Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 21087 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 ... 422  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:01 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Cras wrote:
Mimi wrote:
no explosions, no boobs, no car chases.


I'm out.

It's not got the requisite Craster draw.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:55 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
So I watched Transporter 2 last night and it was better than the first, which isn't saying much, and I'd say it still doesn't get itself into 'good film territory'.

A reasonably enjoyable 90 minutes of fluff with some great fight sequences, good car action, plenty of dodgy CGI, the world's most amazing regenerating Audi, and decent baddies. (Including that sexy one whose bottom you get to see. Oh yes, and Matthew Modine, who for me will always be McFly.)

And Statham was still doing a bit of a strange accent.

And the violence was clearly PG-13 stuff again, although a bit harder than the first film and it had a proper 'fuck' in it.

Basically I'd say Crank is the evolution of Transporter, and a lot better.

I give this 6/10.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:25 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
I can't wait for Statham's remake of Face Off, "Statham Off", where he plays both the good guy and the baddie. Statham swops faces with Statham and 'face off' against one another in a film that's 80% slow motion in this John Woo remake.

Statham's full range of accents is demonstrated in his new comedy "Meet the Stathams" where Statham plays every member of a dysfunctional family. Unlike Eddie Murphy's Klumps, Statham doesn't wear any make-up and every family member wears a very nice Armani suit and sounds slightly cockney.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:12 
User avatar
Level 6 Laser Lotus

Joined: 26th Aug, 2010
Posts: 2069
Saturnalian wrote:
I can't wait for Statham's remake of Face Off, "Statham Off", where he plays both the good guy and the baddie. Statham swops faces with Statham and 'face off' against one another in a film that's 80% slow motion in this John Woo remake.

Statham's full range of accents is demonstrated in his new comedy "Meet the Stathams" where Statham plays every member of a dysfunctional family. Unlike Eddie Murphy's Klumps, Statham doesn't wear any make-up and every family member wears a very nice Armani suit and sounds slightly cockney.



:DD :kiss:

_________________
Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:25 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
I would pay good money to see both of those films.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 0:08 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Tonight's film, which I watched as is now customary sat in a big comfy chair, with my supportive sports shorts on, a big fluffy pillow under my arse/bollocks, and my feet in front on me on a pouffe (praise the lord for mother in laws who still have such things as pouffes) - was The Midnight Meat Train. *

It's quite hard to describe this one really, it's appeared in my Netflix (UK) listing under the horror category. I do like a good horror film, the user reviews at Netlfix seemed to be pretty good, and the limited coverage it's got at places such as Rotten Tomatoes seemed mixed to positive.

Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit) - this is a pretty lean, mean, crunchy, violent, very bloody thriller/horror flick.

It's got Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper in it, as well as a nice looking lass who I'm not familiar with, but Wikipedia says she's been in other things.

Oh yes it's based on a short story by Clive Barker, so that may well give you some inkling of the directions it heads off in. It's also directed by a Japanese dude called Ryuhei Kitamura and as you may know they do like their horror flicks.

I am not suggesting that this is a classic 'must see' film, or even a 'must see' horror film, but you could do a lot worse with a spare couple of hours, and if you like some proper 18 rated violence and gore then it certainly delivers. (The version on Netflix UK is the unrated Director's cut, the US theatrical release had some 80 (!) cuts made to it for an R rating.)

8/10 - Solid Friday night action and took my mind off my fucked bollocks, which is the highest praise I can give at the moment.


* The left one still bleeds a bit at night. Bollock, that is, I don't have two arses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:42 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Hearthly wrote:
Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit)

Cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:52 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit)

Cost.


I did wonder about that but are practical effects really so expensive to do? I know they farm the CGI out to the lowest bidders and whichever rendering house in the world can do it cheapest (which apparently is why big films can end up with dodgy CGI in them), but some of what they do with CGI would be what I'd consider to be fairly basic, like blood spurts which are just squibs and suchlike when done with practical effects.

It sticks out a mile to me and totally breaks the illusion of the film, 'cause I'm just like, 'Oh yeah, CGI again'.

I appreciate there are some things that simply couldn't be done with practical effects, like Terminator 2 which did things with CGI we'd never seen as a special effect before, because practical effects outright couldn't do it (The Abyss springs to mind as well). Then again they were both James Cameron films, and both films were rammed with superb practical effects as well.

