Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 559 - 42 Comments
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 26, 2008 2:05 PM
None for me thanks.  I'll call it a show with the first two if this happens.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 26, 2008 2:37 PM
Thank you Rad for the being the first person to post today... you get a mushroom tattoo!! I agree with you though.  If he's going to do something like that with Catwoman, he might as well pull Eartha Kitt back into the mold.
From: John Entered on: August 26, 2008 3:20 PM
Radmobile said: None for me thanks. I'll call it a show with the first two if this happens. Because you were so right about Heath Ledger.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 26, 2008 3:46 PM
HA HA HA!
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 27, 2008 8:11 AM
Ok, I was wrong about Heath Ledger, but I was right about Bionic Woman. As for Cher as Catwoman...I have no problem making such a bold statement as "none for me".  Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'm not willing to take that chance until I hear outstanding reviews.
From: John Entered on: August 27, 2008 10:26 AM
Dude, you gotta trust Nolan, he's been dead on so far.
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 27, 2008 10:48 AM
Good, yes, dead on...not exactly.  I know I'm going to catch all kinds of hell for saying this, but I don't think Batman was even my favorite film of the year.  Ledger's Joker was the best character I've seen in a movie this year.  I'll give it that.  And Eckhart's Harvey Dent was excellent as well.  Some of the plot just fell short for me though.  There I said it. Also I heard mention of Johnny Depp as Riddler.  He may do a good job but I don't particularly care for him in general.  I used to not mind him, but Once Upon a Time in Mexico ruined my opinion of him.  From that point on I couldn't get over what an overacting turd he was.  Charlie & the Chocolate Factory is another example of this. I'd rather see a sequel to Iron Man at this point.  I had no complaints whatsoever about that one. OK, now just let me get my anal lube ready and wait for everyone's responses.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 27, 2008 10:59 AM
First, Rad tells me yesterday that he's not buying Gears of War 2 right away (he's gonna wait for a bargain price -- um, yeah... like wait 2 years?), now he says The Dark Knight fell short for him?   Does Annie know you're full daff?
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 27, 2008 2:41 PM
Well, I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that y'all will still be playing it just as much in 2 years.
From: The Bone Entered on: August 27, 2008 2:41 PM
I've been thinking about it lately and I think I prefered Batman Begins over Dark Knight, though Ledger was sweet.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 27, 2008 3:21 PM
Radmobile said: Well, I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that y'all will still be playing it just as much in 2 years. ZINGER!!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 27, 2008 4:10 PM
NickNick said: Radmobile said: Well, I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that y'all will still be playing it just as much in 2 years. ZINGER!! Careful, NickNick, or you could be waiting 2 years with him!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 27, 2008 4:13 PM
Radmobile said: Well, I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that y'all will still be playing it just as much in 2 years. Really?  You're gonna start playing once it's a Platinum Hit and we're already mastered it?  Wow.  I'm sure that'll be fun for you.  You can go full Crockett with it then.  But hey, then maybe Live will be free and you can play the co-op with Creeko.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 27, 2008 4:13 PM
The Bone said: I've been thinking about it lately and I think I prefered Batman Begins over Dark Knight, though Ledger was sweet. Sorry, Bone, you're wrong.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 27, 2008 4:25 PM
Jackzilla said: Radmobile said: Well, I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that y'all will still be playing it just as much in 2 years. Really?  You're gonna start playing once it's a Platinum Hit and we're already mastered it?  Wow.  I'm sure that'll be fun for you.  You can go full Crockett with it then.  But hey, then maybe Live will be free and you can play the co-op with Creeko. And maybe I'll have a 360 by then.  Awesome!!
From: John Entered on: August 27, 2008 6:42 PM
Jackzilla said: The Bone said: I've been thinking about it lately and I think I prefered Batman Begins over Dark Knight, though Ledger was sweet. Sorry, Bone, you're wrong. That was short and sweet but I agree. Batman Begins was sweet but fell short with weaker action scenes and less interesting villians. I can't even dignify Rads comments with a response. Zilla summed it up with he's gone full daff.
From: The Bone Entered on: August 27, 2008 6:43 PM
Jackzilla said: The Bone said: I've been thinking about it lately and I think I prefered Batman Begins over Dark Knight, though Ledger was sweet. Sorry, Bone, you're wrong. I still think 300 is the best comic book movie ever.
