indiana jones

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:41 pm

all we need to do is find a cinema that sells tequila

dr ddd · Post by **dr ddd** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:45 pm

pk- wrote:all we need to do is find a cinema that sells tequila

s'ok pickle - i have a hip flask and a spare brown bag for you...

in fact there's an arthouse cinema in my street that has a bar... you used to be able to smoke in there too, on big sofas at the back - it was shweeeeett!

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:45 pm

pk- wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:on the download now.
i wouldn't bother, the sound is fucking terrible

is it massively gay of me to go to the cinema on my own? i don't have any friends.

Its more a-sexual really. It depends if you plan on pulling any blokes while your there.

misk · Post by **misk** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:17 pm

Tomity wrote:
hella savage wrote:
DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:on the download now.
FAIL.
Agreed.
yea stupid
Why the worries?

honestly? people work hard to make those movies. a movie like indiana jones required a LOT of people. hundreds of crew and post-production alone. and thats not even above the line.

i dont pirate music either. i used to but these days, i support creative endeavors if i can.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:39 pm

Misk wrote:
Tomity wrote:
hella savage wrote:
DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote: FAIL.
Agreed.
yea stupid
Why the worries?
honestly? people work hard to make those movies. a movie like indiana jones required a LOT of people. hundreds of crew and post-production alone. and thats not even above the line.

i dont pirate music either. i used to but these days, i support creative endeavors if i can.

I do agree, but in the case of a film like this I dont think its really a problem. The vast majority of people will go and see it at the cinema just for the spectical of it. All the cast and crew have been paid so they aren't losing out. And the two peeps at the top of the chain are multi-billionaires so I think they'll be ok.

Its a tricky thing morally for me. I download all sorts of stuff and in certain cases if I like something I wont go on to buy it for real. But if I didnt have that attitude I dont believe I'd have the taste in music I have today so I'm really thankful for illegal downloads. Films are a different issue for me but only for aesthetical reasons.

misk · Post by **misk** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:49 pm

Tomity wrote:
Misk wrote:
Tomity wrote:
hella savage wrote:
DJelements wrote: Agreed.
yea stupid
Why the worries?
honestly? people work hard to make those movies. a movie like indiana jones required a LOT of people. hundreds of crew and post-production alone. and thats not even above the line.

i dont pirate music either. i used to but these days, i support creative endeavors if i can.
I do agree, but in the case of a film like this I dont think its really a problem. The vast majority of people will go and see it at the cinema just for the spectical of it. All the cast and crew have been paid so they aren't losing out. And the two peeps at the top of the chain are multi-billionaires so I think they'll be ok.

I hear ya, it just seems like you're justifying your actions by stating that you are only taking money from the rich (who, according to you, are just getting richer) and not the poor. The reality is that someone funds these films, and with the way unions work in Hollywood, the profit margins are smaller and smaller these days.

concept_ · Post by **concept_** » Fri May 23, 2008 4:09 pm

dr ddd wrote:
pk- wrote:all we need to do is find a cinema that sells tequila
s'ok pickle - i have a hip flask and a spare brown bag for you...

in fact there's an arthouse cinema in my street that has a bar... you used to be able to smoke in there too, on big sofas at the back - it was shweeeeett!

Electric Cinema Notting Hill? (one amazing cinema- plays the sound of the movie when you're in the toilet, sofa/beds and a full bar at the back, massive seat..all good)

@ PK your earlier comment regarding Shia LaBaeiouf- couldn't have put it better myself. Any film he is in by my standards automatically has a 50% "doomed to failure" sticker attached. And not only does he get to be 'that kid', yknow the one who actually has a fucking transforming car which you ALWAYS wanted, but he gets to grope Megan Fox as well...the fuckin' cheek.

As for the new indiana

, Shia aside, Cate Blanchett is in it playing some Russian bitch which makes for infinate possible entertainment, therefore I'm hoping to go see. Its getting pretty good reviews over here.

cursedc · Post by **cursedc** » Fri May 23, 2008 4:16 pm

Misk wrote:
Tomity wrote:
hella savage wrote:
DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote: FAIL.
Agreed.
yea stupid
Why the worries?
honestly? people work hard to make those movies. a movie like indiana jones required a LOT of people. hundreds of crew and post-production alone. and thats not even above the line.

i dont pirate music either. i used to but these days, i support creative endeavors if i can.

haha, yeah I see that point of view. I wouldn't want people downloading my music unless I was giving it away.

