|AOL TV||25 Comments|
|Download Squad||21 Comments|
|Joystiq Nintendo||1 Comment|
|Big Download||5 Comments|
|Scifi Squad||1 Comment|
Aug 18th 2010 8:30PM It's funny how these directors can craft such great movies on such low budgets while Hollywood throws hundreds of millions at talentless actors, "actresses" whoose only talent is their willingness to take their clothes off and idiotic directors who stick to the same cliches or make plain crappy movies.
Imagine if Monsters does as well as District 9 at the box office! It has got to be a wake up call to Hollywood.
It'd be great if Hollywood ditched the talentless actresses and actors and started picking up more young actors from theater backgrounds(the British acting scene is a minefield of talent).
Then they could do away with talentless directors and hire guys like Bloggkamp, give them a fifth of the budget and make healthier returns. A man can dream right?
Jul 10th 2010 9:29PM Yeah this is the end of his career. Look at how badly Mike Tyson's fights sold when he came out of jail for rape or how much Michael Jackson struggled to sell 800 thousand concert tickets in a few hours for his last tour months after being accused for the second time of being a peadofile.
Oscar Wilde once said "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
He'll be fine even if he ends up in jail for doing something illegal etc.
I think his biggest mistake and most costly one is not taking the role for Mad Max 4. Older actors don't often get big roles in big budget movies. It's more of a problem for actresses but its an issue for actors too. Gibson needed to take that role and he had no reason for turning it down from what I can gather.
Either way if his career is over he made more money than most actors will ever see(including one year where he set a new record for what an actor has made in a year) and if it isn't some idiotic agent is going to lose a lot of money(most Hollywood agencies are blind to upcoming stars. Nobody saw Robert Pattison making what he is now. They also missed the likes of Sean Connery, Emma Watson, Christian Bale and Gerard Butler).
Mel is going to always be Mel. I really don't give a fuck what he does. If he stars in crap movies I won't watch them. If he stars in good movies I will. That simple.
Got enough to worry about with the recession his life doesn't concern me at all.
Jul 7th 2010 1:13PM I'm not sure how to feel about this. Excited on the one hand but there has never been a car that measured up to the F1 let alone exceed the F1. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the one to doubt the geniuses at McLaren but maybe they should call this car something else. After all if it is dubbed as the successor to the F1 it may very well be damn near impossible to live up to that moniker.
I'm personally a big fan of the philosophies car companies like McLaren and Bugatti have chased for all these years. Hell I know no mere mortal will ever own anything either company makes but these companies used to push the envelope of what is possible all the time. I thought that era was gone. Maybe it is but it seems like McLaren and Bugatti are once again at the forefront of a new era.
Bring on the Super Veyron and F1 successor. I'll never get to drive either but its okay I can just drool over the pictures.
Jul 1st 2010 1:29PM The Star Wars retards will probably ruin this vote.
Star Wars was the most over rated piece of junk in history. George Lucas took ideas from every other good sci-fi book and bought them to the movie industry.
Since a lot of Americans don't read they had never seen anything quite like Star Wars before so it defined their understanding of sci-fi.
The Dark Knight had 2 very good actors and a great director behind them. They took an ancient concept and reinvented it without dumbing it down to please every retard who has never picked up a book.
The Dark Knight was fitting to the legacy of Batman while Star Wars was made for illiterate morons who know nothing of Isaac Asimov, H.G. Wells or Vernes.
Jun 30th 2010 7:10PM That would be a hell of a garage to walk around in. Don't they also have a McLaren F1 GTR in there somewhere?
Not hard to see how much sitting in Sennas car means to Hamilton. He obviously has a huge amount of respect for Senna.
Jun 30th 2010 6:40PM Emma Watson, Danielle Radcliffe and Rupert Grint are all very good at what they do.
A lot of British actors get their start in theater so they do quite well in Hollywood. Not many British actors in Hollywood I think but there have been some good ones in the past.
I think if Emma Watson, Danielle Radcliffe and Rupert Grint wanted to pursue a career they could be quite successful. Only thing is British actors seem to star in all sorts of obscure movies just for fun rather than focus on what will make them the most money. It's a strange phenomenon a lot more common amongst British actors.
Jun 22nd 2010 4:09PM I wouldn't read too much into this, it is coming from James May. Clarkson, May and Hammond all have creative input alongside Andy Wilman and steer the direction the show goes.
I think May probably had a few words to get himself put into a few more serious roles but I doubt it means the show is changing very much overall as Clarkson and Hammond also have creative input.
Jun 18th 2010 7:38PM It's just another high budget Hollywood turd. No matter how much you shine a turd its still a turd.
If you want to really learn about Cleopatra you wouldn't watch a big budget Hollywood movie. It's like watching 300 to learn more about the Battle of Thermopylae before you hand in your paper.
Just take the movie for what it is. Big budget action. If you want to learn more about Cleopatra don't watch the crap that Hollywood put out pick up a book.
Jun 11th 2010 12:09PM @Xstream
The average person doesn't have a 58 inch/116 inch set. If your TV is 32 inches big your not going to notice the difference between 720P and 1080P. To make matters worse if the content you are looking at is low bitrate then your going to struggle even more to tell the difference.
With a 116 inch set you are certainly going to be able to tell the diffrence between 1 megapixel, 2 megapixels and 33 megapixels. Obviously squeezing 33 megapixels into a 32 inch TV(I believe thats the most popular size in HDTVs around the world) is not going to do that resolution justice.
Jun 11th 2010 9:48AM @Paul Elmy
lol i love when people say "OMG this is too much". I bet the first gigabyte hard drive you saw gave you a heart attack. 33 megapixels is still low by the standards of your eyes.
A little rough math:
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
Hmm yeah your eye can see quiteee a bit more than 33 megapixels. I think the team of scientists working on these displays would be fairly knowledgable about this.
I bet youd have a heart attack if you knew what the resolution of very high quality 35MM or very high quality 70MM was.
Heres a good article on the human eye: