You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to Holy-War. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

241

Saturday, June 27th 2009, 1:08am

I would have to say Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was the best movie I have seen in theaters in a long time.


My issue with TF II is that, why, did Optimus Prime die, when a Prime can only be killed by another Prime??



The Fallen said he is a Prime and can only be killed by another Prime. Yet a few Decepticons were able to kill Optimus.......



And there needs to be less human fighting and more robot vs robot only fighting. Thats what made the cartoon I grew up on good. :)



But, yes, I did like it still.

kitkatkev

Intermediate

Posts: 296

Location: Kansas :P

Occupation: Private Security

  • Send private message

242

Saturday, June 27th 2009, 3:08am

Gran Torino was very good one of the best movies ive seen :thumbsup:

im going to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen sunday i think :thumbsup:
I'm not insane!!! I am voluntarily indifferent to conventional rationality. :thumbup:


Someone once asked me if I suffer from insanity...I said "No, I enjoy every minute of it!"

Gendell W2 Level 122
The Haunted W4 Level 117
Maximus Decimus Meridius W3 level 105
Gendell2 W5 level 105
Forge W6 Level 101

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

243

Sunday, June 28th 2009, 7:21am

Land of the Lost-----wait for Cable! it was ok, but most of the jokes I had already seen on trailers. The updated sleestaks seemed a little more menacing. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Except that they talked perfect English, without any hissing.

Anyway, throughout the whole movie, I kept finding myself almost laughing, but I never quite did, except maybe a little chuckle at the Matt Lauer scene at the end. They should have either gone totally over the the top with ridiculousness, or made the characters consistent enough for the character-based humor to be funny.

And who hires an actress like Anna Friel as the leading lady just to use her for 90 minutes of boobie jokes? Besides the fact that she's more of the cute and little type, she's also a talented comedic actress.

Well, the movie didn't suck, but it wasn't that good.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

244

Sunday, June 28th 2009, 7:29pm

Transformers 2 :-(

I was disappointed with the movie.

1. I thought the editing and pacing were horrible

2. All the college scenes were all unrealistic- the life, how the girls looked, how the professor acted

3. The jokes lasted too long- Ok you made the mom looked like a fool but for 10 minutes

4. I think the movie was just too dumbed down for everyone.


What i did like

1. I loved the plot

2. Megan Fox

3. The Camaro

4. The action!

kniggits

Unregistered

245

Friday, July 3rd 2009, 2:30am

top 10 movies/series of movies:



1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2. Mel Brooks movies like Blazing Saddles

3. Looney Tunes movie

4. Transformers 1 & 2

5. Star Wars Saga

6. Lord of the Rings Trilogy

7. Harry Potter series

8. Digimon the Movie

9. Space Jam

10. Pokemon movies



go ahead and call me a dork but i like Pokemon, the movies, show, video games, and card game. The battle figures are too far but otherwise Pokemon is the best. :thumbsup:

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

246

Friday, July 3rd 2009, 2:58am

go ahead and call me a dork but i like Pokemon, the movies, show, video games, and card game. The battle figures are too far but otherwise Pokemon is the best. :thumbsup:
You're not just a dork, you're a Nidorking. :)

When I was a kid, we didn't get Japanese toy series. We got Mattel toy series based very loosely on Japanese serie. So Mazinger, Raideen, and Combattler V were members of the Shogun Warriors, a team of robots piloted by the Warriors of Light who assisted the Fantastic Four.

On the other hand, our toys shot spring-loaded missiles (and fists and even brains in one case), at least until some kid shot his brother's eye out and they had a safety recall.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

kniggits

Unregistered

247

Friday, July 3rd 2009, 3:16am

go ahead and call me a dork but i like Pokemon, the movies, show, video games, and card game. The battle figures are too far but otherwise Pokemon is the best. :thumbsup:
You're not just a dork, you're a Nidorking. :)

When I was a kid, we didn't get Japanese toy series. We got Mattel toy series based very loosely on Japanese serie. So Mazinger, Raideen, and Combattler V were members of the Shogun Warriors, a team of robots piloted by the Warriors of Light who assisted the Fantastic Four.

