Nintendo pisses me off. Their naivety blows me away sometimes and since naivety is my biggest pet peeve, Nintendo just makes my blood boil often.
First off, they release a system that is behind the mark when it comes to graphics, yet they believe that the usual rainbow-pop BS that is Nintendo and their wonderfully novel motion controllers will make Nintendo survive forever.
I yell at the computer showing me article after article back in the day, yelling that novelty doesn't last (as long as quality). A year ago, Nintendo CEO gets bitter and yells at developers for not making all their games for Nintendo (duh, AGAIN, novelty doesn't LAST).
Now, http://news.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/nintendo-apple-is-enemy-of-the-future/8248
Nintendo thinks their biggest rival is Apple. I'm not privy to what Apple users are actually doing with their devices (although I do know that sheep tend to all do the same thing together), but apparently they play games. Nintendo reports losses this past quarter and now they respond with EVEN MORE NAIVETY.
I just want to yell at the screen again. It's not Apple that's killing your sales. It's your LACK of continuous development and innovation. You can't ride high on garbage graphics, novel controlling, and game schemes that mostly appeal to women and children, who don't spend a great amount (of money) on gaming in the first place. I laugh when I see someone actually buying DS games in the store. R4 anyone?
Nintendo just doesn't get it. They should have already been in development of a Wii HD and should really be moving on something that can compete with Natal this holiday season. Plus, where is the DS that can do more than game and chat with other DS users in the vain of teenage girls? Where is the DS that doesn't rely on homebrew apps to give it some degree of functionality? They should also get away, at least for half of the time, from that novel rainbow-poppy BS that they specialize in that makes them the poster-child for homosexual gaming...
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
The sad thing is, no matter how much you hate Nintendo, they have the best-selling video games and video game franchises of all time.
"They" referring to Nintendo exclusives. This does not necessarily mean Nintendo made the games themselves.
JAguirre1231 said:
The sad thing is, no matter how much you hate Nintendo, they have the best-selling video games and video game franchises of all time.
"They" referring to Nintendo exclusives. This does not necessarily mean Nintendo made the games themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is why I cry when I hear about people like Lady Gaga and Amy Winehouse making any money. I HATE when S**T sells. Wii sells a ton and George W. Bush gets elected twice. LOTS of dumb people in this world (other example: iPhone)
I agree 100%. Graphics are bad and their just so dated. I think im gonna go get that Peppa Pig game.... Looks fun!
The problem with the Wii is not the graphics, but the games.
It has 3 times or more the PS2 power, and the PS2 has some of the best games ever.
I have a Wii, it was collecting dust for a year and a half until I just recently bought Monster Hunter Tri, it's an awesome game. Also, your statement on buying DS games I pretty much agree with. I have an R4, but the only games I've actually bought for the DS are Pokemon Diamond, Platinum, and Soul Silver.
rorytmeadows said:
Which is why I cry when I hear about people like Lady Gaga and Amy Winehouse making any money. I HATE when **** sells. Wii sells a ton and George W. Bush gets elected twice. LOTS of dumb people in this world (other example: iPhone)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amy winehouse isn't that bad. the band that recorded the album isn't, at least...
and the wii has no real competitors so far (ps3 has those controlers soon, but who owns a ps3? )
but yeah I agree!!
rorytmeadows said:
Which is why I cry when I hear about people like Lady Gaga and Amy Winehouse making any money. I HATE when S**T sells. Wii sells a ton and George W. Bush gets elected twice. LOTS of dumb people in this world (other example: iPhone)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please, don't use foul language.
Okay, you see...there are many things about present day Nintendo that really do piss me off. Really. But, the thing is...there is nothing they can do now, or in the infinite future, that will ever change the fact that NINTENDO IS THE GREATEST VIDEO GAME COMPANY THAT HAS EVER OR WILL EVER EXIST. This is simply inarguable.
In reality, the reason why I'm so pissed off at Nintendo's BS these days is because their past was so glorious. I'm going to call 1985 to 1995 the decade of Nintendo. It peaked, an incredibly high peak, with the SNES. During the 16 bit era we had a Nintendo that not only made high-end hardware, but also successfully courted 3rd party developers to produce games for it.
Now Nintendo does neither of those things. But it still does not matter because they to this day produce the best video games on the planet. The small handful of Shigeru Miyamoto produced Mario/Zelda/Metroid games released by Nintendo easily make up for years of crappy mini-game packed cooking/dog walking simulators and rainbow colored pokemon sequels.
