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

hide menu

thedudeistheman

Rank #3220 on Comments
thedudeistheman Avatar Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
Online
Send mail to thedudeistheman Block thedudeistheman Invite thedudeistheman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/08/2010
Last Login:12/20/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#7088
Comment Ranking:#3220
Highest Content Rank:#6651
Highest Comment Rank:#2592
Content Thumbs: 48 total,  60 ,  12
Comment Thumbs: 3041 total,  3543 ,  502
Content Level Progress: 79.66% (47/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 3% (3/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:6653
Total Comments Made:5506
FJ Points:2888
Favorite Tags: it (2)

latest user's comments

#24941 - Should it happen, I would prefer third-person, except in the c…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24944 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
#154528 - It wouldn't hurt to go talk to an oral surgeon, considering yo… 09/13/2014 on Advice - love advice,... +1
#24937 - Looked pretty good to me. I liked Red State, which, like Tusk,…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... +1
User avatar #24938 - drl (09/13/2014) [-]
i think this might bring his career back may even reinvent him
#24936 - It was a really dark comedy/drama, which is something I pretty… 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
#24934 - There's also the problem of being forced to include a characte…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24942 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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.
#24933 - I didn't mean the action specifically, I meant anything. There…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24940 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
#24929 - The problem with that is that you could easily miss the action…  [+] (20 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24931 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
#24926 - While that would be cool, I don't like the thought of the way …  [+] (23 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24928 - 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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
#154410 - It's probably because you're 16. Just ask for more hours and s…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/13/2014 on Advice - love advice,... 0
#154430 - baitdoesnttalkback (09/13/2014) [-]
your advice sucks
#154408 - By law you are required to be given breaks (I'm pretty sure, a…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Advice - love advice,... 0
User avatar #154409 - svenninja (09/13/2014) [-]
With all the free time I have listed, I could run a 40 hour work week. But they're not even giving me twenty. How do I get more than the hours I have right now? (4-12)
User avatar #154410 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
It's probably because you're 16. Just ask for more hours and see what happens. It's not like they're going to be mad that you want to work more.
#154430 - baitdoesnttalkback (09/13/2014) [-]
your advice sucks
#24924 - This movie's really good. I was captivated throughout. Excelle…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24961 - herecomesjohnny (09/14/2014) [-]
ELLO, BONTIIIE.

