Geek S**T SEVEN

Off Topic
961

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
They should just drop Chuck Norris then. He won’t be missed.

You know movie studios are on board with getting PG-13 ratings because it means more sales and more money. So I’m sure it was easy for Norris to get a PG-13 rating.[/quote]

I don’t think they should drop him outright. They should give him an epic entrance then kill him off straightaway as a nod to his invincible image.

[/quote]Yeah, Norris would walk up to the Expendables and say something about how swearing is bad for the kids. Schwarzenegger would pull out his shotgun, tell him to fuck off and blow his head off.
[/quote]

That would be such an epic scene.

If that is good enough to convince me to go see the movie at the cinema, then fuck Yes!
[/quote]

I don’t understand how Chuck Norris has so much say in this. Why would he sign up for a movie like The Expendables in the first place if he was so against the tone, and why would Stallone want him?[/quote]

He doesn’t. Going to PG-13 will mean an ultimately bigger box office/DVD sales because of all the young kids who wanted to watch the first one, snuck in, finally saw it, etc. Plus it may open the door for toys/comics/merchandising. I doubt it is a case of Chuck coming on and managing to steer the project. I suspect it is a case of letting Chuck be the “face”/scapegoait of a decision to make a hell of a lot of money.

Also,

If Chuck Norris is ever late, time better slow the fuck down.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

I don’t see Stallone selling out that easily. The Expendables was in development for years: it was his dream project and, no matter how it turned out, he worked his balls off to make a modern action movie with the spirit of the '80s running through its veins.

It was intended as a return to old school action so it mystifies me that they’d want to turn the sequel into the sort of movie they were trying to take a stand against. If they wanted money they could’ve sold the first movie on the cast alone, but that wasn’t what they were trying to do.

Maybe the decision to lower the rating has come from higher up and Stallone has little say in it.
On his own merits, Chuck Norris has never been an A-Lister (most of his filmography is straight-to-DVD fare) but the massive pop-cultural appeal from his “facts” sort of makes him the ultimate action star.

As he’s a devout Christian and someone who tries to be a responsible role model for kids, I can see Norris wanting a lower rating, but I don’t see him getting his way unless they were planning it in advance.

Whatever the explanation is, I think it’s a bad move whenever they try to shoehorn a movie into a certain rating. The higher the rating, the more freedom they have. Now, not every movie needs to be ‘R’, but it’s better to allow the content to sit naturally between,say, two classifications and make minor adjustments instead of ripping the guts out of it to make money.

[/quote]

I agree with all of this save the fact that Stallone might be willing to “sell out”. I think money is still appealing to him and seeing his face on toys and comics again may also apeal to his ego. I don’t think it will be anywhere near as much fun at PG-13.

I lack the discipline to boycott it in the theaters. They will have to screw it up much, much worse for that to happen.

Regards,

Robert A

962

[quote]roybot wrote:

We aren’t talking about improvements in medical care, though; we are talking about use/ abuse of personal technology: iphones, internet, etc.
[/quote]

I know, that is exactly what I said. ‘personal technology: iphones, internet, etc.’ are not to blame, people’s use is.

[quote]roybot wrote:
It was quite clear what I meant by physical standards (and I doubt ‘ancient man’ could run a five minute mile and deadlift 600lbs): People are getting fatter, lazier and unfitter. You say that it’s due to uneducated food choices and poor people not being able to afford healthier options. I say that’s an excuse that people like to fall back on, and I’ll explain why.

Comparatively few people truly don’t have any other choice but to live off junk. When you hear obese families say they can’t afford to eat healthily, you hear nothing of the QUANTITIES of food they are consuming. Quality of the food aside, they MUST be overeating, otherwise they would not be that overweight. If they can afford to consume vast quantities of cheap, tasty food, then they can afford moderate amounts of healthier, “pricier” food. If they chose that option.

[/quote]

Again, exactly what I said. People are making a choice to eat that food, ‘technology’ isn’t forcing them to eat that food.

963

- YouTube!

Viral marketing campaign for Godzilla, Coverfield 2 or something else???

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/01/21/strange-sounds-heard-worldwide-is-it-viral-marketing-for-godzilla-cloverfield-2-or-something-else/

If this is Godzilla related the ounds sort of reminded me of Godzilla FInal Wars where he fights every monster that was ever in a Godzilla film, here is the American trialer for it, and yes that is the American Godzilla nicknamed 'Zilla from the bad '98 film

964

[quote]want2getlean wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

We aren’t talking about improvements in medical care, though; we are talking about use/ abuse of personal technology: iphones, internet, etc.
[/quote]

I know, that is exactly what I said. ‘personal technology: iphones, internet, etc.’ are not to blame, people’s use is.