Now if you enjoy playing 25 new first person shooters every year on your 360/ps3 you will probably think I'm nuts. I realize I'm in the minority here. Quite frankly there are almost no games on Microsoft or Sony's consoles that interest me at all. And given that the hardware in both those machines is over 5 years old now, with absolutely no word yet of anything next-gen, I'm not too hung up on the Wii's underpowered nature.
So the way I see it, all three console manufacturers are currently riding on s**t graphics and s**t games for the most part, one or two exceptions per console per year does not change that.
And if Nintendo really is loosing money now, it's just a dent on the enormous pile of cash they have built up from selling the Wii and DS. MS and Sony have only recently started seeing profits from selling their hardware, so it is in their best interests to prolong the life of their machines for as long as possible to justify the high initial loses. This puts Nintendo in a position to release modern high-end video game hardware with almost no competition, at least for awhile. They should call the new machine the SNES 2 and it would have Super Mario World built into its BIOS. OMG who can I kill to make this happen.
Of course it won't though...not as long as there is a never ending supply of idiots who think that standing on a Nintendo branded slab of plastic will make them loose weight.
tsk tsk Nintendo, I still love you because of the games. If you are going to invest in any new hardware, make sure that it has something to do with granting Shigeru Miyamoto's immortality by hooking his brain up to a supercomputer.
MooGoo said:
Now Nintendo does neither of those things. But it still does not matter because they to this day produce the best video games on the planet. The small handful of Shigeru Miyamoto produced Mario/Zelda/Metroid games released by Nintendo easily make up for years of crappy mini-game packed cooking/dog walking simulators and rainbow colored pokemon sequels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Zelda = lame
Metroid = lame
Mario and Mario Kart are the only thing going for Nintendo gamewise. I miss thousands of hours on Goldeneye and WaveRace. Party games and Smash Bros are terrible games; NO WAY will I like a game that rewards my little brother beating me at a game that he wins just by mashing the keypad. I understand the novelty of a Wii, but my brothers and I made fun of my mother for years for moving her controller 3 feet in the direction she wanted to jump on SNES and GameCube Mario games, so NO WAY will I like a system that rewards that goofy stuff.
Nintendo will always dominate the market if they never sacrifice hardware performance for novelty again. The largest sellers are 1st person shooters. If they made a system that developers wanted to utilize for FPS games, they would dominate the market beyond what novelty can do. Well, that and they don't crap out a system marketed for all of the most annoying children in the world.
MooGoo said:
So the way I see it, all three console manufacturers are currently riding on s**t graphics and s**t games for the most part, one or two exceptions per console per year does not change that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What part of "no foul language" was unclear in the post immediately above yours?
egzthunder1 said:
What part of "no foul language" was unclear in the post immediately above yours?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "no foul language" part.
I'll go with Metroid being lame. I have not really the series since Super Metroid anyway. But ZELDA NOT LAME K:ALSUDJLKAJ:SDLK
Maybe the style is a bit done to death but the recent versions of it still kick ass, especially the DS ones.
And I'm sure you agree Super Mario Galaxy (and soon 2 omg) and Super Mario New Wii (not the mediocre DS version) totally make up for Nintendo's wiimote shaking obsession. Well not totally...
With all this wrists flailing wiimote madness, it is easy to forget that Nintendo ever managed to produce something like SNES controller. In Super Mario World, if you wanted to spin jump, you just pressed the X button. But in Super Mario New Wii, you have to shake the controller like an idiot and risk smacking someone in the face and breaking your TV if you forgot to put the strap around your wrist.
I wish Nintendo would have kept it simple I really do. The only games I actually play on the Wii are the ones that still use buttons as the main controls.
egzthunder1 said:
What part of "no foul language" was unclear in the post immediately above yours?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry I forgot I was still in grade school. This is the first time I've ever been censored here; my, and many other peoples foul language seems to have gone unnoticed before. Did I miss some kind of memo?
They got these things built into boards called filters you know, that can asterisk out naughty language before it is able to warp the delicate minds of the 13 year olds who post here.
If you're also talking about sales than I think you're wrong 'cause the DS outsold the PSP and the WII outsold the PS3 and XBOX 360.
If you think Nintendo doesn't know what they're doing then you're wrong.
But if you just don't like the games that people developed for Nintendo, then I think it's the game developers fault too.
But then again my sources are Wikipedia.