But yeah i loved it.
User avatar #24935 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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.
#154406 - Depends on the laws. If you're in the U.S., you can't work mor…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Advice - love advice,... 0
User avatar #154407 - svenninja (09/13/2014) [-]
It's twenty hours max, which is still nowhere near what I am getting
User avatar #154408 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
By law you are required to be given breaks (I'm pretty sure, anyway), and I'm sure the grocery store you work at isn't so evil that they'll keep you from other things like school and extracurriculars, if you have any.
User avatar #154409 - svenninja (09/13/2014) [-]
With all the free time I have listed, I could run a 40 hour work week. But they're not even giving me twenty. How do I get more than the hours I have right now? (4-12)
User avatar #154410 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
It's probably because you're 16. Just ask for more hours and see what happens. It's not like they're going to be mad that you want to work more.
#154430 - baitdoesnttalkback (09/13/2014) [-]
your advice sucks
#24923 - I think it might be along those lines. It's like with video ga…  [+] (25 new replies) 09/13/2014 on Television - cartoon... +1
User avatar #24925 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (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 - 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 - thedudeistheman (09/13/2014) [-]
a matter of time*
#87 - I don't know of the legitimacy of that site, but I found this … 09/11/2014 on Press "Up" to Win!!! +1
#1051707 - Ah. Good to know. 09/09/2014 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#1051701 - I'm currently testing my abilities to stream games. I'm gonna …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/09/2014 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #1051703 - syrenthra (09/09/2014) [-]
that delay is normal twitch
User avatar #1051707 - thedudeistheman (09/09/2014) [-]
Ah. Good to know.
#24879 - BoJack Horseman is a pretty good show. I think the second half…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/08/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
User avatar #24881 - maddboiy (09/08/2014) [-]
yeah it starts a bit slow and predictable but it really picks up as it goes along. Also the opening theme is amazing.
#128565 - They put Death Grips in an episode of BoJack Horseman and I di…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/08/2014 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar #128602 - ferrettamer (09/08/2014) [-]
I watched a part of and episode of that show and it was stupid as hell. It was also fucking hilarious
#316701 - It feels like every time I turn it off it just turns on again. 09/07/2014 on Hating - file complaints,... 0
#316696 - I guess ice cream cakes could still be birthday cakes, but I m… 09/07/2014 on Hating - file complaints,... 0
#316695 - There's some icing I can't eat, and other kinds I can. Like, o…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/07/2014 on Hating - file complaints,... 0
User avatar #316696 - thedudeistheman (09/07/2014) [-]
I guess ice cream cakes could still be birthday cakes, but I mean the traditional kind.
#1050950 - I hope it's excellent. 09/07/2014 on Video Games Board - console... +1
#1050948 - I haven't noticed anything different in trailers and gameplay …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Video Games Board - console... +1
User avatar #1050949 - herecomesjohnny (09/07/2014) [-]
the gameplay though seems really expanded and I'm interested to see if it holds up nice.
User avatar #1050950 - thedudeistheman (09/07/2014) [-]
I hope it's excellent.
#1050937 - Hotline Miami 2 has a listing on Steam now. I am excite  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Video Games Board - console... +1
User avatar #1050944 - herecomesjohnny (09/07/2014) [-]
From what I know of the story, it feels like the vibe of the game is going to change, which makes me worry
User avatar #1050948 - thedudeistheman (09/07/2014) [-]
I haven't noticed anything different in trailers and gameplay vibe-wise, but I won't know until TBA.
User avatar #1050949 - herecomesjohnny (09/07/2014) [-]
the gameplay though seems really expanded and I'm interested to see if it holds up nice.
User avatar #1050950 - thedudeistheman (09/07/2014) [-]
I hope it's excellent.
#24845 - Also, that's not to say the rest of the cast does a bad … 09/06/2014 on Television - cartoon... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Comments(128):

[ 128 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #126 - instalation (06/25/2014) [-]
hello. I was wondering if you would like to form a bond of friendship.
User avatar #127 to #126 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (06/25/2014) [-]
Would I have to fill out any paperwork?
User avatar #129 to #128 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (06/26/2014) [-]
Can I get it by fax?
User avatar #131 to #130 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (06/26/2014) [-]
Well then, after getting the paperwork done, the bond shall be established.
User avatar #101 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
hey
User avatar #102 to #101 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
Hello. Not trying to be rude, but, uh, how exactly did you get to my profile?
User avatar #103 to #102 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/advice/62281#62281



I just wanted to say thank you.
User avatar #104 to #103 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
Anyway, I'll be off now. Cya.
User avatar #105 to #104 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
I remember this. It was no problem at all. I was just trying to help. If you don't mind me asking, are you okay? What happened?
User avatar #106 to #105 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
I'm pretty okay. It's been nearly a year but I think I'm finally about to actually drop him. I've decided on it now, and I'm pretty okay with the idea.

I just feel like I should have thanked you for your help and stuff.
User avatar #107 to #106 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
I wish you only the best of luck. You deserve happiness, and especially to be treated well.

