User Profile

Forum Activity by D Ray

OK, I understand why Batman wears an armored suit. He's mortal.
I understand why Wonder Woman wears a few pieces of armor. Some are traditional and/or cultural (such as her greaves and shield, which are very Greek/Roman/etc), and her bracers, which are magical.
Cyborg... whatever... No use for this character. Give me the Martian Manhunter.
Why does Flash have armor?
Why does Aquaman have armor?

Seems to be an armor fetish with DC. Just sayin'...
Mar 26, 2017 4:33 PM
Read all about it.

Actually, the fan-made trailer has a few snippets not seen before. At least, I haven't seen them.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/disney-boss-teases-least-another-15-years-star-wars-movies/#comments-607407
Mar 25, 2017 12:28 PM
Johnny Hyperspace
?D Ray
Illyriahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGboZY1MWk

One of the most underrated scenes ever. Goosebumps! What are your favorite underrated LOTR scenes?

It's a nice scene for the emotional content, but that's not how swords are reforged.

To hammer-weld the shards back together is highly suspect.? First of all, it creates weak points in the blade. If nothing else; those rejoined areas would be brittle and likely break on the first passage of arms.

To forge a new blade from the steel of an old one, first the steel would be melted down completely and cast into a new ingot, then totally reshaped. Additional carbon might be needed to strengthen the reforged steel, and in fact, depending on the length/width of the desired blade, additional iron may be needed as well.

Fittings such as the hilt, crossguard, and pommel aren't added until the tang is shaped, so measurements can be made for accuracy and appropriate counter-weighting.

Blade forging is a fascinating process to research. I have blades formed from reforged railroad rails, using the stock-reduction process. Basically the blank (about 4 ft. x 2 inches x 1/4 inch) is shaped by grinding material away until the desired profile is rough-cut. It's then finished by hand and polished. They are incredibly tough. I also have blades that are truly forged, some of Damascus steel, which are beautiful.

I would love to have seen that scene done properly, regarding the reforging. But yes, it's a good scene otherwise.



Actually, melting down the fragments would break the enchantments laid upon the blade. Being elven, Elrond clearly knew this which is why he was using the dawrven artificing technique called dweomersmything to not only keep the magics, but to allow them to rebind; which would also strengthen the blade (by a process known as glamermending) not weaken it, much like the natural mending of broken bone. It's not surprising you have no knowledge of this form of smithing since the art has been lost since the passing into the Age of Man.

Good info, thanks. I did a bit of searching but I can't find any reference to Narsil being enchanted. That being said, I'm certainly no authority on LotR lore, so I suppose it can be assumed it is. Depending on the "rules of the game" so to speak, I can see reforging might break enchantments, but at the same time, it would take a smith of great ability to basically hammer the sword back into a serviceable weapon.

Mar 24, 2017 1:04 PM
Obi Spenobi
D Ray
Illyriahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGboZY1MWk

One of the most underrated scenes ever. Goosebumps! What are your favorite underrated LOTR scenes?

I would love to have seen that scene done properly, regarding the reforging. But yes, it's a good scene otherwise.

I can see why it would bug you since you're interested in forging, but that's the sort of thing that filmmakers take visual liberties with and most people don't notice. Reminds me of Willie breaking into the safe at the end of Bad Santa. In the commentary Terry Zwigoff talks about having little interest in the actual safecracker they had on set. He just opted for what looked good on camera and ignored the professional. With Lord of the Rings, one should also consider that it's a magic sword that's being repaired by elves.

There's a great cold opening in a Game of Thrones episode where an important sword is melted down and forged into two. It sounds like a much more accurate depiction. And I think Game of Thrones has only had two or three cold opens throughout the entire series.

Point taken, and I agree, the visual is what's important in a movie like LotR. I had no problem with the visuals, just the method.
Mar 24, 2017 7:15 AM
The YETI
D Ray
The YETITotally not how you reforge a sword.

Which? In the movie? Agreed. See my post.

Yeah, your post covered it nicely. Didn't see it until I'd already posted my drive-by comment.

No problem. Thanks. :)
Mar 24, 2017 3:04 AM
The YETITotally not how you reforge a sword.