From: John Entered on: August 27, 2008 6:48 PM
Good thing Bert is on sabatical, he wasn't a big fan of 300 and may have something to say on the matter.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 27, 2008 6:50 PM
The Bone said: I still think 300 is the best comic book movie ever. Bert thinks the director is a duche, so it can't be any good.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 27, 2008 6:52 PM
300 was horrid.  The closest I came to really LOVING a comic book movie was Iron Man.  Otherwise they're entertaining.  They don't blow my mind.  Hollywood has a hard time beating my brain when it comes to visualizing a comic book. Until the fire alarm, it did appear as if I was going to really like Dark Night. I still think Neil Gaiman should make a Sandman movie.
From: Bunky Entered on: August 27, 2008 8:16 PM
Good Lord! It has gone from primal to mental in here! This may call for an intervention! Rad's gone full crazy! Rad, may I suggest a sabbatical leave for you? It appears you need rest and have become delusional! I think all that frooking is starting to take a toll on you. Sabbatical Definition Sab·bati·cal (sə bat′i kəl) adjective of or suited to the Sabbath bringing a period of rest that recurs in regular cycles If Ross were around, I would be giving him shit for taking a religious holiday of sorts! First off, Gears of War 2 is no Viva Pinata boys. You are going to be waiting a long time before that shit joins the $19.99 Platinum collection. As far the Dark Knight, what is not to love about the plot? Ledger is a maniac running around throughout the film creating havoc. Rad you are too sweet for me to unleash the verbal wrath. I can only hope you will reconsider Gears 2 and we can work through the Dark Knight issue.
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 28, 2008 7:45 AM
Minor Spoiler Warning NickNick: Well for one thing, the cell phone plan.  The only part of that I bought was tapping into cell phones to find the Joker, which seems like sonar wouldn't be as necessary as simple voice recognition.  Even if you could get cell phones to map out an area like that, you'd still have to sift through screens and screens of information to find anything which, to me, seems like it wouldn't be any faster than hitting the streets and shouting Joker's name.  It seems like they just wanted an excuse to give Batman some glowing eyes. Don't get me wrong.  I liked the movie.  I just don't think it was any more entertaining or well done than Iron Man or Hellboy II.  I already said Ledger was sweet.  I wouldn't change a thing about his role in the film.  As for Gears, I'm not planning necessarily to wait for the 20 buck brand (though that would be ideal).  I'm simply not buying it right away unless I get a special price.  Otherwise it can wait for a while anyway.  Maybe I'll put it on our wedding gift registry.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 28, 2008 7:47 AM
Ha ha ha ha.  That's awesome.  Your registry is going to be nothing but video games.
From: John Entered on: August 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Radmobile said: Minor Spoiler Warning NickNick: Well for one thing, the cell phone plan. The only part of that I bought was tapping into cell phones to find the Joker, which seems like sonar wouldn't be as necessary as simple voice recognition. Even if you could get cell phones to map out an area like that, you'd still have to sift through screens and screens of information to find anything which, to me, seems like it wouldn't be any faster than hitting the streets and shouting Joker's name. It seems like they just wanted an excuse to give Batman some glowing eyes.   Is this any more unrealistic than a man flying around in an iron suit or a creature from hell. This part of the plot was a minor aspect to the movie and to harp on is full crazy. This is easy to overlook given that the Dark Knight was a much more powerful movie than either of the two you mentioned. Don't get me wrong, I like Iron Man and Hellboy II but they were not in the same league as the Dark Knight. It's all opinion really and this is just mine however given the fact that the Dark Knight is sitting just outside the 500 million mark I'd say I'm not the only one. When Oscar time rolls around I think The Dark Knight might get a few more nods than Iron Man or Hellboy II.
From: Radmobile Entered on: August 28, 2008 12:00 PM
For me, part of the appeal of Batman is supposed to be that it's based in reality.  Plus it's not just that it's a far fetched premise.  It's an arbitrary one.  Ah well I guess I can't win this one.  Something to consider with Dark Knights sales though, is people's morbid curiosity in seeing Ledger's posthumous role.  Sorry if that's in poor taste but it certainly plays at least a minor role in sales. Dark Knight was a impressive movie.  It just wasn't the perfect masterpiece you guys are making it out to be.  That's obviously just my opinion of things though so I'll let everyone else get back to sucking each other's dicks over how sweet it was.