I appreciate that, but you really don't have to. We shouldn't have had to talk about that, but unfortunately, there are people in the world who abuse others. I just wanted to lend a hand. I'm glad I could help.
User avatar #108 to #107 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
Thank you.
To be honest I don't know what else to really say..
User avatar #110 to #108 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
Oh, hey, just as a side note, my offer still stands if you ever need to talk. But yeah, I hope everything works out well.
User avatar #111 to #110 - instalation (03/28/2014) [-]
I was just planning on stopping by. I might come back later. I just felt that thanks was in order
User avatar #112 to #111 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
Okay, no problem. I'll be here if you do decide to come back for a chat. Again, it was really no trouble at all, but I appreciate the fact that you came back after nearly a year to thank me for that. It does mean a lot to me.
User avatar #109 to #108 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
That's okay. It's sort of hard to transition from the previous topic. I understand you might have planned to just stop by quickly, so if you'd like to go, I just want to say it was nice hearing from you again, and that you're okay. Again, best of luck to you.
User avatar #96 to #95 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/06/2013) [-]
Yes, I see, yes.

After a full analysis of the content shown above, I have come to a single question: What is this?
User avatar #97 to #96 - revengeforfreeze (11/06/2013) [-]
I have no idea honestly
It's print screen taken from this video I watched

It's pretty funny I'll link it to you
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M_9gtmMZpk
User avatar #98 to #97 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/06/2013) [-]
I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
User avatar #99 to #98 - revengeforfreeze (11/06/2013) [-]
The video? Me neither. It's just cool.
User avatar #100 to #99 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/06/2013) [-]
Can't disagree with you there.
User avatar #115 to #100 - revengeforfreeze (04/22/2014) [-]
It's been like, 6 months, damn. Time goes by too damn quickly... How was your life when I posted this and how is it today?
User avatar #116 to #115 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
Well it was good then, and it's good now. Thanks for asking. How's yours been, and how was it then?
User avatar #117 to #116 - revengeforfreeze (04/23/2014) [-]
That's great, man. Anything new except for the thoughts about ocd?
Ive been a bit confused but else great
User avatar #118 to #117 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (04/23/2014) [-]
No, nothing in particular. Just school work and some other things. Mind if I ask what you're confused about?
User avatar #119 to #118 - revengeforfreeze (04/23/2014) [-]
School is hard isn't it?
Also yeah I think I am confused about my fluctuating mood
User avatar #120 to #119 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (04/23/2014) [-]
Eh, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Any ideas for what could be causing it?
User avatar #121 to #120 - revengeforfreeze (04/23/2014) [-]
Hiw about now
Music probably
User avatar #122 to #121 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (04/23/2014) [-]
It's good. Been getting more homework than usual, though, but that happens sometimes.
That must be some intense music.
User avatar #123 to #122 - revengeforfreeze (04/23/2014) [-]
It's for a good cause though the future. Lol cheesy
It is, this particular song is called sterile nails and thunderbowels and every time it makesme feel an eemotional storm..
User avatar #124 to #123 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (04/23/2014) [-]
Is it a good song at least?
User avatar #125 to #124 - revengeforfreeze (04/23/2014) [-]
I think.it is. Took me a while to get used to the vocals but they massively add on to the experience of despair.
#89 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #89 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
I've watched it.