I don't mind model work and matte backgrounds and suchlike, even though I know it's a special effect too, it feels more 'real' than CGI, I guess because they are at least real objects.

Some of the CGI in Transporter 2 was shocking, especially the aeroplane stuff at the end. Seriously, just chucking an Airfix model around in someone's spare bedroom would have looked better than that.

As for The Midnight Meat Train, that had plenty of practical effects in it too, so why they stuck the awful CGI in as well I really don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:57 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Hearthly wrote:
some of what they do with CGI would be what I'd consider to be fairly basic, like blood spurts which are just squibs and suchlike when done with practical effects.

You're right, a blood squib is really cheap... until you have to spend an hour scrubbing it out between takes. That's an hour your expensive shooting crew are sat around not doing anything useful. Want to do five takes? Now that's an entire day, rather than a few hours. Hence, CGI blood, added in post, by any number of the vast array of SFX houses, most of which are much cheaper than you'd think, especially the lower-end overseas ones.

Same goes for other practical effects: any problems making them work waste shooting time, and shooting time is really, really expensive. Post production time is almost free. So you restrict practical where you can, unless you're on an generous budget.

(Source: I know someone who works at an SFX house. He animated one of the shots in the Age of Ultron trailer.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 13:47 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Hmmm yes it makes sense when you put it like that I suppose.

Curse computers, especially cheap overseas computers!

Cheers for the explanation :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 15:56 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Also, CGI blood is easier to remove if the censors come calling


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:29 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
That's the problem with 'censoring to a certificate', there's actually not that much that the BBFC censor these days at Cert 18, but distributors will request a 15, or 12A, or whatever, and the BBFC will advise them on what to cut to get that certificate.

So recently for example Kingsman was cut for a 15, where an uncut 18 was available. A Walk Among The Tombstones got exactly the same treatment.

Transporter 2 got cut for a PG-13 in the States (some of which was indeed CGI blood), but could have had an uncut R - and so on.

I went through a phase of importing DVDs from the States in the 90s and into the 00s, as the BBFC were notoriously scissor-happy at the time either cutting for a 15 or even at 18 (they're a lot more liberal now at 18). The ridiculous cuts to The Matrix for its 15 for example, where the headbutts had to go, rendering a couple of the fight scenes a bit daft looking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 20:43 
User avatar
SavyGamer

Joined: 29th Apr, 2008
Posts: 7600
There's so many great uses of CGI, but I can't stand it when it's used to recreate something that would be relatively easy to do a practical effect for, at least when the effect is implemented badly enough that I can tell. Films are inherently all smoke and mirror's, but I don't want to see behind the curtain. Obviously there are cost considerations, but I would agree that despite the many advances technology has provided for filmmakers, there has also been a big old mess of regression.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:43 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
CGI is absolutely amazing these days. I reckon that most of the time you don't even know that you are looking at it. For Expendables 3 they actually just got a bag of moldy old bollocks in front of a green screen and filmed that for two hours and all the rest was added in afterwards, you can't even see the join!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:48 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 14130
Location: Shropshire, UK
Also, for Rambo, I'm pretty sure that the cost of all of the blood squib packs would have been higher than the CGI had they gone down the practical route ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:13 
User avatar
Rude Belittler

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5016
The other issue with a lot of practical effects is that, quite often, they're built for one angle and one angle only. It locks the director into one shot. Directors don't like having the SFX guys telling them 'I don't care about your 'vision', this is the shot our FX works in.'

CGI stuff, the effects are much more flexible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:06 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:56 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
Bill and Ted 3 news: https://www.yahoo.com/movies/alex-winte ... 78022.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:07 
User avatar
Prince of Fops

Joined: 14th May, 2009
Posts: 4296
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:12 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Findus Fop wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.

Is it not? Ooops.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:16 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Bobbyaro wrote:


Woah

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:17 
User avatar
Prince of Fops

Joined: 14th May, 2009
Posts: 4296
DavPaz wrote:
Findus Fop wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.

Is it not? Ooops.


