Quake3World

How about:
Let's just NOT make fucking star trek movies.
And just let the series be.

I think I can live with that.

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

I like the energy

Now I´d like to see it backed up with reason.

Arguments, even.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I remember the time I almost got Avery Brooks to smoke a joint with me.

That is interesting indeed and yes I see a connection.

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.

Listen to him talk in public about practically anything...he's a pure-blood peace-lovin hippie.

So you have met him personally?
Guess, if you were to share a joint?

Did he tell you that if Deep Space Nine were real, you'd be blocking the wormhole cause your'e so fat?

DTS wrote:...weirding module...

specifically the time Usul no longer needed it to kill Sting

shit was off the hook, brah

seremtan wrote:

DTS wrote:...weirding module...

specifically the time Usul no longer needed it to kill Sting

shit was off the hook, brah

He already looked pretty dead at that point

Holy shit it's raining!

I like the new Star Trek movies...

so the second movie is worth watching then, xeros?

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

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.

yeah i watched that and the other half is devoted to complaining about how much filler there was in the actual movie itself

Well then I guess you no longer have any reason to see The Hobbit.

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 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.

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

I thought you were going to say "how much fibre there was in the popcorn"! Bunch of complainers: half a review!

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 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?

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 itself

I thought you were going to say "how much fibre there was in the popcorn"! Bunch of complainers: half a review!

fibre is a good thing. why would they complain about it?

Higher framerate is a good thing but that didn't stop them complaining about it ...

Do you see?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

DTS wrote:Higher framerate is a good thing but that didn't stop them complaining about it ...

Do you see?

See what I mean?