It was interesting. Being that it's experimental and has come from the creativity of your own mind, I can't even begin to imagine what it could represent, if anything at all. But I like it.
User avatar #91 to #90 - tvfreakuk (11/03/2013) [-]
At the moment what is there means pretty much nothing in terms of the visuals meaning.
But as the original premise was coming from my fear of procrastination, what I'm wanting it to be is that it's simply something I've made, that I can say I've made and can be proud of, show people, and have actually achieved something... And I guess that's the meaning
User avatar #92 to #91 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
I understand what you're saying. Good luck with the rest of the video. Judging from this, I'm sure it'll turn out very well, even if it's nothing like this part.
User avatar #93 to #92 - tvfreakuk (11/03/2013) [-]
Yeah I'm currently working with Paper Mache in stop-motion of a moving eye with the lighting superimposed on top.
In a way, it's going to be about the procrastination thing again (with the eye being "distracted" by the lights) but it just makes it interesting visuals, rather than the narrative I had before about the computer that was just getting a little complicated
User avatar #94 to #93 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
That sounds like it'll be really interesting. Best of luck.
#87 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88 to #87 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (10/28/2013) [-]
That sounds great! Sounds like, when completed, it would be worthy of a festival run.
#80 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 to #80 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
I do remember. Maybe I'll be able to catch it at a festival. Seeing as this is now the case, if it does get played at any festivals, can you let me know which ones?
#83 to #82 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #84 to #83 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
I'd been thinking about going to some festivals with some friends anyway. Your film might coincidentally be playing at said festival.
#85 to #84 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #85 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
I live near New York City and the surrounding areas, so I'd most likely be going to a festival in or near the city.
#81 to #80 - tvfreakuk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #68 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
you still doing those minecraft story things?
User avatar #69 to #68 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
Not at the moment, no. I can't think of any other good ones to share.
User avatar #70 to #69 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
and you said something about having a server?
User avatar #71 to #70 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
I used to have one up. I plan on creating a new one, but I haven't found the time to do so. Enabling the port forwarding on my router requires a reboot, and I don't know when I'd be able to do that without interrupting others.
User avatar #72 to #71 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
no one has played on my server for about 2 months now
User avatar #73 to #72 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
I'll join you sometime if you want. I haven't found a good server in a while.
User avatar #74 to #73 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
it's on FTB at the moment
User avatar #75 to #74 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
I am unfamiliar with FTB.
User avatar #76 to #75 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
never played any of the feed the beast mod packs? have you played tekkit before?
User avatar #77 to #76 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
No and no. At most I've messed around with some Bukkit plugins, but the server I used to host was either Bukkit or Vanilla with some client-side mods (TMI, any number of flying mods, maybe OptiFine).
User avatar #78 to #77 - zaxzwim (09/07/2013) [-]
well your in for a world of confusion then
User avatar #79 to #78 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
I've seen in-depth Tekkit stuff before, but I have no idea how to do or use any of it. But hey, you can't learn if you don't mess around with it.
User avatar #66 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/12/2013) [-]
georgeojffs BlakHoleSun

The following events took place on what I believe was the first server I ever hosted.

> Myself, Scooby Doo, and another kid are playing (we'll call that kid Goaty)
> Goaty is doing something far away from the town we built up (this was probably around Beta 1.2 or very close to that, so we couldn't hijack pre-built towns)
> Scooby Doo and I decide to have some fun
> Go into Goaty's house
> Place TNT under one single block in his house
> Put pressure pads on every single block in his house to trick him
> Goaty comes back
> "What is this?"
> Tell him it's just a game
> "No, you guys put TNT under my house."
> The jig is up but he still hasn't activated the TNT yet
> Goaty starts breaking all the pressure pads
> **** , we didn't anticipate this
> Get nervous that he won't blow up his own house
> He breaks the pressure pad he was supposed to step on
> I replace it
> At the time, he would always hit you the same number of times you hit him
> I punch him once
> I turn around and start running
> I step on the pressure pad to activate the TNT
> Scooby Doo sees this
> **** is going down
> We both rush out of the house
> Goaty just barely makes it
> Kaboom ************
> His house explodes
> Turn around to observe the damage
> 95% of it is gone
> Only some of the sides remain
> "WHY DID YOU GUYS DO THAT?"
> Tell him he stepped on the pressure pad and blew it up
> Goaty rages
> Scooby Doo and I head off somewhere else
> Goaty destroys the museum we made and some other stuff
> Looking back on it, we did deserve it
> To this day, whenever it comes up, I still tell him that it was his fault
> Don't know if he knows the truth or not

Kinda short, but still one of my favorite experiences in the game. If wanted, I have one last story I could share.
User avatar #67 to #66 - georgeojffs ONLINE (08/13/2013) [-]
hahahahaha man you have some good friends to play with
User avatar #61 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/11/2013) [-]
hammarhead georgeojffs BlakHoleSun

The following events took place on a server I used to run but unfortunately lost the world file for.

