1990s Appreciation OTT - Post your favorite stuff/memories of the 90s

Status
Not open for further replies.
:drool:

Belgian beers are the best. If you tell me you're drinking anything Delerium I'm coming to steal it. Man I could go for some Corsendonk right now too.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']:drool:

Belgian beers are the best. If you tell me you're drinking anything Delerium I'm coming to steal it. Man I could go for some Corsendonk right now too.[/QUOTE]

No, it's an InBev, Hoegaarden- my go to white.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Wut. Half Life is one of the easier FPS series out there. For one you're not limited to two weapons and there's ample health/armor around all the maps.

Also, this project, it never ends! Day 13.[/QUOTE]

It did always seem like there was just enough health/ammo right around the corner as soon as I ran out or was about to die.

Lots of deaths and loading though. Too much frustration for me at the time. I gave up trying to get into the Nova Prospekt prison.

The bridge sequence was brilliant in its absuridty and implausibility.
 
4sPfb.jpg
 
Lol, Deshawn Jackson just got embarrased on a ball for an interception. And then instead of trying to make a tackle, he turns to the ref and starts crying while the defender gains 20 yards.
 
How is Terry supposed to play Ratchet and Clank if he has no hands?
 
[quote name='Trakan']The BF3 Beta is free.[/QUOTE]
I thought you hated that franchise. ;)
 
[quote name='munch']I'm bummed that I didn't pull the trigger on that $30.25 trade in for Portal 2.[/QUOTE]

did you ever finish coop?
at least you can play the DLC that comes out free soon if you still have it.
 
[quote name='corrosivefrost']did you ever finish coop?
at least you can play the DLC that comes out free soon if you still have it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I need to get all the achievements. SeanRomainelettuce never would get on. :cry: Anyone want to get them tonight?
 
You know, I have Orange Box and have had it for a very long time. I've started HL2 twice and quit. I think tonight might be the night I start it for real.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Battlefield 3 sucks. Do they really think they're going to over-take COD with this garbitch?[/QUOTE]

I played for about 10 minutes and wanted to kick a hole in the TV. One jackass was mic spamming and another was sitting in mic-shot of the TV so every fucking time I, or someone else, asked him to turn it down (or tried to communicate anything) it echoed.
If someone knows how to use mute in the beta LMK.

Oh yea, and despite looking nice, it played terrible with a controller- which is sad since I remember BF2:MC having great gameplay. BF3 beta was just a frustrating, clumsy and random mess.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Console peasants.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with you there. 64 players is the way to go. Strike at mother fucking karkand and sharqi peninsula and mash with new graphics is going to make this game awesome.

Probably going to buy the 360 at release and pc when I build a new rig. Battlefield and metal gear are the only games I am interested in.
 
Demias Jimerson is so good he's no longer allowed to score.

The 11-year-old Arkansas football prodigy has been slapped with a little-known rule inspired by former Arkansas Razorbacks star Madre Hill, who ran all over teams while playing at the same Wilson Intermediate School years ago. According to Yahoo's Rivals Blog, the "Madre Hill Rule" limits Jimerson from scoring if he has already scored three touchdowns and his team is ahead by at least 14 points.

While schools typically don't hold back young stars like this, the rule is intended to keep the game fun for everyone. As Sports Grid explains, the rule helps give other players a shot at carrying the ball.

"The other players on both teams... Twenty-one are just left out, sort of. It's all Demias," WIFL commissioner Terri Bryant told Fox 16.

In his extremely well-spoken television interview (which you can see below), Jimerson detailed his priorities:

"I’m gonna run hard and bring our team to victory," said Jimerson. He added, "But God always comes first, before anything, and grades second."

Check out the video below to see the Jimerson's skills in action.
Click to expand...

Wow, I want to cock punch the guy who came up with the everybody wins feelgood bullshit.
 
Kids sports has those kind of rules. Lol, I swear I remember hearing about one school that created one because their basketball team trounced a team full of retarded kids. I remember seeing it on the news. The team that won got booed so hard and there was a poll on the news asking whether people thought it was poor sportsmanship.

I guess I can understand that for kids sports. Just so half the team doesn't quit and then there is no team.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']So, this is going to sound strange, but what are the best xbox 360 games for little kids?

[/QUOTE]
How old, and reg. controller or kinect.
 
There's a $3 offer that credits in a few hours on the 360 site right now. It's called Profinity.

I have 5 credits over there and it cost me about $20.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']12 I think, regular controller.[/QUOTE]
12 year olds play about anything, that's more of an issue with what is cool with the parents if it's a gift you're buying. It's a tough age, as far as my cousins and nephews go they'd rather be playing COD or Gears but their parents wont let them. Consequently, they play lots of sports titles and toned down stuff.
 
Morning, OTT.

