Bumblefeet

20 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Perhaps they feel the same way in the opposite direction?  Its worth noting that society only decided 50 years ago that homosexuality and shit like that should even be legal, much less socially acceptable...but now one group has decided they've come to terms with it the rest of the world is supposed to change their minds on the spot, sort of arrogant and presumptuous, dont you think?  You can't lecture people into submission about their beliefs.

Its not like any of the above mentioned were advocating violence or some shit.

LGBT acceptability might have only gotten accepted in the last century, it has been around for much longer. By the same logic the abolishment of slavery and fight for women's rights have come about in the last century so we should still respect those who have opposite views on that matter? 

I'll grant you that none of the above were advocating violence, but when you promote your religion as the only "truth", which most of them do and like I pointed out it's not even open for debate, you create a culture where any criticism or ridiculing of said truth does incite violence. Look at the Danish cartoons and Charlie Hebdo.

26 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Well why should people budge on their beliefs?  

When they promote intolerance, discrimination and indoctrination, I kinda feel it's best to tone that shit down.

So an Imam and a Rabi walk into a TV studio, both middle-aged men. They were asked by the host of the show how they would react if their son or daughter told them they were gay. The Rabi went on to say that that could never happen given the upbringing within the Jewish community and how statistically people with gay feelings are non-existent. When asked if he would accept them, he refused to answer and went on and on how this could just not happen within the Jewish religious community. The Imam was asked the same question and while acknowledging the change in sexual preferences for some people, he too danced around the question but when asked if he would accept it, he ultimately after much hesitation and I feel due to pressure from the camera said "yes, it's still my son".

This was not a joke or a morality play, but an actual segment on a TV show that deals with recent events and this discussion was of course on the recent LGBT Orlando attack. As such it didn't take place 20 years ago, but yesterday. Point I'm making is that both men denounced LGBT members not on the basis of their sexual preference (though it might factor in), but because of their religion and how that is not condoned within the community. And these guests were considered somewhat open and progressive figures in the year 2016.

On the same show, a day prior, someone visited a Muslim teen to get a sense of what the Ramadan is about for them. Once again, they found the most progressive Muslim possible, a stylish Antwerp rapper who practises Islam. When asked if he could live without the Ramadan, he said it was impossible and you cannot dispute the teachings of Allah and the Koran etc. And this was a progressive teen. They didn't even go to the more risky suburbs where you'll find the more hardcore Muslims. Either way, there was no debate possible. The Koran is the law.

So yeah, Muslims in Europe. Quite the party folk.

Finally watched it (the movie is available online). For me there are too many changes from the book that don't work quite as well here;

-The opening sequence in the airport is nowhere near as cool as the one in Boston common park in the book.
-What little they explain of "the pulse", the raggedy man and the phoners barely scratched the surface.
-The new ending manages to be worse than the book

There are things I liked about it; Cusack and Jackson both have good chemistry and carry the picture for the most part, the kids were ok too as was Stacy Keach. 

All in all, it just felt too constrained and oddly paced. Barely any survivors compared to the book and the flocks of zombies feel minute as well. When Eli Roth was first going to direct this, he had envisioned seeing the pulse hit everywhere. Here it feels like that just rushes by and you are at the end of the story in no time. Everything feels extremely rushed and there is no time to breath and sink in the situation properly nor get to care for the characters, which "28 days later" managed a lot better.

I read that King and Cusack were cut off from the project in december last year and the movie underwent studio bankruptcy which I suspect pulled the plug on any revamping or beefing it up more. A shame!

15 hours ago, Strange Broue said:

1. If we talking about older films, yes. Nowadays, (or sadly) the filmmakers doesn't shoot on film negative... My post was worded poorly

2. Yeah, the original source is always be better, but the majority of humans just can't tell a difference between 2K or 4K or it's upconverted or not....

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

At a certain screen size, it doesn't matter, imho, 4K should be the last "big thing" in resolution and even 4K is too much, doesn't make THAT much a difference

What's the point, besides the marketing bullshit?