> Myself, Scooby Doo, HGA, and Friend A are online
> It's pretty much always just us
> We all wanted to try messing around with Bukkit, so I boot up a Bukkit server with a few plugins
> Have this one plugin that has a ******* of commands
> Scooby Doo and I decide to try them all
> At the moment, only he and I are OP-ed
> Go out into the desert to mess around so it doesn't affect the town
> Find one command that lets you spawn huge balls of material
> Let's try it out
> Spawn a huge ball of sponge
> Neato
> Decide to spawn an even bigger ball of water or ice or smething
> Probably has a radius of 50 or larger
> Entire server lags out
> Less than 1 FPS
> Even the town gets a lag spike for a few minutes
> After eventually getting back to town, the lag dies down
> Call that area "The Forbidden Lands" and never return to it
> Don't let it stop us from ******* around
> Move to unpopulated jungle-like area (jungles weren't a biome yet)
> Find a command called "delchunk" or something
> Gee I have no idea what this could do
> Decide to test it where Scooby Doo is standing
> Nothing happens
> "Maybe it doesn't work or something."
> Suddenly entire chunk disappears and he falls all the way through the world
> We share a hearty laugh for a minute or two
> Have no way to undo our mistake
> Have to block up missing chunk
> Only do top layer
> Wait for some poor soul to dig over there and find the horrors that lie below
> Go back into town after testing some less fun commands
> Find some commands that appear to cause large explosions
> Go to HGA's house
> Decide to test the explosion stuff practically right next to his home
> "But thedude, we don't know how large the explosion radius is."
> "Please, I know what I'm doing."
> Use a nuke command or something similarly destructive
> Aim the cursor fairly far away from HGA's house
> Press enter
> ************ .everywhere
> Massive explosion lags out the server for a moment
> The edge of the exploded area can't be more than 5 blocks away from HGA's house
> "WHAT THE **** WAS THAT?"
> HGA is visible distressed
> "Don't worry about it, it was nothing."
> Keep dicking around in town, yet more cautious of seemingly explosive commands
> Find a fireball command
> "It can't be that large."
> Fire one off near HGA's house because we clearly know what we're doing
> Let me tell you, this was not a small fireball
> Strikes the impact crater the nuke left
> HGA can see it from his house
> "GODDAMMIT WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING?"
> "Don't worry, we're being careful."
> Suddenly notice HGA's roof is on fire
> Initiate game type Firefighter, difficulty = insane
> Fire is spreading like STDs in a sex ed video
> Quickly make our way to the roof of his house
> Put it out quickly somehow, but don't question it
> Replace blocks before he notices anything
> Eventually finish going through commands in a less destructive manner

Sort of an anticlimactic conclusion, but not all stories have the best endings.

I have two more stories I remember that I can share, if there's still interest.
#62 to #61 - BlakHoleSun (08/11/2013) [-]
Another good story.
User avatar #63 to #62 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/11/2013) [-]
Will do. I've been saving one of my personal favorites for last.
User avatar #64 to #63 - georgeojffs ONLINE (08/12/2013) [-]
love these so much
User avatar #65 to #64 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/12/2013) [-]
I shall mention you too. I think this next one will be one of the better ones. Probably on a similar level to the Hunger Games story.
User avatar #53 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
BlakHoleSun georgeojffs hammarhead zaxzwim strangemoo

The following events have taken place on various server. I think this particular story was on one of my servers.