From: BigFatty Entered on: August 28, 2008 1:59 PM
You know.... I am going to lean towards the Rad and Bone camp.  I loved the movie, but I think I liked Batman Begins better.  This one was great, but it just doesn't ice my cake all the way around. Batman Begins was the first Batman done right.  I had a stronger emotional attachment to it.  The fight scenes were my only criticism, but it really did not matter to me.  Dark Knight was technically better in many areas, and Health Ledger's performance was legendary.  Dark Knight did not grab me like the first one did. Johnny, stop your Box Office logic.  If you keep going that route you will soon come to the conclusion that Titanic was the greatest movie of all time!  Popularity and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand. Rad one addition to your last line would make the sentence perfect: I'll let everyone else get back to sucking each other's dicks and saying how sweet it was.
From: The Bone Entered on: August 28, 2008 3:24 PM
The first Batman was slightly less cartoonish (not that DK was overboard). I prefer that style. As for 300, maybe my attachments stems from my affinity for the stroy. As a warrior, I can relate. Probably why none of you like it as much. Haha, I'm still an arsehurl.
From: BigFatty Entered on: August 28, 2008 3:50 PM
Here is Bone's favorite part of '300'.  He always gets a chubby when he watches:   Oh Xerxes.. <sigh>.. us warriors really need to stick together.  We are the only ones that understand each other.  You know right where it hurts after a hard day of warrioring.  Plus only warriors have strong enough hands to squeeze me hard.  Yes, us warriors are big, strong, and tough.  A little lower...  mmmmm, yes.  Thats great.  Tonight, can you hold me close afterwards and whisper how strong I am in my ear?
From: John Entered on: August 28, 2008 5:56 PM
You're full crazy Fatty, Batman Begins was no where near as powerful a movie as The Dark knight. Some of this has to do with Ledger's perfomance but also Ekhart. It was just more intense, period. As far as the box office goes Rad is right some of it has to do with Ledger's death. Every scene with the Joker was so much more intense than any scene in Batman Begins. That alone made it a better movie for me. When he puts his knife in the mouth of the black gangster I was on the edge of my seat. Hell, right from the begining with the bank scene it just set it up for all the sweetness. The semi flipping, the Batpod, Batman whupping ass with more authority I mean I could go on and on about why I like this movie so much and my enthusiasm cannot be tempered.
From: Bunky Entered on: August 28, 2008 7:47 PM
I am with you Bells. F the Fats! If he were in the States, I would blame it on Mad Cow Disease. Get that boy some 100% USDA grade beef before we have to commit him! Rad, I recommend logging out of JA each time you exit the page. It appears that someone is using your account to post some crazy shit! Hook Annie up with her own account. I have never heard Rad say as much as he has typed in the last two days! You skipped the Primal Debate and saved your verbal ass whoopin' for this? That's crazy in itself!
From: NickNick Entered on: August 28, 2008 9:16 PM
The Bone said: The first Batman was slightly less cartoonish (not that DK was overboard). I prefer that style. Because 300 was striking in it's realistic presentation.  No CGI at all.
From: RobotSpider Entered on: August 29, 2008 7:26 AM
NickNick said: Because 300 was striking in it's realistic presentation.  No CGI at all. Anyone who goes to a movie (any movie) to see a realistic presentation of anything is either a motard or a black-turtleneck-wearing-film-student (the turtleneck is black, not (necessarily) the student). Are we going to start taking points away from movies based on the amount of CGI they use?  I think the more important criterion is how well it is used (e.g. light-sabers in Star Wars movies: good, Jar-Jar: bad).  At least 300 didn't hide its use of CGI.  It embraced it, whispered sweet nothings in its ear, then finger-banged it and told all its friends.  Why stop at CGI? Why don't we take away everything that makes movies unrealistic: Camera perspectives, lighting, scenery, scripts, traditional special-effects, hell even actors.  I'm taking the argument to the extreme, but I think too many movies get panned for their use of CGI, but no one (well, few people) ever mention weak plot, shitty acting, stilted dialogue, etc.  It's like being racist--when there are so many legitimate reasons to hate something, why focus on just one aspect? Remove the CGI from 300 and what do you have?  Weak plot, shitty acting, stilted dialogue... I would argue that the CGI is the only redeeming quality about it!  Visually, it'll blow your fucking mind.  My only question about 300 is this; so, who had to clean out the "THIS....IS....SPARTA" pit? Man, sorry NickNick, I gotta stop posting after pounding Red Bulls...