[quote]roybot wrote:
It was quite clear what I meant by physical standards (and I doubt ‘ancient man’ could run a five minute mile and deadlift 600lbs): People are getting fatter, lazier and unfitter. You say that it’s due to uneducated food choices and poor people not being able to afford healthier options. I say that’s an excuse that people like to fall back on, and I’ll explain why.

Comparatively few people truly don’t have any other choice but to live off junk. When you hear obese families say they can’t afford to eat healthily, you hear nothing of the QUANTITIES of food they are consuming. Quality of the food aside, they MUST be overeating, otherwise they would not be that overweight. If they can afford to consume vast quantities of cheap, tasty food, then they can afford moderate amounts of healthier, “pricier” food. If they chose that option.

[/quote]

Again, exactly what I said. People are making a choice to eat that food, ‘technology’ isn’t forcing them to eat that food.
[/quote]

It’s not exactly what you said. You didn’t mention personal technology, iphones or the internet in the point I was responding to : "Dementia is on the decline and life expectancy is at an all time high. " You mentioned dementia and life expectancy only, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

And I’ve already refuted the “means are just means” point you made earlier. Usage is going to dictate how those means develop, so those means will facilitate and amplify the same behaviour by providing a breeding ground of sorts. Human beings in general are actively dumbing down the internet and influencing the behaviour of others. Are these people dumb to begin with or are they doing it because it’s now considered standard conduct on sites like youtube and 4Chan?

Also, I just explained why I don’t believe the rise in obesity can be explained away solely by people being uneducated about food and not being able to afford to eat properly (that is exactly what you said).

As for making a choice, I try to minimize my use of the TV remote and get up to channel surf standing right next to the TV with the handset. Most people use the controller because it’s the easy option and requires less effort than getting up and switching channels the old fashioned way.

I’ve noticed that they’ve taken must of the buttons off the new TVs so you have no choice but to use the remote now. Its a small but significant change that most people either don’t notice or don’t care about. Laziness is being encouraged in very small increments and technology is reflecting that, slowly but surely.

965

[quote]Robert A wrote:
I agree with all of this save the fact that Stallone might be willing to “sell out”. I think money is still appealing to him and seeing his face on toys and comics again may also apeal to his ego. I don’t think it will be anywhere near as much fun at PG-13.

I lack the discipline to boycott it in the theaters. They will have to screw it up much, much worse for that to happen.

Regards,

Robert A

[/quote]

It just seems such a weird time to push for a reduced rating when most of recent movies from Rambo on (except The Zookeeper, which I don’t count as it’s not a Stallone headliner) have all been retro-actioners (his new movie Bullet To The Head doesn’t seem to break that streak). I suppose the real question is how do they expect to deliver an old school test-fest with a kiddy rating?

It’ll be interesting to see how much violence they will get away with.

966

[quote]roybot wrote:
It’s not exactly what you said. You didn’t mention personal technology, iphones or the internet in the point I was responding to : "Dementia is on the decline and life expectancy is at an all time high. " You mentioned dementia and life expectancy only, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
[/quote]

So let me see if I get this straight;
Technology is bad and ‘lowering our physical standards’, as long as I ignore the multitude of advancements in science, medicine, biological engineering, and all the other marvels of technology that have unarguably ameliorated human life, going on blanket statements like ‘personal technology’ is making us ‘dull’?

[quote]roybot wrote:
And I’ve already refuted the “means are just means” point you made earlier. Usage is going to dictate how those means develop, so those means will facilitate and amplify the same behaviour by providing a breeding ground of sorts.
[/quote]

Right… So again we agree that it is humanity itself who is shaping the applications and cultural impact of technoloy.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Human beings in general are actively dumbing down the internet and influencing the behaviour of others. Are these people dumb to begin with or are they doing it because it’s now considered standard conduct on sites like youtube and 4Chan?
[/quote]

Individuals are ‘dumbing down the internet’ as much as Michael Bay films are ‘dumbing down projectors’.
Regarding those two large communities; I can’t understand how you’re surprised that two, high profile, open acess, non selective, communities draw in idiots.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Also, I just explained why I don’t believe the rise in obesity can be explained away solely by people being uneducated about food and not being able to afford to eat properly (that is exactly what you said).
[/quote]

Here is your post where you ‘just explained’ why people are becoming obese:

'Comparatively few people truly don’t have any other choice but to live off junk. When you hear obese families say they can’t afford to eat healthily, you hear nothing of the QUANTITIES of food they are consuming. Quality of the food aside, they MUST be overeating, otherwise they would not be that overweight. If they can afford to consume vast quantities of cheap, tasty food, then they can afford moderate amounts of healthier, “pricier” food. If they chose that option. ’

They are overeating, another active act on their behalf. Glad we’re still on the same page here.

