You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)
This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)
This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.
One of the few good movies I've actually seen. It's a great example that a solid script and dialogue can make a great movie without the need for action-packed scenes of kissy-kissy romantic side stories.
There was a '97 remake that I haven't seen. I wonder if it's as good as the '57 version.
I watched Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection over the weekend. I'm pretty sure I caught the bad end of an Aliens marathon.
boring, idiotic and just-plain-bad.
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)
This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.
One of the few good movies I've actually seen. It's a great example that a solid script and dialogue can make a great movie without the need for action-packed scenes of kissy-kissy romantic side stories.
There was a '97 remake that I haven't seen. I wonder if it's as good as the '57 version.
I haven't seen it either. It's directed by William Friedkin and it has quite a cast, but it just seems kind of pointless given that the original isn't dated at all.I watched Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection over the weekend. I'm pretty sure I caught the bad end of an Aliens marathon.
Yeah, it's a shame the way that series went. I actually haven't seen Alien 3, but Resurrection ranges between boring, idiotic and just-plain-bad.
I allowed myself to watch human centerpiede 1and 2. I won't do that again. I never thought I would see a better shock film then 'a Serbian film'. Watch a Serbian film if you havnt seen it. But it's pretty heavy.
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)
This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.
I allowed myself to watch human centerpiede 1and 2. I won't do that again. I never thought I would see a better shock film then 'a Serbian film'. Watch a Serbian film if you havnt seen it. But it's pretty heavy.
Loved 12 Angry Men and saw a performance of it at the theatre a few weeks ago. It was a pretty intense performance, with all of the cast on stage all of the time, with no breaks apart from the interlude. The only bit of stage wizardry was the table in the middle which very, very slowly rotates, which helps create that sense of clausterphobia and frustration which does get lost in a big wide theatre instead of the uncomfortably close shots used in the film.That sounds really good, I can't imagine how it would look on stage, but I'm definitely interested based on what you say here.
Just watched the 'Peadogeddon' episode of Brass Eye again this morning. Still as funny and relevant as it was in '97.
David Lynch's Hotel RoomThis about sums up my feelings regarding the series, too.
Finally watched all 3 episodes. It doesn't come close to Twin Peaks for me, but it's still one of the better shows I have seen. Amazing atmosphere and some really great dialogue. I liked the 1st and 3rd episodes the best. I still feel like I missed some details, so I will be going back and watching it again soon.
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.Actually, the old Disney formula has been spiced up with a few subversions and twists. It's not groundbreaking or anything, but it's certainly different enough to make it stand out among the Disney princess back catalogue.
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.
I've been watching Prison break lately, while I loved the complex plan and trying to wok out what the symbols meant as they were introduced, I really wish they didn't have the ridiculous presidential conspiracy in the background - I don't care about the misadventures of the lawyers, I want to see Scofield try to avoid being shanked as he creeps into an intricately designed area of the prison.
The second series started well but the damn conspiracy is starting to take up too much screen time again. Agent mahone was a great character in his own right - and watching the cat-and-mouse between Scofield and him would have been really interesting to follow. Why did they have to over-complicate his character?
but it's way too complicated, and the writers just kept pulling more new dimensions and motivations for them out of their asses as the show went on.
Are you a Lynch fan in general, Crapblood?I count several of his films among my favourites, including Wild at Heart which is my absolute favourite film. So yeah, I guess I am.
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch)
I first saw this some years ago and was totally perplexed by it. Seeing it now with fresh eyes I feel like it makes a lot more sense and actually contains, as Lynch insists, a linear narrative. With this clearer perspective on the narrative I was able to sit back and enjoy Lynch's mastery of atmosphere, suspense, abstraction, character development and overall direction which have come together to form one of his finest works, and a definite masterpiece of modern American cinema.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Miloš Forman)This one I did see as a teenager in a film class. I remember becoming pretty emotional at the end. I've been wanting to go back and watch it but it affected me so much the first time that I'm kinda scared.
I wonder why I didn't see this a long time ago, but I'm glad I waited, as I don't think I would have been sensitive or patient enough to really get into this as a teenager. I would have missed the warmth and humour of the characters, the more subtle elements of their interactions and relationships, and the wonderfully balanced ending, which is both sad and joyful, but without falling prey to the bogus sentimentality it so easily could have. Like so many films I love, it walks a tonal tightrope with, perhaps not exactly surety, but determination.
The Dead Zone (David Cronenberg)
Back with the other Dave, and this time he's joined by a psychic Christopher Walken in this adaptation of the Stephen King novel. Is it faithful? I don't know! I haven't read anything of his besides The Stand and The Dark Tower. It plays much more as a supernatural thriller than a horror film, and is full of that smell-it-a-mile-away Kingian cheese that I love when it's handled well, which it is here. Walken steals the show with his classically bizarre line delivery, but credit should also go to Martin Sheen, who gives a wonderfully big performance as a corrupt politician, and Herbert Lom in his understated role as Dr Weizak.
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?
Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.
Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.
We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.
The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.
Having more characters does not equal character development. Like I already said it was extremely shallow and each character had basically one emotion throughout the whole movie.Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.
We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.
More characters were developed.Quote
The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.
Have you seen the first movie?
I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.
And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.
I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.
And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.
And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.
The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.
But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.
Originally it was supposed to be 2 movies, but when it got expanded to 3, they wound up drawing from other Tolkien books to act as filler.The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle. They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.
So much of the first movie was filler. I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours. Give me a fucking break.
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle. They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.
So much of the first movie was filler. I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours. Give me a fucking break.
I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.
I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle. They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.
So much of the first movie was filler. I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours. Give me a fucking break.
I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.
I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.
So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy. I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.
And they are.NO! >o<
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle. They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.
So much of the first movie was filler. I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours. Give me a fucking break.
I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.
I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.
So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy. I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.
The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.
Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked likeI have been saying this exact same phrase for so long now. It's why I could never finish the trilogy, I got so tired of the excruciatingly detailed descriptions.
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle. They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.
So much of the first movie was filler. I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours. Give me a fucking break.
I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.
I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.
So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy. I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.
The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.
Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like, so once you cut out all that and Tom Bombadil's fifty pages of singing there was substantially less plot to cover.
That said, I do think it should've been two movies.
And of course, it inspired one of the better sidequests of F3. But that's its own thread, let's not derail this one. Yes, it is a fine movie. I first watched when I was pretty young, and I remember being really bored, but now that I'm older I can appreciate the intelligence and subtlety behind it a lot more. I think I may have been expecting an action movie before I first saw it, which is just another part of my youthful foolishness.
hehehehe very funnyYou looked that up just for me, didn't you? Oh sadaam... <3
Also, modern medical opinions have taken a fairly skeptical view of Kaspar Hauser's claims.
Watched season one of American Horror Story. I watched season 2 (Asylum) a while back, i thought that was definitely better. The first season was a jumbled incoherent mess, and was dumb. However, Jessica Lange is a great actress, imo.
Wild at Heart (David Lynch)
Seen it a million times, still captivates me like no other film can. Watch it right now.
Wild Palms (Various directors overseen by Oliver Stone)
It's 2007, which as we all know was a time of rampant crypto-fascism and televisual brainwashing in which people in inane sitcoms are projected onto your couch and you have sex with them through the magic of drugs. Maybe that didn't happen, maybe it did and we were too busy hallucinating cathedrals to notice, but if we were ever in that alternate future-past we would all be having nightmares about rhinoceroses and getting shouted at by Robert Loggia because of Brad Dourif's sunglasses — or something — and really, who doesn't lay awake at night wishing they could live that life?
12 Years A Slave. It was powerful, and probably the best film I've seen all year (although I haven't seen as many as I would have liked). The only thing I didn't like about it was the soundtrack, which kept distracting me as it sounded exactly like Inception. Big surprise when it turns out that Hans Zimmer scored it. He needs to do less movies.I really want to see this one. I almost convinced A&A to go down to New Orleans with me for a weekend so I could try and celebrity hunt. I even had the address to the plantation mapped out on my phone.
The entire purpose of an exploitation film is to exploit (no, really?!) for the purposes of entertainment a particular thing, whether it's Nazi war crimes or rape or extreme violence or even the death of Bruce Lee
The entire purpose of an exploitation film is to exploit (no, really?!) for the purposes of entertainment a particular thing, whether it's Nazi war crimes or rape or extreme violence or even the death of Bruce Lee
<Clones of Bruce Lee>
I don't think New Fist of Fury can be considered Bruceploitation since Jackie Chan's character in that movie was not supposed to be Bruce Lee or any of Bruce's characters, and they didn't try to make him look like Bruce either. It was just a sequel to Fist of Fury.Oh, that's right... I'll concede that one, then. I just remembered it as Bruceploitation because of the name, I guess.
I know Lo Wei tried to marked Chan as "the new bruce lee" with this film, but it wasn't like the real Bruceploitation movies where they outright marketed their character AS Bruce Lee himself.
Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick)
It was good.
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.
Why do people hate IM3 so much?
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.
Why do people hate IM3 so much?
I think it's because of the infamous little fakeout that they pulled with the Mandarin.
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.
Why do people hate IM3 so much?
I think it's because of the infamous little fakeout that they pulled with the Mandarin.
I always thought that was one of the best parts of the film.
Blackfish- A documentary about the plight of orcas in captivity mostly at Seaworld in Orlando, FL. Surprisingly moving and at points downright shocking. I highly recommend it.I read a pretty great unbiased article on how the movie basically relies on an appeal to emotion, assumptions, and people who are not real animal behavioralists.
One of the key people interviewed is a whale researcher who testified in the successful suit against Seaworld (who incidentally is careful to say they can draw no certain conclusions from the attacks of the primary whale featured), and then trainers who worked and in a lot of cases witnessed the attacks. To be sure, Seaworld has often not been forthright, and often demonstrably lied, in a lot of important ways. That being said, there is also a strong appeal to emotion. Does not bother me at all and it is a good watch.Yeah, it makes sense that Seaworld would lie. I'm sure they do questionable things, the article was not biased toward either side, like I mentioned. What is scary is that I don't think you have to have much experience or that much training before getting into a tank with the animals. But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not. Its greyer than people make it out to be.
troll hunterI couldn't pick up on much of the folklore, but I loved it.
Deliciously tongue-in-cheek mockumentary in the style of Blair witch.. I got a few of the references but I'm sure there were more subtle nods to nordic folklore than I know - even with Humon Comic's tutoring.
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
troll hunterI couldn't pick up on much of the folklore, but I loved it.
Deliciously tongue-in-cheek mockumentary in the style of Blair witch.. I got a few of the references but I'm sure there were more subtle nods to nordic folklore than I know - even with Humon Comic's tutoring.
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not. Its greyer than people make it out to be.
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
Thats not really true. The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do. They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not. Its greyer than people make it out to be.
On further shittiness by Sea World:
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/01/sea-world-accused-of-fishy-pr-practices-rigging-blackfish-poll.html
I didn't mean research the movie, I meant researching claims against Sea World. I don't need to watch a doc for that.I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
You mean, you'd rather have someone else research it than research it yourself.
Researching the documentary yourself would require you actually watching it.
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
I didn't explain it very well since I was paraphrasing from that article I read a couple weeks ago. You should read it if you've seen the movie, it was pretty interesting.But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.
But I think they explain the reasoning for this. Orcas are pretty intelligent, social animals that roam across thousands of miles. Stick them in a tiny tank and make them splash fat 5-year-olds every day and they might get pissed off. It's not hypocritical to say that different causes give different effects.
I didn't explain it very well since I was paraphrasing from that article I read a couple weeks ago. You should read it if you've seen the movie, it was pretty interesting.
Most articles on the topic don't really rail against the main points of the movie, just how they're presented and the fallacies it uses.
Okay, Thork. This isn't the "Post YouTube videos" thread.
It's not necessarily cruel to keep an animal in captivity or teach it to do tricks.Dogs are not a good example, really. Some animals do better in captivity while others do not. For example, apparently great white sharks are terrible in captivity. Animals that have been domesticated are very different to forcing tigers, lions, elephants, orcas, and dolphins to do tricks.
Dogs are a good example. If I released a pet dog into the wild it would be cruel.
Same goes with any animal that has only known captivity all it's life.
Can we all please just shut the fuck up about the animals already?Why, Eric Bana? Why did you ever agree to do such a shit fest?