On the other hand, our toys shot spring-loaded missiles (and fists and even brains in one case), at least until some kid shot his brother's eye out and they had a safety recall.

So you at least know a little about Pokemon since you had the "witty" comment Nidorking.



My toys I assemble into all sorts of things brick by brick aka LEGO :D

Buba the Great

Professional

Posts: 594

Location: Oklahoma City

  • Send private message

248

Sunday, July 5th 2009, 8:25am

Just watched "Into the Wild." Very good movie, and a true story! :thumbsup:

brianfoxy

Intermediate

Posts: 173

Location: Wisconsin (USA)

Occupation: Police Officer

  • Send private message

249

Wednesday, July 8th 2009, 3:47pm

Public Enemies

Public Enemies is a VERY good movie :thumbsup:
27.03.2012

-Day I left HW, for good!

Never looking back!!!!

Take care all.

....... DONE ......

Walking away an accomplished man ;)

The Black Knight

Unregistered

250

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 6:24pm


Also, one thing really bothers me about the Terminator series. Normally I don't nitpick time-travel paradoxes, but when you build your entire franchise around them, it's kind of hard not to notice. So: Why do they need to save Connor, and in this movie Kyle Reese? If they just shot Kyle through the head, he'd never go back in time, the T2000 wouldn't go back to chase him, and the technology for Skynet wouldn't exist.

You know... I just went and watched Terminator Salvation again last night, and the thought occurred to me that this isn't the goof we think it is. I mean, if you think about it, only John Connor and his cohorts really know about the time travel aspect, given that John lived through part of it, was told the rest of it by his mom, and likely shared all that information with his buddies. From the Skynet side of things, what do they/it actually know at this point? Skynet hasn't had any kind of of time traveling cyborg show up to tell it, "hey, about two decades ago, we tried to kill John Connor by killing his mom and if you manage to kill Kyle Reese, well, that's his father," because Skynet wasn't around back in the 80's/90's, and I'm sure the software developers that created Skynet weren't going to put that into Skynet's programming.

I can see where Skynet is likely operating completely blind here; all they know about John Connor is that he's the voice on the radio that all these people listen to and that he's the leader of one of their combat teams. Somehow (I'm not sure where this comes from), they know that Connor really wants to get Kyle Reese, so Reese becomes a priority in that regard, but there's no logical explanation for why they'd want to kill him instead of just using him as bait.

Mulvers

Unregistered

251

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 7:14pm

Transformers 2 .... how can a movie so loud be so dull?

I hate all these stupid "blockbusters" that rely on flashy CGI bumf to make up for lack of substance, plot and quality acting ....

But I'm a movie snob so :P

The Black Knight

Unregistered

252

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 8:53pm

Transformers 2 .... how can a movie so loud be so dull?

I hate all these stupid "blockbusters" that rely on flashy CGI bumf to make up for lack of substance, plot and quality acting ....

But I'm a movie snob so :P

Well... if you're a movie snob, I just watched one movie on Comcast On-Demand that was pretty good in that intellectual foreign film kind of way that really requires (for me) a particular kind of mindset to watch (as in, all brain cells firing and wanting to watch something smarter than Beverly Hills Cop).

The Lemon Tree:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477757/

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

253

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 9:17pm

Transformers 2 .... how can a movie so loud be so dull?

I hate all these stupid "blockbusters" that rely on flashy CGI bumf to make up for lack of substance, plot and quality acting ....



I'm in agreement with Mulvers. Transformers 2 is the worst rated blockbuster movie of all time. There were parts to like but see my post above to see why I did not like it as much.

from a semi movie snob

Mulvers

Unregistered

254

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 10:27pm

The Lemon Tree:


Oooo ... I saw this! ... How the tree represents his family and is cut down for "progress" .... very sad and poignant ....