[quote]roybot wrote:
As for making a choice, I try to minimize my use of the TV remote and get up to channel surf standing right next to the TV with the handset. Most people use the controller because it’s the easy option and requires less effort than getting up and switching channels the old fashioned way.

I’ve noticed that they’ve taken must of the buttons off the new TVs so you have no choice but to use the remote now. Its a small but significant change that most people either don’t notice or don’t care about. Laziness is being encouraging in very small increments and technology is reflecting that, slowly but surely.

[/quote]

I always use the remote and feel no need or benefit to ‘getting up and channel surfing right next to the TV’.
What you see as a ‘laziness encouraging increment’ is nothing more than a comfortable option, in which people are free to partake or not.

People still have the option to manually change the channel. And if this impending ‘No Button TV Set’ Doomsday really is true, I’m sure someone who considers manually changing channels of such paramount importance will easily be able to find a TV set which allows him to do so.

967

Does anybody find this interesting?

968

[quote]Nards wrote:
I didn’t even like the first Expendables movie that much.

It was supposed to be an 80s action tribute…where was Jason Statham in the 80s? Sucking men’s (CENSORED) for money to get in the pool.[/quote]

I thought the Expendables was just about perfect.

As for Statham, the same could be said for Randy Couture, Terry Crews, and Steve Austin. Jet Li is debatable if you are just considering American films. Dolph Lundgren only made two good films in the 80s, Rocky IV and View To A Kill. His role in the Bond film was pretty small. All his other movies were pretty much crap (although we did get to see Tia Carrere’s tits, those were nice). I don’t think Dolph made a decent film that he starred in until 2004 or there abouts.

969

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

Does anybody find this interesting? [/quote]

Looks good. I may pick it up if they update the controls.

I thought the next RE game we were supposed to play as an Umbrella Corp kill squad?

970

[quote]want2getlean wrote:
What you see as a ‘laziness encouraging increment’ is nothing more than a comfortable option, in which people are free to partake or not.

People still have the option to manually change the channel. And if this impending ‘No Button TV Set’ Doomsday really is true, I’m sure someone who considers manually changing channels of such paramount importance will easily be able to find a TV set which allows him to do so.

[/quote]

We are talking about normal people being dulled, not the vanguard of scientific breakthroughs. It’s not “ignoring it” if it’s not relevant. Are the people making these advances the same people Professor X was talking about?

If you think I’m making any blanket statements here, you need to look around you to see how dependent the average person is on technology. It’s something that shouldn’t have to be explained as it’s so commonplace now and its not a positive thing.

The TV remote example was meant to illustrate why choices can and do dictate the means (intially you said that the two were separate). People generally don’t use buttons on the TV anymore so manufacturers are phasing them out. I wasn’t prophezing “button doomsday”. You say that people have a choice, but people will gravitate towards the easy option and they do.

“I see no reason to get off the couch to change the channel - I’ll stay right here while that weird guy makes an effort to get off his ass”. That’s the way the world is going. How much convenience and comfort do we need?

That’s not making a choice. Laziness, by definition requires no effort.

If you don’t believe people are deliberately dumbing down the internet you need to check out Youtube comments or better yet, 4Chan. Actually don’t bother - 4chan’s influence can be felt in nearly every message board on the net. Bet Tim Berners-Lee didn’t see that coming…

971

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

Does anybody find this interesting? [/quote]

Looks good. I may pick it up if they update the controls.

I thought the next RE game we were supposed to play as an Umbrella Corp kill squad?[/quote]

Looking at the game shots, they will no longer have that stop and cant move shoot shit.

Some of the shots almost looked like GOW with the slide up to barrier etc.

Looks like about half way through the video the “kill squad” or mercs comes into play.

RE is such an old favorite, I was really hoping they can recapture what they used to have.

972

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Robert A wrote:
I agree with all of this save the fact that Stallone might be willing to “sell out”. I think money is still appealing to him and seeing his face on toys and comics again may also apeal to his ego. I don’t think it will be anywhere near as much fun at PG-13.

I lack the discipline to boycott it in the theaters. They will have to screw it up much, much worse for that to happen.

Regards,

Robert A

[/quote]

It just seems such a weird time to push for a reduced rating when most of recent movies from Rambo on (except The Zookeeper, which I don’t count as it’s not a Stallone headliner) have all been retro-actioners (his new movie Bullet To The Head doesn’t seem to break that streak). I suppose the real question is how do they expect to deliver an old school test-fest with a kiddy rating?