> Scooby Doo, Hunger Games Addy (we'll just abbreviate that to HGA from now on), and I are messing around on the server
> HGA is working on his house or something
> It's primarily wood-based
> Scooby Doo and I decide to have some fun and play firefighter, a "game" we made up
> The game involves setting someone's house on fire, turning around (or watching) for five or ten seconds
> This server was made after fire spread was nerfed in one of the updates, so we decide to give it a full twenty seconds before stepping in
> See HGA's house is mainly made out of wood
> Tell him we're going to have some fun
> Responds with something along the lines of "Okay, just don't **** around near my house"
> He has no idea what we're doing
> Perfect
> Scooby Doo and I go to the front of his house while he's working on the back
> We each set one block on fire
> Turn around and count to 20
> Turn around to face the house again
> Oh dear Lord what have we done
> Entire front of the house is one fire and spreading inside
> We both start to half-panic, half-laugh in that panicky sort of way\
> Both start punching out fires as fast as possible
> It does virtually nothing, as the fire just re-spreads to the blocks
> Start breaking blocks to prevent fire spread
> It's no use, blocks are breaking from fire anyway
> "WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON?"
> Oh no, it's HGA
> He is not a happy camper
> "Don't worry, we have this under control
> Entire second level of house practically gone at this point
> Suddenly, I have a genius idea
> Just fill entire house with water
> Go inside and place source blocks covering at least half the house
> Well the fire's gone
> Scooby Doo and I spend next ten minutes blocking up the source blocks and other pesky water leaks
> Spend next five minutes replacing floor
> Front of the house takes another five minutes, spruce it up a bit as an apology gift
> Scooby Doo and I wander off and HGA gives us no thanks even though we repaired his house
> Jokingly say "You're welcome."
> "YOU BURNED DOWN HALF OF MY HOUSE."
> "Yeah, sure we did."
> Scooby Doo and I bored again
> "You wanna play firefighter again?"

I'm pretty sure you can guess what happened next, although we turned around for a much shorter period of time. Only ten seconds, I think.

Anyways, should I tell another?
User avatar #58 to #53 - hammarhead (08/10/2013) [-]
always. always.
User avatar #59 to #58 - hammarhead (08/10/2013) [-]
I love hearing these. youshould invite other people, maybe make some OC. These are good.
User avatar #60 to #59 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/11/2013) [-]
I don't think they'd do well as OC. More of a short story kind of thing.
User avatar #56 to #53 - georgeojffs ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
sorry, i only just woke up, I love these more please
User avatar #57 to #56 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
No worries. I never expect anyone to comment right away.

Will most likely post another story tomorrow.
User avatar #54 to #53 - BlakHoleSun (08/09/2013) [-]
I don't know why noone else is commenting, these are great stories man.
User avatar #55 to #54 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
Thanks. I'll probably post another one tomorrow as well. Some people are probably offline.
User avatar #39 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
strangemoo xon georgeojffs BlakHoleSun BlakHole Sun hammarhead zaxzwim

The following events took place on the FunnyJunk server

> Connect to FJ server with friend (the one I won the Hunger Games with, we'll call him Scooby Doo)
> FJ server is notoriously laggy at this point, but whatever, we still play without much trouble
> Decide to create base of operations
> Get as far away from spawn as we possibly can
> Start digging into the side of a mountain, think it's less noticeable
> Don't use a door, just block up the entrance with dirt
> Plant seeds inside base to reduce need to go outside
> Start mining downwards
> Eventually create living area further underground, reduces the need to go up to the top of our base
> Soon realize we're quickly running out of wood, friend and I go back upstairs
> find all of our crops missing and chests looted (thank Notch it was just basic material like dirt and stone)
> There's a sign where the crops used to be
> It says "Black Midgets" (I don't remember if there was anything else written, but it can't be more important than that)
> Wonder why the Black Midgets never went down the mine shaft, but I don't question it too much
> Fear the Black Midgets for the rest of the game
> Block up entire upstairs area and permanently move underground
> **** , we still don't have any wood
> We get another friend to come on (Friend A, who was unjustly eliminated from the Hunger Games match)
> After a few deaths, he finally makes it to us, brings wood with him
> We live happily for probably an hour
> At one point during this time, Scooby Doo mines his way into an adjacent mine shaft
> Follows it, finds some other guy's loot, and steals most, if not all of it
> I get paranoid for two reasons
> 1 - He's going to find our mine shaft because we're so close together
> 2 - He's going to be super pissed that Scooby Doo stole all of his stuff, and he's going to seek revenge
> Scooby Doo dismisses the idea
> After about an hour, I'm still concerned, but not as much
> About 30 minutes later from that point, we all decide to go get pizza (we usually play
at someone's house, so we're all together when we play)
> Our underground living area was dug into the side of the mine shaft, so we block it up with dirt so it's not noticeable if you're just walking down the corridor
> Keep in mind that this is not the same side Scooby Doo dug into that separated us from the other guy's mine shaft
> Also place all valuable items into our inventories so they can't be looted while we're not online
> Maybe 30-45 minutes pass
> Scooby Doo and Friend A are playing other games
> I quickly log back on to see what materials we had in our chest
> There is a guy standing in our living area
> nope.jpeg
> Quickly log off, tell Scooby Doo that the guy whose stuff he stole was in our base
> Don't know if it was actually that guy, but who else would it have been, there's virtually no other way to know we were there
> Give it about two minutes before I log back on, figure this guy could do whatever he's gonna do in that time span and be out
> Log back on
> I'm dead
> Must've lagged out when logging off, he killed me while I was lagging
> Stole at least 20 diamonds, countless stacks of iron and gold, etc.
> Also broke our beds
> The coordinates we had were for the upstairs area we blocked off to avoid more Black Midget attacks
> We have no way of getting back
> Notch, why have you abandoned me

