Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Danger Zone!Follow

#1 Sep 14 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Archer's back tomorrow Smiley: thumbsup

Three new episode teaser "run" before the real season starts in January

Edit: Ha-ha, meant to post this in the TV section. Oh, well.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 9:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Sep 14 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
49,673 posts
It's revvin' up my engine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Sep 14 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
I'm not aware of this show. What network is it on?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Sep 14 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
This is the new incarnation of Frisky Dingo, right?

That show was pretty funny.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Sep 14 2011 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm not aware of this show. What network is it on?

FX

Season One is available on Netflix streaming if you have it. This is the start of Season Three.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Sep 14 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,580 posts
Should of titled the thread "lana.....Lana..............LAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!1"

danger zone
____________________________
"What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.............or cripple you for life." - Accari
#7 Sep 14 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.
#8 Sep 14 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.
#9 Sep 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
That sounds terrible. Haven't the endless reports of how 3D isn't doing very well clued anyone in yet?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#10 Sep 14 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
Nadenu wrote:
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.

This is exactly how I felt when I heard they were remaking Star Trek. Then I saw the movie, and learned that my initial fears were completely founded, and totally inadequate to prepare me for the complete rape of a once-great franchise.

Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?), prepare for the worst.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#11 Sep 14 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
I thoroughly enjoyed the new start trek. They did a fantastic job.

I don't think they're changing top gun though, just putting in annoying 3D. Did I read that wrong?

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 4:22pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#12 Sep 14 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Demea wrote:
Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?)


I'm not, and for the same reason that I'm not a fan of Jerry McGuire. They're both chick flicks masquerading as guy movies.
#13 Sep 14 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...

As for 3D, it can be good. Toy Story 3, for example, was amazing in 3D. And I heard good things about Avatar, though I didn't see it in theaters.

What it really comes down to is two things:

1. If a movie isn't designed, filmed, and created with 3D in mind, then it is going to SUCK in 3D. It needs to be properly handled from start to finish.
2. The movie still needs to be good.

Considering how few movies fulfill number 2, and even fewer that fulfill 1, it's not at all surprising that 3D isn't doing too hot.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Sep 14 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
3D can be really cool and add to the movie, but yeah. what you said.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15 Sep 14 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And I heard good things about Avatar, though I didn't see it in theaters.


I didn't like Avatar in 3D. Maybe it was just me, but it didn't seem like the quality was there yet. It looked like one of those diorama things you'd make in grade school with paper and cardboard. Sure you could tell person was in front of tree was in front of jet, but each object still looked flat to me.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Sep 14 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...

The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:

a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.

b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.

Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#17 Sep 14 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
They needed to ret-con the old series. beyond that it's simply a multiple universe theory of time travel. /shrug

They could have just called it a re-imagining, but I think that this way works better.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#18 Sep 14 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Somwhere, Neph is gyrating furiously.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#19 Sep 14 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Shaking his head in disbelief. Sweet sassy molassy, you people are dorks.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#20 Sep 14 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Demea wrote:
[quote=idiggory, King of Bards]Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.


I rather enjoyed Super 8.

Star Trek was solid popcorn fare for me. But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
#21 Sep 14 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,673 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
Storm Trooper?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Sep 14 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Well, since we're being dorks:

Demea wrote:
The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:

a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.

b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.


Those two didn't bother me at all. For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film. It's just hard to list off the ways they screwed up this film since as soon as you assemble one you think of another.


It was just an incredibly poorly made film. Bad plot. Bad writing. Bad plot. Bad sets. Bad plot. Bad effects. Did I mention it had a really really bad plot?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 14 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,544 posts
Demea wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.

This is exactly how I felt when I heard they were remaking Star Trek. Then I saw the movie, and learned that my initial fears were completely founded, and totally inadequate to prepare me for the complete rape of a once-great franchise.

Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?), prepare for the worst.


As a scifi action movie I rather liked the new Star Trek, as a Star Trek movie I wanted to track down that guy that made Lost and punch him in the face. If they had used different character/place/race names and called the movie something else it wouldn't have made nearly as much money as it did, but I also wouldn't want to punch anyone in the face after watching it. Now, I just pretend that it's not actually a Star Trek movie and the violent urges aren't as bothersome.
#24 Sep 14 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
Storm Trooper?


Vin Diesel.


...minecraft extraordinaire.
#25 Sep 14 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
gbaji wrote:
For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film.

Just like Michael Bay movies.

You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#26 Sep 14 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed the new start trek. They did a fantastic job.

I don't think they're changing top gun though, just putting in annoying 3D. Did I read that wrong?


That is correct. They're taking an old analog film movie and reprocessing it with 3D. The alternative would be to film a new version, in hi-def digital 3D, with Taylor Lautner in the lead role, Shia LaBoef as his plucky-but-ultimately-doomed sidekick and Robert Pattinson as the brooding, obnoxious foil.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT
Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (59)