It’ll be interesting to see how much violence they will get away with.

[/quote]

Columbiana was PG-13. It delivered well on the action front, and I swear there was a nipple in the shower scene. If all it takes to get a PG-13 rating is to avoid a few F-bombs then I’ve got no problem with that. Besides it’s not like there was just a ton of swearing in the first movie.

Edit:
Hanna was PG-13 too. There were plenty of dead bodies and torture victims in that film too.

973

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

Does anybody find this interesting? [/quote]

Looks good. I may pick it up if they update the controls.

I thought the next RE game we were supposed to play as an Umbrella Corp kill squad?[/quote]

Looking at the game shots, they will no longer have that stop and cant move shoot shit.

Some of the shots almost looked like GOW with the slide up to barrier etc.

Looks like about half way through the video the “kill squad” or mercs comes into play.

RE is such an old favorite, I was really hoping they can recapture what they used to have. [/quote]

I never played the games before. I’ve followed the story since I love the zombie genre. Just been waiting for them to release a good game for the Xbox, or I guess PS3 now too.

974

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

Does anybody find this interesting? [/quote]

Looks good. I may pick it up if they update the controls.

I thought the next RE game we were supposed to play as an Umbrella Corp kill squad?[/quote]

Looking at the game shots, they will no longer have that stop and cant move shoot shit.

Some of the shots almost looked like GOW with the slide up to barrier etc.

Looks like about half way through the video the “kill squad” or mercs comes into play.

RE is such an old favorite, I was really hoping they can recapture what they used to have. [/quote]

I never played the games before. I’ve followed the story since I love the zombie genre. Just been waiting for them to release a good game for the Xbox, or I guess PS3 now too. [/quote]

I took a break from gaming from HS for about 6-7 years went from Nintendo until the first PS came out. RE 2 was the first game I played when I got back into console gaming. For the time it was very intense. I have played them all. They had just refused to change the fight engine and looks like they finally decided to get mainstream.

975

[quote]Bujo wrote:
All his other movies were pretty much crap (although we did get to see Tia Carrere’s tits, those were nice). I don’t think Dolph made a decent film that he starred in until 2004 or there abouts. [/quote]

Sorry to be the destroyer of dreams, but Tia had a body double in Showdown in Little Tokyo
:frowning:

I actually liked that movie and Red Scorpion.

976

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Robert A wrote:
I agree with all of this save the fact that Stallone might be willing to “sell out”. I think money is still appealing to him and seeing his face on toys and comics again may also apeal to his ego. I don’t think it will be anywhere near as much fun at PG-13.

I lack the discipline to boycott it in the theaters. They will have to screw it up much, much worse for that to happen.

Regards,

Robert A

[/quote]

It just seems such a weird time to push for a reduced rating when most of recent movies from Rambo on (except The Zookeeper, which I don’t count as it’s not a Stallone headliner) have all been retro-actioners (his new movie Bullet To The Head doesn’t seem to break that streak). I suppose the real question is how do they expect to deliver an old school test-fest with a kiddy rating?

It’ll be interesting to see how much violence they will get away with.

[/quote]

Columbiana was PG-13. It delivered well on the action front, and I swear there was a nipple in the shower scene. If all it takes to get a PG-13 rating is to avoid a few F-bombs then I’ve got no problem with that. Besides it’s not like there was just a ton of swearing in the first movie.

Edit:
Hanna was PG-13 too. There were plenty of dead bodies and torture victims in that film too.[/quote]

I think I speak for discerning movie fans everywhere when I say nipple slips have no place in movies. It’s full-on gratuity all the way.

977

I don’t care what anyone thinks, but I love the Resident Evil series of movies.

978

[quote]roybot wrote:

Sorry to be the destroyer of dreams, but Tia had a body double in Showdown in Little Tokyo
:frowning:
[/quote]

What the fuck dude?!?! You go around on Christmas telling kids that Santa Clause died in a horrible accident involving a chipper shredder.

979

[quote]roybot wrote:

I think I speak for discerning movie fans everywhere when I say nipple slips have no place in movies. It’s full-on gratuity all the way.[/quote]

Completely agree. And if a chick is gonna show one tit, she might as well show the pair together. CoughKristannaLokeninBloodRaynecough

980

[quote]RSGZ wrote:

I don’t care what anyone thinks, but I love the Resident Evil series of movies.[/quote]

So do I. I have always credited the first one for bringing back zombie movies. The whole zombie thing had died off until then…then they were hot again.

I really only liked the first one and the one in the desert…but I’ve seen all of them and will watch this one.

If it weren’t for Underworld and this…I would be way low on my daily “tight leather gun toting supergirl” requirements.