Yeah ... thats my kinda movie .... add zombies and it would be perfect :P

[ironie]Megan Fox is awesome http://coedmagazine.com/2009/05/08/10-me…ke-you-go-hmmm/[/ironie]

Buba the Great

Professional

Posts: 594

Location: Oklahoma City

  • Send private message

255

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 11:14pm

Im watching Lonesome Dove right now for the 100th time. One of the best westerns of all time.

The Black Knight

Unregistered

256

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 11:41pm

Im watching Lonesome Dove right now for the 100th time. One of the best westerns of all time.

Unforgiven! Has the best fight scene of any movie ever, in any genre, whether sci-fi, action, western, etc.

Even if you never watched the movie, you gotta see the scene where Clint Eastwood, as William Munny, walks into the bar and proceeds to kill everyone*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_6gQH4aXc&feature=related

Little Bill: Well sir, you are a cowardly son of a [deleted]. You just shot an unarmed man.
William Munny: Well he shoulda armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.
Little Bill: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri, killer of women and children.
William Munny: That's right, I've killed women and children. Killed just about everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.

Clint Eastwood walks in right around the six minutes mark, if you want to avoid the lead-in.


Okay, okay... technically, he only kills six people total in this scene (and only three and "a half" during the actual gunfight), but considering he's outnumbered something like 20 to 1, it's pretty darn impressive.

Mulvers

Unregistered

257

Sunday, July 12th 2009, 11:45pm

Oooooo! Unforgiven = Awesome movie ..... Tho my fave westerns are the Dollars Trilogy ....

Leone + Eastwood + Morricone soundtrack = Mulvers paradise Type 3 :D

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

258

Monday, July 13th 2009, 1:49am


Also, one thing really bothers me about the Terminator series. Normally I don't nitpick time-travel paradoxes, but when you build your entire franchise around them, it's kind of hard not to notice. So: Why do they need to save Connor, and in this movie Kyle Reese? If they just shot Kyle through the head, he'd never go back in time, the T2000 wouldn't go back to chase him, and the technology for Skynet wouldn't exist.

You know... I just went and watched Terminator Salvation again last night, and the thought occurred to me that this isn't the goof we think it is. I mean, if you think about it, only John Connor and his cohorts really know about the time travel aspect, given that John lived through part of it, was told the rest of it by his mom, and likely shared all that information with his buddies. From the Skynet side of things, what do they/it actually know at this point? Skynet hasn't had any kind of of time traveling cyborg show up to tell it, "hey, about two decades ago, we tried to kill John Connor by killing his mom and if you manage to kill Kyle Reese, well, that's his father," because Skynet wasn't around back in the 80's/90's, and I'm sure the software developers that created Skynet weren't going to put that into Skynet's programming.

I can see where Skynet is likely operating completely blind here; all they know about John Connor is that he's the voice on the radio that all these people listen to and that he's the leader of one of their combat teams. Somehow (I'm not sure where this comes from), they know that Connor really wants to get Kyle Reese, so Reese becomes a priority in that regard, but there's no logical explanation for why they'd want to kill him instead of just using him as bait.
Well, the "I'm not sure where this comes from" is a big enough plot hole....

But you're missing the key point: Skynet wouldn't want to kill Reese even if it knew the whole story. Why? It's because Reese goes back in time that Skynet exists. The technology used to build Skynet was reverse-engineered from its own future technology, the piece of Arnie that got left behind. If Reese were dead, there would be no Skynet. Sucks for Skynet, pretty good for the human civilization of 6 billion people who don't get killed off by Skynet.

And, even if nobody else knows this, John Connor defintely does. Of couse he'd never exist either, if he shot Reese in the face. But I suspect he'd be willing to not exist to save the world from losing WW3 to the robots. And, if not him, one of his followers should have figured it out at some point.

