Talk about whatever you want to here, but stay correct
#232070 by gozu
Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:16 am
alsa no, but you should try to sell something like thats, i'd buy it
#232084 by Octillus
Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:41 pm
I just had a dream for a really odd movie concept.

Dunno if I want to elaborate too much, but it does have the main character making love to a female truck driver (in a PG 13 sense) as her semi truck drives up a ramp and through a burning ring of fire.
#232095 by AlucardXIX
Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:59 pm
Octillus wrote:I just had a dream for a really odd movie concept.

Dunno if I want to elaborate too much, but it does have the main character making love to a female truck driver (in a PG 13 sense) as her semi truck drives up a ramp and through a burning ring of fire.


Please do elaborate. I like this ramp and ring of fire deal.
#232097 by Octillus
Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:17 pm
AlucardXIX wrote:
Octillus wrote:I just had a dream for a really odd movie concept.

Dunno if I want to elaborate too much, but it does have the main character making love to a female truck driver (in a PG 13 sense) as her semi truck drives up a ramp and through a burning ring of fire.


Please do elaborate. I like this ramp and ring of fire deal.


Well I guess the concept is that the film is about making a sequel (not sure if it's mockumentary or not) to high successful spy thriller in the vein of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.

Hell I'll just post my dream journal ramblings:
I know this is kinda goofy but this is something I just dreamt about that I'd rather not forget. While I haven't decided if this is a mockumentary or just a film, basically it's about two British actors, one slightly older but pretty moderately successful, one younger but up and coming and going to be a huge star. The idea is that they basically starred in an independent action film a few years back in the vein of kind of a James Bond Goldeneye (none of this serious Daniel Craig crap) that was lighthearted and extremely successful. Younger guy protagonist, older guy mentor turned antagonist. A bigger studio signs on to do the sequel, they get a great director and use all kinds of special effects and it goes terrifically and is a huge box office success. This is where the film would start would be the red carpet from there. They're on top of the world, everything is great until the contract stipulation for the third film basically states that both of the actors need to be frozen for 5 years, since the next film is supposed to take place immediately afterward, but the studio afraid of gambling on the franchise hadn't started any preproduction yet. So basically the two actors are frozen, and when they return to the land of the living, the older actor finds out that he had starred in a series of extremely poorly received advertisements, tv series, and direct to home video films by taking his frozen image and using cgi to alter it. In fact the credits for the sitcom that he starred in has credits roll by saying the actor's frozen mostly immobile kinda-corpse. From there they kick-start production on the third film in the trilogy, and that's when everything goes awry. The younger actor is becoming extremely succesful due to a line of endorsement deals, while the older actor is kinda being swept under the carpet. A new director (very much a brett ratner) steps into the franchise and has different ideas of how things should go. For example during a chase scene the younger actor makes love to a female truck driver and she climaxes as the big rig goes up a ramp and through a burning ring of fire. Eventually it's decided that the studio would make more money if both of the actors died in a terrible accident and they could collect on the insurance and use most of the setpieces to make a film about talking dogs instead. This leads to a somewhat climactic scene where the two actors who are talked into to doing their own stunts to really raise the bar and the two actors are freefalling, locked one arm and shooting at each other but actually with real bullets, but they don't realize it, til halfway down, as well as that only one of their parachutes work. Then I woke up.


If you can actually read that, good for you.
#232100 by Leechmaster
Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:24 pm
We haven't had a good ol' tl;dr in ages! :D


Nah, I jest. If it ever gets made and I've forgotten that I've read exactly what the film is about I may go see it. But it better have the Brosnan in it!
#232103 by Octillus
Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:31 pm
Leechmaster wrote:We haven't had a good ol' tl;dr in ages! :D


Nah, I jest. If it ever gets made and I've forgotten that I've read exactly what the film is about I may go see it. But it better have the Brosnan in it!


Haha thanks man, I anticipated the tl:dr.