That shit isn't cheap to make, and folks need to stop stealing music/films/media and just fucking pay for it. You don't need it if you can't pay for it.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:16 pm

Misk wrote:
Tomity wrote:
Misk wrote:
Tomity wrote:
hella savage wrote: yea stupid
Why the worries?
honestly? people work hard to make those movies. a movie like indiana jones required a LOT of people. hundreds of crew and post-production alone. and thats not even above the line.

i dont pirate music either. i used to but these days, i support creative endeavors if i can.
I do agree, but in the case of a film like this I dont think its really a problem. The vast majority of people will go and see it at the cinema just for the spectical of it. All the cast and crew have been paid so they aren't losing out. And the two peeps at the top of the chain are multi-billionaires so I think they'll be ok.
I hear ya, it just seems like you're justifying your actions by stating that you are only taking money from the rich (who, according to you, are just getting richer) and not the poor. The reality is that someone funds these films, and with the way unions work in Hollywood, the profit margins are smaller and smaller these days.

As I've said. It is morally dubious, I don't deny that. I just done think its all clean cut. If I get given dubs or things then I will defend them with my life. As I DJ I buy only vinyl and have no real need to download anything dubstep wise. When it comes to other types of music I will get the odd thing illegally. Not on a massive scale, maybe a couple of albums per month. Its stuff I wouldn't just buy randomly so I want to tread the water to see what its like.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:17 pm

CursedC wrote:You don't need it if you can't pay for it.

That doesn't work with all things.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:46 pm

DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:on the download now.
FAIL.
Agreed.

fail? i've made the mistake of paying to see shit films before, and feeling obliged to sit through 2 and a half hours of shitness.
these days i try before i buy.

i doubt harrison ford's family is going to go hungry because that fucking pirating tnuc £10 Bag torrented the new indy film

i'm sure hollywood will make millions of dollars PROFIT from this film...

if i like it, i will go to the cinema to see it.
although, since one of my best mates works at the cinema, i'm not going to pay to see this film anyway, even if it is really good, so i might as well download it! see where i'm coming from?

i only really buy independant films, normally ones made by local directors. so don't tell me i'm not supporting the film industry! this film will make millions regardless of if i torrent it...i'd rather give my money to an up and coming film director.

Jak The lad · Post by **Jak The lad** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Going to see this in 30mins. YAY!

£7.50 a ticket :O

umkhontowesizwe · Post by **umkhontowesizwe** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:02 pm

i downloaded this earlier, not impressed...

misk · Post by **misk** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:07 pm

£10 Bag wrote:
DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:on the download now.
FAIL.
Agreed.
fail? i've made the mistake of paying to see shit films before, and feeling obliged to sit through 2 and a half hours of shitness.
these days i try before i buy.

i doubt harrison ford's family is going to go hungry because that fucking pirating tnuc £10 Bag torrented the new indy film i'm sure hollywood will make millions of dollars PROFIT from this film...

if i like it, i will go to the cinema to see it.
although, since one of my best mates works at the cinema, i'm not going to pay to see this film anyway, even if it is really good, so i might as well download it! see where i'm coming from?

i only really buy independant films, normally ones made by local directors. so don't tell me i'm not supporting the film industry! this film will make millions regardless of if i torrent it...i'd rather give my money to an up and coming film director.

thats cool. I was wondering actually, if monsta sees this, i'd like to keep all his paintings in my house for a few weeks, and if i like them i'll pay for them, if i dont think they're worth the money he wants, i guess i'll take em to a printer to get giclee prints.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:10 pm

i thought it was ok actually. really glad they kept to the same era and style as the old indy films, although i didn't like the way there was a lot more impossible bullet-dodging going on...reminded me of the matrix or something. indy didn't get shot or stabbed once! i was disappointed about that.

