Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (1): dragondust, anonymous(3).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #24968 - feelythefeel (09/15/2014) [-]
I just saw the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs. Oh god, the comedic payoff. It all pays off in the end.
User avatar #24967 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/15/2014) [-]
If you haven't seen the documentary Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father, you really gotta check that out.
User avatar #24977 to #24967 - averagewhitekid ONLINE (09/15/2014) [-]
I've heard some good things about that
Is it really as sad as some people describe it?
User avatar #24978 to #24977 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/15/2014) [-]
There are some very sad moments, but I wouldn't call it a sad film overall.
User avatar #24979 to #24978 - averagewhitekid ONLINE (09/15/2014) [-]
Huh, weird. It was described to me as "the most depressing movie i've ever seen."
But hey, i'm definitely gonna check it out soon now. I keep hearing solid ratings about it
User avatar #24982 to #24979 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/15/2014) [-]
Despite how good it was, I'm never going to watch it again. It's sort of tough to sit through (I'm not talking Salo or something like that), but definitely worth watching.
#24966 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/14/2014) [-]
User avatar #24965 - grandmasterjax (09/14/2014) [-]
Been seeing alot of Gravity falls posts on here. Is it good? It seems to be something of a cult cartoon in an age dominated by the various fandoms of MLP/Korra/Adventure Time/etc.
User avatar #24990 to #24965 - averagewhitekid ONLINE (09/16/2014) [-]
Yeah, don't know if you've watched it yet, but its probably one of my favorite shows still airing right now
User avatar #24969 to #24965 - jpthecursed (09/15/2014) [-]
It is extremely good. Watch it from the beginning though.
User avatar #24964 - shadowmaul (09/14/2014) [-]
does anyone know if there will ever be a Humanity Fuck Yeah movie? like a legit budgeted movie?
User avatar #24959 - drbrainbleach (09/14/2014) [-]
there should be a FJ live movie watching thing
User avatar #24963 to #24959 - eight (09/14/2014) [-]
Would be interesting.
#24955 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
This was a pretty good movie.
User avatar #24956 to #24955 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
Well, it still is a pretty good movie. It didn't stop being good.
User avatar #24939 - drl (09/13/2014) [-]
my theory for pinkie and the brain
pinkie is the genius and brain is insane
it is shown in the series that pinkie is the only one who can wright and whenever brain
comes up with a plan pinkie tells him how it will fail and it fails that same way
and mostly fails because brain fucks it up
plus the song is pinkie and the brain 1 is a genius the others insane
pinkie is first so maybe he was the genius the whole time
he was just a little weird
User avatar #24962 to #24960 - drl (09/14/2014) [-]
cool others figured it out
#24932 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
Alright guys, I'm going over to my girlfriend's house tomorrow.    
I have the entire Ed, Edd, n' Eddy collection, and she has never seen a single episode before.    
Top 3 - 10 or Favorite episodes of Ed, Edd, n' Eddy thread, go!
Alright guys, I'm going over to my girlfriend's house tomorrow.

I have the entire Ed, Edd, n' Eddy collection, and she has never seen a single episode before.

Top 3 - 10 or Favorite episodes of Ed, Edd, n' Eddy thread, go!
User avatar #24998 to #24932 - francisyorkmorgan (09/17/2014) [-]
The one where they don't get the jawbreaker
User avatar #24930 - drl (09/13/2014) [-]
anyone gonna see kevin smiths new movie tusk
a horror story kinda like human centipede
where a old dude turns a man into a walrus TUSK - Official Trailer HD
User avatar #24937 to #24930 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
Looked pretty good to me. I liked Red State, which, like Tusk, was a departure from Kevin Smith's usual style. I do like his other movies too, it's just cool to see he has the ability to make good movies in various genres.
User avatar #24938 to #24937 - drl (09/13/2014) [-]
i think this might bring his career back may even reinvent him
#24924 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
This movie's really good. I was captivated throughout. Excellent performance from McAvoy and the rest of the cast.
User avatar #24961 to #24924 - herecomesjohnny (09/14/2014) [-]

But yeah i loved it.
User avatar #24935 to #24924 - maddboiy (09/13/2014) [-]
It seems to star off as a comedy but gradually gets more and more fucked up as it goes along. Not what i was expected but still bloody good.
User avatar #24936 to #24935 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
It was a really dark comedy/drama, which is something I pretty much always enjoy, assuming it's done right. And Filth was done right.
User avatar #24922 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
I'm having trouble understanding different acting styles. For instance, watch a film from the 30's and listen to how they present dialogue and watch their facial expressions and mannerisms, it all seems very forced and artificial. It doesn't strike me as particularly good acting. I feel that good acting is what best mimics reality, but with a slight exaggeration. Modern films seem to do that.

