1,301

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Gregory Harbin wrote:

To be fair, those conversions were rushed, and you know that LucasFilm isn't going to rush the conversion of the Star Wars films. Even James Cameron is a fan of the in-depth, lengthy conversion processes they're using on his older films like Titanic. It's why Star Wars isn't in 3D *this* year, which is what would happen if they gave it to the company you did the aforementioned movies at.

Except that PIRANHA was done over nearly a year; Cameron shit on the same process in PIRANHA that he's praising for TITANIC.

And no, I don't exactly know that LucasFilm isn't going to rush the conversions. As we've established, they could release the worst 3D conversion in history and it would still sell tickets like gangbusters. You think they don't know that?

The only reason they probably won't is that a rush job costs more. I won't be at all surprised if the QC has a very low bar, even with John Knoll supervising.

1,302

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

To be honest, I'm surprised people are even bothering to justify why they're excited. It's not about the podrace or the trench run. It's about a deep-seated Pavlovian need to consume anything called STAR WARS. George Lucas could smear shit on his face and do a naked rain dance, and as long as he called it STAR WARS the majority of the moviegoing public would pay $10 for a ticket and be damn grateful for the opportunity. If he released 2 GIRLS 1 CUP in theatres and called it STAR WARS it would make a billion dollars. People would see it multiple times. And he knows it.

You kids have fun storming the castle, but let's not pretend it's about the trench run.

1,303

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

vidina wrote:

Now, I understand that some parts will just be weird, and maybe even eye gouging, but the majority of the action sets WILL be cool to watch.

I'm not saying the FILMS will be better, but the experience WILL be cool, and y'all fucking know it.

Out of curiosity, how many of the recent 3D converted films -- CLASH OF THE TITANS, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, PIRANHA, LAST AIRBENDER -- have you seen? I worked on two of the above; if you want to talk about what I "fucking know" about how STAR WARS 3D is likely to turn out, I can tell you, but you "fucking know" you don't want to hear it.

For my part, I'm no more interested in a 3D STAR WARS than I am in a colorized CASABLANCA.

1,304

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

THEN WHO WAS CHAT?

1,305

(35 replies, posted in Episodes)

I really think Brian's mistake was, as he himself has phrased it, reading into the movie instead of out from it.

Duncan Jones doesn't know that Brian Finifter wants to see "the APOLLO 13 that hasn't happened yet." It's not his fault that he didn't make the movie he had no idea Brian was going to think he was making.

1,306

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

johnpavlich wrote:

I may be reaching at this point, but I find it interesting that the male lead in The Blob is named Flagg, which could possibly be a shout out to Stephen King's The Stand, given that one of the writers, Frank Darabont would go on to adapt several of King's stories. I'm probably reading way too much into that, but it's something to think about.

I don't think it's actually necessarily a stretch. As Trey mentions offhand at one point, the melted hobo was also dubbed "Can Man". Trash Can Man was Randall Flagg's most devoted follower, and Can Man shares nearly all his scenes with Brian Flagg.

Also, we're dealing with a biological weapon accidentally unleashed, and which the government officials try to cover up under the guise of a highly-contagious disease. The Darabont-King-STAND connection is clearly there. But I failed to mention it on the ep, because I just realized it now.

The fact that his name is Flagg actually put it into my head that he was going to be a bad guy -- probably intentional as a little extra fun on Darabont's part. Although he did name him Brian Flagg, when it might more appropriately have been Ryan. wink

1,307

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Shifty Bench wrote:

That is very true. I can't name all of the American states

We can't do that either.

Well, Al Franken can. But the rest of us not so much.

I also have been to Loch Ness and seen nothing.

1,308

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:

And yeah, there's an unfair perception that Americans should know all about other countries when most people in those countries know jack shit about the US. Even among well educated families not everyone can name and locate every country on the planet - let alone be familiar with cities, towns, mountain ranges etc.

I remember last year listening to one of the fxguide family of podcasts and being blown away that Mike Seymour didn't know the significance of the Fourth of July.

