the vynsane asylum

anarky wrote:The same critics who panned Speed Racer are loving this. Therefore, it sucks. I've always jokingly said you have to go with the opposite of what critics think, but, recently, it looks like it's becoming the gospel truth.

That's not necessarily true with everyone. I think NY Daily News gave "Speed Racer" and "Crystal Skull" the same rating (3 1/2 stars, I believe).

Dude, where the hell do you find those animated banners for your signature? That new one is fucking off the chain, yo!

Is that Samuel L from A Time to Kill or Black Snake Moan, or am I totally wrong on both?

anarky wrote:Dude, where the hell do you find those animated banners for your signature? That new one is fucking off the chain, yo!

Is that Samuel L from A Time to Kill or Black Snake Moan, or am I totally wrong on both?

I actually have a bunch of them saved on my computer. A lot of them I found around MySpace.

And I think it could be Sammy from Black Snake Moan, even though I haven't seen either of those movies.

And here's an Indiana Jones gif. I thought it would be appropriate for this thread:

anarky wrote: Rogue Deuce, don't let the negativity about IJ4 hamper your enjoyment of the first three. X3 doesn't make X-Men and X2 bad movies, so IJ4 won't make those three any less great than they are.

I guess it came out wrong. Because of the BS surrounding IJ4, I'm just hesitant on watching the original 3. It is probably because I saw an interview with Harrison Ford yesterday and he threw out every movie interview cliché in the book. It kind of pissed me off. Then it came down to 5 new DVDs that I haven't watched yet. I wanted a comedy, so I watched Slapshot. (and as far as I'm concerned, there is no sequel to Slapshot).

Then today, I was at Target and walked through the PC games aisle. This game caught my eye and made me giggle. Looks like a school girl beat Indy to the punch.

Funny, GG, I've not seen either, either. They're both on my list. A Time to Kill is supposed to be a great film, and Black Snake Moan involves three of my favorite things: Samuel L Jackson, Mississippi blues, and Christina Ricci in very little clothing.

anarky wrote:Christina Ricci in very little clothing.

I just cannot get into that! She'll always be little Wednesday Adams to me!

She's now big Wednesday Addams, with big hooters.

And her forehead is way too fucking big.

anarky wrote: I have to wonder why they took pains to delete the older Indy scenes from the DVDs of the Young Indiana Jones series. Mind you, I thought the show looked iffy way back when, and wasn't about to pay for them, but have since seen a few scattered episodes on History International (why???) and some of the "older Indy" scenes on YouTube.

My immediate guess is they contradict something in the new movie, and we know how Lucas likes to revise history and pretend no one remembers or has a record of how things were before to prove him wrong.

I doubt it would contradict anything, as the "old Indy" shit was set in 1992 (and I assume other ones I've not seen were set later, more or less the time the show was aired) and Crystal Skull is 1957. Maybe the 50-year-old Indy stuff contradicts, but I doubt it (I haven't seen it so I don't know anyway). Maybe he just deleted since those parts sucked?

I watched Last Crusade last night. Still good, but not quite as good as the first time I saw it for some reason. It lacked a certain . . . Short Round quality to it. Elsa was fuckin' hot but a bitch and Willie was annoying as fuck, but Marion was the shit and I'm glad she's back in the new one. (She's also still lookin' pretty good, for her age at least.)

anarky wrote:Funny, GG, I've not seen either, either. They're both on my list. A Time to Kill is supposed to be a great film, and Black Snake Moan involves three of my favorite things: Samuel L Jackson, Mississippi blues, and Christina Ricci in very little clothing.

Black Snake Moan is fucking awesome.
This is only one small reason why (NSFW).

Indiana Jones and the Lego Ball of Death
or
What Slicker would be doing if he hadn't joined the Navy.

Senor JabbaJohnL wrote:If ghosts fly around and people's hearts get ripped out but they survive and if Christian stories are interpreted as real then what's the big deal with aliens?

That's my feeling. I read a quote yesterday that really summed up my feelings toward sequels to movies from my childhood- "things that were totally awesome as a matter of first impression rarely have the same effect when you are 30." I tried to tell that to JT once and he immediately went into lecture mode. I really believe it, though. When Mola Ram pulled that dude's heart out... holy crap! If I were to see it as a matter of first impression now? Meh.

Being old kinda sucks. Take a kid to see the new Indy.

It's not entirely being old. Special effects were once amazing and groundbreaking, but have become old hat.

There's very little that can be done from an SFX perspective, aside from making the CG that they're too reliant on look less like ass. Pretty much anything that anyone can come up with, the director's like, "We'll do it in CG!" And they don't realize how shitty it looks, though everyone else seems to.

I think it's funny how you can look at Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 or even Willow, and, in a lot of respects, the CG looks like it's from a new movie. In some ways it's the staying power of those movies, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that CG really hasn't advanced as far as folks like to pretend.

anarky wrote:There's very little that can be done from an SFX perspective, aside from making the CG that they're too reliant on look less like ass. Pretty much anything that anyone can come up with, the director's like, "We'll do it in CG!" And they don't realize how shitty it looks, though everyone else seems to.

I think its more of the easier and less risky thing to do these days. There are some effects today that are near impossible to do believably with non-CGI effects, so the directors (or whomever) are willing to take the risk of having CGI that looks less than perfect over having a puppet that still looks like a puppet.

With T2 and Jurassic Park they didn't have much of a choice but to make it look incredible or that would have a huge blow to the future of CGI.

True. However, stunts that can be done in "the real world" without being a severe danger should be done that way instead of by CG. Until CG advances considerably more, there's no sense of danger. Spielberg should know this; he's even argued that way in the past. In other words (using one of the latest TV spots as an example), if Indy's going over a waterfall, have Harrison or a stuntman go over a waterfall. Don't have him flailing like a nitwit on a greenscreen and then digitally add a fake-ass waterfall.

If nothing else, you'd think they'd finally have gotten the lighting down. As much as I dislike the film, I think General Grievous is the only CG character I can think of since Jurassic Park who didn't look absolutely fake due to lighting issues. (And he still had some flaws, particularly with his eyes, which seem to be this impossible task for CG artists.)