Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Personally, I dont give a crap what someone else thinks of a film. I dont care if the film is "Trek" or not. I just like it for what it is:

Entertaining!

Thats all I need it to be.

i agree with you ds9 was a great series and your right that people don't like it never saw it. it was trek in every sense of the word. a black capt. a big deal at the time. great bantering between odo and quark. i even liked enterprize after watching every season. ds9 had a great cast i mean these people could really act.

its funny that every actor in all the series said they all enjoyed it and would do it again. if the cast[s] loved doing it theres something appelling to trek.i think people that hate startrek miss the point

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Is that anything like MacGruber?

~Alan

I thought he changed it to PepSuber

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Some. I know there's been talk of MacGyver

Stuff that stll sells well, or more importantly plays well on cable or internationally is what will get the attention first, stuff that isn't FX heavy mind you

I would get behind some MacGyver! I bought about half of the seasons on DVD, so wouldn't mind upgrading the entire series to Blu-ray.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Whew! I was going to be really upset if they re-released it with the cover art from the HD DVD release... and I already purchased the photo cover version.

~Alan

DVD Empire has this now. $21.95 and they offer free standard shipping. In case you didn't want to wait until February for Amazon to carry it.

Casablanca Standard Version

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

DVD Empire has this now. $21.95 and they offer free standard shipping. In case you didn't want to wait until February for Amazon to carry it.

Casablanca Standard Version

I already have that version... but thanks!

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I thought he changed it to PepSuber

Apparently he changed it back for the movie.

~Alan

[Jeff Kleist]

Is that anything like MacGruber?

MacGyver was actually on MacGruber, but became once again estranged from his son MacGruber, who flushed his ashes down the Battlestar Galactica's john

http://www.hulu.com/watch/61238/satu...ber-w-macgyver

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by spartanstew

It's discussions like this that make me glad I'm not a geek. I watch movies on their own merit, not to look for inconsistencies or issues regarding other fictionalized works.

Reminds me of my dad who's a gun dealer. Can't watch any time period movies with him, because all he does is talk about the fact that the guns they're using weren't invented for 10 years after the movie supposedly takes place.

See, and I hate it when movie magic temporarily disrupts my suspension of disbelief based on use of incorrect science. For instance, when a character somehow has the strength to hold onto a rope or cliff edge with fewer and fewer fingers, even though they don't seem the least bit inclined toward rock climbing .

Really?, I'm supposed to believe that Dallas Bryce Howard can hang on for dear life to that wildly swinging crane? Can Angelina 'curve the bullet' when it violates very basic laws of physics? And though I don't fancy myself a geek, I do have enough of an appreciation for science (raise your hands fellow Stephen Hawking readers) to know that time travel and Star Trek-style transporters are simply not possible.

I'm afraid I like my Fiction to be as non-fiction as possible. Wish I could get the "Aw, c'mon... that would NEVER work" voice to shut up sometimes, but... tough noogies...

Cheers,

Doc

[Jeff Kleist]

Someone watches mythbusters

They actually were trying to do the whole hanging on thing, hiring parkour people and all sorts of crazy stuff but apparently it just wasn't gelling, so later this year you're going to see just one segment of it on surviving a fall by aiming for the dumpster.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by spartanstew

That's where we'll part ways. It was just a TV series, no better than Cheers, Seinfeld, Bonanza, M*A*S*H, ER or many, many others (in fact, probably not even as good as most of those). It just happened to have a cult appeal to a certain segment of the population (i.e. Comic Book Guy) that take it way too seriously.

Did not know if I should bother to reply or not, but decided I had to this part.