Anyway, I have watched The Incredible Hulk. It was okay, I guess. It was certainly an improvement over that horrific one Ang Lee gave us back in 2003, the one that had this priceless scene in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGXERUKBj4
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
I have also seen the first Captain America movie. I also thought it was terrible. It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
I thought the first Captain America was alright, though. It's supposed to be really cheesy and I don't think a lot of people realized that; it stuck to the tone of the original comics very closely. I know a lot of people who were upset that it was "too silly" and "not serious" and crap, because apparently everything needs to be dark and gritty now and we can't just have cheesy fun...à la the 1960s Batman show, or even the Tim Burton Batman films. Or, really, the comics.
broody mcbroodwalking
I dunno, I think "one of the worst movies" is...yikes. You must not have seen many movies at all. :PTechnically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.
I dunno, I think "one of the worst movies" is...yikes. You must not have seen many movies at all. :PTechnically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.
But it was still bad. I just don't care much for comic book movies in general, hell I didn't even like The Avengers that much so. :/
Technically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.
But it was still bad. I just don't care much for comic book movies in general, hell I didn't even like The Avengers that much so. :/
It's also worth pointing out that they don't stick to that pulpy, forties-inspired style for the sequel - which makes sense, seeing how it's not set in the forties anymore. So if the goofy tone was what you naysayers disliked about the first one, rest assured that you won't see it here.
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.No. And it was shit. I bet the Captain America you're linking to was better.
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/board/thread/217578565
Or maybe you just have shit taste.
Or maybe you just have shit taste.
If you are claiming that its a good movie then you're the one with shit taste. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater or I would have sued for emotional stress and damages.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
This reminds me of that debate about porn with rooster.
Worst fucking movie of all time.
It just sucked. That's why its a bad film. I'd watch it again and give you a more detailed review on how it sucked, but having seen it once... why would I subject myself to it again? That's a waste of time.
And generally, I just don't care for comic book campy-ness.
I don't think he was trying to pull off a german accent to begin with.Yes, he was. He even said that he didn't enjoy the role.
A movie can't get by on action or budget alone in my opinion.
A movie can't get by on action or budget alone in my opinion.
This has been the problem with every Marvel film over the last 10+ years. Prove me wrong.
Millionaire invents power suit. Takes cockish smarm to new altitudes.
Millionaire invents power suit. Takes cockish smarm to new altitudes.
I don't see where the problem is. You can make anything sound trite if you want to treat it like that.
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.
We do when you ask us to justify our position.
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.
We do when you ask us to justify our position.
The First Avenger wasn't mindless. They took a good shot at replicating the 40s. Half of the movie looks like a picture taken during WWII. The acting is bad? What the shit. I realise interpretation of good acting is somewhat arguable, but that criticism sounds like grasping at straws. It sounds like you guys went in there not liking it and left the same, which is fine, but you don't need to justify it with silly claims.What the shit yourself, mate.
But the acting was fucking awful.
I'm sorry, did you want me to break down the highs and lows of everyone's performance from a movie that had me falling asleep 3 years ago? They were all forgettable. The plot was forgettable. It was campy beyond belief. It didn't hook, engage, or thrill me in any way. The lines were delivered with such shallow feeling that I could almost see the words written on paper.But the acting was fucking awful.
Welp, I don't think anyone is going to substantiate this beyond "Hugo weaving didn't like the role" (which I recall having read, but I can't seem to find his actual quote regarding the role).
I'm sorry, did you want me to break down the highs and lows of everyone's performance from a movie that had me falling asleep 3 years ago? They were all forgettable.
It didn't hook, engage, or thrill me in any way.
And also a pretty movie set in the 40s doesn't mean the action isn't mindless.
During a recent conversation with Collider, Weaving was asked whether he had any plans to return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As most actors are signed on to multi-picture deals, it seemed like a fair question, but Weaving gave the impression he wanted to put put some distance between himself and his role in Captain America: The First Avenger.
“I think the tendency, with those films, would be to probably not bring a villain back. They might for The Avengers, but I didn’t think I’d be in Captain America 2 or 3. I don’t think Red Skull will be there,” Weaving said. “And it’s not something I would want to do again.”
With that being said, Weaving made it clear he has no hard feelings toward Marvel and is glad he joined the project. But he also said he hopes he won’t be asked back.
“I did sign up for a number of pictures and I suppose, contractually, I would be obliged to, if they forced me to, but they wouldn’t want to force someone to do it, if they didn’t want to,” he said. “I think I’ve done my dash with that sort of film. It was good to do it and try it out, but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by. As an actor, to do all sorts of different films is great. It stretches you in different ways. But, I increasingly like to go back to what I used to always do, which is to get involved with projects that I really have a personal affiliation with.”
Also, Snupes, from that quote can you not infer that he disliked the role? Or does he have to specifically state that he hates the role in order for you to accept it?
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now. >:(
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now. >:(
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now. >:(
I don't appreciate being lied to. My feelings are hurt. :[
Watch a speedrun of it.
Look, it's not my problem you didn't hate Transformers 3. That's another one I hated.
Plots, characters, and acting are what's important to me. Not action or budget. I honestly can't believe you can still like a forgettable movie, but we can't all love the same things. And you're insanely immature for not allowing my opinion that the acting and writing was terrible. I don't understand how anyone can like the movie but I'm not interested in hearing a thesis on why you do. I just accept that you do and we have different tastes.
Look, it's not my problem you didn't hate Transformers 3. That's another one I hated.
Plots, characters, and acting are what's important to me. Not action or budget. I honestly can't believe you can still like a forgettable movie, but we can't all love the same things. And you're insanely immature for not allowing my opinion that the acting and writing was terrible. I don't understand how anyone can like the movie but I'm not interested in hearing a thesis on why you do. I just accept that you do and we have different tastes.
Who are you talking to?
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.
I agree with the former, but not necessarily with the latter sentence. Maybe it didn't interest him, sure, but there are a plethora of reasons other than it being badly-written or something like that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree there.
but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by.
I didn't ask your opinion on the acting cause I don't care.
I'm only angry because you're a very dense person and it's really frustrating when people become obsessed with my opinions.
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.
I agree with the former, but not necessarily with the latter sentence. Maybe it didn't interest him, sure, but there are a plethora of reasons other than it being badly-written or something like that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree there.Quotebut to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by.
"This is really well written, but I typically don't like this sort of thing and please don't ask me to do it again."
Hugo Weaving said in another quote that he prefers productions he has personal ties to, so that's probably one reason he didn't enjoy TFA.
I don't know about anyone else but there are times when I want to watch a film that doesn't use too much brain power. The Avengers etc... falls into that category nicely for me.Sure, sometimes that's the case. TFA still wouldn't make that cut.
There are also times when I fancy a film that has more depth to it.
It all depends on my mood really.
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :PSome are alright. DC is definitely better. X-Men is better than the Avenger series. And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :PSome are alright. DC is definitely better. X-Men is better than the Avenger series. And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.
Spawn may be the worst tho.
And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.
Short argument:Whoa, I never said it was fact. I definitely don't ever feel that way about my opinions. I've clearly said that it's the way I feel but I accept that people like it. I know TFA rates as a good movie, I just don't see it though. Everyone else was all bent out of shape and needed an acceptable reason why I feel the way I do.
I don't like this film and my opinion is fact.
Personally I don't care either way - I heard bad reviews for TFA and CapAm was never my cup of tea so I didn't bother to see it.
noHey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :PX-Men is better than the Avenger series.
And yes, I do read graphic novels and some comic books. While they may be collections, they're generally written better because they don't suffer the need to keep things going for years so they are very different. V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Frank Miller's stuff - it's all a lot darker and less campy.
The Thor movies are bad. What silly stories. What unlikable characters.omg I must go on the offensive for 3 pages while you explain in detail how you can dislike a movie I like!!!
noHey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :PX-Men is better than the Avenger series.
That's how you should always read it cause it's almost like entertainment and art are subjective or something. Crazy.noHey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :PX-Men is better than the Avenger series.
Yeah, I've given up at this stage. "I like Xmen more than the Avenger series" is how I'll read it.
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
It had something to do with the world not being ready for someone like Clark Kent.
I don't know why Clark didn't rescue the dog instead of his dad though.
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
In Smallville Clark Kent saves people in front of crowds all the time. He's faster than a "speeding bullet".... no one would even see him do it. The fact that he let his father die in such a trivial way goes against everything Superman stands for. It's his adoptive father. Any other version of Superman would have saved him. This is why Man of Steel sucks.
The movie goes through great pains to establish how superman comes to stand for the things he does.
Oh well the movie isn't based on Smallville so that might have confused you.
Doesn't Superman kill about a million people in the final battle in that movie? Also, the product placement was incredibly obnoxious.
Somehow I got the feeling that they were trying to make young Clark look like Tom Welling though.Henry Cavill and Tom Welling resemble each other so that would make sense.
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
It had something to do with the world not being ready for someone like Clark Kent.
I don't know why Clark didn't rescue the dog instead of his dad though.
Clark was taking care of his mom.
Doesn't Superman kill about a million people in the final battle in that movie? Also, the product placement was incredibly obnoxious.
They wreck a lot of Metropolis yes, but if you are doing a realistic version of Superman what else would happen? Superman is on his heels for a lot of the fight and there is a bunch of immovable object/unstoppable force type physics happening.
And Ghost, don't let the snarkiness rustle your jimmies. This Superman was supposed to be a bit darker and more conflicted than other versions. He went to great lengths to hide who he was. Plus, when he was that young we don't really know the extent of his power development. He might not have been that fast yet.
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was.I think this is ultimately why we don't see eye to eye when it comes to comic books movies.
Jonathan's death was forced. It felt like forced character development, which just ends up feeling cheap.Do you think it might have felt forced because it was a flashback? Just curious.
he loves humanity and will do whatever he can to protect it, but he also fears that they will reject him.
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was. It's a Superman movie, yet I had next to no fun watching it. I even winced when people in metroplis were levitated and smashed on the ground. What the hell is that doing in Superman?
he loves humanity and will do whatever he can to protect it, but he also fears that they will reject him.
Then logically he would have saved Jonathan Kent... unless in the next Superman movie we find out that Supes from Man of Steel is actually Bizzaro Supes. I would support this plot twist.
It still felt realistic to me just because freak accidents don't leave a lot of time for decision making and Clark fell back on what he was taught (hiding his powers). Right before Jonathan died they had an argument on what Clark should do, the guilt of calling him out as not actually being his father was probably a factor when he listened to Jonathan's judgement.
Hence, conflicted feelings. During that small time frame he instinctively fell back on what he was taught which is a very real human thing to do.
He knew he was an alien at that point. But does Superman typically not act like a human with human morals?Hence, conflicted feelings. During that small time frame he instinctively fell back on what he was taught which is a very real human thing to do.
Clark Kent is not human. He was rebellious toward his adoptive father to begin with, although he did respect him completely. Which might prompt him to disobey his advice, like he had done in the past. I suppose the argument could be made that Supes has a human's moral code since he was not aware of his alien nature at the time of Jonathan's death, or was he? I forget.
I didn't like Superman before MoS and I still don't find him a terribly interesting hero. Never read any comic books. I don't see how they're relevant to the movies. I guess it took them a tent pole movie to realise that they can't do an enjoyable, hyper realistic, broody superman. Maybe it was just Goyer's shitty writing and Afleck's addition will improve things.
Either way, I'm looking forward to the sequel, hopefully it finally launches things for DC. It's funny to point out the failure of WB to capitalize as Disney has, but after a while it's just sad.
I have watched some Smallville but it was years ago. I only remember the hot brunette love interest..
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was. It's a Superman movie, yet I had next to no fun watching it. I even winced when people in metroplis were levitated and smashed on the ground. What the hell is that doing in Superman?
It's not hard to imagine and it is much less interesting for them to fight in a say , a cornfield. Kal-El was fighting a trained soldier. He could not choose the location.They wreck a lot of Metropolis yes, but if you are doing a realistic version of Superman what else would happen? Superman is on his heels for a lot of the fight and there is a bunch of immovable object/unstoppable force type physics happening.
This is a fairly common argument. It's not hard to imagine that they simply fought elsewhere, or Superman moved the fight elsewhere. In any case, the final 40 minute destruction sequence was just 1 of many problems.
That you require certain material or tone in a superman movie is your own bias that you should not project on to Man of Steel
It's not hard to imagine and it is much less interesting for them to fight in a say , a cornfield. Kal-El was fighting a trained soldier. He could not choose the location.
pool.
Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.
I think it's great. The story is interesting and the action looks great. The plot moves fast in the beginning so they move up to cadets really quickly.Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.
I started watching Attack on Titan a few days ago, is it worth finishing?
Being a general does mean something. Zod was born and raised to be the best soldier. He had the intense discipline, focus, and combat knowledge to pick up on his powers faster than Clark.
I don't think there's something wrong with having a realistic superhero movie with human deaths. I'm glad they exist so people like me can enjoy them while people like you can enjoy the light hearted Avengers stuff.
Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.
I guess I just don't understand where you're coming from then.Being a general does mean something. Zod was born and raised to be the best soldier. He had the intense discipline, focus, and combat knowledge to pick up on his powers faster than Clark.
I don't think there's something wrong with having a realistic superhero movie with human deaths. I'm glad they exist so people like me can enjoy them while people like you can enjoy the light hearted Avengers stuff.
Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.
I don't shy away from heavy and dark movies. They were trying to emulate Batman in a Superman movie and I think they failed miserably. Not because Superman is supposed to be happy or anything, it just wasn't fun. Even TDK was fun.
Yes, let's continue to lower the intellectual level.
Iron Man 3 is alright.
Arrested Development is funny.
Yay
Is Iron Man 3 the one with the fake Mandarin? That movie was literally the worst.
Yes, it's the one with the fake Mandarin. Killian's weak "No, I'm the real Mandarin!" was, I suspect, a last-minute change they threw in to try and placate fans who would have received the actor revelation poorly. Nobody bought it, of course. It's obvious that they simply decided to sacrifice the Mandarin as a villain just so they could pull their "clever" little twist.
Yes, it's the one with the fake Mandarin. Killian's weak "No, I'm the real Mandarin!" was, I suspect, a last-minute change they threw in to try and placate fans who would have received the actor revelation poorly. Nobody bought it, of course. It's obvious that they simply decided to sacrifice the Mandarin as a villain just so they could pull their "clever" little twist.
Which is a terrible way to tell a story. Clever is the death of good story-telling.
Sorry, not sorry.Yes, let's continue to lower the intellectual level.
Iron Man 3 is alright.
Arrested Development is funny.
Yay
Rooster still cannot get it right on superhero movies.
The representation of the virus' effects was true to the comic books afaik.
I mean it looks like a movie that would be really easy to fuck up. For example, there's a talking raccoon.
The second Avengers movie is going to be about Ultron, so I doubt there'll be much of a connection to this.
I guess they figured out that anything they ever churned out would turn in a profit, so maybe they're testing that with this.
I guess they figured out that anything they ever churned out would turn in a profit, so maybe they're testing that with this.
This could either lead to great things or just awful awful terrible things.
They weren't worried about being true to the comics when they turned the Mandarin into a joke! Anyway, they should have at least toned it down a little. It just didn't fit the sci-fi setting to have all that silly fire-breathing and whatnot.
Also, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because the Guardians of the Galaxy are awesomeIt's not a popular comic, so it can't be good! >o<
Yet...you were disappointed they didn't actually have the ridiculous character with ten super-magical-powers rings? I was delighted by the twist because a) the Mandarin is stupid, and b) they would've had to pull some really dumb strings to make him realistic or "sci-fi" at all.
No actor could have made such a generic villain interesting.
They weren't worried about being true to the comics when they turned the Mandarin into a joke! Anyway, they should have at least toned it down a little. It just didn't fit the sci-fi setting to have all that silly fire-breathing and whatnot.
Yet...you were disappointed they didn't actually have the ridiculous character with ten super-magical-powers rings? I was delighted by the twist because a) the Mandarin is stupid, and b) they would've had to pull some really dumb strings to make him realistic or "sci-fi" at all.
Also, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because the Guardians of the Galaxy are awesome
Rocket Raccoon is a playable character in Marvel vs. Capcom 3. The only game he's ever been in... Guardians or the Galaxy is announced a year or so afterwards. Coincidence?
Am I excited? Hell no. 90% of Marvel films are trash. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.
He's not popular, he's actually very obscure... Not many know of his existence, outside hardcore marvel fans of course. That's why people are concerned, because Guardians of the Galaxy is relatively unknown. Damn, Rocket Racoon was introduced as a main character in the comics only in 2008 (although he's been around since 76, but as a minor nobody character), so that didn't leave much time for people to discover him and his team either.
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.
He's not popular, he's actually very obscure... Not many know of his existence, outside hardcore marvel fans of course. That's why people are concerned, because Guardians of the Galaxy is relatively unknown. Damn, Rocket Racoon was introduced as a main character in the comics only in 2008 (although he's been around since 76, but as a minor nobody character), so that didn't leave much time for people to discover him and his team either.
I just don't think some Hollywood bigwigs were like...Rocket Raccoon is in this fighting game, lets put him in a movie. I feel like if that were the case we would've seen a Nova movie or Hawkeye or something like that before Rocket Raccoon.
I could be wrong, I dunno, lol.
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.
It's directed by Edgar Wright. His entire filmography (aside from one young college project) is Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The World's End. It can't be bad.
Crudblud is just being a balkno.Crudblud is the balkno of movies.
grittier, more realistic
reboot
I heard that its sequel was hilariously awful, so I guess that one's next.
Watched The Wolf of Wallstreet. Sucked.
Sucked big time.
I heard that its sequel was hilariously awful, so I guess that one's next.
And so it was. Probably the best thing I can say about it is that the effects were fantastic. Apart from that, it's a mess, particularly the writing. Peter and Gwen's on-off relationship is annoyingly repetitive, Electro's villainous motivation is extremely weak, Paul Giamatti has a terrible cameo, the Green Goblin has about five minutes of screentime (that's not an exaggeration), and the whole conspiracy subplot involving Peter's parents doesn't add anything to the story. Oh yeah, and the last ten minutes or so where they try to set up their cinematic universe Marvel-style is just sad. They really don't have the material for that.
Watched The Wolf of Wallstreet. Sucked.
Sucked big time.
What didn't you like?
It's a dark comedy. I thought it was hilarious even though I wanted to be disgusted. And justice doesn't always work the way you want it to in real life.
I wouldn't call it shock value. The scene where he tries to drive on those ludes is really funny but not shocking. In fact I didn't think anything really seemed shocking. But I know you're easily offended by nudity and depictions of sex which is why you said you don't like Game of Thrones. And that's fine, just don't expect everyone to define it as shock value.
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no...
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no...
Stories should not have to have any 'moral'. They should be allowed to just be stories as well.
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no... he spends 12 months in what basically amounts to a summer camp, then gets out scott free.
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no... he spends 12 months in what basically amounts to a summer camp, then gets out scott free.
The film is relying on your morality, not its own. You should be shocked to learn that bankers got off largely scot free for fucking up the planet for a good many years. You should come out of the cinema and say "lol but that didn't really happen did it lol" Then get angry when you find out it did. (In fact I'm not sure any bankers/traders/agents had been to jail before the film was made).
NB I haven't seen this film because I don't like stories about dragons.
It's a dark comedy because there are people who spent $30 on the blu-Ray to see how the general public gets fucked over and then get upset about it.
It's a dark comedy because there are people who spent $30 on the blu-Ray to see how the general public gets fucked over and then get upset about it.
I spent exactly $0 watching this movie.
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.
It's directed by Edgar Wright. His entire filmography (aside from one young college project) is Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The World's End. It can't be bad.
...wat
Well, there goes any inclination of me being vaguely excited about that movie. I can't wait for another mediocre Paul Rudd comedy
First Class is good and you kind of have to watch it to understand this one.
First Class is good and you kind of have to watch it to understand this one.
Is Future Past a sequel to First Class?
There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o< I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy. Should I watch them? I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o< I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy. Should I watch them? I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
X3 was also crap.
I really wish Rogue had been a bigger character, she and Nightcrawler are my favorites. Speaking of which, I want Nightcrawler back. A better one. Alan Cumming was alright but he wasn't flirty or energetic enough.
There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o< I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy. Should I watch them? I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Is Future Past a sequel to First Class?
Sony needs to sell the Spider-Man film rights back to Marvel.
Sure, but I'm wondering what it is specifically about the Fantastic Four that keeps tripping filmmakers up. Same with the Punisher. Three attempts, all of them duds. What gives?
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
The way you describe it reminds me of Buried, with Ryan Reynolds. The entire thing takes place in a coffin/box underground and is incredibly claustrophobic. I wonder if there are more films like it, 'cause I (really uncomfortably) enjoyed that experience.
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.
Great Ghibli movie about a bunch of Japanese Raccoon Dogs trying to save their forest. It is pro-environment but it's not pushy, and it's hilarious. Explains a good deal about Japanese mythology, specifically the tanuki. Probably my favorite Studio Ghibli movie, perhaps tied with Princess Mononoke.
Gandalf actually went to Dol Guldur though.
Snupes, you're the Marvel expert. Tell me, have the Fantastic Four ever not sucked? I ask because all I know about them is that they had three terrible movies and now there's a reboot coming out. Go away superhero franchises.
Gandalf actually went to Dol Guldur though.
Snupes, you're the Marvel expert. Tell me, have the Fantastic Four ever not sucked? I ask because all I know about them is that they had three terrible movies and now there's a reboot coming out. Go away superhero franchises.
They're one of the cheesiest superhero franchises and have proven difficult to seriousify really well. I think they could potentially make a good film, they just need someone who isn't terrible making it.
Finally, I'm not the only one who liked the first Hobbit more than the second.
Finally, I'm not the only one who liked the first Hobbit more than the second.
However, you remain the only one who doesn't like superhero movies.
I think they should stop with this "gritty realism" bullshit and make a superhero movie. Be cheesy, over the top, camp, whatever, you're making movies about dudes in full body spandex with magical powers, embrace it or go and do something else.The Avenger movies are the type of cheese you're looking for.
X-men was alright, I don't think it's worth the reviews people have been giving it. It was really weird when Eric decided randomly to kill Mystique after believing Wolverine's 100% true story about time travel. Bunch of other issues that come up because of time travel, but that's expected. It wasn't a dumb movie, but it helped if you just turn your brain off and watch. The Quicksilver scene was probably one of the best parts of the movie.Yeah, it's just a snippet of the villain from next movie which the title gives away. You can find it on youtube if you care.
Also, has anyone stayed for the after credits sequence? Because I couldn't be bothered.
I think they should stop with this "gritty realism" bullshit and make a superhero movie. Be cheesy, over the top, camp, whatever, you're making movies about dudes in full body spandex with magical powers, embrace it or go and do something else.
How about the guy who directed Chronicle?
Being dark and gritty can work. Nolan did it well with the Dark Knight trilogy, and of course I did it even better with my eternally-unfinished magnum opus The Sequel, although that didn't really have any superheroes...no, scratch that, it totally did. Anyway, it's more of a risk, and it's a lot easier to make fun of when it goes terribly wrong, but I don't think it's right to be saying that superheroes should be silly as a rule. Even Man of Steel could have worked, perhaps if it had narrowed its scope a bit and focused on telling an origin story, taking its time with relatable situations and naturalistic character development, rather than quickly bolting through all that so we could see an hour's worth of mindless carnage and hilarious product placement. Bleh.
Penny Dreadful.
Billie Piper can't do an Irish accent very well.
This is why I think Tim Burton's attempts are the best so far, they tread the fine lines between serious and dull, style and camp very well, and they genuinely feel like comic book movies rather than high concept action flicks.
It's also strange how Erik and Charles part ways so early even though they're still working together in the early 90's in the third film when they visit Jean Grey, both of them aged and Charles still being able to walk.
Simply portraying sexism is one thing, but portraying it and reinforcing it within the context of the movie is another. That's the big issue with that scene - the men are apparently justified in writing her off as a silly girl who's just sighing about some guy, because that's exactly what she's presenting herself as. There's no reason why she couldn't have handled her memory wipe with some dignity or professionalism, or even why she really needed to have her memory wiped at all. Didn't Xavier trust her to keep his secrets?Are you saying it's sexist to be a silly girl sighing about a man?
Not all women have to be dignified or professional.
Is this established int the new movie? And how is Charles able to walk in that scene? Is he wearing metal underwear that are controlled by Magneto?It's also strange how Erik and Charles part ways so early even though they're still working together in the early 90's in the third film when they visit Jean Grey, both of them aged and Charles still being able to walk.
They have an on again-off again kind of relationship.
Simply portraying sexism is one thing, but portraying it and reinforcing it within the context of the movie is another. That's the big issue with that scene - the men are apparently justified in writing her off as a silly girl who's just sighing about some guy, because that's exactly what she's presenting herself as. There's no reason why she couldn't have handled her memory wipe with some dignity or professionalism, or even why she really needed to have her memory wiped at all. Didn't Xavier trust her to keep his secrets?Are you saying it's sexist to be a silly girl sighing about a man?
Not all women have to be dignified or professional.
NO U
Also:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/
I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow. Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?
And now I have watched The Wolverine. Again, I'd have liked some subtitles for the scenes in which people spoke Japanese, but still, it was quite good.Really? That's the only one I haven't seen just because the previews made it look so cheesy. Maybe just because I don't think the Canuck looks like he belongs with a bunch of katana-wielding Japanese.