Which? In the movie? Agreed. See my post.
Mar 23, 2017 8:46 PM
Illyriahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGboZY1MWk

One of the most underrated scenes ever. Goosebumps! What are your favorite underrated LOTR scenes?

It's a nice scene for the emotional content, but that's not how swords are reforged.

To hammer-weld the shards back together is highly suspect.? First of all, it creates weak points in the blade. If nothing else; those rejoined areas would be brittle and likely break on the first passage of arms.

To forge a new blade from the steel of an old one, first the steel would be melted down completely and cast into a new ingot, then totally reshaped. Additional carbon might be needed to strengthen the reforged steel, and in fact, depending on the length/width of the desired blade, additional iron may be needed as well.

Fittings such as the hilt, crossguard, and pommel aren't added until the tang is shaped, so measurements can be made for accuracy and appropriate counter-weighting.

Blade forging is a fascinating process to research. I have blades formed from reforged railroad rails, using the stock-reduction process. Basically the blank (about 4 ft. x 2 inches x 1/4 inch) is shaped by grinding material away until the desired profile is rough-cut. It's then finished by hand and polished. They are incredibly tough. I also have blades that are truly forged, some of Damascus steel, which are beautiful.

I would love to have seen that scene done properly, regarding the reforging. But yes, it's a good scene otherwise.

Mar 23, 2017 7:26 PM
Popcorn Reviews
post tenebras lux
Popcorn ReviewsI feel like I'm the only one who dislikes both Kill Bill movies.

I didn't like they much when I first saw them. They came to grow on me. Now I think they're brilliant and it was nice to watch his whole 4+ hour cut even though I don't know if it's available on DVD yet.

I might revisit them someday. Hey, maybe they could grow on me too.?If it would be one film that would grow on me, it'd most likely be Vol. 1. However, I honestly doubt that Vol. 2 will grow on me no matter how many times I watch it. After I watched that one, I hated it so much that it made Vol. 1 (which I didn't like as well) look like a masterpiece.

While Vol. 1 was popcorn stuff (no insult intended), I thought Vol. 2 was brilliant up to the ending. The Ellie and Bud scenarios were excellent. Probably the most brutal woman-on-woman fight you'll ever see. And Bud just about got The Bride where everyone else, with all the machinations at their disposal, had failed. Love Vol. 2. Except the ending. No, I don't know what else they could have done, with the surprise they sprung.

Sort of reminded me of TDK and how they handled the third act. Another movie that just ran off the rails at the end.
Mar 14, 2017 11:53 PM
TeamCanadahttps://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2017/03/09/james-cameron-on-the-lure-of-atlantis-and-making-avatar-2-3-4-and-5.html

Not sure how the costs on these don't keep soaring over time. I could see us getting parts 2 & 3 around 2020, yet I'll not hold my breath for 4 & 5.
Guy keeps saying how hard he's working on them, I don't feel it.

B+ for the first one, though it feels like 2 giant endings. When Home Tree goes down, that takes a hurricane out of its sails for me.
3D was masterful the first time; home 2D blu viewings not as much.

I think part of what Cameron is in love with is the development of the technology. The film, the story, the work involved making them... not so much. I think with his adventures in the ocean, the dives to Titanic and other places he's been, he's gotten so enamored with building the "how to do it" instead of "doing it", that the movie-making in general has become secondary. Whether or not we ever see any of these sequels really isn't important. We've seen massive advances in the technology since Avatar. Motion capture can do ANYTHING now. What will come next? And is Cameron the man to bring them to the film industry? Or has a taste of what he can accomplish in the real world overridden his interest in making movies?
Mar 12, 2017 3:19 AM
Popcorn ReviewsFrom what I've seen of his filmography, The Abyss is my favorite film. It's a shame that it has a lot less popularity than the first 2 Terminator films, Titanic, and Avatar.

IMO, The Abyss is by far his best film. Best cast, best acting, best setting, best story (except for the aliens, that always felt tacked-on), the best at building tension in a realistic setting, the best portrayed relationships... Great story overall, a cast with all the grit you could ask for.

I actually prefer the theater version to the extended cut. Tighter, better tension, less of the aliens.

Cameron can't stay away from aliens. Especailly blue kitty people, which he seems to have fallen in love with. Or at least in lust with. :P
Mar 11, 2017 2:03 PM
Article is in USA Today and likely other places.