I am not a fan of Bonanza or ER, but it does not matter what is better or worst (I did not call ST a master piece-which would imply there are others- or the only one worthy of the name that you seem to imply). I did not say that ST was a work of art because I liked it, but because it is, it is the creation of someone’s vision. Except for news and possibly reality TV, every other show (movie) is a work of art and that includes the ones you mentioned even the ones I do not like.

now, just to clarify a bit more, I am not against remakes or re-launches, yes if different people are involved (which they usually are) the vision won't be exactly the same, but it does not need to be, only that they share in what is import to the art that was created. That is what is seriously lacking in this case and why I have an issue.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Someone watches mythbusters

They actually were trying to do the whole hanging on thing, hiring parkour people and all sorts of crazy stuff but apparently it just wasn't gelling, so later this year you're going to see just one segment of it on surviving a fall by aiming for the dumpster.

Or jumping on the back of a 'Yuge friggin' goiy'

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

MacGyver was actually on MacGruber, but became once again estranged from his son MacGruber, who flushed his ashes down the Battlestar Galactica's john

It's disappointing that he's not listed on IMDB as reprising his role as MacGruber's dad.

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Can Angelina 'curve the bullet' when it violates very basic laws of physics?

If she believes hard enough!

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

And though I don't fancy myself a geek, I do have enough of an appreciation for science (raise your hands fellow Stephen Hawking readers) to know that time travel and Star Trek-style transporters are simply not possible.

Well, OK, I think your transporter point is a very good one (BTW, I have yet to see ST2009, but Jeff has brought those up before), BUT I take offense at your dismissal of time-travel. It wasn't that long ago that the world was flat, and Pluto was a planet....

~Alan

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

BUT I take offense at your dismissal of time-travel. It wasn't that long ago that the world was flat, and Pluto was a planet....

~Alan

Let me rephrase... Focused, intentional, accurate time travel. Like going back to 1964 to prevent Uwe Boll from being conceived...

[doctorsteve]

...Or manipulating things so that Jennifer Aniston moved next door to me as a youth...

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Let me rephrase... Focused, intentional, accurate time travel. Like going back to 1964 to prevent Uwe Boll from being conceived...

Somebody would have already done that, but his works are regarded as masterpieces in a future society, and therefore cyborgs were sent back to stop the assassin from being successful.

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

...Or manipulating things so that Jennifer Aniston moved next door to me as a youth...

Future me already tried something similar... but I screwed up, and it caused her to marry Brad Pitt instead (sorry Jen, you're welcome Brad!).

Never swat a mosquito... it can create all kinds of chaos!

~Alan

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Future me already tried something similar... but I screwed up, and it caused her to marry Brad Pitt instead (sorry Jen, you're welcome Brad!).


~Alan

Great! Now I have to go into cryostasis until they invent time travel, so I can go back in time to stop you from succeeding at screwing up my "Jen getting out of the pool/Jen getting undressed with the curtains open/Jen playing the part of benevolent older neighbor girl looking to deflower her younger, but cute boy next door" destiny!

Crap! That means I'll miss the last 14 seasons of Lost!

[Jeff Kleist]

And though I don't fancy myself a geek, I do have enough of an appreciation for science (raise your hands fellow Stephen Hawking readers) to know that time travel and Star Trek-style transporters are simply not possible.

Time travel in reverse is impossible under our current understanding of physics, however Star Trek knows they have the very best nerds in the scientific field, and long since addressed the transporter's issue with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Heisenberg_compensator

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Time travel in reverse is impossible under our current understanding of physics, however Star Trek knows they have the very best nerds in the scientific field, and long since addressed the transporter's issue with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Heisenberg_compensator

Speaking of Star Trek science, I picked up a book (Star Trek Science Logs by Andre Bormanis) a couple of years ago that goes a little bit in depth about how close Star Trek science is to real life science. It discusses engineering, astronomical phenomena, planets, medicine, and a few other things. I had picked it up from Barnes and Nobles on clearance, and got a lot of reading time out of it.

Link to the Amazon page for it if you are interested.

[jaaguir]

Jeff, could the skimpy special features on the G.I. Joe blu-ray mean a collector's edition or director's cut is on the way?

Thanks,

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm going to say no as far as a Director's cut goes, the movie is pretty much there as is,and I don't see any more elaborate special edition until GI Joe 2, if and when it's made

[Bk_Tan]

Is there a thread for the number of Blu Rays that have already been double-dipped?