[quote name='Temporaryscars']So, this is going to sound strange, but what are the best xbox 360 games for little kids?

bear.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Speaking from experience:

Monsters vs. Aliens
Kung Fu Panda
Lego Harry Potter

And although probably inappropriate (but no different than you will see on Cartoon Network): Castle Crashers

My 7 year old loves these games.

Edit: Oh, 12 year old...

Ironman
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1+2
Overlord
 
Why the fuck are they remaking The Thing? With crazy shitty actors to boot. Christ....is nothing sacred?

The Thing is already a remake if a 50s movie that was done well....how are you remaking a remake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']Why the fuck are they remaking The Thing? With crazy shitty actors to boot. Christ....is nothing sacred?

The Thing is already a remake if a 50s movie that was done well....how are you remaking a remake.[/QUOTE]

It's not a remake, its a prequel (Thing 1982 spoilers)
that is from the Norwegian side. Remember from the first film how they found the alien block of ice first, got wiped out and the 2 remaining Norwegian guys chased the infected dog to the US base? They're going to show us what happened during that time.

I dont know why people keep saying its a remake.
 
[quote name='TheRock88']It's not a remake, its a prequel (Thing 1982 spoilers)
that is from the Norwegian side. Remember from the first film how they found the alien block of ice first, got wiped out and the 2 remaining Norwegian guys chased the infected dog to the US base? They're going to show us what happened during that time.

I dont know why people keep saying its a remake.[/QUOTE]

Because if they blindly call it a remake they feel more justified in their misguided and unfounded hatred.
 
Are you getting me? Who gives a shit if they say its from the Norwegian side. That doesnt make it an original film.

If there is a movie that already exist under the same title with the same plot..then its a remake. Yeah...prequeling a movie that was made 30 years ago from a movie made 50 years ago...its a fucking remake. Then you have the nerve to go against the format that is already established.

Or if you really want to go to bat for it you can call it a update. But updating it doesnt make it any less of remake. Point being...stop making things that already exist, calling it a prequel is a just a modern way to avoid calling it a remake. If the 1980s version gets the title remake then this one cant skate by.

"I'd be the first to say no one should ever try to do Jaws again and I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone remake The Exorcist... And we really felt the same way about The Thing. It's a great film. But once we realized there was a new story to tell, with the same characters and the same world, but from a very different point of view, we took it as a challenge. It's the story about the guys who are just ghosts in Carpenter's movie - they're already dead. But having Universal give us a chance to tell their story was irresistible"
Click to expand...
Remake but good job CGIing it up. This is also the same guys that did the update to Dawn of the Dead. (you see a trend here.)
The point is..I have a much bigger stake in things of this nature because I work in this field. For every remake that gets made there are about 600k original movies that are left behind and not given a chance. Its just like video games...its why we have 30 CODs. Its a cycle that prevents new platforms from existing.

Soap Box over.

PS

Prequel" is the lazy way of saying, "Let's make the same story in the same locale, give it the same name, but replace Kurt Russell with a 24 year old no nonsense woman and dumb down the terror by over explaining things and make the alien morphing effects CGI even though the original could do it impressively CGI-free 30 years ago."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will say this...I hope that its good and I will certainly give it a chance. But my overall wish is for everyone to stop making things that already exist.

Its a dual edge sword, I am always happy to see my coworkers and friends work on any format at all but I cant stomach the amount of people who get passed over so they can make another Rocky when there is no reason to.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Prequel does not equal remake, dumbass.[/QUOTE]

The hell it does. Prequeling a movies that was made over 60 years ago qualifies as a remake. Period.

Or let me further explain this....I dont disagree with you fuck face (whats up with the name calling Temp? Come on) its Prequeling an existing cult classic made past a certain time (20 years is past the time in which a prequel should be made)

Its too cash grabby thus it gets the remake tag. Especially when you are tossing in CGI like its going out of style when you could have easily done it with ICE like both original movies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
60 years ago? Are you talking about The Thing From Another World from 1951? Have you even seen that movie? It bares hardly any resemblance to the John Carpenter film from 1982 (or 1988 for the misinformed, aka, you). They're both derived from the same source material, but to say one is a remake of the other is laughable.

The 1982 movie stands on its own. Obviously, someone out there thought there was more of the story that needs to be told. It's something I could agree with. Making a prequel to ONE movie is not overkill and I don't really see it as cashing in.

That's not to say I don't have my own suspicions about its quality (or lack thereof), but to say that there's absolutely no need to make this movie, or that's it's just a cash grab, is just ridiculous and it's completely disingenuous to compare the movie from the 50s to the 80s version.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Y'all ever see the 1952 version?[/QUOTE]


I did. I loved it in a campy 50s sorta way. Never saw all of the 80s version though.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']60 years ago? Are you talking about The Thing From Another World from 1951? Have you even seen that movie? It bares hardly any resemblance to the John Carpenter film from 1982 (or 1988 for the misinformed, aka, you). They're both derived from the same source material, but to say one is a remake of the other is laughable.

