crazietalk.net

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

I'm not a prosecutor, but I know one who frequents these parts. Maybe she knows!

devildeac wrote:

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

Personal fowls are called.

Miles wrote:

Lavabe wrote:I am tired of CGI graphics in movies.

You and me both. I'm tired of producers/directors/writers thinking that CGI is a substitute for a great story, great acting, great script, great whatever.

Yes, I'm talking to you James Cameron.

You mean, CGI isn't the same thing as cinematography?

DANG!

devildeac wrote:

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

Personal fowls are called.

Awesome!

Lavabe wrote:

Miles wrote:

Lavabe wrote:I am tired of CGI graphics in movies.

You and me both. I'm tired of producers/directors/writers thinking that CGI is a substitute for a great story, great acting, great script, great whatever.

Yes, I'm talking to you James Cameron.

You mean, CGI isn't the same thing as cinematography?

DANG!

Sadly, I think the Academy recognizes it as such, and so do the Hollywood bigwigs. Kelly and I are going through our Netflix account and front-loading it with classic movies. This weekend we'll be watching "The French Connection". No CGI there!

Miles wrote:Sadly, I think the Academy recognizes it as such, and so do the Hollywood bigwigs. Kelly and I are going through our Netflix account and front-loading it with classic movies. This weekend we'll be watching "The French Connection". No CGI there!

One of the benefits of the 16 hour flight from Jo-burg to Atlanta was the movie selection. I decided to load up on Oscar nominated/winning performances. I finally got to see WALL STREET and NORMA RAE. Simply stellar performances. French Connection was an option, but I chose MONTY PYTHON instead (had to get something light after those two movies). Got to finish up with Patton.

Wow... real film-making with no 3-D/CGI crap!!

Lavabe wrote:Movie review: Over-rated.

Agreed. Granted, it's being hailed as "the best movie EVAR!!!!" by some, so to me over-rated means it was just very good.

Lavabe wrote: Wow... real film-making with no 3-D/CGI crap!!

I think real film-making can be loaded with CGI. It takes incredible talent and artistry to bring what isn't there to life. George Lucas went overboard with it in the prequels, and in my opinion didn't use it very well.
Steven Speilberg used it to perfection in Jurassic Park.
Titanic wouldn't have been the same movie without it, and I love Cameron's ability to create an entirely new, fascinating and yet believable world in Avatar. A really good film maker will be able to use the CGI to enhance the film or tell the story he otherwise couldn't. I find nothing wrong with that.

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

Lavabe wrote: Wow... real film-making with no 3-D/CGI crap!!

I think real film-making can be loaded with CGI. It takes incredible talent and artistry to bring what isn't there to life. George Lucas went overboard with it in the prequels, and in my opinion didn't use it very well.
Steven Speilberg used it to perfection in Jurassic Park.
Titanic wouldn't have been the same movie without it, and I love Cameron's ability to create an entirely new, fascinating and yet believable world in Avatar. A really good film maker will be able to use the CGI to enhance the film or tell the story he otherwise couldn't. I find nothing wrong with that.

I understand your points. And if I want to see Jurassic Park, I would at least expect that. Or if I go to a fantasy movie, I expect it there.

Where I dislike it (and why I got tired and bored with Inception) is when the movie-maker relies on it in lieu of actual photography. Here you have a big movie with precious little photography actually filling up the cinema. I love landscapes. I love seeing a photographer's work fill up the cinema. I don't dismiss the need for art direction and cgi; they can be helpful. But if I want to see THE MATRIX or TRON or AVATAR or any other movie that relies on it ad nauseum, I'll go see it. I was not prepared for it in Inception.

And at a certain point, I agree with you... it's overkill. In the case of Inception, I felt it also distracted from the actual dialog and interaction of actors. In Inception, I was looking for acting among the ensemble... I rarely got it. In how many frames did I actually get two actors actually acting with each other? And it need not be just the two faces in the screen. Maybe it was just me, but the lack of full-body shots of DiCaprio and Cotillard in the same frame just BAFFLED me.

For the amount of attention paid to the cgi, I felt the folks at Inception skimped on film editing, cinematography, and just overall acting.