NO U
Also:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/
I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow. Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?
NO U
Also:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/
I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow. Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?
And now I have watched The Wolverine. Again, I'd have liked some subtitles for the scenes in which people spoke Japanese, but still, it was quite good.Really? That's the only one I haven't seen just because the previews made it look so cheesy. Maybe just because I don't think the Canuck looks like he belongs with a bunch of katana-wielding Japanese.
I like going native movies, I thought The Last Samurai was a good one. They didn't refer to Tom Cruise as the last samurai so that's a plus.
But adding a dash of Japanese flavor to a sci-fi movie just seems like a cheap formula. But I guess I'll watch it.
I love The Last Samurai.
Wolverine fighting generic samurai/ninja characters and then a samurai robot seems more racist than Tom Cruise slowly being enculturated.
Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.
I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.
That's clearly not what I'm saying otherwise I would think The Last Samurai is racist. It's more like if every black person in every movie were a basketball player. Or if every American Indian in every movie were some kind of spirit healer.Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.
I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.
So any movie covering any period between the Heian period and the Meji Era is racist now? ???
Does this apply to other things? Are all movies about basket ball racist because of blacks?
That's clearly not what I'm saying otherwise I would think The Last Samurai is racist. It's more like if every black person in every movie were a basketball player. Or if every American Indian in every movie were some kind of spirit healer.Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.
I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.
So any movie covering any period between the Heian period and the Meji Era is racist now? ???
Does this apply to other things? Are all movies about basket ball racist because of blacks?
But I'm not getting into another argument with you. You refuse to read context.
At the heart of every FES argument is rooster.Then this place would be so boring without me.
Samurai are something that Japan is known for. It makes sense to incorporate these elements into a movie that's set in Japan. Would you rather they portray Japan as America instead?wow
If what you're saying is correct then it is a two way street. Americans are usually portrayed as dumbass, arrogant, gun-slinging assholes. Chinese are usually portrayed as martial arts experts. Indian people are usually portrayed as Vishnu worshiping convenient store workers. Europeans are usually portrayed as pompous dandies.Exactly and they are stereotypes.
At the heart of every FES argument is rooster.
Also, I maintain that The Last Samurai is, well, maybe "racist" is a bit too strong a word, but it's racially problematic, at the very least. It's like Hollywood thinks that no one will be interested in seeing any kind of strange or foreign culture, unless we have a white male lead to see us through it. I understand that the fish-out-of-water setup is a tried-and-true formula, and that audiences usually want a relatable protagonist, but even if we let that slide, there's still the unpleasant theme of dominance pervading the whole thing. It can't just be a simple character study of our hero, a learning experience for him to return to his own life a little wiser from; no, he always masters the culture. He always becomes better than everyone else in the tribe at every aspect of their lifestyles, and emerges as their savior and/or leader. They couldn't do a thing for themselves. No, only this benevolent white messiah could set them free.Yes, and I will agree with that. Whites saving people from others or from themselves is a huge theme. When I had my ridiculous "Native Americans in Sci-Fi" class (taught by an archaeologist of course) that was one of the big themes. Whitey would come in and instantly be accepted into the tribe and he would save the day. The Last Samurai isn't as terrible as that since he doesn't actually save anyone, but nonetheless it does follow the formula. I remember the best show we watched that kicked that theme to the curb was an episode of Star Trek TNG, Jounrey's End. It was a dispute between some human American Indians and Cardassians and in the end the Traveler said "have faith in their abilities to solve their problems on their own." There were still a lot of stupid stereotypical elements though, but I did like that line. Unfortunately, the dumb theme continues.
Still, I must admit that as far as patronizing white savior movies go, The Last Samurai isn't too bad. The worst of those films tend to be the ones that don't involve the hero going native, but instead rescuing the helpless people of color from bad situations or lifestyles, like The Blind Side or The Help. The Blind Side in particular...ugh. That piece of shit is more racist than The Birth of a Nation.
I've watched the first few episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Honestly, it's not as terrible as you might have heard, it's just, well, not great. It's hokey, it's clichéd, and at times it comes across a little fanficcy, like when they make pointless references to elements from the movies. It's as if they're saying to the audience, "Remember, this is being made by - sort of - the same people who made the movies, so it must great by association!" Like I said, though, it's not bad, and I've heard it actually becomes quite good later on in the season. So, if you're a big fan of the movies and want to see more of the universe or whatever, you might want to check it out. Just don't be expecting something that delivers on the level of the movies.
Okay, I'll talk about something that other people actually saw, X-Men: Days of Future Past. I thought it was good, but not quite the masterpiece that all the critics seem to think it is. For one thing, even with this whole timeline-merging thing, there are still some pretty glaring plot holes and continuity errors. Why is Xavier alive? When did the world turn into an apocalyptic wasteland, given that it was just fine when we last saw it in The Wolverine? Did it take the government forty years to create the Sentinels after Trask was killed? And didn't Trask say that the Sentinels were made out of some kind of plastic, or some other non-metal substance? But when they're revealed, they're metal.
Anyway, as the end of the season draws near and the HYDRA element from Captain America: The Winter Soldier becomes the main focus, the quality of the show has increased considerably. But just like with Winter Soldier, I don't like the fact that they feel the need to emphasize that this is HYDRA, not SHIELD, which has totally been infiltrated and destroyed by now, and yes, this HYDRA is indeed the same puppy-kicking, mustache-twirling group that Red Skull led back in WW2, and that's how we know they're the bad guys. It almost entirely undercuts any political message they're trying to send about authoritarianism, or freedom being sacrificed in the name of security, or whatever. There's just no real parallel between HYDRA and the shenanigans that our governments have been up to in recent years. With SHIELD, there certainly is, and they might have had something good if they had just kept it at that. But no, instead we're supposed to look at these idiots yelling "Hail Hydra!" and totally see the NSA there. Right.I watch SHIELD.
Okay, I'll talk about something that other people actually saw, X-Men: Days of Future Past. I thought it was good, but not quite the masterpiece that all the critics seem to think it is. For one thing, even with this whole timeline-merging thing, there are still some pretty glaring plot holes and continuity errors. Why is Xavier alive? When did the world turn into an apocalyptic wasteland, given that it was just fine when we last saw it in The Wolverine? Did it take the government forty years to create the Sentinels after Trask was killed? And didn't Trask say that the Sentinels were made out of some kind of plastic, or some other non-metal substance? But when they're revealed, they're metal.Saw that too.
Also, Magneto sucked. I don't mind that he's an antagonist - that kind of comes with the territory for him - but everything he did was so illogical, so myopic, and so objectively stupid that he was incredibly annoying to watch. Magneto is a radical with a very different moral code to the heroes, yes. But he's not an idiot who has no understanding of consequences. And speaking of consequences, why does Magneto keep managing to avoid them at the end of every movie? He hasn't faced any negative repercussions for his actions since the first film, and all jokes aside, this is something that's really beginning to frustrate me, maybe on a psychological level or something. Would it really ruin the franchise if we could just get to see this asshole get his comeuppance every once in a while, rather than just having him exit stage left yelling "I'll get you next time!" after every movie?
Oh, and one more thing, the movie repeats the urban legend about how JFK was apparently killed with a curving bullet, and therefore, hint hint, he must have been killed by a different shot. The way they talk about it is a very amusing take on the theory, but in reality, there was nothing unusual about the shot that killed JFK. Not really a critique of the film itself, but it's such a common misconception that I felt I had to correct it.
Because of this thread I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. For some reason any time I saw commercials on SciFi channel for it, I thought it would be cheesy and never watched it.
The show is amazing.
I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. ... The show is amazing.
I watch SHIELD.
You're right that they want to separate them but shield as it existed was hydra. Coleson has to rebuild it from the ground up because it was so full of hydra. Go back to the roots in essence.
And they did mention the "hail hydra" as being silly.
a $75,000 lawsuit
I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. ... The show is amazing.
Incorrect.
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.
Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.
Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?
Missed this post thanks to the deluge of superhero crap. Probably A Serious Man and Blood Simple.
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)
I liked this overall I think, but I think I will have to watch it again. I at least like it better than a lot of Scorsese's more recent work, but I've never really been such a huge fan of his.
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)
I liked this overall I think, but I think I will have to watch it again. I at least like it better than a lot of Scorsese's more recent work, but I've never really been such a huge fan of his.
I'm not a big Scorsese fan either, I respect his knowledge and craftsmanship and his film preservation efforts, but overall his films don't tend to work so well for me. One film of his I really love is The King of Comedy, I think you might like it too.
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)
Watched again for the first time in like 10 years, this is an incredible and mesmerizing film. Though I am sad it took me this long to watch it again, I simply couldn't have fully appreciated this film back then. I may even like it better than Eyes Wide Shut.
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.
Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?
Missed this post thanks to the deluge of superhero crap. Probably A Serious Man and Blood Simple.
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson
Play Fallout.
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson
Play Fallout.
I've played all of them with the exception of the Fallout: Tactics because it looked shitty.
I decided to watch Stargate: SG-1 because I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson. I fell asleep about half-way through the pilot. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't convince James Spader to stay as Daniel Jackson, because James Spader plays a much more convincing absent-minded professor.I am.
Anyone else a fan of this series?
I don't know whether to go see Transformers 4 or not. I know it's probably going to be shit but I need to see it for myself to find out.
I decided to watch Stargate: SG-1 because I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson. I fell asleep about half-way through the pilot. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't convince James Spader to stay as Daniel Jackson, because James Spader plays a much more convincing absent-minded professor.I am.
Anyone else a fan of this series?
The first season sucks. It gets much better, trust me.
Also, I find Michael shanks to be better at the role. Especially later on. It jus takes a while for the show to figure out what it wants to do.
The last season sucks.(last two maybe). But the Arc of Truth is good. (End movie 1)
I don't know whether to go see Transformers 4 or not. I know it's probably going to be shit but I need to see it for myself to find out.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_age_of_extinction/
Yes, it's shit. No viewing is required.
Just watched The Big Lebowski. It was strange. I don't know if I liked it.
Just watched The Big Lebowski. It was strange. I don't know if I liked it.
After watching anime for a whileGo do some old man stuff already, old man.
Old people can't watch cartoons? ???After watching anime for a whileGo do some old man stuff already, old man.
Only if they are old classic Disney of Looney Tunes cartoons.Old people can't watch cartoons? ???After watching anime for a whileGo do some old man stuff already, old man.
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)
My second viewing of this film comes after six years. I greatly enjoyed it the first time, when some friends and I stumbled upon it on a now defunct pay-per-view movie channel for the bargain price of literally one pence. I have no idea why it was available so cheap considering it was a major Academy Award contender that received high critical acclaim on opening, but it was that cheap and by god we took advantage of that fact. We were laughing along heartily with Daniel Day-Lewis's insane performance that only gets crazier as we head to the denouement, but this second time I was alone, able to sit and appreciate without distraction this masterfully directed, wonderfully scored and brilliantly acted character piece. I won't say much about the content of the film, because I want to encourage as many people as possible to get it and watch it and experience it for themselves, it deserves your attention if you haven't already seen it. And if you have seen it why not watch it again? There's so much more that I picked up on a second time around that I wholeheartedly recommend multiple viewings.
I do hope to do a proper analysis of the ending at some point, but that will take time, not something to be done off-hand like this little write-up.
I watched The World's End. It was good.
I saw Hercules.
I love Dwayne Johnson
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOJoLaxokzM
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOJoLaxokzM
Oh, for fuck's sake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea? And the effects just look awful.
Yeah, I've watched it.
It does get a bit slow in places but the story is great. And I do love that they're not afraid to kill characters cause it makes it all more stressful to watch.
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie? What else were they going to call it?
"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie? What else were they going to call it?
"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie? What else were they going to call it?
"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
Er...
"The Hobbit: There and Back Again"
That's because that's what it was originally called. :l They inexplicably renamed it to "The Battle of Five Armies" a little while back after the second film.What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie? What else were they going to call it?
"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
Er...
"The Hobbit: There and Back Again"
Oh, that would have been pretty good.
In all seriousness I still like the title. I think it's catchier than Saddam gives it credit for and perfectly embodies the main story of the movie. And even if it is a bit unwieldy, maybe that's even appropriate on a meta level for what they've done with the movies.
So what are the five armies? Is this something they pulled out of their asses?
The only disappointing thing is Gomora because there's really nothing special about her character-wise; everyone else in the main cast stands out in some ways, but she really doesn't.
So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today (well, technically yesterday now). It was Marvelous (he he)I saw this yesterday too. Agreed.
