151

(10 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well, it seems to have worked alright for James Bond, though there hasn't been a big gap between those films over the years. So while the actors pass the torch, most of the audience already knows the franchise.

152

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I assume it was a test screening, then. That's pretty shitty.

We got a good laugh out of it. Lots of jokes to be made about a unique situation like that. "Things sure have flip-flopped around here," yada yada.

153

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Marty J wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Unstoppable_Poster.jpg

I was invited via email by MovieTickets.com to a screening of this movie at a local theater, before it was released. So, when the day came around, my friend and I went to the theater and got in line for the show. Then we looked at the rest of the line and noticed something was a bit off. A theater employee then approached us, asking us how we had been invited to the screening. He said there had been a mistake and that the screening was for African Americans only. They were trying to survey the reaction of that demographic. So, yeah. It was a race thing. I don't know how MovieTickets.com made the mistake. Did they see the name, Samuel Francis, on a list and think, "That's gotta be a black guy?"

I felt bad for the guy who had to go through the line telling Whites, Asians, Latinos, etc. that they weren't allowed into the theater unless they had come with an African American friend. Talk about awkward... And I can't imagine that they do white-only screenings. Imagine a black couple being denied entry to a theater because of the color of their skin.

We didn't make a fuss about it, especially because they gave us each a free ticket to any other movie of our choice, so we saw THE TOWN. So it probably worked out for the best anyway. I still have yet to see this movie.

154

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Invid wrote:

Disney films afterwards would confine the songs to the soundtrack (Tarzan), with no characters actually singing.

Also Glenn Close sang the chorus of 'You'll Be In My Heart' as Tarzan's mom.

155

(100 replies, posted in Off Topic)

156

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

157

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

... he never did anything artistically worthwhile when he was famous.

You take that back.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/6458dcaa2f22bcc87dac6f7ed15a10d3/tumblr_ml66dp7znl1qej4odo1_500.gif

158

(44 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Personally, I was so not on board with the live-action stuff when it first appeared. It felt like a slap in the face after getting so invested in the story to be told, "LOL fuck you it's all made-up and there are no real stakes!" That being said, it's obviously the metaphor that the entire film is operating on logic-wise, so it's pretty much the only way that the movie CAN end. So I liked Emmet having autonomy within the real world, even if I'm not sure exactly how it all works.

I felt that way a little bit, but I warmed up to the idea very quickly. The Emmet autonomy was more disappointing to me.

Doctor Submarine wrote:

My personal explanation is that the Lego world does literally exist, but it's brought about through the kid's (and his dad's) imagination. It's kind of a fascinating philosophical notion, actually. Their entire universe is invented by people in the real world, who can manipulate it via real world conduits. But the Lego people are still real people, with real lives, and they fill in the blank details when the kid and his dad aren't imagining them. They would have to, because the story is way too subversive thematically for that kid to come up with while playing. They can cross between them because magic.

That is a good way to think about it, but it does introduce some questions, mainly pertaining to the physical autonomy of the LEGO world. Obviously the LEGO action you see in the movie isn't what's really going on physically. That is made evident by the intercuts between Ferrell looking at the table and the action that's going on in the world. It's being imaginatively embellished by... the kid? The storyteller? Maybe the characters are not really pulling all of those sweet animated moves, but that's how they envision what they're doing. Then when Emmet breaks into the human world, he sees how humans see, and realizes how much effort it takes just to move a little bit on his own. When he was in LEGO world it seemed to him like he was in an action scene, but now that he has an outside view on things and no help from the humans, he realizes that moving is actually not a simple task (though not impossible because it happened in the movie and now it's canon) for LEGO, and the "Man Upstairs" had a bigger hand in the goings on of his world than Emmet had ever known.

But I feel like adding that element of it complicates things too much. They didn't have to have Emmet move himself anyway. It wasn't vital in my opinion.

Maybe I'm thinking about it all wrong and missing the point. In fact I hope so. But for now, I'm tired. Goodnightgoodnight.

159

(44 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

It occurs to me that this would make a great double-feature with The Incredibles. The message of The Incredibles is, as put by Syndrome, "When everyone's super, no one will be." The message of The Lego Movie is really similar, but less cynical. "No one is super, which means everyone can be."

They also end the exact same way- with a new challenger come to take over the world, never again to be revisited. Though this one was more fitting and funny than the mole things from Incredibles.

I had a great time with the movie. Even while trying to drown out the random and senseless outbursts of laughter coming from an annoying kid sitting a few rows back, trying to impress his friends. That went on the entire time. I need to start waiting at least a week after movies are released before I go see them.

The only thing I didn't like so much was Emmet being able to move on his own in real life, throwing himself off the desk. I liked the idea of the entire story being in the kid's mind. That moment dragged the real father-son story into fantasy land.

160

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

161

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Thought this was interesting.

162

(670 replies, posted in Creations)

Thanks, all the flowers were live-sun and the baseball was just on my desk under a lamp. And for that one I actually used a vintage "beer can" lens I got on eBay for $20. 80-200mm f/3.9

163

(670 replies, posted in Creations)

I took these a couple years ago with my Sony NEX-5N, kit lens and a cheap macro adapter I dug out of an old camera bag. I shot in JPEG like an idiot, but I think they turned out pretty well.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5546/12122377035_4a248351bb_m.jpg  http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/12123029736_219b554868_m.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7416/12123029586_252a045e88_m.jpg  http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2834/12122376885_3886389cb2_m.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5526/12122777254_1e21e23478_m.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/12122658453_e3824e51a2_m.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7291/12122776924_14c3546d76_m.jpg  http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/12122776764_5c2072a630_m.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2811/12122376185_ec621f63c8_m.jpg

164

(670 replies, posted in Creations)

Is that A&W? I've never seen a can like that.