But then I wonder, what will we think of films and TV from the 90's and 2000's in twenty or thirty years? Will it seem foreign? Will it seem like bad acting in the same way I view most black and white films or even films coming from pre-1980's today?
User avatar #24923 to #24922 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
I think it might be along those lines. It's like with video games, visually speaking, when 3D was first introduced. People thought it was great back then, but by today's standards, it's far from what we're used to.

Or you can think of it like CGI in the early 2000s. There's that string of movies where people tried doing new things with CGI, but it just a looked a little off. Back then, it was incredible, but when you go back and watch those movies today, you can tell that they just didn't have the technology.

While it may seem like acting has hit a peak now and there's an excellent, consistent group of people who are giving their finest performances, who knows if people a couple of decades from now will think these performances are mediocre? Just my two cents. It's an interesting thought, and I've never thought of acting like that.
User avatar #24925 to #24923 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
Agreed on all points. As we improve, we see in-between the cracks of the former. Subtle flaws that exist now that will only be glaringly obvious once we know how to correct or improve on it.

Honestly, it's a bit depressing to think that Gollum from LOTR will one day look ridiculous or that performances that I love now might seem really hokey in the years to come. I hope that I'll still be able to appreciate the many films and TV I adore now, later in life.

Then again, we have come along way from the 1930's. What inspired this thought today was the trailer for 1933's King Kong. And it reminded me of a passing generalization I have of older films, a lingering question "Why is the acting always so silly?"
I suppose one of the main causes is the transition from theater performances and silent movies to audio-camera performances. And the following 5 or so decades still suffered because of the generations that were taught and commonly exposed to that type of acting, or I suppose we could label it as 'over-acting'.

It would seem the change in technology and the availability of it changed acting style. I wonder what the implications for newer technology could have? Virtual reality movies come to mind, a movie shot in complete 360 panorama so that you feel like you're the character or a bystander watching things occur around you.
User avatar #24926 to #24925 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
While that would be cool, I don't like the thought of the way most movies are presented changing. I very much prefer going to a theater, or watching a movie on a TV or computer. It's something about sitting down and experiencing it as opposed to being in it. That being said, it would be cool to be "in" the movie every once in a while, but I wouldn't want it to be the main method of viewing a movie.
User avatar #24928 to #24926 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
Total Cinema 360 Oculus Player

It got me interested and I ended up finding this video. So it's not really a movie with a narrative structure, but it shows that it might work, we already have the tech, now we just need someone with the money, dream and motivation to try it (Peter Jackson maybe?).
User avatar #24927 to #24926 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
It would take some getting used to, although I don't think we'd be in the movie in terms of being able to walk around. It would more likely be implemented as headsets. So instead of going to the theater and watching a giant screen, you'd just pick up the headset on the armchair, adjust the straps to level of comfort and watch from a seated position where you could swivel your chair for full rotation while still being able to munch on popcorn/snacks and sipping on a nice fountain soda. Basically, making the only difference a transition from a large single screen to a mask displaying complete view range via motion headtracking.

I think the real test to see if this type of film idea moves forward is the Oculus Rift and other VR headsets about to hit the market. The consensus on those will decide the future for potential 360 panorama films. It likely wouldn't make it to home video anytime soon though. The data involved would be far too much for current capacities for average storage device at home. And any current disks are out of the question.
User avatar #24929 to #24927 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
The problem with that is that you could easily miss the action of the movie if you're facing the wrong way. There could be stuff going on behind you, and you'd never know. You also wouldn't be able to indicate this in-movie, because it would feel intrusive if text came on the screen, and ridiculous if characters just kept pointing to where stuff is going on.
User avatar #24931 to #24929 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
Sure you would. That's why integrating stereo holophonic sound would be ideal. It gives you a way to locate which direction the sound would be coming from no matter which way you turn, allowing you to quickly locate it (if somehow you managed to lose focus of the action).

Each new scene would start your focus on the action, much like any movie today does and you would be able to turn your head or body to watch it move through your field of view. It would be difficult to lose sight of the action. You would have the impression of either being a bystander or apart of the action depending on how the scene was shot.