i thought the ''evil'' ''scary'' main baddy woman was pretty unconvincing though...especially that accent. you could hear her slip up and talk in an english accent for a bit...i'm guessing the actress in an englishwoman

dunno if i'd pay to see it though, it's got nothing on the old films.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:12 pm

Misk wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:
DJelements wrote:
Misk wrote:
£10 Bag wrote:on the download now.
FAIL.
Agreed.
fail? i've made the mistake of paying to see shit films before, and feeling obliged to sit through 2 and a half hours of shitness.
these days i try before i buy.

i doubt harrison ford's family is going to go hungry because that fucking pirating tnuc £10 Bag torrented the new indy film i'm sure hollywood will make millions of dollars PROFIT from this film...

if i like it, i will go to the cinema to see it.
although, since one of my best mates works at the cinema, i'm not going to pay to see this film anyway, even if it is really good, so i might as well download it! see where i'm coming from?

i only really buy independant films, normally ones made by local directors. so don't tell me i'm not supporting the film industry! this film will make millions regardless of if i torrent it...i'd rather give my money to an up and coming film director.
thats cool. I was wondering actually, if monsta sees this, i'd like to keep all his paintings in my house for a few weeks, and if i like them i'll pay for them, if i dont think they're worth the money he wants, i guess i'll take em to a printer to get giclee prints.

thing is with paintings, you can see them before you buy them.

oh, thats right, you can with films too

monsta = independant artist

george lucas = one rich motherfucker

umkhontowesizwe · Post by **umkhontowesizwe** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:18 pm

£10 Bag wrote:oh, thats right, you can with films too

But if you do you'll be on the same level of the evil scale as a baby killer!

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:24 pm

Misk, paintings cannot be equated with hollywood movies.

Or can they?

How many times have you seen a Van Gogh or Rembrandt replicated? Do their 'ancestors' get royalties every time you see their intellectual property duplicated?

Sorry, I just don't see how you can equate something that is mass-produced/distributed/marketed with anything handmade.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:32 pm

relaks wrote:Misk, paintings cannot be equated with hollywood movies.

Or can they?

How many times have you seen a Van Gogh or Rembrandt replicated? Do their 'ancestors' get royalties every time you see their intellectual property duplicated?

Sorry, I just don't see how you can equate something that is mass-produced/distributed/marketed with anything handmade.

exactly.

our mate george is going to be just fine even if everyone pirates the new indy film. i'm sure he's got a few pennies saved for a rainy day.

fair enough, monsta might not be able to eat if i steal one of his paintings.

but you can't convert paint and canvas to 0's and 1's and upload it to a torrent site.

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:40 pm

£10 Bag wrote:
relaks wrote:Misk, paintings cannot be equated with hollywood movies.

Or can they?

How many times have you seen a Van Gogh or Rembrandt replicated? Do their 'ancestors' get royalties every time you see their intellectual property duplicated?

Sorry, I just don't see how you can equate something that is mass-produced/distributed/marketed with anything handmade.
exactly.

our mate george is going to be just fine even if everyone pirates the new indy film. i'm sure he's got a few pennies saved for a rainy day.

fair enough, monsta might not be able to eat if i steal one of his paintings.

but you can't convert paint and canvas to 0's and 1's and upload it to a torrent site.

Actually, people 'steal' paintings all the time (figuratively and literally). Images are distributed without license, plagiarism in composition/technique of course exists. People are very worried about copyrights. But I've never heard of a painter/sculptor worried than distribution of their own images would be anything but free publicity. Fact is, any good painting/sculpture cannot be reproduced except by shoddy imagery. Nothing can compete with the real thing.

There's a slew of painters in China making master copies, (on request no less) fakes have always existed and forgers arrested. But really, it's just not the same thing. Anything handmade is just more special than that.

Check out the antithesis: Thomas Kinkade (painter of Light LOL) who makes paintings with the express purpose of reproducing them en masse. He has his own images prinetd on canvas in huge editions, and if you're lucky he might do a real brushstroke. Utter bullshit, but people eat it up. People love marketing.

I'm getting off track here LOL

indiana jones

Who is online