 

 

The future is 60 plus fps movies anyway

The majority of humans who watch their movies on a regular size TV screen perhaps, but as one who watches movies projected, the difference is a lot more noticeable. I currently don't have a 4K setup aside from my iMac screen which I don't use to watch film, but once my HD beamer dies I'll probably get it. Will every movie look better in 4K? I doubt that will be the case so I do grant you that it is a marketing ploy to some extent to get people to upgrade their media systems.

However, I used to think the same thing about DVDs and blu-rays in the early stages when I'd be watching them on a 720p "HD ready" TV and subsequently beamer. Then I went full HD and the difference is astonishing, so much so that I dread to put on a DVD because I've gotten so used to the improved detail, clarity and especially color that an excellently mastered blu-ray has to offer. But a lot depends on how well the blu-ray has been prepared. When blu-rays first became available, a lot of studios put out shitty HD interlaced transfers which they'd used for their DVD releases and digital libraries, and just threw them on a blu-ray with marginally better result. Once they went back and did a proper 2K rescan, those movies looked a hell of a lot better. So just because something gets released as blu-ray or 4K doesn't mean it reaches that potential.

4K is still at least 4 or 5 years off before media outlets will stream their content in 4K and mainstream consumers will be able to afford it.

He was amazing in Boardwalk Empire. So great, that it almost made up for all the bad Adam Sandler comedies he starred in.

22 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I really don't get the appeal of these hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, they seem very disingenuous and phony.

Jimmy Fallon yes, though I believe that is mostly because he is too kind a person and basically gets along with everyone in the business. Kimmel is definitely more hard edged, not afraid to ask the awkward questions and put people on the spot.

Not that in tune with the younger hosts like Fallon, Corden, Noah, ... 

Anyone else catch this? check 2:00.  

On 6/13/2016 at 4:17 AM, Strange Broue said:

Those "scans" are just for marketing, because if the original cameras wasn't 2K or 4K cameras (which is the case in 99% of the films) then even a fan made remaster could be good enough (just upconverting the source material)

Not to mention that Blu ray players still doesn't support 4K 

 

 

What are you on about? Original cameras shot on film negative... "2K" and "4K" is the resolution for digital conversion (or the native resolution of digital cameras). So if you scan the film negative at 4K of course it's going to give more depth and detail as opposed to 2K. Blu-ray only supports up to 2K so even if you scan at 4K the difference will be minimal. Which is why the additional cost to doing a 4K scan instead of a 2K scan for some movies is just not worth it.

Regarding "fan made" upconverting (sigh); An upconvert by definition can never look better than the original source because it's artifical tampering and you're only going to remove noise digitally (losing detail in the process) and enhance edges artificially (causing halo effect/ghosting to appear).

Belgium suffering from the same achilles heel it suffered from during the world cup; zero confidence and no team spirit from the get go whatsoever. So much star power yet Hazard always disappoints with the Belgian team and De Bruyne clearly had an off day. Italy deserved to win and from the performance I saw today I don't think I'd want Belgium to even advance.

Something I've noticed with the videos from Manchester, the sound is much more confined and not as loud as the other gigs. The vocals also seem mixed lower?

Don't mind me trolling this here thread. 

P.S. looks like another great gig! Cool to see so many had fun.

Why is that black man fighting Ellen Degeneres?

12 hours ago, Amir said:

Yeah I saw, from Shout Factory. Unfortunately they don't ship to the UK :/

Bit weird that it's only from a 2K scan as well, even non-4K Blu-Rays are often taken from 4K scans. I guess I'll wait for the inevitable 4K release in a few years time.

For newer movies yes, but for catalogue titles such as "The Thing" a 2K scan is sufficient. I question haw much improvement you are going to get out of a 4K scan as opposed to 2K for older titles such as this. A 2K scan can reveal plenty of detail in the film grain and a 4K scan wont add much more to that. Also the blu-ray is the end product as that does not even support 4K. I will pick up the new "The Thing" release as it's not only the 2K scan that I'm looking forward to, but the color correction and new audio mix.

