Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matt

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 309
136
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Top 5 Hotties
« on: May 5, 2012, 10:34 AM »
As the world's biggest Kate Upton Masturbator...you probably already saw this?

http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/05/kate-upton-had-out-takes/

Yeah, I guess, but I don't masturbate to Kate anymore, she's too mainstream.

There's this new chick I'm masturbating to.  I'd tell you her name but you probably haven't heard of her yet.

137
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Top 5 Hotties
« on: May 4, 2012, 02:03 AM »
I was masturbating to Kate Upton before it was cool to masturbate to Kate Upton.

<--The Masturbating Hipster

138
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: The let's get JediMAC to post again thread
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:51 PM »
I found him on Facebook, but he's got his access set to "friends only."  But here's his profile pic, at least:



Shame about his hairline.   :-\

139
You can come in at any point in Head and go WTF???!!! Its basically a series of skits with no relation to one another. Its kind of like the one the Beetles made around the same time.

Well, they were a major influence on The Beatles.

140
Jar Jarbonite.

141
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Re: XBox 360
« on: February 7, 2012, 11:31 PM »
Star Wars Kinect has been pushed to 2012.

Kinect Star Wars Bundle & Game being released April 3rd

$450 for the bundle.  Yeowch.  Hopefully they'll release that controller separately.

And if you ever wanted to dance with the Dark Lord, the game now includes a super-sweet dance mode:

Quote
· New Galactic Dance Off mode loaded with Star Wars-themed pop tunes where those still honing their Jedi skills can take a break to battle Darth Vader on the dance floor or bust a move “Solo style.”




142
You'll shoot your eye out.

Reminds me of a movie.  Can't quite put a finger on it  Seems strangely seasonal.  :-X

You're thinking of The Godfather.



But I wouldn't really consider it a Christmas movie, per se, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

143
Google News doesn't mention anything.  Sure it's not one of those Norm MacDonald fake stories?

Sir, I would never knowingly post false news of a celebrity dying.

144
Star Wars Universe / Re: Star Wars on Blu-Ray
« on: September 21, 2011, 03:09 PM »
I, for one, think that the 90 minutes of spoofs more than make up for the lack of those boring old documentaries.

145
No, it's Depeche Mode.  And yes, they all died in a plane crash in the Alps last night.

147
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Everything Rebelscum
« on: September 19, 2011, 07:40 PM »
Good point, name.  I'd forgotten his "." phase...  What a fucko.

Was it a phase, or was it just his unique way of rage-quitting the boards after everybody made fun of his definition of "tumbleweed?"


(It's too bad the GH forums have **** the bed, by the way.)

148
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Everything Rebelscum
« on: September 19, 2011, 03:32 PM »
I have a newfound appreciation for the way JD handles the boards for the older lines after looking at this:





Seriously, Pappy, make that older **** collapsible already.



(P.S. I still miss you, Sergiu.  :-[

149
Star Wars Universe / Re: 'Star Wars' in 3-D?
« on: September 19, 2011, 02:41 PM »
Could that return be affected though, by the fact that these movies just needed tweaking compared to full production?  Or is it sill going to be super expensive to try?

This article indicates that 2-D to 3-D conversions usually cost around a million dollars or less:

How Do You Convert a Flat Movie Into 3-D?

And this was from the article I posted earlier:

 
Quote
If you ask the medium's most dedicated evangelists what's wrong with 3-D, they'll point to the shoddy, post-production upgrades that flooded the market after Avatar. "It was just being applied liked a layer, purely for profit motive," said James Cameron, who rates the quality of 3-D in dimensional fractions, 2.2-D or 2.5-D. According to this theory, high-end, "real" 3-D sells itself, while the crappy, cash-in conversions—the "fake" 3-D—destroys the brand.

Again, there's some supporting evidence. Using information gleaned from http://www.RealOrFake3D.com, it's possible to compare box-office numbers from converted and native 3-D films: Since 2010, "real" films have an average ratio of 1.00, meaning they earn about the same amount from 3-D and 2-D on a per-theater basis. The "fake" films from that period had an average ratio of 0.87, which equates to minus-13 percent. It's also the case that fakeness is on the rise—it now accounts for about half of all 3-D releases—which could explain the general worsening of 3-D returns.

There was something in Brian's post I quoted about how all six films have already been converted to 3-D.  If that's true, and Phantom Menace tanks next year, I can see them scrapping the one-a-year plan and instead releasing them all next year, within a few weeks or a month of each other--like they did in '97--in honor of "the franchise's" 35th anniversary.  If they're already done.

150
Star Wars Universe / Re: 'Star Wars' in 3-D?
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:16 AM »
"Star Wars 3D May Be One and Done"

http://movies.ign.com/articles/117/1176583p1.html

According to this article, which cites and interview with Rick McCallum, although all six have been converted and prepared for release, if the first release (Phantom Menace) "doesn't work" (which I'm guessing means makes money), we may not see the other ones.  Who knows how true this is, but that would stink if TPM was the only release we saw.  Sort of wish they would have started with ANH.  I can understand why they would go in numerical order, but if they wanted the most successful release I think that the original Star Wars would be the best bet.  I'm pretty sure it made (pretty easily) the most of the special edition releases as well, and I think it may be the same way this time around.

Not looking good for a release of all six movies, if these graphs are any indication.

Quote
The updated graph below shows almost every major 3-D release since the beginning of 2009. The ratio of 3-D revenue to 2-D revenue per theater is shown on the Y-axis, and the dotted red line represents the break-even point. The trend that was beginning to take shape last summer has deepened in the last few months. (Data exclude any film that opened at fewer than 1,500 locations, and films with "3-D" in the title, which only a fool would see on a flat screen.)





Story:  Slate: Who Killed 3-D?


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 309