Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!"Sean’s opinion on hitting women though... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Sean’s opinion on hitting women though..."I will protect his sexiness and that is all**** | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Sean’s opinion on hitting women though...
I will protect his sexiness and that is all****"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!"Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?"Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anthony Hopkins’ performance in The Remains of the Day, though. Ooooft. "To be honest I haven't seen that one but is his accent and vocal delivery the same as all his others? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?
Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby "Sean Connery Ryan Gosling Nicolas Cage Dear God! Heaven has arrived  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anthony Hopkins’ performance in The Remains of the Day, though. Ooooft.
To be honest I haven't seen that one but is his accent and vocal delivery the same as all his others?"It’s sublime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?
Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby "Yeah, yeah, I believe you, thousands wouldn't! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?
Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby
Yeah, yeah, I believe you, thousands wouldn't! "I don’t need to convince anyone  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?
Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby
Yeah, yeah, I believe you, thousands wouldn't!
I don’t need to convince anyone "That is true, one man's meat is another women's Sunday morning gone!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No matter what the critics or others say who do you think is over-rated advance actor? Watching Bram Stoker's Dracula with Antony Hopkins while on here and it's dawned on me...what a crap actor he is! Most of the time I was just listening and to be honest the movie on the screen could have been any film he's ever been in, his accent and delivery is always the same! Others I think are the same as him: Sean Connery: best Scottish accent a Russian submarine captain as ever had! Richard Burton: acted as if he was always on the stage and Roger Moore: wooden as the model he once was! "These actors are all a bit old-school - they were top of the bills in the 60's and 70's but waned a bit after that. They were also the product of older tech - sound mikes weren't as good, and actors had to stand closer to each other, and not move around as much when speaking. Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. People will probably say the same thing about today's actors in 40 years time though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sean Connery is so sexy so I don’t even care how he acts. He’s beautiful and amazing and I will protect him .
However, Jason Statham is also super sexy and so, so shit.
Nicholas Cage too.
Does anyone else think that Ryan Gosling looks like Nicholas Cage?!
Pleeease, if he was still doing his old job of emptying your dust bins you wouldn't give him a second glance, come on, be honest?
Listen, I think I am possibly in love with the sexy janitor at my work. A bin man? Fuck yeah, empty more than my bins baby
Yeah, yeah, I believe you, thousands wouldn't!
I don’t need to convince anyone
That is true, one man's meat is another women's Sunday morning gone!!! "James Bond era Sean Connery (looks wise) is my dream man. Just so fucking sexy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Anthony Hopkins is overrated OP." I think our lady friends may be star struck! I used to tell the ex that if Robbie Williams worked in the local co-op she'd think he was a tattooed fuck-wet rather than some sort of sex god! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No matter what the critics or others say who do you think is over-rated advance actor? Watching Bram Stoker's Dracula with Antony Hopkins while on here and it's dawned on me...what a crap actor he is! Most of the time I was just listening and to be honest the movie on the screen could have been any film he's ever been in, his accent and delivery is always the same! Others I think are the same as him: Sean Connery: best Scottish accent a Russian submarine captain as ever had! Richard Burton: acted as if he was always on the stage and Roger Moore: wooden as the model he once was!
These actors are all a bit old-school - they were top of the bills in the 60's and 70's but waned a bit after that. They were also the product of older tech - sound mikes weren't as good, and actors had to stand closer to each other, and not move around as much when speaking. Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. People will probably say the same thing about today's actors in 40 years time though. "Thank you, Cecil B. DeMille. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. " Sorry, you're talking bollocks- 35mm film has a real world effective resolution of around 4k- its taken decades for TV cameras to catch up with them to the point where both mediums (at the higher end of TV production) can often be found to be using the same kit. While its impossible to directly compare analogue film with the digital resolution of pixel count- and while discounting the various processes involved in getting it to a viewable state, the really clever people in the world of cinematography generally agree that 4K is effectively where it sits (although telecine conversion, pan and scan etc would reduce this for broadcast on anything other than UHD systems and you then need to consider other factors such as aspect ratio differences leading to black bars or edge cropping). I could waffle on in more detail, but its late. I could ask a friend who is a fairly well known DOP to go in to the really fine details, but he's one of those really clever people and i'll also end up baffled by the intricate details as well then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. Sorry, you're talking bollocks- 35mm film has a real world effective resolution of around 4k- its taken decades for TV cameras to catch up with them to the point where both mediums (at the higher end of TV production) can often be found to be using the same kit. While its impossible to directly compare analogue film with the digital resolution of pixel count- and while discounting the various processes involved in getting it to a viewable state, the really clever people in the world of cinematography generally agree that 4K is effectively where it sits (although telecine conversion, pan and scan etc would reduce this for broadcast on anything other than UHD systems and you then need to consider other factors such as aspect ratio differences leading to black bars or edge cropping). I could waffle on in more detail, but its late. I could ask a friend who is a fairly well known DOP to go in to the really fine details, but he's one of those really clever people and i'll also end up baffled by the intricate details as well then "Danny Boyle, is that you?