MooGoo said:
I'm sorry I forgot I was still in grade school. This is the first time I've ever been censored here; my, and many other peoples foul language seems to have gone unnoticed before. Did I miss some kind of memo?
They got these things built into boards called filters you know, that can asterisk out naughty language before it is able to warp the delicate minds of the 13 year olds who post here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean this memo?
2. Be polite and respect your fellow xda-dev user.
[highlight]There is no need for cursing, flaming, racism or personal attacks[/highlight]. There are a lot of different nationalities on this forum all with different cultures, this means that no matter what you're like, you'll have to adjust to people that are most definitely not like you. For this reason we'd like to ask you to refrain from discussions about religion or politics, we do not wish to limit your right to free speech, but we have noticed these topics tend to get heated and might be best discussed in a different environment. It will gain you a lot of respect if you help to keep the peace. It's disrespectful and therefore not permitted to create Alias Member names in an attempt to deceive others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't get everyone, but we do act on the people that we do see.
nintendo's only good games at this point are ones made by nintendo themselves. Theyve been ignoring that fact because of how well financially the Wii has been doing, but first party games alone can never support a console without any quality third party titles to back them up. Nintendo's in for a wake up call real soon.
I'm sorry I forgot I was still in grade school. This is the first time I've ever been censored here; my, and many other peoples foul language seems to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean this memo?
2. Be polite and respect your fellow xda-dev user.
There is no need for cursing, flaming, racism or personal attacks. There are a lot of different
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't get everyone, but we do act on the people that we do see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but IN REGARDS TO being "polite and respectful to your fellow xda-dev user". Forgive me if I don't read into that sentance a sweeping ban against all "bad words" however benign.
If XDA really wants to enforce such childish rules, state it clearly and unequivocally. "There is no need" is hardly a definative statement for banning something so common especially when you proceede to list cursing and racism in the same breath.
And besides, if you insist on being forum Nazi's the least you could do is enable automatic profanity filtering. Either that or just edit my post without leaving the added indignant reply.
MooGoo said:
Yes, but IN REGARDS TO being "polite and respectful to your fellow xda-dev user". Forgive me if I don't read into that sentance a sweeping ban against all "bad words" however benign.
If XDA really wants to enforce such childish rules, state it clearly and unequivocally. "There is no need" is hardly a definative statement for banning something so common especially when you proceede to list cursing and racism in the same breath.
And besides, if you insist on being forum Nazi's the least you could do is enable automatic profanity filtering. Either that or just edit my post without leaving the added indignant reply.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow this was a good read until you just threw up on here. The one thing that got me to actually have to reply:
"added indignant reply."
Really? You can't see how you're the one actually being a jerk to begin with all because you did exactly what he just told the other guy not to? That's just a slap in the face, and that's 10 times worse that cursing in the first place, on the disrespect subject. God don't flame me, just think about it. Refusing to admit a wrong doesn't show education.
Anyways! On topic!
Well, sadly, whoever said Wii sold more than PS3 and Xbox 360 is correct. You have to stop and think, though. Wii really is for all ages. I enjoy it now and again, and I'm 19. It's for family fun, not competition or winning.
Also, it's very popular for the younger generation. My 8 year old nieces cannot even play a Xbox 360, yet they CAN play a Wii. Now, I go into my room and shoot people all night on a 360, but go in the living room to play Wii with them and my sister who's 28.
And, that's what it boils down too. Wii sells more because it adheres to almost every age group/gender except for teenage males - middle aged males. Those age/gender groups may play it, but will never own one for personal use unless you're a young father or something along those lines. Older people don't want to shoot people - most older people can't even use a 360 controller to shoot someone if they wanted to. They also mostly disapprove of it. They also disapprove of shooting games for their children. (I know, you think violent video games and kids is such bs, but talk to some old schools it really is a legitimate argument.) Thats for another subject, though. There are VERY little family orientated games for the 360 or PS3.
Pretty much same with DS. I play it often with my fiancée. I've actually considered buying two of them just so I can play with her. Would I ever play it without her? No. MAYBE Super Mario (my nieces got me hooked on it helping them beat levels and what not) but never another game.
Just my 2 cents. Honestly, I think Nintendo is a on a good/strong track. They're the only real major gaming company that tries hard to apply to all generations. Well, they try much harder than any other.
Probably missed some things, got a little confusing going back and trying to reorder it to make it flow.
r3s-rt said:
Wow this was a good read until you just threw up on here. The one thing that got me to actually have to reply:
"added indignant reply."