The 1982 movie stands on its own. Obviously, someone out there thought there was more of the story that needs to be told. It's something I could agree with. Making a prequel to ONE movie is not overkill and I don't really see it as cashing in.

That's not to say I don't have my own suspicions about its quality (or lack thereof), but to say that there's absolutely no need to make this movie, or that's it's just a cash grab, is just ridiculous and it's completely disingenuous to compare the movie from the 50s to the 80s version.[/QUOTE]

Yes you could argue that they are both different takes on Who Goes There but its listed as a remake. Yes, I have seen both many times.

Now, as for this one, I have no problem with prequel at all really, I also dont disagree that there is a story there. The problem becomes when you do it in cash grabby ways. Like I said, I want it is good. For example (also clearly its a matter of opinion but I am just giving you my reason)

Its the Norwegian story back in 1982. Yet they shoe horn 4 or 5 Americans in so that they all have to speak English. Honestly I would be impressed if the movie was subtitled after all its the Norwegian team....why do they need 5 Americans? (Although I did hear that many of the scenes will be subtitled but I still have no idea why Americans are needed at all)

Now this might be reading into it a little much but I saw a couple scenes in the trailer that had too much of the 82 version in them. As in directly ripped from..these could be viewed as a "ode to" but makes it feel to me like a remake.

In the same sense that the 82 doesnt look or play like the 51(?) I would rather have this "Prequel" look and feel nothing like the 82. The more it looks and feels like the 82 the more of a remake it is. The Blowtorches (is this standard equipment..I seriously dont know..its too classic with the 82 would rather have them not in there unless its standard issue for scientists in back then) the speech, the examining scene (the way its shot is very similar) the first helo scene.

Again, dont mind prequels but the I get a remake under the title prequel feel from this.

I am still going to see it and give them my money to support my field but when I saw the trailer it does not scream original movie inspired from.....

See how I did that without calling you names Temp....
 
[quote name='Maklershed']I did. I loved it in a campy 50s sorta way. Never saw all of the 80s version though.[/QUOTE]
80's version is miles better.
(I meant '51 earlier btw :oops:) I did like how the scenes were recreated in the 80's version from the '51- the arms outstretched in a circle around & over the craft gave a great sense of immense scale (without showing some cheesy model). Also, Brimley as the infected villain . . .I didn't see that coming- Like Alda in Whispers in the Dark (before he was regularly playing bad guys) it caught me by surprise with the first viewing.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Yes you could argue that they are both different takes on Who Goes There but its listed as a remake. Yes, I have seen both many times.

Now, as for this one, I have no problem with prequel at all really, I also dont disagree that there is a story there. The problem becomes when you do it in cash grabby ways. Like I said, I want it is good. For example (also clearly its a matter of opinion but I am just giving you my reason)

Its the Norwegian story back in 1982. Yet they shoe horn 4 or 5 Americans in so that they all have to speak English. Honestly I would be impressed if the movie was subtitled after all its the Norwegian team....why do they need 5 Americans? (Although I did hear that many of the scenes will be subtitled but I still have no idea why Americans are needed at all)

Now this might be reading into it a little much but I saw a couple scenes in the trailer that had too much of the 82 version in them. As in directly ripped from..these could be viewed as a "ode to" but makes it feel to me like a remake.

In the same sense that the 82 doesnt look or play like the 51(?) I would rather have this "Prequel" look and feel nothing like the 82. The more it looks and feels like the 82 the more of a remake it is. The Blowtorches (is this standard equipment..I seriously dont know..its too classic with the 82 would rather have them not in there unless its standard issue for scientists in back then) the speech, the examining scene (the way its shot is very similar) the first helo scene.

Again, dont mind prequels but the I get a remake under the title prequel feel from this.

I am still going to see it and give them my money to support my field but when I saw the trailer it does not scream original movie inspired from.....

See how I did that without calling you names Temp....[/QUOTE]

So, basically, you think that when you're making some sort of media, either a prequel or a sequel, it should be completely different from the movie it's prequeling/sequeling?! Yeah, that makes sense. Fellowship of the Ring? Ok, that's good. Two towers? Should have had dinosaurs and space ships. Return of the King? Should have been a musical with Hitler and talking cartoon animals. After all, we wouldn't want them being like the first movie!!

Like I said before, dumbass.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']
In the same sense that the 82 doesnt look or play like the 51(?) I would rather have this "Prequel" look and feel nothing like the 82. The more it looks and feels like the 82 the more of a remake it is. The Blowtorches (is this standard equipment..I seriously dont know..its too classic with the 82 would rather have them not in there unless its standard issue for scientists in back then)[/QUOTE]

How would you rather it look/feel then? The story is only suppose to be about 2-3 days before what happens in the 1982 version so of course the setting and materials they use are going to be very similar to the Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top