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. Sorry, you're talking bollocks- 35mm film has a real world effective resolution of around 4k- its taken decades for TV cameras to catch up with them to the point where both mediums (at the higher end of TV production) can often be found to be using the same kit. While its impossible to directly compare analogue film with the digital resolution of pixel count- and while discounting the various processes involved in getting it to a viewable state, the really clever people in the world of cinematography generally agree that 4K is effectively where it sits (although telecine conversion, pan and scan etc would reduce this for broadcast on anything other than UHD systems and you then need to consider other factors such as aspect ratio differences leading to black bars or edge cropping). I could waffle on in more detail, but its late. I could ask a friend who is a fairly well known DOP to go in to the really fine details, but he's one of those really clever people and i'll also end up baffled by the intricate details as well then "Sorry but you’re talking resolution which has zilch to do with what the previous poster was saying. I have been around film and tv for much of my life and the fact is the older equipment and lenses were big and heavy and designed in the hydraulic age when dollies were massive and oil damped and couldn’t achieve whip pans or the kind of movement that modern lightweight equipment can. The fluidity of movement that began in the lightweight 35mm and radio mike age is what he is talking about and we are now in the Drone age which is giving us new possibilities all the time. 4K is incredible but it also lacks some of the aesthetic appeal of shallow focus that the old cameras were forced to use hence why some film makers use still camera lenses to achieve that same effect. Try looking at a film from a few years back called monsters and you will see what I mean. Sorry to all you Fabbers for being such an off topic egghead tonight  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...Because of the lower resolution, cameras couldn't pan as fast as today's, so action was slower. Sorry, you're talking bollocks- 35mm film has a real world effective resolution of around 4k- its taken decades for TV cameras to catch up with them to the point where both mediums (at the higher end of TV production) can often be found to be using the same kit. While its impossible to directly compare analogue film with the digital resolution of pixel count- and while discounting the various processes involved in getting it to a viewable state, the really clever people in the world of cinematography generally agree that 4K is effectively where it sits (although telecine conversion, pan and scan etc would reduce this for broadcast on anything other than UHD systems and you then need to consider other factors such as aspect ratio differences leading to black bars or edge cropping). I could waffle on in more detail, but its late. I could ask a friend who is a fairly well known DOP to go in to the really fine details, but he's one of those really clever people and i'll also end up baffled by the intricate details as well then
Sorry but you’re talking resolution which has zilch to do with what the previous poster was saying. I have been around film and tv for much of my life and the fact is the older equipment and lenses were big and heavy and designed in the hydraulic age when dollies were massive and oil damped and couldn’t achieve whip pans or the kind of movement that modern lightweight equipment can. The fluidity of movement that began in the lightweight 35mm and radio mike age is what he is talking about and we are now in the Drone age which is giving us new possibilities all the time. 4K is incredible but it also lacks some of the aesthetic appeal of shallow focus that the old cameras were forced to use hence why some film makers use still camera lenses to achieve that same effect. Try looking at a film from a few years back called monsters and you will see what I mean. Sorry to all you Fabbers for being such an off topic egghead tonight "Go back and look, he most definitely said actors moved less due to low resolution. 35mm cine film is still effectively equivalent resolution to 4k digital and shouldn't have an impact on movement. TV is a different animal as the progression from tubes and FT chips reduced the light smear effect, but the pre 80's stuff shot with electronic cameras is very noticable (and probably why more popular things like The Sweeney were shot on 16mm IIRC)- which would also help in the resolution stakes of going from PAL to a 2k equivalent. I agree that technology has helped free things up massively- I can still remember shooting on an old U-matic 2 piece tube camera which weighed a ton and the joys of getting hold of things like Panasonic P2 cameras and then DSLR's years later and having affordable dollies, jibs and other grip. what has also improved darmatically in the same timeframe is the overall level of acting, scriptwriting, directing and everything else. While there are many excellent classic films, the baseline for acting and production has increased massively in the last 25 years and has helped TV take on Film in quality- alongside the improvments in tech mentioned. Anyway, enough waffle for tonight, the beer and fizz has finally caught up with me - i'm off to bed! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