It's been a couple of months, and I still have not logged back on to the FJ server since that day.

So, what do you guys think? I have more stories to share if you guys are interested.
User avatar #48 to #39 - BlakHoleSun (08/08/2013) [-]
WE NEED ANOTHER!
User avatar #50 to #48 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
Question: Is there a space between "Hole" and "Sun" in your name? I don't think FJ allows that, but the formatting makes it look that way to me, which is why I listed your name twice in the comment, one with and one without a space.

Also, it seems like there will be another story tomorrow.
User avatar #51 to #50 - BlakHoleSun (08/09/2013) [-]
Ah, I've also noticed the "space". It is all one word. Also, great!
User avatar #52 to #51 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
Okay, I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
User avatar #47 to #39 - georgeojffs ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
MOAR
User avatar #49 to #47 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
Will do. Probably some time tomorrow.
User avatar #45 to #39 - hammarhead (08/08/2013) [-]
that was great. I love anarchy servers, I've got a few stories of my own. Even made a labrynth once.
User avatar #46 to #45 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
The FJ server is beyond any hope. You should share your stories as well.
User avatar #42 to #39 - zaxzwim (08/08/2013) [-]
ANOTHER!
User avatar #43 to #42 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
Sounds good to me. I'll mention you again in the next one.
User avatar #44 to #43 - zaxzwim (08/08/2013) [-]
cool
User avatar #40 to #39 - strangemoo (08/08/2013) [-]
Always up for a good story!
User avatar #41 to #40 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
I'll mention you again in the next one.
User avatar #36 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
Hey xon, did you get a notification for this?
User avatar #38 to #37 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (08/08/2013) [-]
Nice, okay, so I can just mention people in a profile comment for those who want to see.
User avatar #35 - beavisnbutthead (07/24/2013) [-]
Hey I'm actually looking for a couple of writers to help expand my tumblr page where i post various things about film including reviews. You can check out my page at You need to login to view this link

If you're interested, send me a sample review or message me.
User avatar #30 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with subterfuge
User avatar #29 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with queefersutherland
User avatar #28 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with friendbarrier
User avatar #27 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with ilikebuttsex
User avatar #31 to #27 - ilikebuttsex (07/05/2013) [-]
cheers
User avatar #26 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with bigblacknegro
User avatar #25 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with schnickelfritz
User avatar #32 to #25 - schnickelfritz (07/05/2013) [-]
having fun tonight, are we?
User avatar #33 to #32 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
That we are, Mr. Fritz. That we are.
User avatar #24 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Good times with yourmomfapping
[ 128 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)