ray at a buddy's house.

My point isn't that the format doesn't look better, because it clearly does, just that as much as I enjoy movies, I don't really care about picture or audio quality enough to purchase a new player and repurchase all my favorite movies just to see them a little more sharply.

It should be noted that I've only owned one MP3 player in my life and I've never actually hooked it into my car or gone outside with it, so I might just be adverse to format change in general.

Not really.

You ever know one of those obsessive audiophiles?  Hell, given the community here some of you might BE obsessive audiophiles, the types that agonize over which cables to buy and debate the qualities of several thousand dollar sound systems, insisting on only the purest sound quality for everything from home entertainment to portable headphones, and insist that MP3 is a horrible format for music because it ruins the original studio sound quality?

I'm not one of those people.  Sure, music sounds good in those 300 dollar noise canceling headphones, but it sounds adequate in 30 dollar headphones too, and I could probably live with 3 dollar headphones.  Point is, I'm kind of the same way with picture quality.  I grew up with Star Wars on VHS, and to me DVD is more than enough.  Hell, some movies I keep a VCR for because the little VHS imperfections add to the charm somehow.  It's shitty quality video and the sound occasionally does that warpy thing, but I'm down.  DVD is more than enough if I want to watch something on my computer, which is where I do most of my movie viewing.

Granted, I don't have a 72" TV and if I did, maybe I'd be more willing to invest in a blu-ray player and some discs to feed it, but that goes against my sensibilities too.  Hell, my house finally got a 42" flat screen (the first of its breed in our abode) this year because a relative wound up in a nursing home and didn't need it anymore.  Until then I made do with a 30something inch CRT (or whatever it's called in TV-speak) and never really saw a problem with it.

Am I ignorant and old fashioned and missing out?  Probably, but I don't notice and it's kind of nice.  Cheaper, too.

Oh, I forgot to give a name.

John Stewart.

Russel Crowe
3:10 To Yuma- Christian Bale
Batman Begins- Morgan Freeman
Wanted- James McAvoy
X-Men First Class- Kevin Bacon

And if you want to continue to Stokes,

Apollo 13- Tom Hanks
The Polar Express- Trey Stokes

However, just to make it hard on myself, here's this game using ONLY DIF episodes.

Russel Crowe
Master and Commander- Paul Bettany
Iron Man- Stan Lee
Spider-Man 2- Alfred Molina
Raiders of the Lost Ark- Harrison Ford
Return of the Jedi- Phil Tippett
Starship Troopers- Trey Stokes

Goodnight everybody.

If visual effects is anything like pro wrestling, my favorite way to get ahead is to hit the champ with a steel chair and piss him off so he WANTS to wrestle me.

I don't know if that's helpful or not but it's always worked for me.

56

(77 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I haven't seen season 4 because my only means of watching the show is on Netflix.  That said, this show is awesome, I shouldn't have held out on it as long as I did and once again Ewing is right about awesome TV.

Though he does like LOST and I have serious doubts I'll ever successfully enjoy that show.

We were talking not too long ago about how awesome a Dexter/Breaking Bad crossover would be.  I might write that fanfic.

Cunt Faggot 9/11.

58

(37 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I suggest we would all learn something if we were less snarky.  Nobody here is quite retarded enough to have shorted their keyboards out from drooling on them, so I think we can safely assume that any solecisms or barbarisms that appear within our collectively expansive lexical knowledge are merely booboos.

59

(142 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, same for me.   I've got my notepad file almost finished but I can't access it until tomorrow.

60

(27 replies, posted in Episodes)

Yeah, bolt ons aren't very fetch.

61

(142 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Your spelling.  Also, the beginning of the last commentary was you looking at Eddie, freezing while trying to get the right utterance, and saying "Uagh!"

Mostly though I wanted to show off how much usmilitary.about.com I've been reading.

62

(142 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

@Faldor Thanks!

@Matt Cheers! (This is our hu-ah, I guess. We need a better hu-ah. The army and Al Pacino kind of own hu-ah.)

Ahem, just so Matt or Eddie doesn't have to do this again.

Army is hooah.  A clever backronym for it is H.U.A- Heard, Understood, Acknowledged.  It basically means anything and everything except for "no."   As I understand it nobody can figure out precisely where the hell this utterance originated or why, but there's some colorful speculative stories.  Not unlike the "Hoosier" thing in my home state in that respect.

Navy, if I remember correctly originating among the SEALS, is hooyah.  I have heard some AF units use this as well but that's lamesauce. 