46 minutes ago, Live Like a Suicide said:

I don't think there are any lies... Slash was drug fucked during the collapse of GN'R, and Axl wasn't exactly in the right state of mind either. I don't think any of them have an objective and clear perspective on what actually happened...it's probably all half-truths and subjective memories.

3 hours ago, Apollo said:

Why would it be "their loss" if that's the kind of music they enjoy?

I happen to enjoy both rock n' roll/hard rock as well as orchestral music and happen to love it when both styles clash. Which is why I consider it a "loss" when someone automatically dismisses music based on there being an orchestral element. And I know with CD it's only one element amongst a sea of reasons to like/dislike, just my personal opinion.

5 hours ago, Apollo said:

The orchestra comments about CD seem to confirm that Axl doesn't get the reason CD failed to many people. 

He brags and seems excited about the fact that he used FIVE orchestras on some CD songs. Two by the professionals (the two we've heard worked on CD) and he says that he and Pittman worked with three "electronic" orchestra. 

So on some songs there was "a 500 piece orchestra" playing. 

I think most GnR and Axl rose fans would love a stripped down rock and roll record. No rock album needs a 500 piece orchestra on it. 

As someone who does love film music I like that influence on CD very much. I do think he is over exaggerating here as he probably meant they used different orchestra takes etc. and synthesizer to beef up some of the songs. There's no way they even had a 100 piece orchestra playing, I suspect the recording sessions were done with a smaller orchestra. The emphasis on getting the instrumental parts right and having his lyrics match that I found also an interesting remark. I find it all very ambitious but I can see how people who want stripped down rock n' roll might not care for it. Their loss IMO.

Is that a Chinese Eddie Trunk?

Anyway, interesting interview. Thanks for posting!

21 hours ago, pablo mercuryrose said:

 

We're now onto trailer #6? #7? I've lost count. Anyway, they've changed the title to "GHOSTAAAA BAAASTERS"

11 hours ago, killuridols said:

Yeah but I've seen other reviews with headlines more suitable for the situation. I mean, is Brian still a member of the band? Don't they think of him when posting those things?

I know I'd feel unwanted.

So what does AC/DC need to do? Put a black ribbon over their facebook page? Of course they are going to hype the Axl/DC match, they have tickets to sell (or keep sold) for the US gigs.

I get what you are saying about Brian being left out, but the same thing can be said for Rudd and Malcolm Young and AC/DC haven't exactly been vocal on their absence either.

On 6/4/2016 at 10:38 PM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

M. Night's The Visit

An hour and a half of my life I can't get back. He has lost his mojo and needs to stop making horrible films.

I guessed the so called twist ending in the first 5 minutes. What mother in their right mind sends her kids to visit parents she hasn't seen in 15 years?

I swore I would stop watching his movies after that horrible Lady in the Lake.

I could somewhat Stomach The Sixth Sense but everything after that I just found horrible filmmaking. I did watch Lady in the Lake years later almost to dare myself to experience how bad it truly was based on word of mouth, but I wont make that same mistake again.

The Woman in Black

fairly bland shot ghost story and as a result I couldn't quite get into it, Radcliffe is ok, Ciarán Hinds is excellent but overall missed opportunity.

For me it's 91 Donington Brian all the way. I'm not a fan of Brian's early voice on Back in Black & For Those about to Rock; for me he fell into his groove around Fly on the Wall.

Today, Axl of course rules them all but to be fair how will he sound 15 years from now? If he'll even still be singing at that point.

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It wouldn't be so bad if Slash and Duff were not on Team Brazil gagging orders. You'd see big interviews in the interim as Slash always sells whatever he is doing, his latest album or tour, widely, to credible publications like Guitar World and Classic Rock.

Since when it is confirmed this is Team Brazil's doing? Who is not to say that the band simply decided on no press to avoid past feuds from resurfacing or just to hype the tour even more?