Really though, I loved it. I was a little worried it wouldn't be that great, but it's a really wonderfully fun and funny film. It's an awesome mix of action and comedy, and almost every time it starts to head toward some action movie/space film/movies-in-general cliché, it subverts it in a fun way and makes you (well, me) laugh instead. I definitely want to see it again. Star Lord was hilarious, but even more so were Rocket and Groot (not to mention Rocket is adorable and awesome). Drax was far funnier than I expected him to be, too. The only disappointing thing is Gomora because there's really nothing special about her character-wise; everyone else in the main cast stands out in some ways, but she really doesn't.
I'm way too tired for a detailed review—I just gave up trying to sleep after laying in bed trying to for ~6 hours—but tl;dr: I was very pleasantly surprised and loved it. I wish I wasn't as tired as I was when I saw it, because the movie is fast-paced as all hell at points and was difficult for me to keep track of sometimes, but yeah. It was great and I want to see it agian.
Oh, and earlier this week I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which was amazing as well. Surprisingly emotional and very, very well-done.
What an ungainly, awkward title. Who thought that was a good idea?
Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie? What else were they going to call it?
"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
Breaking Bad is pretty great.
I watched the first few episodes of Breaking Bad, partially to stop friends and family from constantly pestering me with "Did you watch Breaking Bad yet? Did you watch Breaking Bad yet?," but mainly because I've heard so many good things about it that I finally had to see what the fuss was about. I'm sure that most of you have probably already watched the show, so I won't bother writing elaborate reviews for it or anything. We all know by now that it's a great show.
It's great, I'm definitely going to watch it all. My one main issue with it so far - and yes, I know that this is a really original criticism and I'm literally so brave for pointing it out - is the wife, Skyler. It's not because I'm sexist and I can't stand to see a strong female character who challenges her husband or whatever accusation it is that the actress herself has made (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html); it's because she's an incredibly unlikable character with nothing interesting or enjoyable to her. Any time she appears onscreen, the smile drops right off my face, because I know it's just going to be another killjoy moment.
What makes Breaking Bad so good? I watched a few episodes and felt it was too melodramatic. It was hard to take seriously. Are the artsy camera angles supposed to evoke some sort of emotional reaction from me? Because all I feel is disdain.
No really. I don't see the appeal. What exactly is so amazing about Breaking Bad?
The angles weren't that "artsy".
It's great, I'm definitely going to watch it all. My one main issue with it so far - and yes, I know that this is a really original criticism and I'm literally so brave for pointing it out - is the wife, Skyler. It's not because I'm sexist and I can't stand to see a strong female character who challenges her husband or whatever accusation it is that the actress herself has made (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html); it's because she's an incredibly unlikable character with nothing interesting or enjoyable to her. Any time she appears onscreen, the smile drops right off my face, because I know it's just going to be another killjoy moment.
Breaking Bad is pretty great. If you aren't convinced after the first couple episodes, rest assured. Every season is better than the last, in my opinion.
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.
Pfft, men. ::)
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.
Pfft, men. ::)
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.
Pfft, men. ::)
I just think it's easy to forget how everything plays out in Skyler's life when we see everything Walt is doing. She's confused, frustrated, depressed, etc.
As a result we simply don't care about his family life and when Skyler is acting reasonably frustrated, it doesn't resonate with the audience because we don't want to see that part of the story, and she comes across as a "bitch" instead.Yes, that is what I'm addressing. People forget that her frustrations are reasonable and she's not simply a bitch, plain and simple. We see the story from Walt's POV mostly so when she complains to him, she's complaining to the audience and the first reaction is to think she's a bitch even though from her POV it's all totally justifiable.
when having the audience "forget" things in the first place is a failure on the showmakers' behalf.Agreed. I'm just rationalizing her character because it's just what I tend to do for shows and movies in general. I try and put myself in everyone's POV, but I agree that the writers could have done a better job overall with characterization.
Mad Men
Mad Men
Did you watch season 7 part 1 yet?
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.Really?
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.Really?
Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.
A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.Really?
Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.
It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.
My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.Really?
Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.
It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.
My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
Again, Space Hitler.A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.Really?
Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.
It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.
My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
Not physically weak, weak as a character. He basically just wanted to kill everyone because reasons, and had a ridiculous amount of resources to do it.
I've been binging True Blood. It's terrible, stupid, and addicting.
It's why I posted Robert Kazinsky in the what you'd hit thread. He was alright in Pacific Rim but he made the boring 6th season watchable.
I don't know a single man that can.
Before you do let me warn you. Kazinsky may have been the hottest guy but he was the dumbest character (aside from Bill becoming the vampire god), he was a faerie/vampire half breed. Yeah. Faerie vampire.I don't know a single man that can.
I might have to start watching it now.
I don't know a single man that can.
Has anyone seen Boyhood? The guys at RLM hated it (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-boyhood-and-guardians-of-the-galaxy/), but most critics seem to love it.I haven't seen it, but like most of Linklater's other films I'm guessing it's for people who enjoy Richard Linklater films. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those people, so I'm looking forward to it hitting BD.
Has anyone seen Boyhood? The guys at RLM hated it (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-boyhood-and-guardians-of-the-galaxy/), but most critics seem to love it.I haven't seen it, but like most of Linklater's other films I'm guessing it's for people who enjoy Richard Linklater films. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those people, so I'm looking forward to it hitting BD.
I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today.
Really overhyped. 4/10. My main issue was that it didn't follow the comics accurately, followed by the completely generic soundtrack consisting of "best of the oldies! 98.9!!!". Also, the characters were shallow with barely any backstory.
Regardless, still the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.
I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today.But really, the comics mean jack shit. It makes no difference how loyal movies are to their source material, only how well they're constructed as movies.
Really overhyped. 4/10. My main issue was that it didn't follow the comics accurately, followed by the completely generic soundtrack consisting of "best of the oldies! 98.9!!!". Also, the characters were shallow with barely any backstory.
Regardless, still the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.
I haven't seen Avengers or many Marvel movies recently, but isn't an infinity stone the driving force behind a few different recent Marvel movies?Yeah, so there are three (or four depending on who you ask) stones accounted for.
Then yes. Another thing I forgot is that this is another marvel movie driven by a macguffin.
So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?Just 3 movies.
I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.
Four if you include the first Captain America, but that didn't really drive the plot in the way that MacGuffins typically do, it was more incidental to the story.
Four if you include the first Captain America, but that didn't really drive the plot in the way that MacGuffins typically do, it was more incidental to the story.Yes I did. Did you guys notice Warlock's cacoon at the Collector's?I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.
The gauntlet was briefly shown in the first Thor movie. Did you see it?
On the notion of Howard the Duck.
I would have liked more Thanos screentime, but whatever.
So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?
I would have liked more Thanos screentime, but whatever.
I'm liking him having little tease scenes in the movies, because it's going to be all the more exciting when he's finally the main antagonist.So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?
That depends on how you define "MacGuffin" for this. Some people use it as a generic term for "any object a film's plot revolves around", whereas others use the definition of an ultimately meaningless item (like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) that's meant to drive the film without actually mattering or being important in the overall plot or continuity. If you mean the former then yes, but if you mean the latter then no.
Avengers 3.So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?Just 3 movies.
I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.
Avengers 3.
That's the rumored Infinity Gauntlet movie. Hence why they put each stone into every single move.
By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, all of them will be shown and Thanos will suddenly have all of them.
Point. Sorry, I was thinking wrong. But they are putting the gems in a lot of their movies, especially since Thor 1.Avengers 3.
That's the rumored Infinity Gauntlet movie. Hence why they put each stone into every single movie.
By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, all of them will be shown and Thanos will suddenly have all of them.
We literally just went over how they've only appeared in four of the movies.
Where are all the womenThe kitchen
and/or people of color?Ferguson, MO
Also, these movies have enough white male leads. Where are all the women and/or people of color?
Is there even such a thing as a black female hero?Storm
Storm
He didn't ask if a black female hero played as the lead protagonist.
She never did play a lead in any of the live action movies, I don't know about cartoons. But she is a black female hero.
Also, these movies have enough white male leads. Where are all the women and/or people of color?
mkaaay, so here we are. What a fun circle.
Rush still doesn't know how to roosroos.
Posting like Rushy does is not how to "FES".
I think we can pretty much all agree that he's one of the most annoying.
Posting like Rushy does is not how to "FES".
Who said it was?I think we can pretty much all agree that he's one of the most annoying.
Learn to English.
Yeah, like this.
What's "this"?
pronoun, plural these
[th eez] (Show IPA)
1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis):
This is my coat.
2. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that):
This is Liza and that is Amy.
3. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to that):
I'd take that instead of this.
4. what is about to follow:
Now hear this! Watch this!
adjective, plural these
[th eez] (Show IPA)
5. (used to indicate a person, place, thing, or degree as present, near, just indicated or mentioned, or as well-known or characteristic):
These people are my friends. This problem has worried me for a long time.
6. (used to indicate the nearer in time, place, or thought of two persons, things, etc.; opposed to that).
7. (used to imply mere contradistinction; opposed to that).
8. (used in place of an indefinite article for emphasis):
I was walking down the street when I heard this explosion.
adverb
9. (used with adjectives and adverbs of quantity or extent) to the extent or degree indicated:
this far; this softly.
Watched Captain America The Winter Soldier last night. Was alright. I thought Strucker was going to be the main villain in this one. At least he appeared in the mid-credits scene.
Also, these movies have enough white male leads. Where are all the women and/or people of color?Blade. Catwoman. Spawn. Elektra. Hancock. Vampirella. Wonder Woman (TV series).
Marvel could make a film of the storyline where the Punisher turned black.Black Panther is supposed to be in development. Of course, whether or not it ever gets made is a different story.
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy. Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy. Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy. Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.
Idris Elba ftw
I find his highly acclaimed works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas to be quite dreadful
I find his highly acclaimed works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas to be quite dreadful
hipster
Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson) - Very good
The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) - Great
Room 237 (Rodney Ascher) - Okay
La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) - Very good
Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson) - Very good
The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) - Great
Room 237 (Rodney Ascher) - Okay
La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) - Very good
You're getting lazy.
Eddie Murphy
that guy from The Pink Panther
that guy from The Pink Panther
If you only know of Jean Reno from his role in that shitty movie, you are doing something terribly wrong.
Also, I binge-watched the first half of Breaking Bad's second season today. The first season was good and all, but it's only now that I've really gotten hooked. Skyler still sucks.
that guy from The Pink Panther
If you only know of Jean Reno from his role in that shitty movie, you are doing something terribly wrong.
Skyler still sucks.
I'm not sure what Australian comedy is. Drop bear jokes?By Australian comedy I mean humour specific to Australian culture, which I really don't know much of anything about.
In the Company of Men (Neil LaBute)
LaBute's debut casts him in somewhat different light to "the guy who made that film with Nicolas Cage punching women while wearing a bear costume", even if the subject matter isn't necessarily all that different. The story concerns two men who are heading out of town on business for six weeks, while waiting for a flight they, going through messy break-ups and wanting revenge on women, make a pact to find a lonely fragile woman, wine and dine her separately, and then break her heart for the sake of hurting her. I don't want to give much else away because I really think people should just see it, it's definitely the most brilliant satire I've seen in a long time, and not only has major laughs but tangible pain and sadness, often in the same moment. It's a really great piece of work.
But that's on Starz and has Michael Bay as a producer. Both Starz and Michael Bay are terrible.Starz is fine. Michael Bay is just the producer which means they've got a lot of money. He's not a director so there are no dumb explosions.
They have physicists working on The Big Bang Theory but that show still sucks.That's cause the comedy is dumb.
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.So do I, actually.
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
TBBT is objectively terrible.
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
Because good sitcoms do it.
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
I'm not. I want the exact opposite of that.
I would like Sheldon to be the same character he was when they first started the show. Ambiguously asexual, eccentric, neurotic, and somewhat chauvinistic at times. It was very funny. They introduced Amy and toned down his character x100. Now we get to watch Sheldon, the Jewish guy, and every other damn character bicker with their girlfriends/wives, with the occasional "aweeeeee so cute they totally love each other" moment. Maybe I was spoiled by the masterwork that is Seinfeld, because I usually hold most sitcoms to that standard of excellence. Foolish, I know.The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
I'm not. I want the exact opposite of that.
Shallow and thoughtless character development? Then The Big Bang Theory is perfect for you! :^)))
Blackface for nerds
Srsly though, terrible show. Doesn't even get its nerd facts right. I try to watch and they fuck up a Super Mario 64 reference. What shits.
B-B-B-B-BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
the masterwork that is Seinfeld
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
Because good sitcoms do it.
TBBT is objectively terrible.
Incorrect. It was funny as fuck.
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.
I can also say that I like the show despite an avid physics teacher telling me he met the actor who plays Sheldon and was disappointed to find out the guy was a dick in real life (not the funny kind). This was a while ago, right when the show's first season was airing.