Marines is Oorah, it's a more barky thing.  This is similar in use to the other two, but I usually hear Marines say this when something is shot, something is blown up, or they are particularly excited about the potential for either of these things to occur.  This is perhaps because Marines can and do often end sentences and respond to any kind of statement or question with phrases like "Semper Fi" or "cleared hot" or "kill, kill."  Yes, that last one is real.  Marines are also prone to occasionally just... barking.  Devil dogs and all that.  I love Marine jargon, it's not necessarily more plentiful than army speak or navy speak, but it's generally way more colorful.  Oorah also has slightly fuzzy origins, but the story I usually hear is that it evolved from an imitation of a submarine klaxon- AHUGA.  I'm going to stop talking about it now because I could do this all day.

Al Pacino seems to be more of an ooAH.  But that's more of a Ralph Garman thing than a Pacino thing at this point anyway.

I humbly suggest DIF take "Dooyah."

Brian Finifter wrote:

But there's no money in that. At least not as much money as the big spectacle tent poles. At least not in the time frame that makes any difference to the studio executives in question.

I dunno, maybe if you tied compensation to an executive for the rest of their life, a la residuals. That way individual agents have an incentive for the movies they green light to have lasting value, i.e. be well told stories. But if you're making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year, how much do you really care about that check for $20 ten years from now?

I see what you're saying.  I suppose if we had some kind of magical process to make millionaires at the top do things the way that benefits the guys at the bottom, we not only could have great movies but also could mostly have a solution to, y'know, Republicans in general.  Unfortunately that means that fixing the movie industry is pretty much the same task as fixing America.

So... are we prepared to call this Disney Exec Rick Perry, or is that just a little too cruel?

Brian Finifter wrote:

Which is exactly the demographic they care about almost to exclusion. Rise up! Demand better! Grab the pitchforks! Have fun storming the castle!

To my great disappointment, I have found that it's really really hard to rise up by yourself.

...I mean with pitchforks and stuff, I have no problems getting an erection if that's how you interpreted that statement. 

Faldor wrote:

Hey you're the guy from that short I watched that time!

Look for me signing autographs at DIFcon, hidden somewhere in the shadow of the Saber Shop booth.

64

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

If it is indeed to be his exit, then it would be hard to argue that it won't be a classy and in some ways triumphant one.  There are far worse circumstances under which to take your bow.

65

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I haven't seen the original film nor have I read the Howard novels but I've been meaning to do both.  The whole character as it's been described to me seems to be right up my alley, and what I know of the original movie (mostly, that the score is freaking AWESOME) makes it seem worth a watch.

As much as I enjoy the actor's work in GoT, and as much as he seems to fit the Conan literary description more than Arnold, this new film seems to be a very few short steps from the Clash of the Titans remake, which had very little for me.

I might give it a watch but certainly not in theaters and not before I get around to doing some reading.

66

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I am firmly a PC, to the point where sometimes I really wonder how rational human beings can defend the purchase of a Macintosh computer.

That said, Jobs has always struck me as a good guy and he's definitely given us more awesome than suck here on earth (as Zarban handily pointed out).  I don't own an iPad or an iPod or an iPhone to worry about the future of, so I'm mostly just happy to see him take some of that weight off his shoulders.  Upon his health, I will refrain from commenting, but in a perfect world Steve deserves to enjoy long and happy retirement.

Well, the only idea I've come up with is that you keep the ridiculous expensive spectacles in the theater just where they are, but have a service not unlike netflix where studios will fund small movies that individually make NO box office, but earn their budgets through the subscriptions and advertising.  As long as the service is attractive and the movies are WORTH WATCHING, that model can work- look at how many people subscribe to World of Warcraft, and that's literally paying to have a JOB. 

At least, I think it would.  I figure you release 40 or so 5 million dollar flicks a year, onto a service like netflix, and then make a REALLY BIG DEAL out of it when you make something like Cowboys vs. Aliens, more people will wind up watching both. 

Maybe.  I live in Indiana and my biggest filmmaking experience to date was Conciousness Has a Cloth Tag, so my perspective is purely as a middle america 18-35 consumer.

68

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You know what would be cool?  Get someone who can draw to do DIF versions of the movie posters in question.  Nostalgia Critic does something kind of like this, but slightly more crudely (IE, a drawing of himself cutting the head off a care bear with an axe).

I'm thinking like instead of having the Jaws poster as the icon for the episode, it's a drawing of Trey looking up with his mouth wide the fuck open, a little tiny red headed man in a bikini treading water unsuspecting above.


Not really HELPFUL, but it would be pretty funny, it'd be unique, and it might prevent retards (I'm keeping that word, bleeding heart scum) from leaving reviews saying "DURR I THOUGHT IT WAS DA MOVIES!"