Really? You can't see how you're the one actually being a jerk to begin with all because you did exactly what he just told the other guy not to? That's just a slap in the face, and that's 10 times worse that cursing in the first place, on the disrespect subject. God don't flame me, just think about it. Refusing to admit a wrong doesn't show education.
Anyways! On topic!
Well, sadly, whoever said Wii sold more than PS3 and Xbox 360 is correct. You have to stop and think, though. Wii really is for all ages. I enjoy it now and again, and I'm 19. It's for family fun, not competition or winning.
Also, it's very popular for the younger generation. My 8 year old nieces cannot even play a Xbox 360, yet they CAN play a Wii. Now, I go into my room and shoot people all night on a 360, but go in the living room to play Wii with them and my sister who's 28.
And, that's what it boils down too. Wii sells more because it adheres to almost every age group/gender except for teenage males - middle aged males. Those age/gender groups may play it, but will never own one for personal use unless you're a young father or something along those lines. Older people don't want to shoot people - most older people can't even use a 360 controller to shoot someone if they wanted to. They also mostly disapprove of it. They also disapprove of shooting games for their children. (I know, you think violent video games and kids is such bs, but talk to some old schools it really is a legitimate argument.) Thats for another subject, though. There are VERY little family orientated games for the 360 or PS3.
Pretty much same with DS. I play it often with my fiancée. I've actually considered buying two of them just so I can play with her. Would I ever play it without her? No. MAYBE Super Mario (my nieces got me hooked on it helping them beat levels and what not) but never another game.
Just my 2 cents. Honestly, I think Nintendo is a on a good/strong track. They're the only real major gaming company that tries hard to apply to all generations. Well, they try much harder than any other.
Probably missed some things, got a little confusing going back and trying to reorder it to make it flow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, we are aware that the Wii is marketed for all ages. But that is not where the money is. Everyone knows that the money market is not only people 18-34, but especially males 18-34. I'm a little sick of Nintendo whining every time they report low earnings or don't have developers jump into making hot third-party titles for the Wii. They don't get that because their system isn't marketed for the money making demographic. I think only in Japan are the age demos are off from the rest of the world. There are plenty of 30-year-old Japanese that seems to be into that pop-rainbow BS that Nintendo craps out constantly. That's fine, but that's not the rest of the world.
Related
read in another thread about people talking about national feelings and patriotism and the likes
i never really understod the concept at all
when the country i live in win at sports, win a war (been 1k years )
invent a timemachine break guiness record of standing on ones head
i really dont get how it should reflect on me for better or worse
i never contributed to any of it apart from being born a surden place
i fail to see how i could take pride in any of it
sure i vote and i agree and is happy about some aspects on the system of where i live but i'm 1 in 5million
i can only really take any pride in things I do myself
maybe it's kinda like religion with feeling strengh in feeling one is a part of something bigger then oneself
who knows
but in the grand sceme of things i believe that nationalism have caused more wars in the history then religion
where religion have just been used as an excuse alot more
Group Identity mate. It sucks. Same reason people go crazy over a stupid football team.
If people thought for themselves and had a little personal accountability this world would be very different.
I agree. people forget that our phsycology is also an artifact of evolution. after all, as a group we are very successful.
the culture here pays lip service to patriotism but it seems to me that in countries like America people genuinely feel that patriotism. Propogander/media must play a big roll in this behavior.
nothing wrong with patriotism. but it tends to go overboard. nationalism does cause conflict but it also gives people a sense of belonging.
HPJ said:
Group Identity mate. It sucks. Same reason people go crazy over a stupid football team.
If people thought for themselves and had a little personal accountability this world would be very different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my dad gave me a great sense of practicality. his philosophy is: there are really no losers in sports except the fan. both teams, both players on both sides are millionaires. when they lose a game they don't kill themselves. when the season is over they go home to a mansion. the only loser is the fan who thinks life is over after their team lost.
I couldn't possibly care less about these sort of games. This puts me in, I'd venture, less than 3% of the young male population of this country who can buy an Xbox or whatnot in the first place.
Discuss.
Homework or a public speaking competition? Sweet Idea, will post my arguments once others give me ideas
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
More like inciting a flame war. ^_^ j/k
I've never liked racing, shooting, or sports games, which I've found doesn't sit well with most men my age (22). Just wondering what fellow techies think.