Not so much about the fact that he didn't know, as the realization of my own unconscious ethnocentrism in just assuming that everyone did.

1,309

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

Shifty Bench wrote:

Dude, chill. I don't even know the difference between Irish and Scottish tartan and I don't
know what Uilleann pipes are, so you know more than me big_smile

My post was more of an aside rather than part of the debate. I agree with you, actually.

I'm just making an analogy. It was less addressed to you than to the people who think subtle differences in similar appearances should be instantly obvious to everyone else just because they themselves have daily experience with them.

Not naming names but Gregory.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

To my ear, the Korean and Japanese languages sound totally identical. I can only pick out Korean when I hear enough of it to realize I haven't understood a single word.

But the various Chinese dialects couldn't sound more different. For starters, Chinese is a tonal language; Japanese is not. That alone is enough to make them sound completely different, even though the share a lot of the same phonemes.

But recognizing somebody on sight? That's tricky.

Yes, that's my point. I said without a cultural cue -- or, to complicate things, with a misleading cultural cue -- I'm not gonna be able to tell the vast majority of the time, unless like you say they look REALLY [whatever they are]. Hearing the language would be a cultural cue.

1,310

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

Shifty Bench wrote:
DorkmanScott wrote:

Unless they're wearing a kilt and carrying bagpipes. Then I think it's justifiable to go "Hey, it's a Scottish guy."

Can I destroy that stereotype? I never wear a kilt and wouldn't even know how to hold bagpipes the right way. Plus, we don't all eat Haggis.....yuck. smile

I didn't say all Scottish people do. But I'm saying if a white person IS wearing a kilt and playing bagpipes, it's probably a safe assumption that he IS Scottish, or meant to invoke the association.

If I call the guy Scottish and you go "Hey asshole, that's an Irish tartan and he's playing Uilleann Pipes! DUH!" then, well, I can't be expected to fucking know that at a glance because I don't live there, and just because it's obvious to you because you do live there doesn't mean it isn't actually a subtle thing.

1,311

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

Astroninja Studios wrote:

The only problem is, you don't assume every white person is an american until they open their mouth.  You simply say, "Hey, it's a white guy."

Unless they're wearing a kilt and carrying bagpipes. Then I think it's justifiable to go "Hey, it's a Scottish guy."

By the same token, which Asian culture is most closely associated, stereotypically, with schoolgirls?

My grade school, high school, and college all had a big Asian population and the majority of my best friends throughout my life have been Asian. I don't say that in the "some of my best friends are Asian" way of exonerating myself from racism, I say that to mention that I've spent a lot of time in my life among many people of varying Asian descent, but to this day, if you showed me a picture of an Asian person I don't know -- without a cultural cue of some kind, just looking at the person's face -- I couldn't tell what their heritage was if my life depended on it.

I'm sure if I, for example, lived in Japan for several years, I'd get a better frame of reference on the differences and with daily exposure they would be apparent to me at a glance. But I haven't, so they aren't.

Which I don't think is particularly unique to Asians, despite the stereotype. I also couldn't tell an Ethiopian African from a Liberian African, nor could I distinguish a Brazilian from an Ecuadorian. I also couldn't tell a Welsh Caucasian from a Dutch Caucasian from a Canadian Caucasian. Unless I was familiar with their culture and they did something culturally significant, or I spent a lot of time there and began to see patterns in hereditary traits.

In the case of this film, we have a cluster of Asian girls in schoolgirl outfits as background extras in a gay French comic book future. The only cultural reference we have is the schoolgirl thing, and even that isn't particularly reliable given the aforementioned gayFrenchcomicbookness. So for lack of expertise in the nuances of the epicanthic fold, and trying to judge with Ruby Rhod all up in my grill, I don't think it was an unreasonably "culturally insensitive" comment to make in passing.

1,312

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Interesting and appropriately experimental news regarding the film:

MONSTERS releases theatrically on October 29. However, if you are in an iTunes-friendly country, you can rent it right now, in HD, for $10.99.