The industry in general isn't set up in such a way that a solid story film makes more sense than spectacle, in my opinion.  At least, not at this point.

Consider this- for eight bucks a month, I have unlimited access to Netflix, anywhere, any time.  I can watch anything on Netflix if I'm on my couch in front of my TV, I can watch it naked in bed in my room, I can watch it anywhere out and about if I have a full battery and wifi.  I can literally decide I'm bored waiting at the BMV and watch Pawn Stars just cuz.

So there's that.  Eight bucks a month and I have pretty close to unlimited entertainment, and that's just ONE service.  There's also on demand, redbox, hulu, and insultingly easy piracy options for seeing just about anything for free or so-cheap-it's-basically-free.


By comparison, if I want to take my girlfriend to the movie theater, I'm spending at least 25 bucks to have an enjoyable experience, not to mention the drive there and back to see a movie. 


The point I'm driving at is, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have a reason to go to see big movies anymore.  However, here's the rub- I DO go see fireworks every fourth of July, because I can't do something on that scale at my house.  So frankly, I'm more likely to go to the theater or IMAX or something a couple times a year IF it's a massive explodey spectacle of oohs and aahs that I can't replicate on my monitor or phone.  I LIKE thoughtful, interesting, funny, QUALITY movies, but the vast majority of them I have literally no desire to see 30 feet tall in front of me.  Nor do I have a frantic need to see it as soon as it comes out, because it's still the same movie by the time it hits the internet or Redbox or whatever and by that time I'll have a good idea of what the movie is and what the opinions of it were among people whose opinions I value.

So while yes, I care about seeing good films, I don't really care at all whether they get a theatrical release.  Around here at DIF there's a lot of talk about smaller budgets, or at least smarter use of budgets, and I think that's coming.  In my ideal world, the studios toss "story" guys a few million dollars to make smart and enjoyable movies that can wind up on Netflix or otherwise distributed on a subscription program or something, and then put out a few 200 million dollar movies every year that are the cinema equivalent of fireworks for me to go see if I want to grab some popcorn and go "oooh, ahhh!"  These movies don't have to be BAD, obviously you can put work into a spectacle (LOTR) and I'll totally want to see it in the theater.  But I can understand why a studio doesn't think there's a point to funding The Invention of Lying for a theatrical release, because I don't think it's worth going to the theater to see that movie anyway, even if it's worth a watch.

Do I make sense or have I made enemies?  I'm looking over my shoulder waiting for Brian or Michael to pounce and tear asunder my flimsy logic.

70

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

Of course not, the point I was making in the beginning was that - supposing all of the Potters were made by the exact same team - they shouldn't have assumed I'd watch the second one if the first one was sucky.

But that's the point.  Nobody is saying that picking up a series cold and choosing to not keep watching if the pilot isn't impressive is irrational.  What I'm trying to say is that if someone ELSE decides to forge through and says "investing your time and thought into these characters will pay off for you later, I promise," then that's not a silly opinion to consider.

Say you're dating a girl I used to date, and things are going well for a few days, then she gets in your pants and gives you a really grabby handjob that just isn't all that impressive.  So you come to me and go "man, that... that wasn't all that."  If I tell you "Yeah, that part isn't exactly anything to write home about but if you stick around afterwards she'll fuck you so hard you'll think she signed some kind of deal with the devil," you wouldn't say "Nah, fuck that, the handy sucked.  I'm out."

Or maybe you would.  I'm just saying, Teague, if you want Game of Thrones to make you blow your load so hard your eyes cross and stay that way for a week, you kinda have to deal with the grabby handjob it's gonna give you first.

71

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

That's fine, then.  I'm just saying that if someone says the total narrative of a season is superior to the experience of watching the first episode, that's not invalid.   Is the entire Harry Potter movie series worthless bullshit because the first movie is kind of dull and childish?

72

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

When people say "give it a season," they're telling you that even if the pilot doesn't make you jump out of your chair and start licking your monitor, you should stick around because it's worth it.

Because they've seen it.

How much does it piss you off, Teague, that I refuse to watch Firefly because the first episode bored me so much I shut it off in about fifteen minutes?

That's kiiinda what you're cheering for right now.

73

(14 replies, posted in Off Topic)

My personal favorite is Catch Me If You Can.  Blow is also awesome, as is Ali.

I agree that those things aren't very OG Jason, but you have to admit that once he was actually doing his thing in those movies (murderous mayhem), it was pretty rad.

And I'm a diehard Friday fan too.  At least it was better than Manhattan or X.

Gunfire will be done with strobes and foley work, obviously.  Almost all wereshark footage will be done in silhouette.

I've thought this through.