Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Who saw "Alice in Wonderland"?


Jangler

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...

It's an utterly horrible adaption of Through the Looking Glass and very, very "Disney". Worth a cheap rental if you have nothing better to do but it's just mediocre. After awhile the movie sort of became background noise to me after I got bored and distracted.

And for the record, 3D sucks. I liked it at first, but for me the gimmick has worn off. It ruins picture quality, it makes things shifty and blurry where there's a lot of action and movement going on, and can give you a bad headache or make you sick, especially the bad, cheap 3D.

The problem is you have true 3D, which are shot with multiple cameras and filmed in 3D like Avatar, and then you have movies that are filmed with normal cameras and then made into 3D in postproduction with software, like Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Because 3D movies have been drawing more money, the way many studios began to churn out these cheap 3D projects killed it. At this point, until the technology advances, 3D will never advance past where it is now and will be used mostly for kids movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I was watching a YouTube and it was said that scout and GM insider types were saying the NIL had killed rounds 4-7. I don’t know that I buy it, seems like it might for a year or maybe two but then those guys have to move on.  NCAA is apparently about to give 5 years of eligibility. It is gonna skew those entrants older maybe.   
    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...