Pretty much as Usul stated earlier, for a movie to be billed as highly as this one was, I felt it was only a good or very good movie. And after seeing a series of Oscar-winning performances back-to-back, I felt this movie lacked GREATEST MOVIE EVAR status on many categories, including the ones that matter most to me.

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

Lavabe wrote: Wow... real film-making with no 3-D/CGI crap!!

I think real film-making can be loaded with CGI. It takes incredible talent and artistry to bring what isn't there to life. George Lucas went overboard with it in the prequels, and in my opinion didn't use it very well.
Steven Speilberg used it to perfection in Jurassic Park.
Titanic wouldn't have been the same movie without it, and I love Cameron's ability to create an entirely new, fascinating and yet believable world in Avatar. A really good film maker will be able to use the CGI to enhance the film or tell the story he otherwise couldn't. I find nothing wrong with that.

Agreed on most points. My only qualms with Avatar, and they're huge qualms, is that ALL the movie offered was an entirely new, fascinating and yet believable world. Every other aspect of filmmaking that I enjoy and care about were almost non-existent.

I don't think Lucas went overboard with CGI, that's too big of a net to cast. A lot of the CGI in the Star Wars Prequels was awesome. For me, it was that damn Jar-Jar BInks that spoiled the fun, among a few other issues. The CGI that royally sucked was in the digitally remastered, remakes of Episodes IV - VI.

devildeac wrote:

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

Personal fowls are called.

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

devildeac wrote:

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

Personal fowls are called.

Hey, what did you eggpect from a Duke-related sports site?

Miles wrote: I don't think Lucas went overboard with CGI, that's too big of a net to cast. A lot of the CGI in the Star Wars Prequels was awesome. For me, it was that damn Jar-Jar BInks that spoiled the fun, among a few other issues. The CGI that royally sucked was in the digitally remastered, remakes of Episodes IV - VI.

I won't even watch the digitally remastered remakes. I saw them in the theater when I was at Duke, and I was pretty disappointed. The scene in the cantina TOTALLY broke my heart. Han Solo was a scoundrel in the beginning. One of the best parts of those movies is his character development and his turning his life around. That HORRIBLE piece of CGI to add in a totally unbelievable shot by Greedo just, well it just me. I bought the version that has the original theatrical release as a bonus feature, and that's the version I watch.

Lavabe wrote:Movie review: Over-rated.
Note to Marion Cotillard: Get that mole removed from your forehead.
Note to Movie Tavern: It's 90 freakin degrees outside... turn on the AC.
Note to Movie Tavern: Turn the volume down just a LITTLE bit, please?
Note to self: Psycho-thrillers aren't my cup of tea.
I am tired of CGI graphics in movies.

I rarely watch movies and I honestly cannot remember the last time I was in a theater.

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

I think it probably depends on what you do with them afterwards (South Park reference in there).

devildeac wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

devildeac wrote: Personal fowls are called.

Hey, what did you eggpect from a Duke-related sports site?

It's a technical fowl!

Sorry, smilies aren't working well on iTouch.

In VA stealing fowl is a felony larceny if the chickens are worth more than $5, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. It's a misdemeanor if worth less. I would think any chicken would be worth more than $5 but it's probably a holdover from the days of the hallowed Thomas Jefferson.

lawgrad91 wrote: In VA stealing fowl is a felony larceny if the chickens are worth more than $5, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. It's a misdemeanor if worth less. I would think any chicken would be worth more than $5 but it's probably a holdover from the days of the hallowed Thomas Jefferson.

There's some pretty fancy shmancy chickens at the state fair..I bet they are worth more than $5...my guess is they can get pretty pricey like dog breeds. I wonder how hard it is to steal a live chicken. They run away and have a built in alarm.

On a conference call with a customer and they just said: "Cant you do that auto-magically?"
Got a good chuckle out of me.

Miles wrote:On a conference call with a customer and they just said: "Cant you do that auto-magically?"
Got a good chuckle out of me.

You mean you can't?

Is that part of the TAMO step of a process?

devildeac wrote:

captmojo wrote:Anybody know the penalties for stealing chickens?

Personal fowls are called.

-EarlJam