Usually I get a "wow, I can't believe another human being has different tastes than me" response. I don't think I've ran into a "Wow you're so gay" response but it's only a matter of time. =/
ninestraycats said:
More like inciting a flame war. ^_^ j/k
I've never liked racing, shooting, or sports games, which I've found doesn't sit well with most men my age (22). Just wondering what fellow techies think.
Usually I get a "wow, I can't believe another human being has different tastes than me" response. I don't think I've ran into a "Wow you're so gay" response but it's only a matter of time. =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep same. I'm different to everyone in my school. Everyones got iphoned, I got a Desire, now everyones jealous haha.. anyways, I like racing and shooting games. Just the real ones. CoD and GT not things like killzone or WoW. Though I don't play often, every 2–3 weeks maybe, I do enjoy some adrenalin pumping through my veins when I due just begore the end of the mussion. It makes me more determined to finish correctly the next time etc..
Everyones always asking me when I'm online next to play a bit of CoD or whatever and I just don't understand how you can become addicted to something that doesn't actually exist. Well it does but not really, you know what I mean : )
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
LOL been a gamer for too long. But I have never told anyone that they were "gay" because they didn't like to game.
But.. usually they were women.
well im different to everyone in my school.
most of the lads in my year like football and cod.
"medal of honor- is ****"
"driving games - ****"
"every other game apart from cod and fifa- is ****"
i have been called gay because i have long hair and i like rock music and drum and bass (and others).
i think the reason they call you gay is because they don't like people that are different and like other things.
about 1 year ago everyones phones where sony ericssons (crap ones)
and samsung tocco lites (horrible)
but 1 lad had a t-mobile g1.
i had my 7 year old htc himalaya brick (excellent phone)
now quite a few have htc's desires, hero, legend. (and obviously don't know about xda (what a pitty))
people seem to follow other people and call you weird because you are not following.
sorry if i drifted off topic.
i like driving games, fps (half-life excellent!!)
im a gran turismo guy i love that game, i also enjoy a nice helping of cod now and then too, i cant stand football soccer or basketball games though
COD - meh
FIFA - meh
GT5 - drool
Well, an explanation is warranted for the above...
I never really got the hang of FPS games in multiplayer, mostly because I used to pwn at CounterStrike and Half-Life, but a hiatus during my formative days (read, TEENAGE) lost my edge in FPS games. Mostly I will check out the single player experience, and if it gains enough traction amongst my friends, I'll get the original copy. Mostly, for group enjoyment purposes, we game L4D if we wanna play FPS. I'm just waiting for Crysis 2 (as an excuse to upgrade my Gfx card more than anything else )
FIFA... well... is a game for douchetards who imagine that they have the skills needed to take Leo Messi/CR to whatever glories that in real life they couldn't achieve (both for the gamers and the players). Simply said, it gives little to none benefits, and merely act as an escapement and commercial device. For the more serious guys, we play futsal, which is like football played in a netball field. Pacing is fun, especially since players with less stamina can join in and height doesn't bring that much of a benefit (read, GIRLS CAN PLAY TOO). And for the brainiacs, we play Football Manager 2011.
GT5 is going to be something of a old history for me. It's more of a nostalgia device than something of real enjoyment. Back in the days, me and my brother played GT1, GT2, GT3, and probably GT4. To my brother, who is an engineer by now, it is the most accurate depiction of a car on the race-track. I'll skip the nostalgia bit... Anyway, since neither of us own a PS3, and neither of us plans to own a PS3, this game will forever reside in the droolworthy section of our hindbrains, possibly forever.
The problem with me is I'm probably in the less than 0.05% zone. I'm a self-professed geek that likes to party and do sports. I could, enjoyably, spend the afternoon tinkering with my PC/phone or just dump everything to hang out with friends, chilling out and maybe finding the answers to life (we checked, its not 42).
So gaming is cool and all that, but it's not the be all and end all for me
Gotta say... I love GT5 lol. I think I like it more than GT3 or 4 because I'm actually trying now lol. I used to have a Game Shark, Code Breaker, and Action Replay to cheat my way to having (basically) infinite cash, the AI guys wouldn't move, and every car would have like 16x acceleration lol. It made it fun cause I could get what I wanted when I wanted, but ruined the sense of accomplishment needed to make it feel way better. I actually HAVE to try and succeed in this now, which is awesome imo.
Call of Duty is cool, but I'm not into it as much anymore as I am with GT5 now.
FIFA is a game I'll never play. I don't do sports, nor like them; especially soccer.