Blackface for nerdsFact checking a sitcom. (http://i43.tinypic.com/2nq74gy.jpg)
Srsly though, terrible show. Doesn't even get its nerd facts right. I try to watch and they fuck up a Super Mario 64 reference. What shits.
Even in a discussion about this stupid show, markjo still provides the worst post.
What about the 2004 series?
What about the 2004 series?
What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad. Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.Disagree
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad. Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad. Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.
It starts with one of my favorite scenes I have ever seen on a TV show (Gus visits the lab) and has an awesome ending (Gus visits the hospital) and the in between was excellent. What was too much for you?
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
Perhaps. I generally decide what I'm going to watch next after I finish watching the last thing.
tl;dr Snape kills Dumbledore
What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
Nowdownloadingobtaining through legitimate and above-board means. I'll be watching the opening mini-series shortly.
Gone Girl (David Fincher)
This film was way better than I had expected and I think it is one of Fincher's best works.
Gone Girl (David Fincher)
This film was way better than I had expected and I think it is one of Fincher's best works.
https://deadline.com/2014/10/twin-peaks-series-showtime-david-lynch-mark-frost-845804/
Twin Peaks is coming back with new episodes in 2016.
Thought you might be interested.
I really don't know how I feel about new episodes of Twin Peaks... I'm conflicted.As far as I'm concerned: it's new shit from David Lynch — I am happy.
I really don't know how I feel about new episodes of Twin Peaks... I'm conflicted.As far as I'm concerned: it's new shit from David Lynch — I am happy.
The new Twin Peaks will be set in the present day, more than two decades after the events in the first two seasons.
Didn't you read the article you linked?QuoteThe new Twin Peaks will be set in the present day, more than two decades after the events in the first two seasons.
Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé)
All the camera tricks in the world can't save this ponderous bloated nothing of a film from its own putrescence. Aside from the actually quite good opening section, this is how the film goes: the camera swirls around a room for a bit, someone says something, the camera zooms into a light source or something else, there's a trippy light show, then we're in another scene in which the exact same thing happens. After a while the formula gets boring, and Noé realises this, so he throws a bunch of sex scenes in there as if to say "look, I know, and I'm sorry, here's something else" and then that goes on for way too long instead.
Occasionally, the picture goes to black, no sound or anything. Every time that happened I was thinking surely I have been sat here for 160 minutes already, there can't be more? and the numbness of my buttocks seemed to confirm this. No sooner has the thought occurred than the camera starts swirling about again, showing me more people I don't care about doing things that aren't interesting. Maybe if it had been better acted I could have tolerated the rest, but this is ostensibly a bunch of "street" characters played by people who have apparently never even been near a street. It's dreadful, the dialogue frequently lapses into "hey man, you got the stuff, yeah? Hardcore!"
It's a shame, the basic premise of seeing through the eyes of the dead as possibly imagined in Bardo Thodol is interesting enough, and the camera style, while it stops being impressive after about the second or third time it does its little swirl and zoom routine, and stops being interesting around the same time, would have been fine if the content lived up to the idea. Unfortunately it was impossible for me to care about 90% of what was presented to me on the screen, and the 10% I was interested in was swept away in the tidal wave of fancy camera tricks and CGI and neon lights and naked people. This is an exhausting film not because it is intense but because it cannot stop throwing stuff at you: here's some stuff, look at that stuff, do you want more stuff? here's some more stuff LOOK AT ALL THIS FUCKING STUFF!!! Apart from all that it's a really straightforward film that probably could have been told more effectively without the ghost camera swirly zoomy stuff-throwing sex-having nonsense that is this two and a half hours of my life I'll never get back.
Early on in the film, one character tells another that his drug dealer is a pervert who smears his own excrement on the back of his sex partners' heads. I would rather have seen a film about that guy than this.
It's the only Superman movie I've liked. But I don't really care for Superman.I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
Ugh.
I've watched the first four episodes of True Detective. I don't want to sound like I hate it, because I don't, but I have to say that I'm disappointed by how incredibly clichéd it is, especially with the two main characters. I won't go into detail because spoilers, but come on, I've seen these guys before. We all have, and I was hoping that a show that's been this acclaimed might have been in part because it showed a bit more originality with the plot and characters. Clearly, that wasn't the case.You're cliched and I hate you. Cohle and Hart forever. ♥
Anyway, I like it overall, the acting is fantastic, and I'm interested to see where the story is going, so I'm definitely going to watch the second half. It just seems to me that in this day and age, we ought to be moving past some of these tired clichés.
I'm now on season 7 of Stargate SG-1. This is a really great series. It can be cheesy at times, but it's constantly fun to watch and they explore some interesting sci-fi concepts. I'm ready to see Anubis dead, and I feel like they really missed some great opportunities with ascended Daniel Jackson. But I'm guessing there was a real-world reason why Michael Shanks wasn't a regular in season 6, which probably limited his screen-time.1. Prepare to be disappointed.
Atlantis is good. SGU is not.I loved SGU. It's really all about what you like. I enjoyed the people drama mixed with the "oh shit our ship sucks". Think "The Walking Dead" but instead of zombies it's a ship that could stop working any moment.
I'm now on season 7 of Stargate SG-1. This is a really great series. It can be cheesy at times, but it's constantly fun to watch and they explore some interesting sci-fi concepts. I'm ready to see Anubis dead, and I feel like they really missed some great opportunities with ascended Daniel Jackson. But I'm guessing there was a real-world reason why Michael Shanks wasn't a regular in season 6, which probably limited his screen-time.
I would like a detailed cliche list from tvtropes.There's a lot of tropes, but none that I think are shallow enough to seem like lazy cliche writing. I love The black and gray morality theme myself. And the lack of strong female characters doesn't bother me since a) Hart is a man whore and b) Cohle is damaged beyond repair. Everyone sucks. And it's just about 2 guys, one being a good ole boy so is bound to be sexist anyway.
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate it
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate itboo
Okay, so this isn't just just watched, but I saw the first two seasons of Louis C.K.'s Louie fairly recently. Overall impression positive! When it's funny, it's very funny, though I found the second season to be a bit too heavy handed when it came to more serious topics, and the USO episode in particular had some cringe sentimental moments, almost to the point that I felt like I was watching Scrubs or something. However, the episode with Doug Stanhope proved that C.K. can write an affecting scene without going overboard, so I hope any revisits to Serious Land in future seasons follow that same approach.
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate itboo
I'm curious why you hate it. It has solid good ratings.
Alright, well, my initial post was kind of reactionary, purposely so, and in the moment. I genuinely felt hatred and wanted to post that to see for myself how it held up later. It's kind of interesting. I mean, I genuinely was very upset at the movie, but in a good way. It was an amazing movie. Semi-spoilers ahead, so don't read further if you want to see it (which I do recommend you do). I can't stand most war movies, it's all so overdone and everything is romanticized and it's damn near impossible to not be generic and clichéd, but Fury was a fucking impressive film. I loved it as a movie, but I hated it down to the marrow in my bones because it was a disgusting movie. And that's a good thing, it's supposed to be—that just means it served its purpose, in my eyes. War is hell, and that movie sold it for me more than any other film, story or writing ever has before it. I hated the people, I hated their reserved demeanors towards what they were doing, I hated the joy they found in it, I hated how they personified an entire country as "more pigs to kill", I hate how they took an innocent kid and rubbed his face right into the dirt, blood and tears until he was just as apathetic towards (and even pulled into) the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of people, I hated seeing, more and more as the movie went on, that all the people I hated were just like him, went through the same process as him and were all really just as scared as him. I hated that movie. And because of that, I loved it.Gotcha, that makes more sense. It was a rough movie and I am really glad they didn't romanticize it all.
I think Atlantis is worth watching though.
I think Atlantis is worth watching though.
I disagree.
In addition, I really don't recommend Gotham. In a way, I feel sorry for the production team, they've clearly spent a lot of time and effort making Gotham look and feel right, somewhere between Burton and Nolan's Batman - art deco and modern, that they seem to have forgotten to get actors who can act or writers who can write dialogue.
A big disappointment.
I've begun watching Gotham, and so far it is ridiculous, stupid, and quite entertaining. The fake New York accents are truly awful, though.They aren't supposed to be New York accents, they are Gotham accents. Get your facts straight.
Atlantis may not be as interesting as SG-1 with it's lack of mythological references and interesting villains. But it does have some good characters (as well as bad ones, but SG-1 has its share of terrible character as well *chough*Suemantha Carter*chough*).McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was, and the two final seasons were better than the two final SG-1 seasons.
It starts off with the wraith ad then replicators.Atlantis may not be as interesting as SG-1 with it's lack of mythological references and interesting villains. But it does have some good characters (as well as bad ones, but SG-1 has its share of terrible character as well *chough*Suemantha Carter*chough*).McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was, and the two final seasons were better than the two final SG-1 seasons.
Are the main villains in Atlantis the Ori?
Well, they fucked up Teal'c's character a good bit in season 8. Just finished the episode where he is living in his own apartment and gets arrested for homicide. O'neil is now the brigadier general of the SGC and Suemantha Carter is the commander of Sg-1. When does the new commander show up?
McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was
Is it really that bad? It's interesting watching them change the formula a little.
Although Teal'c's insistence that he's from Mozambique and obsession with displaying African artifacts in his apartment did leave a sour taste in my mouth. Samantha Carter's relationship with Pete is shallow. The only reason I'm sticking around is because I like watching O'neil break basic protocol every episode as commander of the SGC.
Well, I plan on watching the entire franchise. It deserves that much. I can tell the quality of the writing has gone down, even as early as season 7.
Zombie survival stories always run out of juice in very little time. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.
I've never heard anyone say anything positive about that show, ever. It seems like everyone watches it, and then they all go online and rant about how awful it was.I like it.
I don't consider the term "show" to specifically cater to television series.
What else were you referring to, then? Shows on Broadway?
Why is zombie stuff so popular? That's the real question. I understand the "Who's going to die next?" line of thinking... but that usually doesn't apply to movies and games.
Why is zombie stuff so popular? That's the real question. I understand the "Who's going to die next?" line of thinking... but that usually doesn't apply to movies and games.
They're an easy infinite hoard of "bad guys" that no one could have any real moral quandary about killing.
Yes, but that should get boring after a movie or so.
Why has it become such a pop culture phenomenon? I see all these people dressing up like zombies and going to cons like it's the next best thing to godhood.
The writers used to write original content loosely based off the comics. You're telling me that they're now just blatantly lifting from the comics? Then you're telling me you don't understand how the writers are running out of ideas?They are still sticking to the same premise. There are common plot threads they follow but it's not exactly the same. If it were, a lot of the people still on the show should already be dead. They're not running out of ideas... they're writing a show based off the comics. It's not a crazy concept to understand.
I haven't read the comics, because like I said: I don't like the zombie survival genre. It's one of the most brainless genres out there (no pun intended). There's always zombies popping up for no explainable reason. Why are there zombies? Virus. Where did it come from? Someone either created it as an experiment or it fell from space. Is it stoppable? No, we're all doomed. What do we do? Camp out until we are overrun and some of us die, then rinse/repeat. Oh no, one of my family has turned! So drama.Well it's quite different from that. It was never said to be a virus.. the comics left it intentionally vague and almost hinting to some divine plan or something, I dunno. There is a lot of inner group drama and drama/action with other people which is really the most interesting part of the show. I don't really care about zombies myself. My favorite before Walking Dead was probably 28 Days Later just because sprinting infected people are terrifying. But this one is really more for the drama with the occasional macabre action.
And do you honestly not know of any other zombie survival media? We weren't talking about just TV shows, but the whole genre itself. Games, TV, movies, etc. Its getting ridiculous.I was responding to Rushy's use of the word "show". Why are you so worked up over this? Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.
They're lifting material from a comic. Is it safe to say that they ran out of ideas before they even started?I'm coupling the show and the comics together here. Their writing material comes from the comics so they're not going to get stuck with no more plot threads to follow is what I mean by "run out of ideas".
The comics hint that it is divine punishment?Yeah, I won't defend this. I don't know if there will be a proper resolution to the big problem. There are definitely resolutions to the various sub-plots though.
I hate to be a Rushy here, but that's not so clever and has been done before as well. I guess intentionally leaving it vague was their point, but that just goes to show that they knew it was a stupid generic premise from the get go and didn't want to justify it. I like my stories to make sense (at least in universe sense) and have a proper resolution. The Walking Dead lacks both things.
And no wonder I've always disliked the horror genre.That's fine.
Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.