Avatar 2, originally scheduled for 2016, then pushed to 2018, is delayed again. No new date at this point.
However, an interesting comment in the article says "Cameron had laid out 2020, 2022 and 2023 for the three Avatar follow-up films." So this is a bit perplexing.

The original, for those of us old enough to remember, came out in 2009. ;)

So you can take it off your calendar and seek whatever therapy is necessary.

Anyway, read all about it.
Mar 11, 2017 3:18 AM
MKS
D Ray
MKS
D Ray
James MacKinnon

His history ties in quite tightly with shield through various back and forths as well as The Avengers (being a member of Osborne's avengers for a time as well.

You'd have to modify the character to the point where I believe it was simpler and made more sense to just use the clone of Logan.

To first explain that he has a clone daughter (10 or so years old)?then throw out that he has an adult?biological son that he apparently has had no idea about for the last 20 or so years who for some unknown reason has not made himself known in the previous films/stories... Just doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd be running in to a similar trap as the previous x-men movies where you're tossing in a ton of characters in a relatively short time frame.


Let's make this much more simple; Logan is the end story of the original X-Men Trilogy:
X-Men
X-Men United
X-Men: The Last Stand

Period.

None of the previous character stuff about anyone matters; the timeline is straightforward through these movies an no other ones. The "First Class" movies don't count. "Wolverine" doesn't count. "The Wolverine" doesn't count. Only these four movies.

Expecting this particular movie to fit into any X-Men timeline other than the one created by the original three movies just messes with your head. So don't. Occam's Razor applies in this case.

Simple.


It connects to the First Class films and the Wolverine directly. It ends the DOFP timeline. The thing to remember is that Wolverine remembers everything from the original timeline and has basically traversed all the X films. He's the memory link that ties them together (ironic given the memory loss). So while he and Prof X reference things from the original trilogy, they need not have to have "happened" beyond Wolverine's memory of them.

MKS, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I know there are connections between the two series. But for clarity, and continuity between the original characters, consider only the original trilogy and Logan. It simplifies the timeline, gets rid of ambiguities, and is easier for the movie-goer to follow.

It's like when writers do spin-offs of their main series and details get confused, others changed, either because the writer is too lazy to look them up or simply doesn't remember correctly how it was written in the first place. My take on the "new" series is, they played so fast and loose with the timeline and time frame, it confused everything. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not a fan of the "new" X-Men because of some of those very issues; others were of casting, story (or lack thereof), and things related to the writing/filming/directing. The timeline of the original trilogy is straightforward and unambiguous. It follows beautifully and completes the story.

Someone mentioned in one of the posts earlier about Logan taking place far in the future. It's set in 2029, only 12 years from now. That's in the first line of the RT blurb on the film's front page. Just a note to clarify.

I don't think it's over thinking at all. At the end of DOFP the Logan from the original trilogy returns to his body in the new timeline. That means he experienced the OT, the Sentinel apocalypse, and DOFP as well as everything after DOFP that led to Logan. He's the only Wolverine in the whole franchise and this is HIS ending. I don't see how that's anything but beneficial to the potency of this conclusion.

OK, that's fine. I personally think time travel and the various timelines in any genre or series are just lazy writing, but that's a personal preference.
Mar 8, 2017 12:56 AM
MKS
D Ray
James MacKinnon

His history ties in quite tightly with shield through various back and forths as well as The Avengers (being a member of Osborne's avengers for a time as well.

You'd have to modify the character to the point where I believe it was simpler and made more sense to just use the clone of Logan.

To first explain that he has a clone daughter (10 or so years old)?then throw out that he has an adult?biological son that he apparently has had no idea about for the last 20 or so years who for some unknown reason has not made himself known in the previous films/stories... Just doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd be running in to a similar trap as the previous x-men movies where you're tossing in a ton of characters in a relatively short time frame.


Let's make this much more simple; Logan is the end story of the original X-Men Trilogy:
X-Men
X-Men United
X-Men: The Last Stand

Period.

None of the previous character stuff about anyone matters; the timeline is straightforward through these movies an no other ones. The "First Class" movies don't count. "Wolverine" doesn't count. "The Wolverine" doesn't count. Only these four movies.

