The bittard section

$$$$$$$$

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvLHND7PEBc[/youtube]

Nice but Curtis Mayfield>Isaac Hayes>Quincy Jones although Quincy did marry Peggy Lipton and there's something to be said for that.
Aahh Julie .

http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/as...e246d6883e.jpg


[youtube]AAa5rP64YbQ[/youtube]

I actually like the bittard section from time to time ... When I was youong I've always wanted to work in a facility for the mentally challenged and whenever I visit the Bt-section I'm glad I didn't follow that 'dream'.

Ok superfly is the best but my personal fav is Bobby Womack & J.J. Johnson Across 100th Street

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j-q-vRFNk0[/youtube]

Looking forward for more suggestions

Bobby Wolmack is true genius ,Tarantino certainly thinks so using 110th Street at the opening of Jackie Brown.

Right up there with Donny Hathaway
[youtube]kIdhzBFbmLU[/youtube]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disme

I actually like the bittard section from time to time ... When I was youong I've always wanted to work in a facility for the mentally challenged and whenever I visit the Bt-section I'm glad I didn't follow that 'dream'.

---

Well, if my son is having a bad day and feeling "Down", I can always look to the BT section and think, "You'll be alright, son."

Glad to see thw lounge is still full of numptys :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disme

I actually like the bittard section from time to time ... When I was youong I've always wanted to work in a facility for the mentally challenged and whenever I visit the Bt-section I'm glad I didn't follow that 'dream'.

---

Well, if my son is having a bad day and feeling "Down", I can always look to the BT section and think, "You'll be alright, son."

---

For me it's more : Carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when you are done. :naughty:

Seems to be a mathematical equation involved where the sum of the cuntitude is directly proportional to an individual's over- concern about video resolution divided by their sense of humour and multiplied by knowledge of scene release groups.:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Seems to be a mathematical equation involved where the sum of the cuntitude is directly proportional to an individual's over- concern about video resolution divided by their sense of humour and multiplied by knowledge of scene release groups.:unsure:

---

There are a couple of variables missing from your equation there, there is l33tness X5 , and the willingness to lie, steal, cheat,sell ones own relatives/pets to get into the next ubersecret site where only the k00l kidz hang out.

Damn I forgot to factor in the l33tness, no wonder I could never get the thing to work.
Seeing some real progress now but still having a bit of trouble with the cuntry of origin and pretime factors.Maybe if I divide it by packs?

I read the thread, and, having no "Bittorrent Section" experience, I have nothing on-point to say, however much I may empathize (and I do, I surely do).

I have noticed a slight intrusion of the Avatar/3D subject, though, and I don't understand the urge to re-introduce a technological feature which has so utterly failed to capture the movie-going public's imagination.

I note, with very mild interest, the availability of add-on hardware which (they say) will allow me to "do" 3D at home, using my existing equipment.

As a fan of all of this technological gimmickry, naturally I would want to be capable of 3-D, however:

Unless and until the additional hardware required becomes dirt- (and I mean DIRT-) cheap, I'd have a hard time justifying a significant outlay to enable a visual effect that might only be featured in one movie out of ten, unless those in charge of marketing have determined that action shoot-'em-ups are to become the order of the day, to the detriment of all other movie genres.

In any case, I'd think diving under the coffee table to avoid a realistically deployed 3-D object flying at me would marginalize the movie-watching experience after a short while, and - let's face it - ultimately, the projectile will (in order to satisfy continually-escalating expectations) have to actually cause damage or death in your viewing room in order to be "real", at which point we've gone beyond 3-D, IMAX, and all the rest:

"Answer the door, honey - it's eight o'clock, and the actors are here...it's movie time!"

You know something Idol. I was never a fan of this thread's title. Always thought it labeled me as something I wasn't, while I was socializing in that section. Today I realized there was more truth to it than the fact that Justin Bieber has stolen hundreds of prison inmates' hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I read the thread, and, having no "Bittorrent Section" experience, I have nothing on-point to say, however much I may empathize (and I do, I surely do).

I have noticed a slight intrusion of the Avatar/3D subject, though, and I don't understand the urge to re-introduce a technological feature which has so utterly failed to capture the movie-going public's imagination.

I note, with very mild interest, the availability of add-on hardware which (they say) will allow me to "do" 3D at home, using my existing equipment.

As a fan of all of this technological gimmickry, naturally I would want to be capable of 3-D, however:

Unless and until the additional hardware required becomes dirt- (and I mean DIRT-) cheap, I'd have a hard time justifying a significant outlay to enable a visual effect that might only be featured in one movie out of ten, unless those in charge of marketing have determined that action shoot-'em-ups are to become the order of the day, to the detriment of all other movie genres.

In any case, I'd think diving under the coffee table to avoid a realistically deployed 3-D object flying at me would marginalize the movie-watching experience after a short while, and - let's face it - ultimately, the projectile will (in order to satisfy continually-escalating expectations) have to actually cause damage or death in your viewing room in order to be "real", at which point we've gone beyond 3-D, IMAX, and all the rest:

"Answer the door, honey - it's eight o'clock, and the actors are here...it's movie time!"

---

The problem with the use of 3D in current movies is that the narrative is by necessity partly defined by it in much the same way it was 50 odd years ago.
Jim C speaking " Ok here's where we need a scene where they smurfs jump on big flying thingies so I can twirl the camera around to suitable gasps of awe from the audience".
Granted better than "Throw the axe at the fake head so we can have the eyeball pop out at the screen" but still not very organic as the action dictates the scene instead of the scene dictating the action.

All I'm really saying is that until the "fad" phase of 3D comes to an end and a movie is just filmed - as opposed to "filmed in 3D "- then it's likely always going to be about cheap tricks ( which apparently is enough for most people)instead of focusing on meaningful storytelling.

Quote:

---

A good story is a good story, whether it is being told around a campfire or projected in a 3-D movie theater with wraparound sound. The greatest irony of all is that a great story will be just as great on a 20-inch TV in your bedroom. In other words, making movies in 3-D is just another way to distract audiences from Hollywood's inability to tell a good script from a bad one.

---