201

(21 replies, posted in Creations)

rtambree wrote:

In reality, there would never be an economic reason to travel to another continent.

FTFY

202

(81 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I posted this on Eddie's Facebook, but here we go:

The way I see it, FCPX is an upgrade for iMovie/FCPE users, and FCP7 will continue to be used by professionals until the missing features are added/redesigned. It's odd to me that they're not continuing to offer FCP7, but it wouldn't shock me to see Apple include a way to get it with the purchase of FCPE, just as they did when they redesigned iMovie.

Also, according to this guy, there IS tape capture in FCPX: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/fc … artin.html

Holden wrote:

EDIT: There will be no iOS version until Apple decides to release a Windows version of the sdk.

ROFL

I'm so sorry I missed this the first time around.

ROFL

WINDOWS SDK

hahahahaha

204

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

maul2 wrote:
fcw wrote:
Ewing wrote:

Citizen Kane

Wait, what? That's no synonym, that's a homophone.  If you don't stick strictly to the rules you're making up as you go along, what chance does anyone have of getting the right answer, other than those who get the right answer?

Can I ask? What the fuck are you on? How in any way is that a homophone?

I'm pretty sure he's saying that 'walking stick' is a synonym for 'cane', which is itself a HOMOPHONE of 'Kane', which is what's in the actual title. In which case he basically has a point (although one he is clearly making in jest), but I'm fairly sure everyone would agree that since 'Kane' itself has no synonyms, it's perfectly reasonable to find synonyms for homophones.

205

(16 replies, posted in Episodes)

Strangely, I saw this film first BECAUSE of down in front, back in the days when the ‘great movie trailers’ thread was running. It was a great trailer, but a better film. Can’t wait to hear the commentary.

I've been doing this podcast for a few weeks with http://trek.fm. We cover Trek news (there is some!), interview some in the Trek community, and then have DIF-ish long form discussion. As this week's topic was Abrams' Trek film, we invited on DIF's Brian to lend his special brand of opinion.

I think it went quite well, so I wanted to invite one and all to check out the show. You can find us on iTunes, or visit the show page here: http://trek.fm/the-ready-room/the-ready … uinto.html

Thanks for listening!

207

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

And that's why we can't have nice things.

208

(59 replies, posted in Episodes)

I have never laughed as much at a podcast as during the 'The 3 Cs of England' sequence. I was literally crying from laughter. Literally.

209

(77 replies, posted in Episodes)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Joining Riddick is Danny (Eddie Murphy), a wisecracking Necromonger who's always getting into sticky situations!

Don't you mean Negromonger?

/banned

210

(18 replies, posted in Creations)

vidina wrote:

Proper URL

Those are all really fantastic. Making me want to get back into doing this stuff.

211

(77 replies, posted in Episodes)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

On a similar note, when I told a friend of mine recently that I had the same complaint about At World's End, he told me that he actually liked it better than Dead Man's Chest (because there were less random story tangents and fewer running gags), and that he never understood how people found it confusing. Apparently, he always understood it perfectly. Is that what's going on with the Riddick fans in the room?

You're friends with someone who prefers At World's End to Dead Man's Chest? Why?

212

(17 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

Kel looks great, but he doesn't get a lot to do.

Nia looks really great.

Booze will be helpful.

That must have made for some fun audition readings:

"There's a school of alien swimming beneath us!"

"The alien are growing in size!"

213

(17 replies, posted in Episodes)

In an alternate reality, Ben Stiller directed this movie, with the same cast, and the same budget, and the same sets, and the same script, but with a different DP and a different editor. That movie was a huge hit and spawned four sequels.

And I would have loved it.

This thing? Not so much.

214

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman Scott wrote:
Gregory Harbin wrote:

Show some respect.

Earn some.

Alright, Teague, I've changed my mind. Mike does know he's a jerk. I'm done here.

215

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

DorkmanScott wrote:

It's fine that you don't like it. It's just that it would be better to simply state it as your opinion rather than make demonstrably incorrect statements of a factual nature in a flailing attempt to give reasons.

If saying 'all I got from what I read was a bunch of know-it-alls who are unwilling to accept anything new' isn't stating that it is my opinion than I don't know what is.

Don't turn this into a semantic argument. If you think that there's a really strong argument for why approaching the Potter universe from this perspective is great, then just state it. I know you love attacking me personally, but please, for the sake of the forum, knock it off.

Think of how it looks like from this side. All I have to do is say 'this didn't really work for me,' and you don't even respond to me, but instead act like I'm not in the room like a disappointed stepfather. Show some respect.

216

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

DorkmanScott wrote:

There's nothing about rationality that prevents a person from experiencing something with a sense of wonder, you know.

I agree. So why is the Harry in this story so incapable of it? He sees his father levitated right in front of him, clearly without the use of wires or other contraptions, and all he can manage in response is to grunt.

217

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:
Gregory Harbin wrote:

Think of it this way: say you're a huge Star Trek fan, and someone writes a Trek 'fanfic' that removes everything you love about Star Trek...

That actually happened to me, it was called Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Precisely. Thanks for noticing that.