That's what imdb says. But then I looked on the BFI site and it seems they were showing it in October last year. I don't know. Maybe July is the DVD release date. Either way, will get on it when it arrives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:46 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Watched 'We Are What We Are' last night which is a rather unusual horror film, I went into it basically knowing bugger all about it and it certainly surprised me on more than one occasion.

Kept me interested right to the end and the finale wasn't what I'd ever have guessed.

Oh yes it's got OLD KELLY MCGILLIS in it as well, and it also has a well hot lass called Ambyr Childers in it and for a moment it looks like it's going to get a one on the Craster Scale with her but then it doesn't. It does however get a one on the Craster Scale elsewhere, but not perhaps in a way you'd want.

Not a bad little flick, 7.5/10

Here's the synopsis from Rotten Tomatoes:

Quote:
The Parkers have always kept to themselves, and for good reason. Behind closed doors, patriarch Frank rules his family with a rigorous fervor, determined to keep his ancestral customs intact at any cost. As a torrential rainstorm moves into the area, tragedy strikes and his daughters Iris and Rose are forced to assume responsibilities that extend beyond those of a typical family. As the unrelenting downpour continues to flood their small town, the local authorities begin to uncover clues that bring them closer to the secret that the Parkers have held closely for so many years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 16:56 
User avatar
Kinda Funny Lookin'

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3266
Location: Sheffield or Baku


...colour me excited.

_________________
If work was so rewarding the rich would have bought it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 19:53 
User avatar
Goth

Joined: 31st Mar, 2008
Posts: 3742
Divergent:Insurgent - Still a bit Hunger Games light but I think I slightly prefer this lead femme to Jennifer Lawrence as she's a tad less simpering and also much more volatile. I quite enjoyed this and there were quite a few unexpected moments in it yet somehow again there was a tiny bit of something missing that The Hunger Games manages to have. I think it's partly that it doesn't quite get the depth to do with consequences of actions or maybe just that this follows in the wake of the Hunger Games that makes it feel rather more of the same. Despite only being about 2 horus of film it still felt a little stretched as well which Hunger Games Mockingjay Pt1 didn't despite being longer and only half a film really. It's good, got a good lead character but isn't quite good enough.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:00 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
I watched "A Year of Violence". You shouldn't.

It feels like it goes on longer than a year and has no violence. These are the facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:50 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Oh my god. That madmax trailer looks AMAZEBALLS

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:08 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:10 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Tonight's film was the slightly bonkers (as is often the case with French films) DISCOPATH.

Seriously, I'll let the synopsis from Rotten Tomatoes do most of the talking here.

Quote:
The mid-70's: a timid young New Yorker leads an uneventful life until he is fatefully exposed to the pulsating rhythms of a brand-new genre of music: disco. Unable to control his murderous impulses that stem from a traumatic childhood experience, Duane Lewis transforms into a dangerous serial killer exiled to Montreal.


Yes we have a film set in the 70s (and then the 80s), complete with period cars and ghetto blasters and suchlike, whereby a deranged serial killer is inspired to kill by THE SOUND OF DISCO MUSIC.

This film has got the lot, young would-be lesbians at an all-girls college, perverted priests, French cops with serious moustaches, a maniac DISCO OBSESSED killer, big 70s hair, platform shoes, the whole thing. (And a pretty good disco soundtrack.)

Oh yes and some reasonably nasty murder scenes so it's not all total cheese, although death by a 45RPM is a bit daft I suppose.

You know how Craster has his scale? 1 for boobs and 0 for no boobs? Well I currently run the bollocks scale, whereby 1 is a film that takes my mind of MY RUINED FUCKING BOLLOCKS for 90 minutes or so, and a 0 is a film that doesn't.

This film gets a 1 on the Hearthly bollocks scale. A high recommendation indeed.

Check out DISCOPATH!



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:25 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Trooper wrote:
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)

Fast 7 was booked up?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:26 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
I watched Horrible Bosses 2 tonight. It was bad.

I watched Interstellar yesterday. It was far too up its own arse, but seriously compelling. What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:52 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Grim... wrote:
I watched Horrible Bosses 2 tonight. It was bad.


It was a sequel to a so so film,so it didn't bode well.

Quote:
I watched Interstellar yesterday. It was far too up its own arse, but seriously compelling. What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.

