Stance Magic 6ULs
#62
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's clear that Konig has AT LEAST a bit more faith in their products than these. Konig has made an effort (very minimal yes) at changing the name. They give at least 1 **** about their product. A company that copies the name letter for letter gives 0 *****. Literally they couldn't be bothered to type 646Racing or something. So why should they give any ***** about production and quality control either?
#66
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 6,612
Total Cats: 567
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's clear that Konig has AT LEAST a bit more faith in their products than these. Konig has made an effort (very minimal yes) at changing the name. They give at least 1 **** about their product. A company that copies the name letter for letter gives 0 *****. Literally they couldn't be bothered to type 646Racing or something. So why should they give any ***** about production and quality control either?
If you buy a wheel from a company named "stancemagic" you belong on cr.net.
#72
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
Speaking of the SR-71, it's such an interesting confluence of anachronisms.
On the one hand, it's pretty much the sexiest, fastest, sleekest, most impressive airplane in general which has ever flown. I mean, this is an airplane which cruised at more than 3x the speed of sound, and flew higher than any surface-to-air missile could reach. When viewed from 50 feet away, it's pure sex.
On the other hand, it is a product of 1960s technology, and when viewed up close, it looks like such a kludge that one wonders how it ever managed to get off the ground at all. I mean, this is what the view from the driver's seat of the fastest jet ever created looks like:
By comparison, here's a modern-day Cessena 172, which is a bare-bones, entry-level little Volkswagen of an airplane:
On the one hand, it's pretty much the sexiest, fastest, sleekest, most impressive airplane in general which has ever flown. I mean, this is an airplane which cruised at more than 3x the speed of sound, and flew higher than any surface-to-air missile could reach. When viewed from 50 feet away, it's pure sex.
On the other hand, it is a product of 1960s technology, and when viewed up close, it looks like such a kludge that one wonders how it ever managed to get off the ground at all. I mean, this is what the view from the driver's seat of the fastest jet ever created looks like:
By comparison, here's a modern-day Cessena 172, which is a bare-bones, entry-level little Volkswagen of an airplane:
#73
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
First off, let me just say that I definitely consider myself as a Marvel girl - I've always preferred and loved Marvel characters for some reason. DC Comics never quite made it for me. So I have to admit, I didn't really have any expectations.
Having seen the original Superman movies, as well as the remake in 2004 (which wasn't very good at all in my opinion), I just went into this looking to be entertained. And I was entertained. I really liked the overall premise of the story, and liked that they ventured towards the genesis of the characters.
The effects are pretty cool too - I don't know much about special effects to be honest, so I can't say much about it. For viewers that love good action scenes, this one has a lot of those.
As for the actors that played the characters, I thought Henry Cavill was the perfect Superman. He was, of course, easy to look at. He also played the confused, out of place 'I just want to know where I came from' character well. I could feel his woes and understand his actions, and it was easy for me to empathize with him.
Lois Lane was played by Amy Adams. A lot of people have mixed feelings about this, but I actually really liked it. Amy Adams has a unique look to her, and she portrayed Lois' character well. I loved the fact that she also seemed a bit more of a stronger character. She contributed something, and helped Superman in many ways. She wasn't just a female character that needed to be saved every few seconds.
However, the two of them together was alright for me. I did not feel any sort of chemistry or connection between the two actors, so it was a little challenging for me to root for them.
One of the things that I absolutely loved though was that there weren't really any funny or comical scenes or dialogues. It was honestly a nice change. Aside from a few cheesy lines, I loved that they didn't coddle the viewers. It took itself seriously. It seemed like it was created for people that already know a bit about Superman and the franchise. In other words, it felt a lot like it was written and made for a Superman fan. So yes, I recommend it. It has a modernized feel to it, and definitely a little different from the previous Superman movies (this is after all a reboot), but I'm excited to see a sequel come out of this for sure. It will be interesting to see Lois Lane's character develop, as well as her relationship with Superman and Clark Kent.
Rating: 3.5 stars
I say go. It's worth it.
Having seen the original Superman movies, as well as the remake in 2004 (which wasn't very good at all in my opinion), I just went into this looking to be entertained. And I was entertained. I really liked the overall premise of the story, and liked that they ventured towards the genesis of the characters.
The effects are pretty cool too - I don't know much about special effects to be honest, so I can't say much about it. For viewers that love good action scenes, this one has a lot of those.
As for the actors that played the characters, I thought Henry Cavill was the perfect Superman. He was, of course, easy to look at. He also played the confused, out of place 'I just want to know where I came from' character well. I could feel his woes and understand his actions, and it was easy for me to empathize with him.
Lois Lane was played by Amy Adams. A lot of people have mixed feelings about this, but I actually really liked it. Amy Adams has a unique look to her, and she portrayed Lois' character well. I loved the fact that she also seemed a bit more of a stronger character. She contributed something, and helped Superman in many ways. She wasn't just a female character that needed to be saved every few seconds.
However, the two of them together was alright for me. I did not feel any sort of chemistry or connection between the two actors, so it was a little challenging for me to root for them.
One of the things that I absolutely loved though was that there weren't really any funny or comical scenes or dialogues. It was honestly a nice change. Aside from a few cheesy lines, I loved that they didn't coddle the viewers. It took itself seriously. It seemed like it was created for people that already know a bit about Superman and the franchise. In other words, it felt a lot like it was written and made for a Superman fan. So yes, I recommend it. It has a modernized feel to it, and definitely a little different from the previous Superman movies (this is after all a reboot), but I'm excited to see a sequel come out of this for sure. It will be interesting to see Lois Lane's character develop, as well as her relationship with Superman and Clark Kent.
Rating: 3.5 stars
I say go. It's worth it.
#77
Back to the wheels.
Could the difference between Konig's use of a close but not exact logo vs. the exact copying of a logo is that Konig wants to sell the wheels in the U.S. through regular retail outlets and Stance Magic has no intention of ever offering the wheels in the U.S., where they'd surely get sued?
Could the difference between Konig's use of a close but not exact logo vs. the exact copying of a logo is that Konig wants to sell the wheels in the U.S. through regular retail outlets and Stance Magic has no intention of ever offering the wheels in the U.S., where they'd surely get sued?
#78
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
Back to the wheels.
Could the difference between Konig's use of a close but not exact logo vs. the exact copying of a logo is that Konig wants to sell the wheels in the U.S. through regular retail outlets and Stance Magic has no intention of ever offering the wheels in the U.S., where they'd surely get sued?
Could the difference between Konig's use of a close but not exact logo vs. the exact copying of a logo is that Konig wants to sell the wheels in the U.S. through regular retail outlets and Stance Magic has no intention of ever offering the wheels in the U.S., where they'd surely get sued?
The point still being Konig != Stance Magic just because they are both shady.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
stoves
Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain
5
04-21-2016 03:00 PM