1,313

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

Also replicated more explicitly for THE DESCENT.

http://www.impawards.com/2006/posters/descent_ver2.jpg

And we all remember how the Civil War turned out for the redcoats.

I'm sure it would be a simple matter of handwaving around it with a careful definition of what constitutes "highly" addictive substances.

Ahhhh, good point. The addiction angle is one I hadn't considered. I revise my position on those grounds.

TrowaGP02a wrote:

Because I can smoke weed and go to class. I can smoke weed and drive. I can smoke weed and be completely normal, and for the most part that is the majority of pot smokers. When you smoke, you get high, when you do drugs you get fucked up.

But alcohol can get you fucked up and it's legal. You can't drive on alcohol. You can't very effectively learn while drunk. But it's legal.

So, why should cocaine be illegal if alcohol is legal? "It can get you fucked up" isn't an answer. I can see making the operation of heavy machinery illegal under the influence, as it is with alcohol already, but I don't see how it's the government's job to concern itself with whether or not you're going to class.

TrowaGP02a wrote:

Weed should be legalized immediately. Other drugs... not so much.

Why?

1,319

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

johnpavlich wrote:
Jeffery Harrell wrote:
maul2 wrote:

Dude that's crazy, I still cannot wrap my head around these people who can just make up their entirely own language and use it in day to day life.

Never known any twins?

My Sister and I are twins. We never had our own language. Also, when one of us gets physically injured, the other does not feel the pain.

But you're fraternal, not identical, twins, which is a bit different.

1,320

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

I had a really close friend growing up, an Indian girl, and we had what I thought was a little secret language that we shared. Which her mother later informed me was Hindi. So at some point in my childhood I apparently kind of knew Hindi without realizing it.

I don't smoke pot, but the idea that alcohol should be legal and weed not is senseless, puritanical madness.

I say legalize it all, frankly. You want to get all fucked up in the comfort of your own home, go for it. You go outside and start trying to drive around that way, you get to go to jail just like if it was alcohol.

1,322

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:

One script I'd love to read is the original Robin Hood - the one everyone loved that was rewritten and butchered by Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe.

Bam, said the lady.

1,323

(96 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh, I thought that was going to be about the cats. But the movie's cool too. I guess.

1,324

(96 replies, posted in Episodes)

Of course Lucas thinks ESB is the "worst" one. He's a control freak and it's the one he had the least control over.

Plinkett points it out very adeptly at the very end of his TPM review: when Lucas finally had absolute creative control and effectively unlimited funds and resources, he made the prequels. He wasn't struggling with a studio or forced to make any compromises. He made them that way on purpose.

It's shocking to everyone else, but the sad truth is: the prequels are what George Lucas thinks STAR WARS is supposed to be.

So if the prequels are what he's always wanted from STAR WARS, it's very little wonder that EMPIRE, being the exact opposite of the prequels in pretty much every facet, will strike George as being the "worst" of the bunch. It fails to accomplish what he thinks a STAR WARS movie should.

Which, of course, is exactly why it's great.

Also, I hate those Brain Bug cats. They're ugly and whoever first decided to selectively breed them that way is history's greatest monster.

1,325

(22 replies, posted in Episodes)

Thanks for the clarification. I knew as I was saying it that I was getting the details wrong, but close enough to make the point.

Cargo cults come up a lot in skeptical discussions when discussing the difference between scientific and magical thinking, which is where my incomplete knowledge of them comes from. And that's always the point. We're all human beings and our brains are all structured to think this way. Cargo cults are a powerful illustration of how wrong we can go in our thinking, particularly when we mistake the process for the result.

One of the reasons it happened to be on my mind this time (the idea of a "cargo cult sequel" could have equally applied to the Matrix sequels, particularly RELOADED) is that I'd heard a recent reference to cargo cult science, which is the stuff that, for example, Intelligent Design creationists "practice." They put on white lab coats and they hold up test tubes and look at them, and they think this constitutes "doing science." But they're just going through the motions, understanding superficially what science looks like but not the underlying reasons that it looks that way.