I sort of enjoyed it, particularly the improbably badly designed robots, but I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:14 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:16 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Grim... wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)

Fast 7 was booked up?


Wife chose, and fast 7 was only on as a 2 header with fast 6 as far as I could see, it's released properly tomorrow isn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:19 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Saturnalian wrote:
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.

What have they done to Bourne?! Was there a fourth one?

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:41 
User avatar
Noob as of 6/8/10

Joined: 6th Aug, 2010
Posts: 5296
Location: , Location, Location.
Bourne on the 4th Of July


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:04 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Saturnalian wrote:
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.

What have they done to Bourne?! Was there a fourth one?


Yeah, The Bourne Legacy. :S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 13:17 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 11128
Grim... wrote:
What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.


And if the entire plot wasn't utter bullshit from start to finish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 13:47 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
That I don't mind - unless it's a documentary, I can happily overlook the science.

I'll still comment on it during the film, obv.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 14:12 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 11128
Grim... wrote:
That I don't mind - unless it's a documentary, I can happily overlook the science.

I'll still comment on it during the film, obv.


There's even basic stuff that's wrong with it though. Like the fact they've been planning this secret space mission for however long without thinking to ask the only experienced astronaut in the world to come along until he randomly walks in the door, despite the fact the leader of the mission knows him personally and he only lives down the fucking road from their headquarters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:15 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Interstellar was enjoyable enough for me - but even by Hollywood standards the science was just laughable.

Never mind the fact they needed some huge old-style Apollo/Saturn type booster rocket to escape Earth's paltry gravity well, but to escape the combined gravitational pull of another Earth-sized oceanworld planet that's so close to a fucking black hole that the astronauts experienced massive relativistic time effects, only required the quick firing of shuttle-borne rockets...?

There's also the issue of said planets being blown to fuck if their parent star had gone supernova (which it must have done if there's a black hole at the centre of their system instead of a parent star); if said parent star was massive enough to go supernova and form a black hole it must've been a huge O or B Class Blue Supergiant which would've only lived for a few million or tens of millions of years at best (no way could planets with breathable atmospheres form in that geological timescale, and that's ignoring the massive stellar wind arising from, and hugely variable nature of such stars 'cause if you're a planet, said massive star suddenly turning into a Red Hypergiant can be somewhat disconcerting and terminal); and most importantly - if there's no star, only a black hole, how come it's fucking daytime/daylight on said planets and why is there even weather at all...?

I read some piece about the 'genuine science' done on the part of the film's producers in modelling exactly how a black hole is supposed to look, which struck me as a bit rich considering the pre-school stuff like this they did get wrong.

I dread to think what true science-heads made of it.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:23 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:24 
Best
User avatar
Board Mother

Joined: 6th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11354
Location: Mount Olympus
Hearthly wrote:
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.

Any suggestions on where we might obtain this from?

_________________
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
GJ is right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:26 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
@Hearthly

W-What? Y-you can see what I'm typing...?


:blown:

( :D )

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:31 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.

Any suggestions on where we might obtain this from?


The usual combo of nzbplanet and Tweaknews worked for me, torrenty type stuff might be able to sort it out as well I suppose but I don't do torrents.

Amazon says you can buy it from the 4th May - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Discopath-DVD-J ... B00T7QLCF0

Not much of a result for the legal option there considering it's been up on Usenet for 166 days.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:32 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Cavey wrote:
@Hearthly

W-What? Y-you can see what I'm typing...?


:blown:

( :D )


I would never put you on ignore old chap, (I've never put anyone on ignore here, for that matter), I think we just need to agree to disagree when it comes to politics :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:34 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
:) :luv:

I know mate, that was my lame attempt at sarcastic humour.
I'll not give up the day job. :p

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:35 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
Y'know what I fancy watching today? DISCOPATH.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 19:11 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
So, you thought the never-ending runway at the end of Fast and Furious 6 (or whichever one it was) was stupid? Well, 7 is like that for basically the last two thirds of the film.

CGI Paul Walker was good though, although he is facing away from the camera a noticeable amount.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Movie topic
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 21:40 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
I am off to see 7 at the Imax tomorrow night. Mrs T is overjoyed to be coming along :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 21087 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 ... 422  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Columbo, PRISM and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.