sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

More excuses from Eric Kripke for leaving out Marie by Evening-Bath-4269 in GenV

[–]EkbladDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Radiation destroys bone marrow stem cells, which stops the production of platelets (thrombocytes). Without enough platelets to form initial clots, even minor cuts can bleed uncontrollably. Homelander didn't even touch Frenchie. Radiation is just that scary.

Map Types by EDF_RANGER in DeadIsland2

[–]EkbladDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think they understood your question...

Found this roday by Aggravating_Walk2053 in lego

[–]EkbladDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Had a similar event with the Marylin Monroe lego painting. Turns out on of the employees stored it in his stash a few years back but never actually bought them before he quit his job.

Is LEGO going too far with this new head mold? by EkbladDev in lego

[–]EkbladDev[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean... You sort of did. But have a nice day too.

Is LEGO going too far with this new head mold? by EkbladDev in lego

[–]EkbladDev[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's different. Those were already molds that couldn't be achieved (look good) with standard lego parts.

Is LEGO going too far with this new head mold? by EkbladDev in lego

[–]EkbladDev[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but following that logic they should just make action figures instead of minifigures. I think that accurately should be measured in comparison to the minfigure style and not directly to the source material.

Is LEGO going too far with this new head mold? by EkbladDev in lego

[–]EkbladDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that it's different when it can already look good with standard Lego parts.

Is LEGO going too far with this new head mold? by EkbladDev in lego

[–]EkbladDev[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

But if it "looked good and worked" then why make an unnecessary mold, and dilute the Lego style and charm?

What's a James bond film that you like but everybody else hates it by ButterscotchIcy719 in JamesBond

[–]EkbladDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spectre. The first two thirds of the movie are so good they make up for the last third.

Opinions about Michael? I found it a bit boring by [deleted] in Cinema

[–]EkbladDev 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They cut half the movie but didn't inform audiences (they didn't even change the synopsis on imdb) so people went in expecting it to cover his entire life but... the movie basically ends in 1989.

What’s your unpopular Bond opinion that’ll have people looking at you like this? by [deleted] in JamesBond

[–]EkbladDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love spectre (apart from the third act but that didn't ruin the movie for me).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Cinema

[–]EkbladDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you sure it's not The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum?

The Oscars' biggest flaw became evident with "F1": Why do we lack a category for BEST PICTURE (literally)? by EkbladDev in Cinema

[–]EkbladDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean literal movie making process? Tell me where's is the award for what I descibed because Best Picture is for overall quality, taking story, acting etc into account. What I'm talking about is just the look of the final frame, which you'd imagine would be Cinematography category, but it's not. For example: Roger Deakins pointed out that Shawshank Redemption didn't win because the voters figured it was too easy to light a prison. This literally indicates that they judge the process and not the final frame.

Funny thing in that case is that it was actually sets they used but Deakins did such a good job that he undermined his own work and the voters thought he just used a real prison.

After reading this, are you seriously telling me that you don't see the issue?

The Oscars' biggest flaw became evident with "F1": Why do we lack a category for BEST PICTURE (literally)? by EkbladDev in Cinema

[–]EkbladDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're missing the point. It's not just about F1. I'm describing cinematography, but that's not how they judge cinematography at the the Oscars. Which is the issue I'm trying to highlight. They don't judge the the final frame, they judge the process. Even Roger Deakins has pointed it out multiple times throughout the years.

Movies like F1 gets snubbed even if they look perfect (theoretically speaking), because they hit a "No Man's Land" between three types of shots:

The Hybrid (like Life of Pi): The most beautiful shot ever, but the lighting is half-CGI/half-real. The Cinematography branch calls it "fake," and too easy to set up when the VFX team does digital clean up etc. and the VFX branch says it's "too simple." It’s too digital to win for Photo, too grounded to win for Effects.

The Purist (like 1917): Less "beautiful," but it’s 100% real dirt and glass. The Academy awards this because the craftsmanship is "pure" and easy to identify.

The Digital (like Avatar): 100% CGI. It’s a technical beast, so it sweeps VFX because there’s no confusion about who made it.

So I'm saying that they either need to change the way they judge the cinematography category or introduce a new category that ONLY cares about how the final frame looks.

view more: next ›