Not exactly a heroic ending, I suppose, but it should work.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

259

Monday, July 13th 2009, 4:16am


But you're missing the key point: Skynet wouldn't want to kill Reese even if it knew the whole story. Why? It's because Reese goes back in time that Skynet exists. The technology used to build Skynet was reverse-engineered from its own future technology, the piece of Arnie that got left behind. If Reese were dead, there would be no Skynet. Sucks for Skynet, pretty good for the human civilization of 6 billion people who don't get killed off by Skynet.

Ah shoot... I did miss this point.

Hmm, interesting. So if you're John Connor, do you shoot Kyle Reese the first time you meet him? Because the one thing I'm thinking is that regardless of what they do, Skynet still comes into existence. You kill off Miles Dyson and destroy Cyberdyne, but Skynet gets built anyway; it just gets delayed by a few years. In other words, there seems to be an elasticity to the timeline that forces Skynet to come into resistance regardless of what happens, so would you really want to take the chance?*

Who's to say that if you kill Kyle Reese the only effect is that John Connor doesn't ever exist, but Skynet still gets built (maybe another 20 years later), and this time they just wipe out all of humanity? Heck, if I were the one directing the 6th Terminator movie (supposedly the third movie in the "new" trilogy), that's probably how I'd end it. Humanity is getting wiped out, they're on the brink of dying, and John Connor has no options left other than a .45 bullet to the back of Kyle Reese's head. Bang, no Kyle Reese, no John Connor, Skynet is a later version of itself, everyone dies (except the machines).



*I think this would also be known as the Jason Vorhees syndrone, as in "we keep making money with the sequels, so Skynet is gonna keep coming back."

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

260

Monday, July 13th 2009, 5:12am

Hmm, interesting. So if you're John Connor, do you shoot Kyle Reese the first time you meet him? Because the one thing I'm thinking is that regardless of what they do, Skynet still comes into existence. You kill off Miles Dyson and destroy Cyberdyne, but Skynet gets built anyway; it just gets delayed by a few years. In other words, there seems to be an elasticity to the timeline that forces Skynet to come into resistance regardless of what happens, so would you really want to take the chance?
Sure. If you push things back far enough, Will Smith will be around to stop the killer robots before they can take over the world, so you're safe.

But seriously, to the extent that the Terminator movies are consistent in their time travel theory at all, I don't think the self-healing elasticity bit really exists in their universe. Or at least none of the characters involved think it does. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been sending robots and people back in time in the first place--"kill Sarah Connor, and someone else takes John's place and does the exact same thing" seems at least as likely as "remove the closed loop that created the technology in the first place, and someone else invents it anyway and Skynet ends up the exact same way."
Who's to say that if you kill Kyle Reese the only effect is that John Connor doesn't ever exist, but Skynet still gets built (maybe another 20 years later), and this time they just wipe out all of humanity? Heck, if I were the one directing the 6th Terminator movie (supposedly the third movie in the "new" trilogy), that's probably how I'd end it. Humanity is getting wiped out, they're on the brink of dying, and John Connor has no options left other than a .45 bullet to the back of Kyle Reese's head. Bang, no Kyle Reese, no John Connor, Skynet is a later version of itself, everyone dies (except the machines).
Well, I don't know if this works. If humanity's going to get wiped out anyway, Skynet won't bother sending Arnie back, and John won't have a chance to send Kyle back, and it won't really make much difference whether you kill Kyle.

In fact, you could end it the opposite way--Skynet captures Kyle and kills him, not knowing that the effect is going to be that Miles never gets the closed-loop tech and Skynet doesn't exist. Fade back to the year 2020, when people in silver-lamé future-suits are flying around in jet cars in a pollution-free sky, and then cut to a general talking with a computer enterpreneur about how his new technology could be used to build an unstoppable integrated defense network in space, "a sky net if you will." Cue the Terminator theme music.

