|
banned from Starbucks posted:No Time to Diet starring fat james bond "No Time to Pie"
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Gatts posted:"No Time to Pie" "No Time to Fry"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
James Bond will return in... Please Do Not Kill Me
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Die, Death, Die In which 007 hunts William Sadler from Bill & Ted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:2-4 players I like that it's only 2-4 because trying to get a group of adults higher than that is a Herculean task. The art is pretty. Franchescanado posted:I think Sony realized with Spider-Verse that they are much better off--creatively and lucratively--without Disney/Marvel interference. I think it would be really funny if Sony starts a new Spider-Man series so we have a fourth guy playing the character. I don't really know how all this poo poo works, so if Disney wants to use Tom Holland as Spider-Man again in an Avengers movie or something that isn't a solo Spider-Man story do they have to get Sony's permission or is it only required if movie is specifcally Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:K. Waste, you're the thirstiest person I follow on Twitter. My love for Lena Kelly goes beyond thirst. It is full blown mania. Also, I really wanna write/direct that mumblecore “Lost in Translation” ts porn remake
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I like that it's only 2-4 because trying to get a group of adults higher than that is a Herculean task. The art is pretty. Yeah, I've got a gaming group of five adults that's met most weeks for almost a decade, but I get that's unusual. Just a shame because the game looks rad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Thisisnotporn/status/1162700202924531712?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
It’s always feast or famine for me. I can’t get people together for a 3 or 4 player game to save my life, but when I do manage to get a game together, I find myself having to accommodate 7 or 8 players. Nobody ever wants to split up, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:so be it This.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:so if Disney wants to use Tom Holland as Spider-Man again in an Avengers movie or something that isn't a solo Spider-Man story do they have to get Sony's permission or is it only required if movie is specifcally Spider-Man. Basically Sony owns the rights to make a film SpiderMan, and the associated characters like Kraven, Vulture, Shocker, Betty Brandt, etc. So no, Aunt May can't swing by Avengers 4: Assemble! Because Marvel doesn't own those film rights to the character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
I am Team Nobody on the Disney/Marvel thing but just lol if you ever thought two corporations ever "did it for the fans" now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I've been taking pictures lately to try and learn how to take pictures good and of course I'm using film because I'm an idiot. So anyway the place that I gte my film and prints from mails out the film to get the negatives developed and then prints them onsite from scans they do of said negatives. My issues is that I'm not entirely satisfied with the look of the prints. So I decided to see if going to do them at Walgreens would get a better result, because if it did then it would definitively asnwer my question about whether or not the usual place kind of sucks. So I go in and talk to the girl at the photo counter and said "Do you do prints from negatives on site if I brought them in?". So her response was "What's a negative?". I wanted to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Don’t learn to shoot on filM you’re just wasting money. If anything get a cheap lovely digital camera and work on making those shots look good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Unsurprising but fuckin' psychotic lapdoggery https://twitter.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1163968528996638721 The Peccadillo fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I've been taking pictures lately to try and learn how to take pictures good and of course I'm using film because I'm an idiot. So anyway the place that I gte my film and prints from mails out the film to get the negatives developed and then prints them onsite from scans they do of said negatives. My issues is that I'm not entirely satisfied with the look of the prints. So I decided to see if going to do them at Walgreens would get a better result, because if it did then it would definitively asnwer my question about whether or not the usual place kind of sucks. So I go in and talk to the girl at the photo counter and said "Do you do prints from negatives on site if I brought them in?". So her response was "What's a negative?". You can only get prints of digital images at Walgreens now, they got rid of all their film equipment. Hell, if you bring film in to be developed they now mail it somewhere and won't give you the negatives back. Where do you send your film now? I'll ask my dad where he used to send his (he develops at home now, but that only works if you have a good scanner).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:You can only get prints of digital images at Walgreens now, they got rid of all their film equipment. Hell, if you bring film in to be developed they now mail it somewhere and won't give you the negatives back. I go to the last camera store in my area clinging to life. They mail out the film to develop the negatives and then those come back and they make prints from digital scans of the negatives. I was wondering if Walgreens had a scanner for that purpose but seeing as the girl working there didn't know what film is I'm going to guess they don't have enough customers asking for that service to have the machines. I'd like to set up a small darkroom but that's probably a lot more expensive than what I can afford right now and I'm not sure how to work out the logistics of actually putting it together. So that's a thing for the far flung future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I go to the last camera store in my area clinging to life. They mail out the film to develop the negatives and then those come back and they make prints from digital scans of the negatives. I was wondering if Walgreens had a scanner for that purpose but seeing as the girl working there didn't know what film is I'm going to guess they don't have enough customers asking for that service to have the machines. I'd like to set up a small darkroom but that's probably a lot more expensive than what I can afford right now and I'm not sure how to work out the logistics of actually putting it together. So that's a thing for the far flung future. You don't need a full dark room for just film negatives, development is way cheaper than paying someone else. A good film scanner would be the expensive bit. For development you need some plastic jugs, a dark bag, and development cylinders plus like 20 bucks of chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:You don't need a full dark room for just film negatives, development is way cheaper than paying someone else. A good film scanner would be the expensive bit. Oh I was talking a full on dark room to develop the film and make prints. I was considering doing what you're talking about though. The guy at the store even suggested it one day. It would certainly make the turn around time on the pictures much faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Oh I was talking a full on dark room to develop the film and make prints. I was considering doing what you're talking about though. The guy at the store even suggested it one day. It would certainly make the turn around time on the pictures much faster. I sorta figured, but if you can afford the scanner developing film and scanning it is a very good solution for your current problem, and you can even get the prints of your scans from Walgreens within a couple hours of you scanning them (Costco and FedExKinkos also offer quick printing I think, if you have one of those near you).