From: John Entered on: August 29, 2008 8:42 AM
NickNick said: The Bone said: The first Batman was slightly less cartoonish (not that DK was overboard). I prefer that style. Because 300 was striking in it's realistic presentation. No CGI at all. I agree with you NN, the fact of the matter is this, 300 was much more cartoonish than either Batman Begins or Dark knight. In fact it seems quite the contradictory statement to say you prefer one Batman movie over the other based on it's cartoonish style and then tout 300 as your favorite comic book movie. Cartoonish doesn't bother me at all so I rather liked 300 with it's shitty acting and poor script however not nearly as much as either Batman movie with their great acting and powerful script.  Still for me and yes I realize I'm reiterating myself, I like Dark Knight better because it was more tense and dramatic than it's predecessor. The scope of The Dark Knight was more epic than the first and the fact that Fatty and Bone can't recognize this is beyond me. I'm just going to say it, The Dark Knight for me was hands down the best comic book movie. I loved it's complexity and rich characterization, a good man going bad because of circumstance and though he was good there was a perceived darkness in him to begin with. A hero who doesn't see himself as such and ponders his own motives. Then he's faced with unimaginable sacrifice . A good cop surrounded by so much corruption and yet he's steadfast in trying to clean it up. There's tragedy that one hero has to overcome and yet another succombs to. A terrorist like villian bent on the destruction of the human spirit. Come on Rad, this is a superb movie even with it's minor plot failings. Obviously I really loved this movie and say what you will, Rad, Bone and Fatty, I will defend my position on this. I realize this is all a matter of opinion and mine is no better or worse than any of you, but I just wanted to more clearly state why I like this movie so much.
From: Swerb Entered on: August 29, 2008 8:38 AM
Good point, Robot... However, I think what some people dislike about CGI - myself included - is that with it, anything is possible. It takes some of the fun out of moviegoing when you can look at some crazy stunt and just shrug, "Oh, that's CGI." There was a time in the movies when you'd see something amazing, and wonder exactly how the hell the filmmakers pulled it off. This comes back to Dark Knight - one of the things that makes it great is its lack of reliance on CGI. When the semi flips over, it's a real semi. It has a more visceral impact, and contributes greatly to our suspension of disbelief. That being said, the use of CGI for stylistic reasons, e.g., 300, is something I'd never pooh-pooh. It's used to create a world completely unlike our own, and yes, contributes greatly to our suspension of disbelief. Or, it at least gives us some seriously (and I hesitate to use this word) artistic eye candy.
From: Swerb Entered on: August 29, 2008 8:42 AM
John said:   Obviously I really loved this movie and say what you will, Rad, Bone and Fatty, I will defend my position on this. I realize this is all a matter of opinion and no better or worse than any of you, but I just wanted to more clearly state why I like this movie so much. I totally agree with Bells here. But I need to add that great movies provoke a physical response, too - with Dark Knight, it was goosebumps. When a cynical moviegoer gets chills, it fuckin' means something...