Expecting this particular movie to fit into any X-Men timeline other than the one created by the original three movies just messes with your head. So don't. Occam's Razor applies in this case.

Simple.


It connects to the First Class films and the Wolverine directly. It ends the DOFP timeline. The thing to remember is that Wolverine remembers everything from the original timeline and has basically traversed all the X films. He's the memory link that ties them together (ironic given the memory loss). So while he and Prof X reference things from the original trilogy, they need not have to have "happened" beyond Wolverine's memory of them.

MKS, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I know there are connections between the two series. But for clarity, and continuity between the original characters, consider only the original trilogy and Logan. It simplifies the timeline, gets rid of ambiguities, and is easier for the movie-goer to follow.

It's like when writers do spin-offs of their main series and details get confused, others changed, either because the writer is too lazy to look them up or simply doesn't remember correctly how it was written in the first place. My take on the "new" series is, they played so fast and loose with the timeline and time frame, it confused everything. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not a fan of the "new" X-Men because of some of those very issues; others were of casting, story (or lack thereof), and things related to the writing/filming/directing. The timeline of the original trilogy is straightforward and unambiguous. It follows beautifully and completes the story.

Someone mentioned in one of the posts earlier about Logan taking place far in the future. It's set in 2029, only 12 years from now. That's in the first line of the RT blurb on the film's front page. Just a note to clarify.
Mar 7, 2017 7:23 PM
James MacKinnon

His history ties in quite tightly with shield through various back and forths as well as The Avengers (being a member of Osborne's avengers for a time as well.

You'd have to modify the character to the point where I believe it was simpler and made more sense to just use the clone of Logan.

To first explain that he has a clone daughter (10 or so years old)?then throw out that he has an adult?biological son that he apparently has had no idea about for the last 20 or so years who for some unknown reason has not made himself known in the previous films/stories... Just doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd be running in to a similar trap as the previous x-men movies where you're tossing in a ton of characters in a relatively short time frame.


Let's make this much more simple; Logan is the end story of the original X-Men Trilogy:
X-Men
X-Men United
X-Men: The Last Stand

Period.

None of the previous character stuff about anyone matters; the timeline is straightforward through these movies an no other ones. The "First Class" movies don't count. "Wolverine" doesn't count. "The Wolverine" doesn't count. Only these four movies.

Expecting this particular movie to fit into any X-Men timeline other than the one created by the original three movies just messes with your head. So don't. Occam's Razor applies in this case.

Simple.

Mar 7, 2017 3:38 AM
Obi Spenobi

Oh, and I'd like to thank Deadpool for making all of this possible.

The Deadpool preview was just fuckin' insane. Completely trashed the telephone booth mythos. Great stuff. :D
Mar 5, 2017 9:25 PM
IllyriaIs this the same continuity as Days of Future Past? If so, the DOFP ending isn't so happy anymore at all. As a self-contained story, I thought Logan fucking ruled. A pox on anyone involved in the inevitable future Wolverine reboot.

No, this is the end of the original X-Men Trilogy.

X-Men: 8/10
X-Men United: 9/10
X-Men; The Last Stand: 7/10
Logan: 9.5/10

As mentioned in various posts, this thread and others, it's a haunting film. Stewart and Jackman are the Yin and Yang of the comic book/super hero genre. No one even comes close.
Mar 5, 2017 8:53 PM
I'm an author. I don't yet have the words to describe this movie. Just epic on so many levels. Stewart and Jackman are the Yin and Yang of the genre.

Logan: "Bad shit happens to people I care about!"
Laura: "... then I'll be fine."

This small exchange says so much about both characters and their deepest feelings. Brilliant. :)
Mar 4, 2017 10:14 PM
Chronicles of YarniaAn excellent feature length advertisement for the Dodge Durango. That's one tough red truck.

It was a 1995 Dodge Ram 2500 club cab, not a Durango. The Durango was the big Dodge SUV.
Feb 28, 2017 3:14 AM
Rated NCC-1701"I've got a little dick! It's pathetic!"

Geez, I'd forgotten all about his part in True Lies. The man simply owned every character he played. He truly seemed to love his work and strove to make each character unique. This was one of his best.

"Face it, Harry... the 'Vette gets 'em wet."

We'll miss you, Bill. :(
Feb 27, 2017 12:39 PM