In one scene you might be one of the passengers in a car chase. In another scene, you might be a citizen on the street watching the same car fly by.
No annoying, intrusive text required. Nothing really would change, only perspective and immersion.
User avatar #24934 to #24931 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
There's also the problem of being forced to include a character for the viewer to "be," like the passenger or the bystander, which could be poorly implemented too often for its own good. In the case of the bystander, there would be a lot of criticism focusing on why the bystander wouldn't run away from something, leading to the fact that the bystander is just there as a vehicle for the viewer.
User avatar #24942 to #24934 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
"There's also the problem of being forced to include a character for the viewer to "be," like the passenger or the bystander, which could be poorly implemented too often for its own good."

We already do that now. Go home and throw in your favorite movie. Haven't you ever wondered who the camera is? Who is watching? How are they doing it? Is it God? Is it a random person? Is it an animal? A plane? A bird? Is it someone important that is never named? We already do this in literally every film and show out there.
The only difference that 360 degrees would offer is an expansion on that character, be it God or a person or a bird. Only instead of having your depth and movement restricted, you'd be able to look around, turn your head as if you were actually there.
User avatar #24943 to #24942 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
I have to disagree. Why does the camera have to be anything at all? If that's just the way you think of it, fine, I respect that, but to me, the camera is more of a portal into whatever movie I'm watching, rather than some outside party that's observing the film.
User avatar #24946 to #24943 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
A portal is still something. And even still, if it's a portal, then someone is watching it from the other end.

Even with a 360 camera, you could argue that the portal simply has 360 degree field of view and you're the person on the other end controlling what you see, unless the portal has a mind of its own and is just showing you whatever is on the screen.

But typically we assign labels to types of points of view for a reason. 1st person, third person limited/omniscient and whatnot. It describes how we are viewing the events that unfold.
User avatar #24947 to #24946 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
And that person is me, so I feel that it's unnecessary to think of the means of watching the movie as something special (well, technically it is special, as far as recording something and having someone else watch it).
One thing I don't like about the 360 field of view is that, if you're really into the world design, you could spend a long time inspecting the world and missing the action. You also wouldn't have control over the shot, so the movie could easily cut to a new scene while you're not ready to move on. With video games, you generally have the option to explore before moving on, even if there's only one thing to explore.

If you were to allow the viewer to have control over whether or not the movie progresses, you're crossing a fine line between movie and interactive media (but it wouldn't quite be a video game yet, because you'd only be controlling the progression, nothing else). Additionally, then all the actors would be frozen in place until you decide to progress.
User avatar #24951 to #24947 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
Even under the portal analogy, you'd have to assume it's something special. The portal is either there for a reason (which reason)? Or if it is there by chance, you've decided to sit down and watch it, making it special to you.

I can understand that, but I think that people would get over that quickly. I mean when you're out and about, how much time do you really spend inspecting every little thing? Typically, you glance around and go on about your business. If something happens that is out of the ordinary or is important, you focus on it because it's interesting. Of course, it might be different with 360 movies.

That I do find as a legitimate concern, moving on when you're not ready. It might be weird. But I do think we'd be able to get used to it. The importance is immersion, so as long as your surroundings are convincing and look real, I don't think it would be a huge problem once we understand the dynamics of how the films operate. With many video games, especially older ones, we get used to the linear structure. Where, you can't necessarily go off the beaten path. You're directed down a specific path and can't choose anywhere else to go or do anything else. You have objectives displayed in front of you and the only way to move on is to solve them.

I think where movies are concerned, we are many many years off from such an interactive world. But that is a terrific idea, a film where you can make choices and choose how events unfold. You could revisit the movie and make different choices to get different endings and sequences. That's a brilliant idea, but imagine the amount of work that would be needed to be put into it. I do think we are a ways off, we'll have to leave that to the gaming world for now.
User avatar #24953 to #24951 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
I think you're looking too deep into a what watching a movie is. To me, you're just watching a movie. I think the same of books, TV shows, even games.

If you control how a movie plays out, wouldn't that just be a video game?
User avatar #24957 to #24953 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
It's not deep at all. It's just possibility. I watch movies for entertainment, plain and simple.