Nice lens by the way  big_smile

165

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:
BigDamnArtist wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

However, I will grant that the editing of the movie seems to be trying to create a love triangle. I just don't think it really is in the sense of the world.

I have no idea how valid this is, so critical thinking glassses on, but apparently Evangeline Lilly only agreed to do the movie if there was no love triangle between the 3 of them. But then in pick-ups PJ basically crammed one in there. Hence why it feels so stilted and hack and slash editted in.

Like I said, could be apocryphal, I just remember reading it somewhere.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere too. It was a while ago, when it was still going to be 2 films, so maybe at that point there really wasn't a love triangle.


Ugh these movies are a mess.

166

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

switch wrote:

But I thought that that was the only biblical adaptation out in 2014...?

There's also SON OF GOD, coming to the big screen in February, produced by the people who did the Bible series on the History channel. It covers Jesus' life. Looks to be quite the cheesefest though, and Diogo Morgado as Jesus is looking even prettier than Jim Caviezel. Also the VFX look comparable to the ones I just saw in the LEGEND OF HERCULES trailer. It probably won't draw much interest outside the Christian community.

167

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Lamer wrote:

So the answer is 'the lord works in mysterious ways'?

Yeah. Not just mysterious, but higher. And I have no problem accepting that.

168

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Darth Praxus wrote:

If God could keep all the animals alive despite no food, why does He need an Ark at all? Why not just keep the animals alive despite the water around them? If He can somehow grow populations from nothing, why not allow all land animals to breathe water for forty days? Why the Flood at all? Why not just wipe everyone out instantly?

I'll refer back to Francis Chan's "Erasing Hell" video and Isaiah 55:8-9, which I posted on the first page of the thread. God accomplishes things by means that we wouldn't always think to use. He uses His people to do these things, and I believe there's significance in that. Arguing against His methods is putting your own flawed sense of justice and reasoning above His. You think your logic is air-tight, but in reality, you don't know everything. In the grand scheme of things, we know next to nothing.

169

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

It's also impossible to walk on water or to turn it into wine. If God caused the flood, I assume he could take care of the rest. There are also details about the story we don't know. All we have is what is in the text.

Keep in mind we are talking about God here. To accept the Bible is to accept divine intervention. And you really can't disprove that. You can only choose whether or not to believe it.

170

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Darth Praxus wrote:

What that doesn't prove is that the Biblical account is true by any means...

I know that.

Darth Praxus wrote:

... because it's not.

You don't know that.

171

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:

Noah's Flood is a good example of this. The story was ripped off the Babylonians during the 6th century BC exile. There are Flood Myths (Epic of Gilgamesh) which long precede any Hebrew writing - by about 1000 years.

Isn't it peculiar that so many ancient cultures passed down similar flood stories? Maybe it's because a great flood actually happened. Different cultures infused their own myths into the stories, but the fact that so many of them told stories of a great flood tells me that maybe Moses wasn't copying them, but referencing the same actual event.

172

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

And I'm not speaking for everyone here, just society as a whole.

173

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman wrote:

If our sense of morality came from Christian principles it wouldn't cause us to balk at Christian morality. That makes no sense.

Our sense of morality does not come from cultural Christianity. It comes from our instinctive sense of empathy.

I do agree that's the way things have been going lately. I think the era of Christendom in the 20th century greatly influenced our cultural values, whether or not we all believe in God, and it brought our culture's values to a certain point. Now that era is over, and human reason is taking over from there. Some Christian values will still align with popular culture (for the foreseeable future, at least), but some will get thrown by the wayside.

174

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:
Sam F wrote:
avatar wrote:

Of course, you can cherry-pick the Bible for the good-bits and ignore the bad bits, but in doing so you're already applying a pre-existing value system that does the filtering.

Yes but where do those pre-existing values come from? It's the culture in which we were raised. It's hard to deny that many of our culture's values are based on Christian principles, even if the people who hold those values aren't Christians; although it is evident that this culture of Christendom has begun to fade, and it seems like not long from now, many Christian values will be widely pinned as radical and hateful in our society (cue the celebratory responses). Some already have.

I'd say this is a bit off topic though. The thread is about whether or not there is a God, not whether or not we agree with His morals.

That's funny, because I'm a Jew, so I'm pretty confident that none of my morals would come from Christ even if I was religious.

If you were raised completely apart from popular culture, like some cults or Amish people then I'd say you're probably right. But if not, some of our values are influenced by outside sources, not just our families.

175

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:

Of course, you can cherry-pick the Bible for the good-bits and ignore the bad bits, but in doing so you're already applying a pre-existing value system that does the filtering.

Yes but where do those pre-existing values come from? It's the culture in which we were raised. It's hard to deny that many of our culture's values are based on Christian principles, even if the people who hold those values aren't Christians; although it is evident that this culture of Christendom has begun to fade, and it seems like not long from now, many Christian values will be widely pinned as radical and hateful in our society (cue the celebratory responses). Some already have.

I'd say this is a bit off topic though. The thread is about whether or not there is a God, not whether or not we agree with His morals.