The way to work it out your way is to have the humans being more successful than anyone would have dreamed, so Skynet comes up with the first-movie plan. Kyle figures out what's going to happen and tries to infiltrate the time portal to go back and stop the terminator and save Sarah Connor, and then John remembers the Arnie arm and suddenly realizes that Kyle was to blame for the whole thing. So he shoots Kyle in the back of the head. Then you show all the things that happened in the last 5 movies vanishing like Michael J. Fox in the photo (which gets you another Arnie cameo), and you fade into a peaceful world where... the machines live happily ever after without those damn humans to get in the way. Why?
I think this would also be known as the Jason Vorhees syndrone, as in "we keep making money with the sequels, so Skynet is gonna keep coming back."
And there's your 7th movie: Jason vs. Skynet. 5 months after the last human being has died, it's summer, and a group of young robots go out to Crystal Lake (now actually made of liquid crystal, of course) to frolic. And then a human somehow comes back from the dead--and of course it's Jason Voorhees. All of the HKs and terminators and so on have been dismantled to build whatever Skynet needs for its robot utopia, and they have no defenses against a madman with his systems of squishy organs.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

261

Monday, July 13th 2009, 7:05am


But seriously, to the extent that the Terminator movies are consistent in their time travel theory at all, I don't think the self-healing elasticity bit really exists in their universe. Or at least none of the characters involved think it does. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been sending robots and people back in time in the first place--"kill Sarah Connor, and someone else takes John's place and does the exact same thing" seems at least as likely as "remove the closed loop that created the technology in the first place, and someone else invents it anyway and Skynet ends up the exact same way."

Yeah, but would you want to take that risk? I'm guessing the difference is between movie logic and "real life." I mean, if you're John Connor, the reality of Skynet and the war against the machines is something real and tangible that you can look at and deal with. Putting a bullet into Kyle's brain certainly makes sense from a movie logic point of view, but if you're actually there and contemplating the murder of another human being based on a guess that it'll turn everything around, well... that might be a hard decision to make.

John remembers the Arnie arm and suddenly realizes that Kyle was to blame for the whole thing

I don't think it's the arm that really made the difference, considering there's nothing in there but mechanical parts. I'm guessing it's the CPU.

All of the HKs and terminators and so on have been dismantled to build whatever Skynet needs for its robot utopia, and they have no defenses against a madman with his systems of squishy organs.

Jason X. Cheesy as heck (although the women were hot) and pretty funny. He ended up getting upgraded with all these nano-bots. As I recall, they basically made him largely bullet-proof, and meant he regenerated from everything (as if he didn't already). The only Jason movie I saw, so I can't compare it with the others, but I don't think he was squishy after that. Of course, that was a lot of years in the future, after Judgment Day, so I suppose you'd probably get one of the earlier versions of him.

Would his machete cut a terminator's head off, do you think?

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

262

Monday, July 13th 2009, 10:07am

Yeah, but would you want to take that risk? I'm guessing the difference is between movie logic and "real life." I mean, if you're John Connor, the reality of Skynet and the war against the machines is something real and tangible that you can look at and deal with. Putting a bullet into Kyle's brain certainly makes sense from a movie logic point of view, but if you're actually there and contemplating the murder of another human being based on a guess that it'll turn everything around, well... that might be a hard decision to make.
Take a step back and think about this: Someone tells you, "Skynet just sent a terminator back into the past to make sure you were never born." Would your first thought be, "OK, let's send my most trusted lieutenant and right-hand man back in time, knowing I'll never see him again, just in case there's something to this"?

I suppose if you grew up on Star Trek, watching Kirk take his entire core bridge crew down to the planet whenever there was some unpredictable monster that might have superpowers and kill everyone, that might make sense.

But my first thought would be, "Obviously it didn't work, because I'm still here. Still, just in case, let's send Joe over there--he's a decent grunt, but expendable."
Would his machete cut a terminator's head off, do you think?
If you keep sawing and sawing and sawing, I guess, but that doesn't sound like an exciting movie.