Seriously it was just a goofy thing that came to me in a dream.
#232110 by Leechmaster
Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:29 pm
What you should do as well is make the movie trailer absolutely 100% completely nothing to do with the actual film...
#232116 by Octillus
Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:57 pm
Leechmaster wrote:What you should do as well is make the movie trailer absolutely 100% completely nothing to do with the actual film...

Like make a trailer for the third film or something.
#232144 by AlucardXIX
Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:27 pm
Leechmaster wrote:We haven't had a good ol' tl;dr in ages! :D


Nah, I jest. If it ever gets made and I've forgotten that I've read exactly what the film is about I may go see it. But it better have the Brosnan in it!


Hahaha

Yea I read the whole thing. I was actually expecting more of a screen play type deal.
#232182 by Octillus
Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:55 am
AlucardXIX wrote:
Leechmaster wrote:We haven't had a good ol' tl;dr in ages! :D


Nah, I jest. If it ever gets made and I've forgotten that I've read exactly what the film is about I may go see it. But it better have the Brosnan in it!


Hahaha

Yea I read the whole thing. I was actually expecting more of a screen play type deal.


Well I'm sorry I can't print documents directly from my subconscious. :P

To be fair I am at school for writing scripts in various forms (dual column, screenplay, etc.) but I'm on holiday and I really rather not think academically for the next 4 days before school starts up again
#232382 by Phase
Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:51 pm
Recently bough a new guitar. I love it, it sounds awesome, feels right in my hands, ad is one f he few things I've bought entirely for me. It's lovely.

But I've found a problem. It has a Tune-o-Matic bridge, and I'm finding it really hard to palm mute. I'm hoping it's only a technique thing, cause I don't want to get rid of it. ;-;
#232384 by Abydost
Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:10 pm
Phase wrote:Recently bough a new guitar. I love it, it sounds awesome, feels right in my hands, ad is one f he few things I've bought entirely for me. It's lovely.

But I've found a problem. It has a Tune-o-Matic bridge, and I'm finding it really hard to palm mute. I'm hoping it's only a technique thing, cause I don't want to get rid of it. ;-;


String through? I have that on my Schecter, it's why I dislike it on the Devy signature. Even harder to do sixteenths.
#232385 by Phase
Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:14 pm
Abydost wrote:
Phase wrote:Recently bough a new guitar. I love it, it sounds awesome, feels right in my hands, ad is one f he few things I've bought entirely for me. It's lovely.

But I've found a problem. It has a Tune-o-Matic bridge, and I'm finding it really hard to palm mute. I'm hoping it's only a technique thing, cause I don't want to get rid of it. ;-;


String through? I have that on my Schecter, it's why I dislike it on the Devy signature. Even harder to do sixteenths.


Aye, string through. I have no problem playing quickly, just the palm mutes sound like PARP.
#232387 by Abydost
Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:55 pm
Phase wrote:
Abydost wrote:
Phase wrote:Recently bough a new guitar. I love it, it sounds awesome, feels right in my hands, ad is one f he few things I've bought entirely for me. It's lovely.

But I've found a problem. It has a Tune-o-Matic bridge, and I'm finding it really hard to palm mute. I'm hoping it's only a technique thing, cause I don't want to get rid of it. ;-;


String through? I have that on my Schecter, it's why I dislike it on the Devy signature. Even harder to do sixteenths.


Aye, string through. I have no problem playing quickly, just the palm mutes sound like PARP.


Haven't played it in ages but it's probably just technique. Mute harder, move your hand closer to the neck or something. What are you used to? And what guitar did you get?
#232390 by AlucardXIX
Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:22 pm
Phase wrote:
Abydost wrote:
Phase wrote:Recently bough a new guitar. I love it, it sounds awesome, feels right in my hands, ad is one f he few things I've bought entirely for me. It's lovely.

But I've found a problem. It has a Tune-o-Matic bridge, and I'm finding it really hard to palm mute. I'm hoping it's only a technique thing, cause I don't want to get rid of it. ;-;


String through? I have that on my Schecter, it's why I dislike it on the Devy signature. Even harder to do sixteenths.


Aye, string through. I have no problem playing quickly, just the palm mutes sound like PARP.


Just keep playing it, you'll get used to it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 112 guests