As a general concept (as opposed to a specific franchise, like Twilight), neither vampires or possessions are anywhere near as popular as zombies. And in any case, at least the archetypes of most other horror themes can be actual characters, with intelligence and reasonable motivations and such. Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people. If you see one, you've seen them all.
It's true they don't have any personality to them, but there are variants.Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
It's true they don't have any personality to them, but there are variants.Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
You have slow zombies and running zombies. Virus zombies, voodoo zombies, and supernatural zombies. Zombies that can shoot guns and zombies that just bounce into things. Maybe there are others I'm missing, I don't watch a lot of zombie stuff. As I said before, I'm not really into them. I like Walking Dead for the drama between other human factions but I'm just really into post-apocalyptic stories in general for that same reason.
Zombie comes and family is kill oh no. Find friends and then zombie is kill, but sometimes new friend is kill too. Find safety for a bit. Friend is kill by friend because no food. Friend is kill before he become zombie. Very sad. More zombie is kill. The end, yawn.
I used to like the Walking Dead but not anymore. Once they hit the Prison I was like "Hey, this is great. Defensible walls, fences, fields, and enough supplies to feed/house hundreds of people. What could go wrong?" Then they threw in the Governor shit.Good. Who wants to watch a show about a group of people surviving a zombie apocalypse in a prison? That's not entertaining.
And really, why haven't they seen more survivors? And more easily defended buildings? A school, for example, is usually nice and easy to defend. Lots of rooms, nice thick doors, and a cafeteria full of food. That school in Season 2: Perfect spot.Hordes are what ruin everything. Even if you have an easily defended building you'd probably have to make runs to get food and other supplies. Especially since any stored food would spoil quickly with no electricity and you can only rely on limited canned food for so long. And if a horde decides to camp outside your building then you will most likely not be too successful staying alive for an extended period of time.
Or what about traps? I saw ONE zombie attractor/trap and it was designed to just capture them. WTF? Is it really that hard? I played Half-Life 2 and that had better zombie traps than the walking dead.A video game had better traps than real life? That shit craycray.
I used to like the Walking Dead but not anymore. Once they hit the Prison I was like "Hey, this is great. Defensible walls, fences, fields, and enough supplies to feed/house hundreds of people. What could go wrong?" Then they threw in the Governor shit.Good. Who wants to watch a show about a group of people surviving a zombie apocalypse in a prison? That's not entertaining.QuoteAnd really, why haven't they seen more survivors? And more easily defended buildings? A school, for example, is usually nice and easy to defend. Lots of rooms, nice thick doors, and a cafeteria full of food. That school in Season 2: Perfect spot.Hordes are what ruin everything. Even if you have an easily defended building you'd probably have to make runs to get food and other supplies. Especially since any stored food would spoil quickly with no electricity and you can only rely on limited canned food for so long. And if a horde decides to camp outside your building then you will most likely not be too successful staying alive for an extended period of time.
I don't know if you know this but it's hard work staying alive. You usually have to be by fresh water and hunt/grow food. You can't really do these things in a fortress.QuoteOr what about traps? I saw ONE zombie attractor/trap and it was designed to just capture them. WTF? Is it really that hard? I played Half-Life 2 and that had better zombie traps than the walking dead.A video game had better traps than real life? That shit craycray.
The guy who set up the traps was/is insane. He set up the traps and killed them later at his convenience. And again- hordes. Traps won't stop a horde.
I have a really difficult time seeing Lord Dave with his newborn baby making it through a zombie apocalypse.
Hords? HA! Hords are dumb. If I'm trapped in my own apartment building, I'm mostly screwed against a hord but only because it's a fort. Steel door, narrow hall, one way entrance, and second floor. I'd probably break the window open, use power cables to create a rope, and drop heavy stuff on them over and over again. Probably by sharpening the wooden chair legs into spikes. Maybe use some of my computer stuff. They aren't exactly light. And metal. With pointy edges.
Of course, I would have ran into the school I work for if given time. Why? Because I have all the keys, the doors are solid steel, the walls brick, and the windows, while fragile glass, can be sealed off from every room that's accessible to the outside. Also, well water and a septic system. Steam run heat. Lots of food. Also the glass windows are fairly small, aside from the rescue windows. The school also has everything from flammable gas to battery operated power tools.
But how do I get past a zombie hord?
Loud noises. Take a smoke alarm, rig it up as a makeshift beeper, stick a timer, then either throw it or place it somewhere far away. Zombies are stupid.
Hell, after a month of decomposition, a good truck will crush any hord to jelly. I'm not worried. As long as I stay far away from NYC anyway.
It's like a Horde except Dave can't spell for shit.Hords? HA! Hords are dumb. If I'm trapped in my own apartment building, I'm mostly screwed against a hord but only because it's a fort. Steel door, narrow hall, one way entrance, and second floor. I'd probably break the window open, use power cables to create a rope, and drop heavy stuff on them over and over again. Probably by sharpening the wooden chair legs into spikes. Maybe use some of my computer stuff. They aren't exactly light. And metal. With pointy edges.
Of course, I would have ran into the school I work for if given time. Why? Because I have all the keys, the doors are solid steel, the walls brick, and the windows, while fragile glass, can be sealed off from every room that's accessible to the outside. Also, well water and a septic system. Steam run heat. Lots of food. Also the glass windows are fairly small, aside from the rescue windows. The school also has everything from flammable gas to battery operated power tools.
But how do I get past a zombie hord?
Loud noises. Take a smoke alarm, rig it up as a makeshift beeper, stick a timer, then either throw it or place it somewhere far away. Zombies are stupid.
Hell, after a month of decomposition, a good truck will crush any hord to jelly. I'm not worried. As long as I stay far away from NYC anyway.
da fuq is a hord
Horde*If we go by The Walking Dead that would be all... what? 12 people in a 50 mile radius?
Yep, you can easily combat them all while every surviving human leaves you alone and lets you keep supplies all to yourself. So easy. ::)
Of course, most people aren't violent evil people.
Guys, zombies aren't real. Stop being that guy.
Fury was pretty great, right up until the ridiculous final battle.
All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?Depends on the story.
I get that some people are bit but run away and die. But they're isolated and easy to spot. The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right? So how do they become a zombie? Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans. If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on. Just like the horse in walking dead.
And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick. And maybe shot.
So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once. How did they die?All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?Depends on the story.
I get that some people are bit but run away and die. But they're isolated and easy to spot. The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right? So how do they become a zombie? Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans. If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on. Just like the horse in walking dead.
And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick. And maybe shot.
So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
Shane was shot, so that right there is not a natural cause. In fact, a lot of people are shot. Did you ever see Shane's flashback to the hospital? Once there was a zombie outbreak inside the building the SWAT team just started shooting everyone. And let's not forget about how many suicides there would be. I imagine people would die from standard illnesses without proper medical care. Then a lot could have died from starvation, exposure to the elements, or even in a mob stampede during the initial panic. Without access to our comfortable lifestyles I would assume a lot of people would actually die from natural causes. But it seems most people who survive all that seem to die from a stray bite or two (happens a lot in the show at least) and die from the resulting infection/blood loss.Depends on the story.Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once. How did they die?
In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.
Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once. How did they die?All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?Depends on the story.
I get that some people are bit but run away and die. But they're isolated and easy to spot. The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right? So how do they become a zombie? Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans. If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on. Just like the horse in walking dead.
And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick. And maybe shot.
So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
This is an interesting question and possibly a huge plot hole.It's not technically a plot hole since we just travel with the group and they don't know everything.
Where did the initial wave come from? Did God just flip a switch?
If everyone has the zombie virus then why weren't people turning before the initial outbreak?
This is an interesting question and possibly a huge plot hole.It's not technically a plot hole since we just travel with the group and they don't know everything.
Where did the initial wave come from? Did God just flip a switch?
If everyone has the zombie virus then why weren't people turning before the initial outbreak?
Just because the big picture storyline is not completely laid out for the viewer from start to finish doesn't mean it's a plot hole. It's more an unanswered question than a plot hole.
I think they do hint at the God theory. But even if it is never answered.. I'm not sure if that does qualify as a plot hole. I always see them as contradictory explanations/occurrences, so not knowing something doesn't equate to a plot hole. I could be wrong, but that's just how I always interpreted it.
A plot hole is something relevant to the plot that is missing or inconsistent, like in Iron Man 3, everyone seems to fit perfectly in to the armor designed specially to fit Tony Stark.
For me, the answer to the question of where the zombies came from is kind of irrelevant, unless they want to make that a story arc. For the record, I think they should, because the "we are survivors" story line is wearing very thin.
like in Iron Man 3, everyone seems to fit perfectly in to the armor designed specially to fit Tony Stark.Yes, that is a plot hole.
Or maybe it just doesn't matter because we have such a narrow perspective of the story.
It's really just a style of story-telling and they're generally my favorites, but okay.Or maybe it just doesn't matter because we have such a narrow perspective of the story.
Seems like pretty lazy writing to me.
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.
This is probably bait, but your an retart anyway.
Apparently everything I say becomes "bait" after an argument ensues and I dominate every poster in the thread.
It's because you're bad at arguing, so you usually pick a little irrelevant detail out of someone's post to argue about instead of staying on topic. So, now it seems like a lot of forum goers are just calling you a troll or a pedant and leaving it at that. That's pretty much what you are anyway.
"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)
Just started watching Firefly. I can see why it was cancelled, the budget spent on every episode must have ben enormous.Yep. Just look at all the top tier actors, the elaborate sets, and the realistic special effects. Undeniably expensive...
Just started watching Firefly. I can see why it was cancelled, the budget spent on every episode must have ben enormous.
Quote"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)
Uhh.
Uhh what?Quote"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)Uhh.
The Black Panther's name predates the October 1966 founding of the Black Panther Party.
It's a proper noun, though. He's been in comics for fifty-odd years and is established in the marvel canon as 'Black Panther'
All right, that's enough of that. Behold, not one, but two deluges of superhero crap:
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/marvel_vs_dc_comics_which_movi.html
I had no interest in Doctor Strange until Benedict Cumberbatch was announced as the titular character.
Now I must see it.
I'd honestly never heard of him before now, but I still say its a strange hero to make a movie about.
Firefly. I have the series on DVD. It's entertaining but I don't think it deserves the large cult following that it has.
I like Firefly a lot, but I hate everyone who wears a Jayne hat.
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.
The setting maybe. The things that make Bebop great are not present in Firefly. The things that make Firefly great are not ripped from Bebop.
Why do you own the DVD set if you don't think it's great? Do you just like wasting money?
There's nothing wrong with cliche so long as they do it right. I love the characters regardless of how predictable they are because they worked really well together.This.
It was great because the ideas came together really well. It was light and fun but with some good heart to it. There's not a lot of shows like that, especially not in the sci-fi genre.
There's nothing wrong with cliche so long as they do it right. I love the characters regardless of how predictable they are because they worked really well together.
It was great because the ideas came together really well. It was light and fun but with some good heart to it. There's not a lot of shows like that, especially not in the sci-fi genre.
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...She's in S10 and both movies as well. Worst character. I wouldn't have been so bothered about her being as sexualised as she is if they had picked a younger actress though. I think Mitchell is pretty cool, but he's not O'Neill.
What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...In like Vala. Specifically the Vala/Daniel interaction.
What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...In like Vala. Specifically the Vala/Daniel interaction.
What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
Cameron tries to be O'Neil and that's why he sucks for a while.
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but what are the opinions on it?
The discussion thread on /r/movies is filled with praise for it and any dissent is getting downvoted (big surprise!), even though most reviews I've read so far are pretty lukewarm about the movie.
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but what are the opinions on it?
The discussion thread on /r/movies is filled with praise for it and any dissent is getting downvoted (big surprise!), even though most reviews I've read so far are pretty lukewarm about the movie.
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)
This was an incredible film experience, and I loved it. I will try to write a lot more about it soon when I have time.
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.
Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.
Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.
Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.
Was gonna see Interstellar but decided on Nightcrawler because it seemed likemore fun. Going to see it in a bit.
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.
Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.
Okay...? I'm not trying to convince anyone it's great so your words are kinda wasted on me, I don't really judge whether it was one of his "best films" based on what other people say. I think it's easily his best. Also, it's pretty damn realistic as far as sci-fi goes.
Vauxhall: Nope, people just have opinions.