Sent from my Droid Incredible running Myn's Warm Two Point Two RLS5.
sakai4eva said:
To my brother, who is an engineer by now, it is the most accurate depiction of a car on the race-track.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is VERY cool and I didn't know that. Sucker as I am for new experiences, it makes me want to play it again with this knowledge.
sakai4eva said:
Pacing is fun, especially since players with less stamina can join in and height doesn't bring that much of a benefit (read, GIRLS CAN PLAY TOO).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, I hope I'm reading your implications right: b/c size isn't an issue, women can play the sport side-by-side with men. The other implication would be a little... off-putting. >.<
flyboyovyick said:
well im different to everyone in my school.
i have been called gay because i have long hair and i like rock music and drum and bass (and others).
i think the reason they call you gay is because they don't like people that are different and like other things.
i like driving games, fps (half-life excellent!!)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry I paraphrased your Quote
1) Nothing wrong with Long Hair and playing Bass. I did both for a long time - but now the hair fell out and I play a little guitar (i.e. it stares at me taunting me on the wall collecting dust due to RL stealing all my time)
2) Your unique... just like everybody else
3) Half Life is probably the BEST GAME EVER. And I'm a sucker for driving games. I haven't purchased GT yet as I know my wife would kill me while I was going around the track at 4am.
YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE GAMES!!! wow!!, i didn't know another human being could have such different taste to me.
But seriously 'normal' at my school is f'd up compared to everybody elses, screamo metalheads and emos rule the street and jocks are considered to be on the same level as the scum you find in public toilets... its a weird place.
Im lucky anyway because im a self admitted nerd at school but for some strange reason nobody believes me? (WTF's with that!?!) Which is especially strange considering people are paying me to set up snow leopard hackintosh on their pc's.
My favorite shooter is Gears o' War 2 (can't really call it fps), but, uh, what do you guys think of bioshock? I personally don't like it, much to the disdain of all my friends who are obsessed with it.
urbanengine1 said:
But seriously 'normal' at my school is f'd up compared to everybody elses, screamo metalheads and emos rule the street and jocks are considered to be on the same level as the scum you find in public toilets... its a weird place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that is strange. At my school there was no "jock" contingency either, but why would there necessarily have to be, stereotypes are stereotypes.
What IS indeed common to probably every school ever are cliques. I'm guessing it's the 'us vs. them' mentality that's so crucial to so many living things.
ninestraycats said:
FIFA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Soccer is the worst game (notice I didn't call it a sport) in the history of mankind.
I admit that I was a formerly proud owner of the first iPhone (2G) but have disliked the gradually cultish nature of iPhone users over the years. I have met a lot of iPhone users nowadays and strangely enough, a lot of them express a particular self-absorption and lack of interest in the well-being of others for some odd reason.
I know that there isn't a scientific reason/explanation for a device affecting the personality of the iPhone owners or the culture of them as a group, but how can such a device have an impact on the lifestyles of these people. So my question is why are such people who are iPhone users tend to be ego-obsessed, yuppie-like, megacapitalist, arrogant, etc. etc. blah blah?
Case in point: I was on a recent date with lady who owned an iPhone and she couldn't keep her eyes off her iPhone all the time. After all, I would be hoping that I would have a word in straightedgewise once in awhile...?
(Btw, I myself am mostly a Palm Pre Plus and Android user mostly. I do use an iPad and iPhone for my art studio work so I am probably guilty of some of these qualities too?)
Anyways, regardless of political orientation, what is the sociological explanation for the cult yuppish nature and type A personalities of the iPhone owners? Feel free to flame on, but I'm actually interested in reasoned explanations of this mystery.
I think yuppie implies some sort of exclusivity or poshness. In an era where every man and his dog has an iphone i see it more as a commoners device
Actually, in my mind i see it as iphone=girls, Android=lads, Blackberry=Business, Anything Nokia=Simpletons, Palm=Non-conformist loners.
Yuppies, aka, hipsters. They are invading my neighborhood, which used to be a nice quiet Polish area.
They don't like anything mainstream (that's why they dress like **** and listen to ****ty music) but LOVE anything apple. They are one of those people that if an Apple worker takes a crap, names it iCrap, they will buy it. I really think there is nothing special about an iPhone, well maybe except ending the call by touching the side of it. There is nothing my G2 can't do that an iPhone can.