"If you control how a movie plays out, wouldn't that just be a video game? "

You brought up interactive worlds. I expanded on the idea as I thought it was a good one. Movies aren't so unlike video games in that they are scripted. It wouldn't be a video game, it would just be a movie with different possibilities. We sort of get that now with alternate endings in special features. This would just be an in movie choice that would eventually lead to different events and endings.
User avatar #24933 to #24931 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
I didn't mean the action specifically, I meant anything. There could be neat things directors would start including because of the new technology, but you would never see all of it unless you watched the movie several times, and not every movie out there warrants multiple viewings, even if it is a good movie.

I also don't like the idea of every movie being first-person. It works for some movies, but not all movies.
User avatar #24940 to #24933 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
They could include other tidbits of information, possibly important to the story, but not essential for the viewing experience. If that's the case it should be blended in the way that the action is necessary to view to understand the story and anything else is just extra that you might pick up if you're the type that can re-watch something again or multiple times. I am typically that type of viewer. I don't mind watching things again and again, as long as I enjoy them. So that way, it would suit all viewers. Or of course, don't add anything extra in the background important to the story and just create a realistic world so that you can feel the immersive experience.

It could be first person, but it isn't essential. You could literally be the character in the movie, or you could just be the camera as it is with most current films, a camera watching things happen (third person). A third person point of view that is seeing everything that's happening around them.

For instance, in my example I demonstrated this. The passenger in the car chase would be first person, as you're literally a character in the car that is doing things.

Or it could be shot from the perspective of a random bystander watching as the car chase goes by, which is third person.
It's no different than what we watch now. What we watch now is limited to a single perspective, a single screen that is entirely focused on a limited viewpoint and it's typically third person.

So it could be first person, it could be third person. It could be a mixture of both. It's up to the director and what their vision for the film would be.
User avatar #24941 to #24940 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
Should it happen, I would prefer third-person, except in the case where the movie is shot in first-person, like the remake of Maniac with Elijah Wood.

I also enjoy re-watching movies, but there are some movies I like that are just difficult to re-watch. Like 12 Years a Slave. I thought it was a great movie, but it doesn't necessarily the most re-watchable. Obviously, that's a bad example because there wouldn't be a lot of easter eggs in it, but I think you probably get what I mean when it comes to including easter eggs in movies you wouldn't re-watch often.

The difference in viewpoint between now and Oculus Rift-style movie watching is that you typically don't feel like you're in the action today. I don't mean that as a bad thing, but I don't necessarily think that modern third-person and Oculus Rift third-person would feel the same.
User avatar #24944 to #24941 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
I'd like third person too. As I typically want to see the characters that are important to the story. I mean sure, it might be cool if it feels like me, but it really wouldn't feel like me. It wouldn't be my decisions, my choices and so it would feel artificial.

Yeah I understand. I'm not really all that interested in easter eggs unless maybe it were going to be a series of movies with a massive detailed world. Like LOTR would be a good choice, or Game of Thrones or Harry Potter. Easter eggs would be really great for fantasy stuff. Otherwise, I'm really just interested in the immersive factor, feeling as though I'm actually there watching these amazing events unfold.

Oh it absolutely wouldn't. Right now it's almost as if someone has documented everything and pieced it together in an entertaining way. The rift would make it feel like you are the one seeing/experiencing it.

User avatar #24945 to #24944 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
Those are some good choices. If there's this sprawling world behind the movie, then you could probably work some easter eggs in the movie.

I think there's the main difference. If I understand you correctly, you'd rather be immersed via the headset. I'd rather be immersed from the seat in the theater.
User avatar #24948 to #24945 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
You'd still go to the theater. Still sit in a seat (only this one swivels completely around). The difference is the screen. Instead of one giant, limited perspective screen, you put on a headset that gives you larger field of view which isn't restricted.
User avatar #24949 to #24948 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
But then there's essentially no difference between viewing at the theater or viewing at home. They wouldn't spend the money to adapt the films to be on DVD again once they leave theater, so you'd buy a headset. Half of the reason of going to a theater is because you have the huge screen and the huge theater. Yes, you also see new release movies, but it'd only be a matter before people started torrenting these movies to their headsets at home, and it would just be the same experience.
User avatar #24952 to #24949 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
That is a concern. I'm not entirely sure if it could be easily adapted. I think it's possible, as instead of focusing on lets say 30-40 different camera angles spliced together, you'd only focus on the angles where the scenes take place and then restrict the depth and perspective, making it a 2d again.