From: John Entered on: August 29, 2008 8:46 AM
Swerb said: John said: Obviously I really loved this movie and say what you will, Rad, Bone and Fatty, I will defend my position on this. I realize this is all a matter of opinion and no better or worse than any of you, but I just wanted to more clearly state why I like this movie so much. I totally agree with Bells here. But I need to add that great movies provoke a physical response, too - with Dark Knight, it was goosebumps. When a cynical moviegoer gets chills, it fuckin' means something... I too got goosebumps during Dark Knight and so did Jeurge, so yeah, I'd say it fuckin' means something.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 29, 2008 9:09 AM
My point of CGI in 300 wasn't that it was used.  The style in which it was presented in 300 just made the environment seem otherworldly to me.  I was just responding to Bone's comment about Batman seeming cartoony.  I liked 300, but the whole movie just had a dreamlike quality to it.  Wether it was the cinematography, the CGI, or the monotone colorations of some scenes.  I don't know.  But in terms of having a real, textured quality to the film, I just felt that Batman Begins had a much more "realistic" feel to it. Granted, 300 was probably made that way to reflect the feel of the comic.  When done correctly, as it was in 300 or Sin City, it makes for a fun movie.  When not done correctly (Hulk) it sucks and I can't enjoy the movie because that's all I notice. As for Dark Knight.  I will have to agree with Josh on the whole box office comment.  Morbind curiosity, along with critics absolutely going crazy over his Joker, contributed to the success of the movie. You want a good example of CGI, check out The Last Starfighter.  That CGI was fantastic!!  (before anyone's resonse to this last comment, please be aware that I have been known to use sarcasm now and then.)
From: RobotSpider Entered on: August 29, 2008 12:57 PM
Swerb said: Good point, Robot... However, I think what some people dislike about CGI - myself included - is that with it, anything is possible. It takes some of the fun out of moviegoing when you can look at some crazy stunt and just shrug, "Oh, that's CGI." There was a time in the movies when you'd see something amazing, and wonder exactly how the hell the filmmakers pulled it off. Yeah, I understand the argument, but if you look deeper at the comparison, I don't think it's a valid criticism. Essentially what your (collective 'your', not pointing fingers at anyone specifically) argument boils down to is this: When a few dozen model-makers and artists get together and design effects, story-board them, refine them and finally sit down to glue and paint them, it's artistic.   When a few dozen model-makers and artists get together and design effects, story-board them, refine them, and give the designs to a few dozen programmers so they can transform the creative, artistic vision of the design team into 0's and 1's and, ideally, make it integrate visually with the rest of the movie, it's somehow taking the easy way out. I'm not in the movie industry, but I've read enough about movie and game design to know that the only step that changes when you move traditional effects to CGI is the final implementation (i.e. gluing vs. coding).  When I see a movie with good CGI, I DO wonder how the filmmakers programmers pulled it off.  CGI is no less expensive, usually not faster, and only somewhat more efficient than traditional effects.  Now, granted, with a computer/programming background maybe I'm assigning credit to things that most people don't think about.  But my first real hint that creating CGI is an art came from reading how the designers at Pixar wrote the code to 'comb' Sully's fur in Monsters Inc: Rendering Sully kept slowing their render time to a crawl (it's not like a video game generated in real-time, each 'frame' can take hours of render time) because his fur would get messed up and trying to resolve the complex mathematics required to 'un-tangle' his fur nearly stopped production entirely.  So their internal tools programmers wrote a special application that was responsible for catching and resolving the tangles so they could finish the movie, and produce extremely reactive fur. I'd just argue that it's easy to simplify 'CGI' to its acronym without really appreciating what that really means.  CGI doesn't happen when you open the software and pick some clipart.  Everything you see not only has to be designed, but some very smart people have to write the tools to bring it into existence. I'll save the rest of my argument for the paperback edition.
From: BigFatty Entered on: August 29, 2008 3:03 PM
I will admit, you pick a good argument AND a pleasant font.  It is nice to see that someone can still select a pleasing san serif.  I might be embarassing myself... aren't you using Helvetica?  It really is an underappreciated font.  I am glad you are bringing it back.  Everyone today just goes Arial.....  You have some class my friend.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 29, 2008 3:50 PM
I'm sorry.  Did you just say that Helvetica was an underappreciated font?!?  You mean, the "most used font around the world/I have my own documentary" brand of Helvetica?  Surely you jest. I prefer Comic Sans.  Actually, I use Kirbyshand in my comics but that wasn't available in the limited drop down box provided by the absent Ross.
From: BigFatty Entered on: August 29, 2008 4:33 PM
Nothing like the mention of fonts to bring out the true geekdom.  Well played NN.  You could pass for a Communications Major too.
From: NickNick Entered on: August 29, 2008 8:47 PM
Thanks for the praise, Fats. :)  Nothing like a semester of studying the evolution of fonts and their relationship with design.  $40k gives me access to that kind of powerful knowledge.