It's worth noting that it's not that magic has been removed from the Harry Potter world or that there's a scientific (or science-as-we-know-it) explanation for everything that happens in the books (in fact, Harry finds himself regularly frustrated by magic's refusal to behave in a way consistent with the laws of physics), it's that Harry's approach to it is to ask questions.

But that's just the problem. I read a story in which people were constantly frustrated. It was frustrating reading about people being frustrated so much.

*MAGIC*

Harry: That's odd.

*MORE MAGIC*

Harry: Hmm.

*MORE MAGIC*

Harry: I wonder why that is.

You know how there's that Speilberg trope where the group of people are looking at something in wonder? Imagine if, instead of wonder, those people were examining the situation logically and trying to come to a calm, cold, logical explanation. It just wouldn't make for good cinema.

I'm not saying that you guys are idiots for liking it. I'm just saying, *for me*, this removes everything that I love about Harry Potter and replaces it with a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest me. I love my science books—the last book I read was Hawking's latest, and the one before that was Dawkins' 'Greatest Show on Earth.' But this one just seems like an exercise in frustration.

218

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

DorkmanScott wrote:

I hope you've all enjoyed the latest installment of that other long-running internet serial, Gregory Harbin and the Point He Missed Entirely.

Think of it this way: say you're a huge Star Trek fan, and someone writes a Trek 'fanfic' that removes everything you love about Star Trek: instead of Kirk being a ladies' man, he's timid and shy. Instead of being explorer/scientists, the Federation focuses on studying magic in our solar system. Any time someone says 'let's seek out new life and new civilizations,' someone says 'but why?'

Certainly, this fanfic might be an interesting examination of the sort of people it's portraying. But Brian says he would like to pretend that this fanfic is actually Harry Potter. I don't understand that at all.

219

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, I can't find myself getting into this. What I love so much about Harry Potter is the wonder of discovering a new universe. It's not like there's no scientific method in the magical world: Rowling is pretty clear that you have to study a lot, including astronomy, and Potions isn't that different from Chemistry. The Harry Potter universe is laden with rationality, but it's also filled with wonder. All I got from what I read was a bunch of know-it-alls who are unwilling to accept anything new.

Just read Chapter 7, where Harry shows Draco pictures of the Apollo program and explains to him the power of scientific progress.

If that happened in the real books, Draco would Apparate to the Moon, bring Harry a Moon rock, and then ask him what the big deal was as they were to the moon centuries before Muggles.

220

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

From what I can tell, ILM didn't even work on 2012 at all. Which is weird. Maybe Emmerich thinks they're too expensive.

221

(4 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The post above mine has about three too many cans of shoe polish.

222

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

Astroninja Studios wrote:

Um yeah, Greg.  Having your own production company doesn't mean you self finance.  He still has to get money from distributors to largely bankroll his movies.  You can make the argument that because his movies do well that he can get financing, but don't say he's spending his own money when he's not.

I never said he self-financed. I said it was his production company. He didn't raise money and then decided if he was going to make 'Garden State' or '2012.' He tells investors that he's going to make a huge disaster film, they look at his track record, and realize that he's a great investement. If you want to go to the same investors and pitch your movie, go right ahead. But Emmerich has the track record.

There are so many false dichotomies being made in this thread. Either Emmerich is a visionary or a hack. Either 2012 is Oscar-winning or it's shit. Either 2012 is going to be made or a bunch of cheap awesome movies will be.

Sometimes movies are just fun. A movie gets made, people see it, it makes money, and everyone moves on.

I totally understand not liking 2012. Plenty of people didn't buy a ticket. What I don't understand is the people who get angry about movies like this. The money wasn't going to go to the movie you wanted to be made. It wasn't going to go to mosquito nets in Africa. It wasn't going to go to any of your pet projects or concepts. If you want those things to get funded, you need to work for it. But not by being angry at everything that gets made that you didn't like.

Does it strike no one else as ridiculous to be mad that a movie got made? Triumph of the Will, sure. Go for it. Rage away. But some silly summer film?

223

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

When people who spent good money on Godzilla and The Patriot and The Day After Tomorrow realize they were made my the same guy, they'll opt out of his new project, and it will be a mega-flop.

Is it so hard to believe that people enjoy watching Emmerich's movies? It's like complaining that someone built ANOTHER theme park, because you hate roller-coasters.

224

(51 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

The point is, blockbusters need to be good or they can destroy the studio, so people should stop giving Roland Emmerich money. He only makes dumb mega-films, and audiences are slowly wising up, and it's just a matter of time before he makes a mega-flop.

A studio didn't give Roland Emmerich money. Roland Emmerich made 2012 with his own production company, Centropolis.

You may have heard of some of their other films: Godzilla. Independence Day. The Patriot. Day After Tomorrow. Huge, huge successes, even the ones that critics hated. You're telling a guy that makes a ton of money making movies that a ton of people love to see that he should stop doing it.

Somehow I don't think he's going to listen.

225

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

I thought it was a good thing that somebody attempted a shot-for-shot remake of a classic (Psycho) and it tanked.  Hopefully nobody will try that again for a very long time.

Wizard of Oz being remade from original script