So I gues it would be better to use Freddy instead of Jason. I'm not sure what a terminator's worse nightmare is, but I'm sure it would make for a cool action scene.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

263

Monday, July 13th 2009, 2:28pm

Yeah, but would you want to take that risk? I'm guessing the difference is between movie logic and "real life." I mean, if you're John Connor, the reality of Skynet and the war against the machines is something real and tangible that you can look at and deal with. Putting a bullet into Kyle's brain certainly makes sense from a movie logic point of view, but if you're actually there and contemplating the murder of another human being based on a guess that it'll turn everything around, well... that might be a hard decision to make.
Take a step back and think about this: Someone tells you, "Skynet just sent a terminator back into the past to make sure you were never born." Would your first thought be, "OK, let's send my most trusted lieutenant and right-hand man back in time, knowing I'll never see him again, just in case there's something to this"?

I suppose if you grew up on Star Trek, watching Kirk take his entire core bridge crew down to the planet whenever there was some unpredictable monster that might have superpowers and kill everyone, that might make sense.

But my first thought would be, "Obviously it didn't work, because I'm still here. Still, just in case, let's send Joe over there--he's a decent grunt, but expendable."

Exactly! That's why Barnes isn't the one sent back (plus, I'm figuring he'll probably get killed off somewhere in the next two movies). Sounds to me like we're in agreement?

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

264

Monday, July 13th 2009, 6:57pm

Actually, I forgot about something: The Kyle of the first movie is about a decade off. Also, Skynet sent the terminator back because it had lost the war. So, in that situation, it might make sense to send Kyle even if he is John's #2 by then.

On the other hand, the first movie also had Connor creating the resistance in the first place, so they've obviously changed their story, so there's not much point looking for perfect consistency. It's probably Nero the Romulan's fault for putting us on an alternate continuity.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

265

Monday, July 13th 2009, 8:30pm

Actually, I forgot about something: The Kyle of the first movie is about a decade off. Also, Skynet sent the terminator back because it had lost the war. So, in that situation, it might make sense to send Kyle even if he is John's #2 by then.

On the other hand, the first movie also had Connor creating the resistance in the first place, so they've obviously changed their story, so there's not much point looking for perfect consistency. It's probably Nero the Romulan's fault for putting us on an alternate continuity.

I always thought (even back during the T1 days) that Reese was just some flunky that volunteered, not Connor's #2, #3, or even on his Christmas card list. What makes you think he was Connor's #2 guy?

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

266

Monday, July 13th 2009, 11:30pm

I always thought (even back during the T1 days) that Reese was just some flunky that volunteered, not Connor's #2, #3, or even on his Christmas card list. What makes you think he was Connor's #2 guy?
Well, I don't have the movie handy; maybe it came from the novelization, which I definitely read as a kid. I found a summary of it online:

Reese was born right after the nuclear war. When he was a small child, Skynet raided the secret camp his family lived in, killing his parents, and putting him to work in a concentration camp. Connor's Tech-Net unit rescued him, and he joined the US Army as an infantry soldier. A few years later, he transfered to Tech-Net, where he became the sergeant of Connor's commando unit, which led the assault on Skynet Central that won the war. He and Corporal Sumner discovered the time travel thingy, and Connor decided to send the two of them back into the past, but Sumner died in transfer because he materialized in the same space as a fire escape.

So, in this version of the story, Reese was definitely a trusted and important part of Connor's unit. But, on the other hand, the war had already been won, so there were no real negatives to sending him into the past, except for the bit about never seeing his comrade again.

I have no idea how much of this made it into the movies. I did find the original draft of the script--but there, Reese is a green soldier in Sergeant Sumner's infantry unit; the day of the big strike that captured a Skynet compound (which didn't win the war in this version) was his 21st birthday. He and Connor--who was the founder and leader of the resistance movement, rather than just the officer of the commando unit--didn't even know each other.