If it isn't possible, then we can't really expect this to be a viable film option until the headsets are easily marketable and the storage space required for the data is common. That will probably be another 5 years at least before the 2-3 terabyte drive is the new 500 GB-1tb drive. The movies, even if compressed, would be huge. I'd probably estimate in a compressed form, maybe 10-20 GB's and likely around 750 GB's - 1TB uncompressed. And of course, it would have to be digital, as I don't see blu-ray making any dramatic advances in disk storage space.

As far as the huge screen and theater goes, it's somewhat irrelevant where the headset is concerned. Although the headset is smaller, it will appear larger. The headset is designed to mimic human sight. There is no screen larger than your eyeballs (if that makes sense). When you watch a screen, although it might be large, it doesn't take up all your field of vision, it's actually a pretty small square relative to your field of view. The headset is designed basically to do just that, to fill in all that empty space as if you weren't watching a screen at all.
User avatar #24954 to #24952 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
It seems like we just have different preferences then. You are making valid arguments. While it would be cool, I wouldn't prefer to watch more than a few movies like that.

Also, you have the problem of cleaning the headsets. I certainly wouldn't want to be the last one to put one of those things on at the end of the day.
User avatar #24958 to #24954 - eight (09/13/2014) [-]
I'd wager that this sort of immersion tech is the future for film (definitely gaming), it might just be something we get used to in the same way we transitioned from live theater performances to screens. I can imagine people being weary of sitting at home on a couch and just watching a box, some probably thought the idea was absurd when they could just drive down to a local theater and watch real , live performances.

With the 360, It's more personal, more relateable, more realistic. Isn't that what we are striving for in films today? To make characters and worlds seem as believable as possible? The way we film things and the technology we use to view it has a huge part in achieving that.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see, it would be annoying to have a clunky, heavy headset on just to watch a film, so unless they made something more comfortable or practical, I'd have to agree with you. The cleaning bit might be easy, just another thing to wipe down with a cleaning solution. Or maybe you could opt for bringing your own headset and just plug it into a simple hookup on the back of the chair.
User avatar #24950 to #24949 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
User avatar #24917 - redtheninja (09/12/2014) [-]
Hey guys, need some help.
About 5 years ago, maybe less, I saw a video on YouTube where different things turn pixelated/8-bit and it continues until the whole world is a single cube.
Does anyone know this video? Would appreciate help.
User avatar #24919 to #24917 - newvein ONLINE (09/12/2014) [-]
User avatar #24920 to #24919 - redtheninja (09/12/2014) [-]
You are what I will name my children.

User avatar #24921 to #24920 - newvein ONLINE (09/12/2014) [-]
now they are making it a real movie
User avatar #24916 - vortexrain ONLINE (09/12/2014) [-]
I figured you guys would want to see this.tv.yahoo.com/news/dc-comics-superhero-drama-titans-near-pilot-order-230105234.html
I can't freakin' wait.
User avatar #24909 - thefunnyside (09/11/2014) [-]
I wanna watch Avatar: The Last Airbender online

Where can I?
User avatar #24911 to #24909 - maddboiy (09/11/2014) [-]
www.legendofkorra.tv/ it's got all of Last Airbender and Legend of Korra
#24913 to #24912 - maddboiy (09/11/2014) [-]
pucker up
pucker up
#24910 to #24909 - anonymous (09/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #24907 - eight (09/10/2014) [-]
The Signal was an interesting film. Worth watching.
User avatar #24895 - drl (09/10/2014) [-]
i wanna see game show hosts forced to play there own game shows
User avatar #24894 - inuyuru (09/09/2014) [-]
Am I the only one who doesn't really find the gay couple from Modern Family funny?
User avatar #24901 to #24894 - uve (09/10/2014) [-]
#24891 - captnsweden (09/09/2014) [-]
anyone watches trailer park boys? fucking best show ever. ricky is like jesus too me
User avatar #24896 to #24891 - drl (09/10/2014) [-]
i do
have you seen the new movie and
live in dublin
User avatar #24898 to #24896 - captnsweden (09/10/2014) [-]
i have watched say goodnigt to the bad guys and im gonna watch the countdown to the liquor day today. have only watched a little bit of the live in dublin
User avatar #24893 to #24891 - inuyuru (09/09/2014) [-]
I watched the first couple of episodes on Netflix. It seems pretty interesting. What am I missing? Should I keep watching it? Does it turn to shit later like Family Guy, or 30 Rock?
User avatar #24899 to #24893 - captnsweden (09/10/2014) [-]
keep watching brah, there is only 8 seasons. Watches the first seven in a week and its one of the best series i have seen
 Friends (0)