Don't get me wrong, I own an iPad, but I barely use it, and I was thinking of using it for my photo biz, and used it for that a few times already. I only bought it because iPad competitors were nowhere to be found, except the Gtab
DirkGently1 said:
I think yuppie implies some sort of exclusivity or poshness. In an era where every man and his dog has an iphone i see it more as a commoners device
Actually, in my mind i see it as iphone=girls, Android=lads, Blackberry=Business, Anything Nokia=Simpletons, Palm=Non-conformist loners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most people on this planet are "non-tech-savvy". They don't know the difference between 1080p and 720p, RDP and VNC, what's a "VPN", etc. The folks from Apple perfectly know this - that's why they make the most straightforward devices I've ever seen. Total lack of design (I mean c'mon - a button and a screen?) + an elementary user interface (considered revolutionary) = the iPhone. It's for people who want "high tech" and ""usability"" (notice the doubled quotation marks), who wouldn't probably ever want to know what makes their device tick, or even if it's working correctly, because "they simply won't understand it". That actually makes the iPhone something I would gladly give to my 75-year-old grandpa, whose knowledge of modern computer hardware and software is on about the same level as my cat's. I guess this is the primal reason Apple managed to create an enormous fan base of people, who would buy everything with a bitten apple engraved on it and, of course, Steve Jobs has praised for ~2 hours straight (in their presentations) with hundreds of five-dollar words like "this time we exceeded ourselves" or "it's truly amazing, MAGICAL even". People, who would so fiercely protect Apple's creations, it's scares me.
Its not the device changing the people, its just the type of people and the demographic that actually considers using an iPhone over a different device. The device has not shaped them but the device has changed our perception of the device and who uses it
DirkGently1 said:
Actually, in my mind i see it as iphone=girls, Android=lads, Blackberry=Business, Anything Nokia=Simpletons, Palm=Non-conformist loners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
10char..
iphone users are idiots , they pay about 4 times more for the same or less processing power , functions and ease of use that i can get from ebay
I don't think that that's the case unless all the people I see on the buses, subways, streets and schools tend to be "ego-obsessed, yuppie-like, megacapitalist, arrogant, etc. etc. blah blah."
Almost every person I see on a phone outside is on the iPhone 4, of course that's just NYC at the moment.
I always think of that Steve Mobs scene in the Simpsons every time i'm in a room full of people checking their iphone4's.
True that although what to do if you use both Apple and Android?
qipengart said:
True that although what to do if you use both Apple and Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
then you are a troubled man , with a bizarre dilemma to figure out , and need to find yourself
So do you guys cheat sometimes in games like MW3? Or in an MMORPG? In a game like MW3 you can use an wallhack or if you wanna be the ultimate killing machine you can use an aimbot to.
The wallhack just tells you the position off your enemy by putting squares around, so that makes a good cheat without being detected.
While an aimbot results in many kills and angry player who say they had sex with your mother even though they not know her, or they say you are gay, either way cheating can be fun.
With games like World of Warcraft you could cheat by using an bot, I tried it in Silkroad online, I bring my character to the grinding area and put the bot on and watch an video, well that was fun because I can do something else in the mean time.
One most servers on TeknoMW3 you will get banned, but I managed to play for about one month on a Dutch server without getting banned until today, I made my nickname the same as the admin from that server so people though the admin was cheating.
You could call cheating childish, but I don't think it is, I think many people cheat especially on TeknoMW3, of course I wouldn't cheat on official servers, because there are so many servers on Teknogods, if I get banned I just play on another server.
GTA is the only game that I use cheats. I think it's a waste when you cheat on games like Skyrim and first person shooter games. I think there are other people that use cheats just for the sake of knowing the story of the game.
What is wrong with you people? Where is your integrity? Lol.
You cannot have one without the other sadly.
No. cheating gets you what you want if you really want it.
The day i played DOTA and someone came wasted all his spells me and then magically re-fresh ed his spels without orb. that was the day i declared war on all cheaters.
My everyone else cheated..
And look where i am.
lvl 1 with a stick of prodding, depressed as hell.. my life sux.. and the criminals who shot me "literally" are having beer.
Somewhere something has to give.
Cheating only leads to more cheating.
A game is one thing human life is another.
In a perfect world we'd have servers for real players and servers for cheaters, and people would stick to the correct ones. The only problem I have with cheaters is they spoil a game for people that want to play it properly. I think people who are into cheating to "win" over real players probably got slapped a few times in the school yard and didn't know how to deal with it.