Anyway, more rambling time now that I'm feeling slightly more coherent:
Interstellar. Wow. I think that may be the greatest film I've ever seen, for me. It was gorgeous on every single level...visually, aurally, even in the story... The realistic renderings of wormholes, black holes, the "fourth dimension" and tesseracts...God damn, just...as someone who loves science, particularly physics and space, to death...this film is the crowning moment of sci-fi, I think. It's a science fiction film that really, *genuinely* LOVES science and it shows. No half-assed special effects just to have big explosions and crap, no, this film is gorgeous because of its realism. I don't think people really *grasp* how *gorgeous* and amazing space is. We're fed this halfhearted crap by sci-fi films that we just take for granted now, but this film goes the whole damn mile to show you exactly what space is, how grand and expansive and unimaginably beyond imagination it is. When they're going through that wormhole...something we've seen in dozens of films, but when they're doing it here and it's modeled by a real physicist, rendered for hundreds of hours with complex algorithms to make sure it's accurate...it's beyond anything I've ever seen before.
And the music...and the absolute lack of it at times... I could go on for hours. It's absolutely beautiful. Minimal when it needs to be, and extremely loud and shrill when the film would benefit most...then dead silent in the vast expanse of space. It's chilling.
Then, finally, the story. I don't want to spoil anything, but god. I'll be the first to admit that the film forgoes realism at various points for the sake of film, and that it even veers into hypothetical—or sheerly tangential—territory at times, it's all worth it. This movie, man...this movie. I haven't cried at a movie in a good while, but this one made me cry two and a half times. Once sort of early on I cried from Matthew McConaughey's amazing performance, then I teared up later on. Then afterwards, as I left the theater, I just started crying again...partly because it was just so amazing to me, but also because it got me thinking about the world so much.
Everyone should have to see this. THIS is the amazing, *real* stuff we're missing out on when we cut NASA funding because it's "not important". Not important? Do you forget who we are? Like they say in the film, humans are explorers, it's in us, our fate is not to die on this planet, it's to go beyond and yet we're letting ourselves be held back because people are so obsessed with the goddamn materialism and petty squabbles and attachments here. We're so short-sighted that we think it's better to pollute the hell out of this planet and then dismiss any solutions as "not worth it", or "too costly" or "unnecessary". Honestly, after this film...that line of thinking really disgusts me. It's actually really, really saddening...I want to see space, other planets, new discoveries and exploration. I don't want humanity to doom itself to a pathetic life of bitching between vaguely-different political parties or stupid fights about how people shouldn't be equal because everyone's so damn scared of change. I don't want humanity to have this amazing start where we colonized an entire planet, scraped the edge of space by sending men to the Goddamn *moon*, only to flicker out and die because we were too short-sighted, selfish and obsessed with immediate gain to continue our legacy. It's legitimately hard not to cry about, just looking up into the sky and knowing that we should be up there, we should be doing everything in our power to be among the fucking stars and just doing things we'd have never imagined possible before. I want that more than anything. I think this film, more than anything, has solidified my desire to get into science, to be a physicist. Hopefully I have the drive to do it. But, above all, I really hope more people see this movie and open their eyes to what we should be doing.
Our destiny is not on this planet. Earth should really just be our stepping stone to greater things. Our destiny is out there.
Finished Stargate SG-1. And, damn, am I glad that's over. There are way too many things wrong with Season 10 to list them all.
One thing that bothered me specifically: The Asgard. They didn't get a proper send-off. "We're dying, here's our knowledge. I gotta go now." That was it. The Asgard are easily the coolest alien race in the Stargate series, and this was not the correct way to handle their entire race's extinction. Just stupid. The entire episode was just retarted. Everyone is stuck in a time dilation field, they all age about 60 years, and then at the very end of the episode they figure out how to make a reset button. And Vala and Daniel Jackson hook up (?!?!?!). Outrageous. I'm guessing they were expecting to make a Season 11 because this finale fucking sucked as a series ender.
Don't listen to Ghost and watch Atlantis too. Even though you should have started already when SG1 Season 8 started.
I really like Stargate Atlantis so far. John Sheppard is a badass to the nth degree. Just finished the episode where he single-handedly thwarts the Genii's plan to take over Atlantis. Probably the best episode I've seen so far. Although, Rodney and Sheppard are the only interesting things about Atlantis right now. The secondary characters seem a bit weak and underdeveloped so far.Yeah I don't like her either. Seems like she's there only for the "we need a strong female character or else it's sexist" factor.
Oh, and Teyla seems like a female version of Teal'c. Pretty unoriginal.
Why don't you agree with leaving the planetThe atmosphere here is pretty good LOL XD
Why don't you agree with leaving the planetWell IF we cause the destruction of the planet then I think we should go down with it.
Why don't you agree with leaving the planetWell IF we cause the destruction of the planet then I think we should go down with it.
We're from Earth, why not die out with Earth? I also think humans are kinda terrible. I wouldn't wish us on any other planet.
I generally see humans as a really intelligent, terrible animal driven by instincts. I don't have very lofty ideals of evolution/adaptation.
Why don't you agree with leaving the planetWe're from Earth, why not die out with Earth?
Did not expect that kind of edge from Rooster. Confirmed for a 15y/o high schooler attempting philosophy.It's the exact opposite of that.
But we are special, simply because we alone have the means to leave our own planet.
What? The movie is all about hard work and sacrifices.
Yep. That is probably what bugged me most about the movie. But it was still great.What? The movie is all about hard work and sacrifices.
Yes, which is why it's weird to shoehorn the destiny garbage in while Cooper is still meandering around on Earth.
I thought Into Darkness sucked too. Khan felt like a joke. I agree with Saddam, they should have left him out of it completely.
Actually, they should just stop making Star Trek movies altogether. Make a new series please.
Nightcrawler
Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.
Nightcrawler
Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.
Nightcrawler
Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.
The end was lazy lazy filmmaking. Gyllenhaal however was fantastic.
What about the 2004 series?
That's up next.
There's boobs and vaginas in the first Stargate episode.So it's literally Game of Thrones in space
Spader is good in everything.
Spader is good in everything.
In an effort to get Garrison's story into focus, I asked him the motive of the Kennedy conspirators. He told me that the murder at Dallas had been a homosexual plot.
"They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold, when they murdered Bobbie Franks in Chicago back in the twenties," Garrison said. "It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime. John Kennedy was everything that Dave Ferrie was not — a successful, handsome, popular, wealthy, virile man. You can just picture the charge Ferrie got out of plotting his death."
I asked how he had learned that the murder was a homosexual plot.
"Look at the people involved," Garrison said. "Dave Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual."
"Ruby was a homosexual?"
"Sure, we dug that out," Garrison said. "His homosexual nickname was Pinkie. That's three. Then there was Lee Harvey Oswald."
But Oswald was married and had two children, I pointed out.
"A switch-hitter who couldn't satisfy his wife," Garrison said. "That's all in the Warren Report." He named two more "key figures" whom he labeled homosexual.
"That's six homosexuals in the plot," Garrison said. "One or maybe two, okay. But all six homosexual? How far can you stretch the arm of coincidence?"
He told me that the murder at Dallas had been a homosexual plot.
I just got back from watching the last Hobbit movie. It's about as bad as you've heard, and the reasons why should be obvious. What's left of the story is basically split into two subplots; one in which Thorin turns paranoid and possessive due to something they call "dragon fever," and the other being the big battle referenced in the title. The first one is stupid, boring, and doesn't have a very good payoff. The second one is even more stupid, but at least it looks cool, and fortunately that's where the bulk of the film is spent. As far as garish, over-the-top, spectacular, CGI-fest battle scenes go, this movie does them very well. If you can watch a movie and be satisfied with seeing that and little else, it's safe to say you'll like this one.
Considering how much filler and extraneous material - for lack of a better word, fanfiction - that they added, it's interesting that I really only actively disliked a couple of them. One of them was the character Alfred, whom you might remember as being the Master's toady in the last movie. He's basically a ripoff of Wormtongue from LotR, and he keeps constantly showing up just to remind everyone what a slimy douchebag he is. There's literally no point to his frequent appearances. He's not funny, he's not a foil to anyone, he's just...there. The movie doesn't even show him getting killed or anything. My other main issue is the same one that I had with the last film, all the foreshadowing of LotR. The story of LotR has already been told. It took three very long movies to do it, but now it's complete. It does not need to be told some more. And yet this movie continues to flash Sauron's fiery eye, play ominous music whenever the camera is on the Ring, and have characters drop vague hints about the dark power that is rising or whatever. For fuck's sake, Jackson, the film is called The Hobbit. The story you're telling should be the story of The Hobbit. Why can't you fuck off with the LotR shit already?
Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan and Joel Coen)
If Iron Man left almost no impression on me, Inside Llewyn Davis left an impression, but I'm not sure what it was. I really like the film, it has a typically bizarre Coen sense of humour, but it is also heartfelt in a way I'm not sure I've seen them do before. That's not to say it's sentimental, it has a kind of neutrality about it, almost like a Todd Solondz film, and never really tells you what to feel about the lead. I will have to see it again, as it does seem like there's a whole other layer to this thing that one simply cannot get on first viewing, but I'm already content to call it one of the very best recent (as in past couple of years) films that I've seen.
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.
That's funny, because that's virtually the opposite of my opinion. Lonely Souls is my least favourite episode because it's where the show jumps the shark and completely ruins the feeling of mystery for the rest of the show.
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.
That's funny, because that's virtually the opposite of my opinion. Lonely Souls is my least favourite episode because it's where the show jumps the shark and completely ruins the feeling of mystery for the rest of the show.
How does revealing the identity of the killer equal jumping the shark? Is it because the murders are now associated with supernatural entities? That is hinted at throughout the entire series starting from season 1 episode 1. I feel like it adds even more mystery to the show.
No, it was because it was very premature and done purely in attempt to save the ratings, which didn't work out. The issues with season 2 run much deeper than that though, so it's not entirely to blame, but to me Lonely Souls seemed like the point where they were clearly desperate to get some direction back to the show.
As someone who is currently watching the show, I appreciate the lack of spoilers. Please continue to not spoil things, or if you feel that you absolutely must, use the tags. Anyway, I enjoy the show, but it's mainly the characters I'm watching it for, not the story. It's certainly not just so I can find out who the murderer was.
it's where the show jumps the shark
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.
I just watched Brazil! Great stuff.
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.
I just watched Brazil! Great stuff.
Brazil is one of my favourite films.
How can I see my penis again??
Where did you watch The Story of Film? Netflix?I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.
Rama, you are hilarious.
Where did you watch The Story of Film? Netflix?I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.
Where did you watch The Story of Film? Netflix?I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.
I've been watching Prison break lately, while I loved the complex plan and trying to wok out what the symbols meant as they were introduced, I really wish they didn't have the ridiculous presidential conspiracy in the background - I don't care about the misadventures of the lawyers, I want to see Scofield try to avoid being shanked as he creeps into an intricately designed area of the prison.
The second series started well but the damn conspiracy is starting to take up too much screen time again. Agent mahone was a great character in his own right - and watching the cat-and-mouse between Scofield and him would have been really interesting to follow. Why did they have to over-complicate his character?
I loved that show, but alas, it succumbed to sequelitis very quickly. They should have just kept it to two seasons and toned down the conspiracy subplot a good deal - it had to be there to a degree, of course, because you can't beat the classic story of the innocent man in jail - but it's way too complicated, and the writers just kept pulling more new dimensions and motivations for them out of their asses as the show went on. As a result of all this stretching the plot out, the latter two seasons aren't nearly as good as the first two. They're not all bad, admittedly - the characters are still great, the cast is still great, the directing is still great, etc. - but it's just unrecognizable as the show it was when it began.
Do they reference Batman at all in it?
I love Venture Brothers. I own the first two seasons on DVD.
Netflix only has the first 2 seasons.Yeah, I've noticed that. I still haven't seen any of the other seasons... maybe one day.
I finished Twin Peaks. I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me. What the hell was up with that? I feel like Lynch just slapped me.I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.
I finished Twin Peaks. I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me. What the hell was up with that? I feel like Lynch just slapped me.I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.
I finished Twin Peaks. I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me. What the hell was up with that? I feel like Lynch just slapped me.I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.
There's so much we don't know about BOB and the Black Lodge that they could get someone else entirely to represent BOB. I don't think that's completely ridiculous.
Laura Palmer's "I will see you again in 25 years" quote is interesting. I wonder if they're doing this on purpose. I've read that Kyle is back, but I hope it's just not in the form of his old Black Lodge-self. I could see Lynch pulling some crap like that.
Caution: Spoilers!>not using the spoiler tag
Jupiter AscendingYes, but did Sean Bean die?
It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Jupiter AscendingYes, but did Sean Bean die?
It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Jupiter AscendingYes, but did Sean Bean die?
It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Has anyone watched this show called The Slap? It's literally about someone slapping someone else's child and the fallout that occurs because of it. I couldn't help but laugh every time I saw a commercial for this piece of crap on television. Apparently it's a remake of an Australian television series based on a book with the same premise. I guess we can blame Vindictus for this god awful stain on our pop culture collective.