Star Trek Into Darkness
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
How about:
Let's just NOT make fucking star trek movies.
And just let the series be.
I think I can live with that.
Let's just NOT make fucking star trek movies.
And just let the series be.
I think I can live with that.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Plan B wrote:How about:
Let's just NOT make fucking star trek movies.
And just let the series be.
I think I can live with that.
FUCK OFF
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I like the energy 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Now I´d like to see it backed up with reason.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Arguments, even.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
That is interesting indeedGONNAFISTYA wrote:I remember the time I almost got Avery Brooks to smoke a joint with me.
Brooks is best known in popular culture for his role as Commander—and later Captain—Benjamin Sisko on the science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which ran for seven seasons from 1993 to 1999.
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Listen to him talk in public about practically anything...he's a pure-blood peace-lovin hippie. 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
So you have met him personally?
Guess, if you were to share a joint?
Guess, if you were to share a joint?
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Did he tell you that if Deep Space Nine were real, you'd be blocking the wormhole cause your'e so fat?
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
specifically the time Usul no longer needed it to kill StingDTS wrote:...weirding module...
shit was off the hook, brah
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
He already looked pretty dead at that pointseremtan wrote:specifically the time Usul no longer needed it to kill StingDTS wrote:...weirding module...
shit was off the hook, brah
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Holy shit it's raining!
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I like the new Star Trek movies...
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
so the second movie is worth watching then, xeros?
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
i just realised that the only reason i want to see the first Hobbit movie is for the 48fps 3D experience and not the actual movie, which sounds kind of boring and long-winded
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I haven't seen the 3D 48fps presentation, but from all the desciptions and complaints I've heard and read about it, it's basically the same bad-idea that people did to 120 Hz teevees....it looks horrible, like it was filmed with television studio cameras under harsh lighting. In short: I've heard the 3D 48fps experience is like chineze water-torture...you just want it to stop. I have no idea why Mr.Jackson is using it.
The guys from RedLetterMedia dedicated half a review to complaining about that specific version of the film.
The guys from RedLetterMedia dedicated half a review to complaining about that specific version of the film.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
yeah i watched that and the other half is devoted to complaining about how much filler there was in the actual movie itself
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Well then I guess you no longer have any reason to see The Hobbit.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I think that's weird, since the thing that the newspaper reviews mostly said was that despite the movie's flaws, the 48fps thing was "the real deal" and awesome, the future, etc. I'll probably side with red letter media, since they're right about 3D too.GONNAFISTYA wrote:I haven't seen the 3D 48fps presentation, but from all the desciptions and complaints I've heard and read about it, it's basically the same bad-idea that people did to 120 Hz teevees....it looks horrible, like it was filmed with television studio cameras under harsh lighting. In short: I've heard the 3D 48fps experience is like chineze water-torture...you just want it to stop. I have no idea why Mr.Jackson is using it.
The guys from RedLetterMedia dedicated half a review to complaining about that specific version of the film.
I love quake!
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
seremtan wrote:yeah i watched that and the other half is devoted to complaining about how much filler there was in the actual movie itself
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I wonder about 2 things.GONNAFISTYA wrote:I haven't seen the 3D 48fps presentation, but from all the desciptions and complaints I've heard and read about it, it's basically the same bad-idea that people did to 120 Hz teevees....it looks horrible, like it was filmed with television studio cameras under harsh lighting. In short: I've heard the 3D 48fps experience is like chineze water-torture...you just want it to stop. I have no idea why Mr.Jackson is using it.
The guys from RedLetterMedia dedicated half a review to complaining about that specific version of the film.
First, they had shitty seats. They said so themselves. Would the experience be equally horrible if they had proper seats? Also, apparently this 48fps movie is scaled back to 24fps. Would it be better if playback was at 48fps as well?
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
fibre is a good thing. why would they complain about it?DTS wrote:seremtan wrote:yeah i watched that and the other half is devoted to complaining about how much filler there was in the actual movie itselfI thought you were going to say "how much fibre there was in the popcorn"! Bunch of complainers: half a review!
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Higher framerate is a good thing but that didn't stop them complaining about it ...
Do you see?
Do you see?
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
All I can say to that is that 99% of those same newspaper reviews also said 3D was great, awesome, blah blah blah and they were wrong about that, too.feedback wrote:I think that's weird, since the thing that the newspaper reviews mostly said was that despite the movie's flaws, the 48fps thing was "the real deal" and awesome, the future, etc. I'll probably side with red letter media, since they're right about 3D too.
Fair enough on the seating arrangement most likely making things worse, but if you've ever seen anything on a 120 Hz television you'd know what I mean about why the "crystal-clear with no motion blur" high fps image is a horrible idea. It essentially makes everything look like it was filmed using the same slo-mo video cameras they use at professional sports events. If you want everything to look weird (and have it all look the same) then go high fps.Eraser wrote:I wonder about 2 things.
First, they had shitty seats. They said so themselves. Would the experience be equally horrible if they had proper seats? Also, apparently this 48fps movie is scaled back to 24fps. Would it be better if playback was at 48fps as well?
Some people like 48fps, and those are the same people that think Wal-Mart is a quality store and most likely the same people who'd enjoy the Paranormal Activity films.
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
GONNAFISTYA wrote:Some people like 48fps, and those are the same people that think Wal-Mart is a quality store and most likely the same people who'd enjoy the Paranormal Activity films.
See what I mean?DTS wrote:Higher framerate is a good thing but that didn't stop them complaining about it ...
Do you see?