Books by Sampo!

 

 

Support Us

Satellite News is not financially supported by Best Brains or any other entity. It is a labor of love, paid for out of our own pockets. If you value this site, we would be delighted if you showed it by making an occasional donation of any amount. Thanks.

Sampo & Erhardt

Sci-Fi Archives


Visit our archives of the MST3K pages previously hosted by the Sci-Fi Channel's SCIFI.COM.

Social Media


It Takes All Kinds…

The right people will get it.

Hat tip: Deep Ape.

113 Replies to “It Takes All Kinds…”

Commenting at Satellite News

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide an "Ignore" button () to help our users cope with "trolls" and other commenters whom they find annoying. Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Captain Cab says:

    HeatupTHEdeathray, not ‘that’deathray. Please pardon my username typo. :razz:

       0 likes

  2. This liberal scumbag loves Michael J. Nelson. (In a non-gay way)

       0 likes

  3. Lando37 says:

    Aw, man…there’s one less crappy blog on the internet.

       0 likes

  4. Th1rt3eN says:

    I would love to add my 2 cents but the link to where ever this “hater” (god it’s weird to see myself type that) has posted his uhh.. informed..uhh… expert?… film-maker? opinion is no longer there. no doubt removed due to the meaningless small number of thousands of mst3k fans hammering and spamming him to the point of tears.

    how am I to share my not so hateful thoughts on this if it’s no longer there? god, this is that Attack of the show Chris bore thing all over again.

    so i’ll just say why hate a cancled show? how dose it bother someone who never has to see it unless they go out and seek out the dvds? Unless.. OH GOD! Chris floor was right! this other guy has found the nationally syndicated re-runs of every eppisode! he caint avoide it!

    it’s always on that elusive robert denby network! quick how do I find this wounderful channle?!
    hold on, theres no such network, but that can mean onle one thing…. this 22 year old jules guy, hes one of them.

    them who? why a pathetic loser of corse, I should have noticed right off. only someone with no life and no insparation would knock a show they never have to deal with and apperently used to like (from what you all were saying) hmm.. sad really.

       0 likes

  5. Dyne says:

    #100

    Actually I don’t post on either of those. My normal forum handle is “Gunarm Dyne” since I’m not the only FF7/Skies of Arcadia fan out there. :lol:

       0 likes

  6. HeatUpTheDeathRay says:

    Tip of the hat to Gojikranz (99) and Captain Cab (100 & 101). :smile: I agree, Goji, Sea Monster is a pretty good movie, mainly interesting, I think, because of the human subplot and the first “underwater action” shot in a Godzilla movie. As for our bitter blogging friend, this kaiju fan has no problem admitting that not even widescreen can save Megalon. It’s simply one of the poorest in the series.

    And Liberal Scumbag (102), I also love Michael J. Nelson, but in a decidedly gay way. :grin: :wink:

       0 likes

  7. Captain Cab says:

    Dyne, you’ll have forgive me as the only real RPG I ever had time for was the epic Chrono Trigger. :) What forum do you post on if I may ask?

       0 likes

  8. Uncle Bill says:

    Hahahahahahahaha! He deleted the MST post from his blog. What a wussy.

    And I don’t know if anyone else pointed this out, but Kevin Murphy wrote a freakin’ book about how he SPENT AN ENTIRE YEAR GOING TO SEE ONE MOVIE IN A THEATER EVERY DAY. Yeah, obviously this moron is right, and none of the MST guys have any love or respect for movies.

       0 likes

  9. Rowsdowermobile says:

    @Cronkite Moonshot #79

    You are 100% correct about the 1.85:1 being more than “barely widescreen”. I simply maintain that movies in 1.85:1 are movies like Happy Gilmore; Nat’l Lampoon’s Vacation. Movies that don’t necessarily benefit from being truly W I D E screen. Hey, I’m all for widescreen for everything. However, as you said some even in that aspect can get ruined if panned and scanned poorly. I always remembered watching Dogma and Kevin Smith said in the commentary that critics didn’t understand why he shot it 2.35:1; implying that certain movies should be shot a certain way. But then, those are movie critics for you.

    As for my referencing the “classics,” you are far wiser than I about those. It goes to show you that when you think you know a few things, someone else knows just a little bit more. :smile:

       0 likes

  10. Happenstance says:

    One can always scoop up the deleted article from Google cache, like I just did.

    That said, I hope the removal of the article, the half-assed I’m-the-victim “apology” at Deep Ape, and Hugh’s personal plea at Deep Ape to “take it easy” on Li’l Dinky will end the pitchfork-mob mentality.

    Pompous dicks are best dealt with by either laughing at ’em and/or ignoring ’em, not by harassing ’em for having a stupid opinion and more mouth than brains.

       0 likes

  11. gojikranz says:

    @ 106 ya megalon is pretty weak though it is more enjoyable uncut if simply for the pinup nudies that are visible in the cab of the truck drivers :shock:

       0 likes

  12. Cornjob says:

    Rowsdowermobile #109

    The main reason that the movies you describe are shot at 1.85:1 is because it is a lot more expensive and difficult to shoot with anamorphic lenses at higher aspect ratios, and they don’t want to waste the money doing it since it wouldn’t really benefit the film anyway. But that doesn’t mean that all or even most films shot in 1.85:1 were made that way because the directors weren’t as concerned with the visuals as a director who chooses to use 2.35:1. It’s simply up to the director to decide what aspect ratio they want to, and/or are able to use for any movie. Sometimes it’s an issue of budget where the director might actually want to shoot a wider AR, but doesn’t have the money to do it (this was the case with Wes Anderson’s first film Bottle Rocket, he even shot tests in 2.35:1, but abandoned the idea due to the cost), sometimes it’s an issue of budget where the director doesn’t really care about shooting wider, and so it would just be a waste of time and money to do it (as with the comedies and such that you describe), and sometimes a director really could shoot anamorphic if they wanted to, but they choose to use 1.85:1 because it better suits the film they want to make. There are any number of circumstances behind why a films might have been shot in any particular ratio. A director having used 1.85:1 doesn’t instantly imply that they aren’t as concerned with the visuals of the film. Sometimes a film just works better in that format.

       0 likes

  13. Arch Hall 3 says:

    Can’t we all just get ” Beyond Thunderdome” ? :lol:

       0 likes

Comments are closed.