New Star Trek

by **black francis** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:06 pm

Oh so you have heard.

by **Mr. Brian** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:18 pm

Dr Cheese wrote:They have really bad hair?

The really hot lesbian type glasses makes up for that.

by **black francis** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:31 pm

There is only one reason I continue to subject myself to Comic-Con after all these years: Hot, tattooed, geek goddesses.

by **shadows on the trees** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:11 am

black francis wrote:There is only one reason I continue to subject myself to Comic-Con after all these years: Hot, tattooed, geek goddesses.

I have a scary feeling we know a lot of the same people.

by **black francis** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:09 am

Yeah but they all stopped hanging out with me after I was called a liar by DivaDianna.

Sucks to be me.

by **shadows on the trees** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:59 pm

black francis wrote:Yeah but they all stopped hanging out with me after I was called a liar by DivaDianna.

Sucks to be me.

My sympathies. That must have really hurt.

by **black francis** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:01 pm

Not really. Plus Mr. Brian set her straight.

by **Mr. Brian** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:40 pm

I watched the DVD special features tonight. Surprisingly they tried NOT to use cgi whenever possible and also shot on film rather than on digital to keep it more organic looking. They even purposely heavily used lens flares, by shining lights back into the camera thoughout the movie.

by **shadows on the trees** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:53 pm

Mr. Brian wrote:I watched the DVD special features tonight. Surprisingly they tried NOT to use cgi whenever possible and also shot on film rather than on digital to keep it more organic looking. They even purposely heavily used lens flares, by shining lights back into the camera thoughout the movie.

That explains a lot- I HATE cg. It's the modern equivalent of claymation, only worse.

by **black francis** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:27 am

Mr. Brian wrote:I watched the DVD special features tonight. Surprisingly they tried NOT to use cgi whenever possible and also shot on film rather than on digital to keep it more organic looking. They even purposely heavily used lens flares, by shining lights back into the camera thoughout the movie.

AWOOGA!!! ... AWOOGA!!! ... GEEK ALERT! I REPEAT - GEEK ALERT! ABANDON THREAD! THIS IS NO DRILL ... etc etc.

by **zabird** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:42 pm

shadows on the trees wrote:That explains a lot- I HATE cg. It's the modern equivalent of claymation, only worse.

What? You don't like claymation? Without it, we wouldn't have that clayboy Gumby.

by **withahip** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:18 pm

I want to add that I think the New Sta Trek is one of the best Star Treks ever.

Whereas The Dark Knight does not lend itself to repeated viewing.

by **black francis** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:32 pm

Watchmen does. I pop it on weekly.

by **shadows on the trees** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 pm

zabird wrote:What? You don't like claymation? Without it, we wouldn't have that clayboy Gumby.

No- it disturbs me. I think my dislike of it comes from watching that awful Davie and Goliath show as a kid. Was that a national show, I wonder, or just a Bible Belt special?

by **withahip** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 pm

I rented it and did not regret it. But I have been generally ok about rewatching the X-Men movies (getting a little too much lately), Wolverine, 1st Batman with Mr. Serious -

As a kid I was so diasspointed with every single superhero movie. It would take forever to get the characters on the screen. And when they were on the screen they would battle a missile or and earthquake.

I want to see superheroes doing battle immediately when I see a movie. Even if the special effect are terrible.

Daredevil - wrong actor to play Matt Murdock.

New Star Trek

Who is online