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Oh I was talking a full on dark room to develop the film and make prints. I was considering doing what you're talking about though. The guy at the store even suggested it one day. It would certainly make the turn around time on the pictures much faster. Someone suggested shooting digital to improve composition, depth of field, etc which I think is a good idea. That said, I reckon you could find cheap used darkroom stuff on eBay or similar. Developing isn’t much fun but printing is terrific.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I sorta figured, but if you can afford the scanner developing film and scanning it is a very good solution for your current problem, and you can even get the prints of your scans from Walgreens within a couple hours of you scanning them (Costco and FedExKinkos also offer quick printing I think, if you have one of those near you). What kind of scanner does this and what is the price range on something like that? therattle posted:Someone suggested shooting digital to improve composition, depth of field, etc which I think is a good idea. That said, I reckon you could find cheap used darkroom stuff on eBay or similar. Developing isn’t much fun but printing is terrific. DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR! I find that using film forces you to think a little harder about the picture. Considering how new I am to this I already have a decent grasp on some of these things. It helps that the camera I use lets you see what the depth of field will look like before you snap a picture. It also tells you what shutter speed you should be using with whatever aperture setting you've chosen. I'm sure those aren't super unique features but they sure are handy. I have a regular rear end scanner here and if I can motivate myself to do it during the day I'll post some of the pictures I've taken. edit: I know it probably makes more sense to gently caress around with a DSLR first, but I'm a stubborn autistic weirdo. If I wasn't I wouldn't be bothering with film at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:What kind of scanner does this and what is the price range on something like that? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...IBoCgVUQAvD_BwE I'm pretty sure I paid less than 200 a decade ago, but make sure you get the film holders too or can find them cheap, you can't just lay film on it flat. My dad uses the 750 model which is more expensive. Dork Room has a film thread, a q+a thread and general chat thread where you can probably get better answers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:edit: I know it probably makes more sense to gently caress around with a DSLR first, but I'm a stubborn autistic weirdo. If I wasn't I wouldn't be bothering with film at all. For stills, it's fine either way. You're right in that it can make you think a bit more about composing and such before taking the photo, but digital has a heap of convenience benefits that have made it the standard. When film was in that ground of being cheaper to begin with than digital, it was great, and there was also still a market for high-end, niche film that had a distinctive look that digital couldn't replicate. Now, it's not so much, and while it still has some aesthetic boons that digital can't do, I'd say it's hardly ideal to learn on because the investment of time and money is exponentially more than digital. Digital is fine to learn on, especially with RAW manipulation, as long as you pay attention. Don't just jam on sliders, use Lightroom and pay attention to what affects other parametres. That's probably the biggest fall of a lot of modern photographers; they know how to get the end result they want through digital manipulation, but don't know how to enunciate it or achieve it outside of a preset. Learning the programs is as much a vital skillset as learning the camera, and once you've got a handle on the equivalent terms that are interchangable between film and digital, you're 90% of the way there. Still, film is fun as hell so enjoy it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Worth saying that Kelly Carlin confirmed she’s in Bill and Ted 3, though sounds like a cameo. The messenger from the future role is going to be Kristen Schaal, which I am very down with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Oh I was talking a full on dark room to develop the film and make prints. I was considering doing what you're talking about though. The guy at the store even suggested it one day. It would certainly make the turn around time on the pictures much faster. I recently installed a large format printer at an Atlanta-area high school and they still had a film-based photography class, complete with a functional darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I think this is my scanner (it's in storage because I've fallen out of it) I actually have a really good Konica Minolta film scanner in a box in my storage unit, with a film holder. I haven't used it in a decade, but I can dig it out and see if it still works; if it does, I'd be happy to ship it, since I haven't shot on film since 2008 or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
 Owned, Lilly
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
I hope they just pretend the 2nd and 3rd movies never existed because I don't remember anything about them and have no interest in rewatching them. Is Neo still a god in the fake world? Was he a god in the 'real' world?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
What are some decent smaller news sites out there with progressive politics and an eye on social commentary? Not necessarily political news, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:What are some decent smaller news sites out there with progressive politics and an eye on social commentary? Not necessarily political news, either. The Outline and Current Affairs, specifically anything Alex Nichols and Nathan J. Robinson write for them, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Knightriders (1981) owns, and it owns in a totally different way than I expected. Also, I didn’t know that Tom Savini was an actor! In other news of things that were good in a totally different way than I figured, I didn’t expect Space Dandy (2014) to be an emotionally resonant primer on Zen Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:The Outline and Current Affairs, specifically anything Alex Nichols and Nathan J. Robinson write for them, respectively. Ha, The Outline inspired the question. Current Affairs looks great, though, I'll hop on that too. After jettisoning tech news, I'm just trying to make it so that my news feed isn't just movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Current Affairs and The Outline also sprinkle their articles with plenty of links to articles from other sites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:Knightriders (1981) owns, and it owns in a totally different way than I expected. Also, I didn’t know that Tom Savini was an actor! He's in From Dusk Till Dawn and has a memorable scene where he has an absolutely ridiculous crotch-mounted derringer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:Knightriders (1981) owns, and it owns in a totally different way than I expected. Also, I didn’t know that Tom Savini was an actor! He's also a prominent biker in the original Dawn of the Dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
He has a supporting role in Martin, Romero's hugely underseen vampire movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He's in From Dusk Till Dawn and has a memorable scene where he has an absolutely ridiculous crotch-mounted derringer. I forgot about that! I knew that he was in Dawn but I always read that as more of a cameo because I knew he did the effects work there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:He has a supporting role in Martin, Romero's hugely underseen vampire movie. I waffle on it, but I think Martin is Romero's best movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:I forgot about that! He has a similar bit/cameo appearance in Creepshow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:38
|
|