Archer said:
In a perfect world we'd have servers for real players and servers for cheaters, and people would stick to the correct ones. The only problem I have with cheaters is they spoil a game for people that want to play it properly. I think people who are into cheating to "win" over real players probably got slapped a few times in the school yard and didn't know how to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or in case with a game as World of Warcraft they have a life and you don't so you keep playing like 18 hours a day and don't go to school / work, but the cheater he put his bot on and goes to work and when he returns how he lvled and got some gold.
The bot in Silkroad Online I really liked, because I just wanted play the game without needing to sit the whole day behind this game.
DexterMorganNL said:
The bot in Silkroad Online I really liked, because I just wanted play the game without needing to sit the whole day behind this game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There you go... another example.
If you support it, you can't hate it.
DexterMorganNL said:
Or in case with a game as World of Warcraft they have a life and you don't so you keep playing like 18 hours a day and don't go to school / work, but the cheater he put his bot on and goes to work and when he returns how he lvled and got some gold.
The bot in Silkroad Online I really liked, because I just wanted play the game without needing to sit the whole day behind this game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't play games like that, but I don't think it's right to say someone has no life and judge them just on the game they play.
Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
I dont cheat in online games, I dont see the fun in it. I dont play online to prove something to myself...
now GTA style Give Me A Tank cheats in singleplayer... I will use those now and then...
I do, Skyrim, I made sure I was the most powerful mage ever. Even with pokemon, I made sure I had mewtwo to destory everything. It's not because I wanted to cheat, but I HATE losing.
cashyftw said:
I do, Skyrim, I made sure I was the most powerful mage ever. Even with pokemon, I made sure I had mewtwo to destory everything. It's not because I wanted to cheat, but I HATE losing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what kind of cheat did you do on skyrim?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I must admit that I actually cheated once playing Fallout. I used the code thing to get unlimited ammo. But I was just playing by myself.
Lol I use cheats but only in GTA. Gotta have that buzzard and apc, you know?
--sent from my glacier.
Edit: tbogt ftw
probably in my entire gaming career for First Person Shooter Online, i never use cheat once.
THe only cheat i use is up up down down left right left right b a
how will i pass if i dont cheat?
I only cheat on gta games also, just to cause some mayhem whem im bored
Sent from my X10i using xda premium
I used to run with quite a cheating crew in the Modern Warfare games for fun, and a bit in Halo 3.
You'd hate me.
We used to derank people in public games, hilarity ensued.
Ah, those JTAG days.
On my second go around on ME3 i cheated somewhat.... I edited my War Asset to around 10,000 like that i didn't have to do every single little thing to increase readiness rating etc.
Cheated on Assassin Creed only for the money.... Technically i cheat after I've finished a game genuinely or i got pissed off way too much
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass. Not to mention anyone in the military knows you don't put your hands on an O-6.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
blackhawk said:
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
V0latyle said:
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Numerous technical errors as usual... try to pretend you're stupid, don't think, pretend it's not Tom Cruise and the movie might be ok.
Probably not.
I once shot out a 30" crt with a 9mm Glaser safety slug because Tom Cruise was on it at that time. Got him center mass
Deeply satisfying and the micro shrapnel from it was incredible. Replaced the crt for $169... it was so worth it.
After thinking over, watch Spy Hard instead. Far more believable, better script and acting too
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Badger50 said:
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any critter that decorates its den entrance with bones from its plunders isn't a simple creature
blackhawk said:
simple creature
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Badger50 said:
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simply hungry too
Meh... saw it.
Great cinematography... at times,
sound track- meh,
script- another death star miracle... it was pretentious and rehashed.
wokeness- a token women top gun, lame.
It had a click to it but it felt like a 80yo cougar making a pass at you.
It's ok... hella better then any of the new woke Disney crap
Guess I'll watch it again. Older Tom Cruise isn't nearly as anoying as young TC.
What do two F18 pilots, Wombat and Mover think?
They bring up some interesting aspects of the movie.
I want to believe... *explodes into pink mist*
The sequel to a classic created another classic...Tom Cruise back as Maverick is fantastic...a film to watch and re-watch..
V0latyle said:
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Cv7676 said:
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
V0latyle said:
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
blackhawk said:
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
V0latyle said:
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
blackhawk said:
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
V0latyle said:
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
blackhawk said:
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
V0latyle said:
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
blackhawk said:
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh okay, so they shot at 34fps, which resulted in a bit of a "slow motion" effect when played at the standard 24fps.