I'm pretty sure this changed a lot between draft and final, and the novelization was probably based on some intermediate script. And the last movie completely invalidated all of this continuity, so it doesn't really matter. I guess T6 will give us the canonical answer. Unless they bring Freddy in one movie early. :)
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Cougar26

Trainee

Posts: 142

Location: Australia

Occupation: Photographer

  • Send private message

267

Tuesday, July 14th 2009, 10:39am

I would have to say my favourite movie of all time would be 'The Island', i don't think that i will like another movie as much as i do this one. I also like the Underworld Series and the Bourne Series. Both great series. :thumbsup:
The Island

"Do not trust anyone, if there's one thing I can tell you about people, is that they will do anything to survive."

"Look I know you're new to this whole human experience, but there is one universal truth...and that is NEVER give a woman your credit card."

Such a great movie.

World 7: Cougar26

Mulvers

Unregistered

268

Tuesday, July 14th 2009, 10:58am

I also like the Underworld Series


Ooooooo .... me too ...... Kate Beckinsale in PVC .... :thumbsup:

Cougar26

Trainee

Posts: 142

Location: Australia

Occupation: Photographer

  • Send private message

269

Tuesday, July 14th 2009, 11:25am

Gotta love it don't ya. haha. :D
The Island

"Do not trust anyone, if there's one thing I can tell you about people, is that they will do anything to survive."

"Look I know you're new to this whole human experience, but there is one universal truth...and that is NEVER give a woman your credit card."

Such a great movie.

World 7: Cougar26

The Black Knight

Unregistered

270

Thursday, July 23rd 2009, 4:26pm

Oh my dear God...

So "The Watchmen" came out on Comcast On-Demand last night, and the wife and I (who had avoided it in the theaters because it looked overly cheesy and pretentious) finally sat down on the couch to watch it.

The good news is it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Game of Death and Plan 9 From Outer Space both (arguably) would be "worse," in my opinion, but then both of those movies had the star die halfway through production (but kept filming) and both had a production budget just slightly higher than what I spend annually on deodorant.

The acting was painful, the script was godawful boring, the movie was about two hours too long, and there's something like four minutes worth of action in the entire two and a half hour length. There's also quite a bit of gratuitous male nudity (front and back, almost all of it blue and glowing), so I suppose if you're into that, it might be a good rental. No such luck for the straight guys, though.

At risk of posting a spoiler, the entire movie was pretty much; 30 minutes of self righteous dialog, 5 minutes of gratuitous male nudity, 20 minutes of self righteous dialog, 15 second fight scene, 20 minutes of self righteous dialog, 5 minutes of gratuitous male nudity, 20 minutes of self righteous dialog, 15 second fight scene, 20 minutes of self righteous dialog, 5 minutes of gratuitous male nudity,10 minutes of self righteous dialog, 3 seconds of female nudity (sort of; she really looks like boy, once the clothes come off), 10 minutes of self righteous dialog, 30 second fight scene (woo hoo!), 10 minutes of self righteous dialog.

Wow.

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

271

Thursday, July 23rd 2009, 7:12pm

I liked Watchmen, but it was clearly made for people who had the entire graphic novel firmly in memory at the time they watched it.

There are all kinds of great little throwaway bits where you're thinking to yourself, "How are they going to do the next page, which had this meta-comics reference to 70s Marvel" and then you watch and they do a meta-movie reference to Sam Raimi's Spiderman, and you think, "Wow, that was clever." Unfortunately, that cleverness was lost on 99.99% of the audience--including people who were much bigger comic book geeks than me and hadn't just reread the comics because they hadn't forgotten as much as me in the intervening years.

It seemed like Zack Snyder put more effort into that kind of cleverness than into... well, everything else. All of the little background stuff is translated brilliantly from comic book to movie, but all of the foreground stuff is just a comic book on film. In fact, this is almost true literally; there are long talking scenes where the foreground characters don't move at all, but there's something in the background, like a newspaper blowing by, just to catch your eye so you can see that he included that headline from the comic after all.

Also, there's really nobody to relate to. Dr. Manhattan is inhuman; Nite Owl is pathetic; getting inside Rorschach's head is painful; and you desperately want to avoid identifying with the Comedian. Again, that's because they're perfectly adapted from the comic book, and I thought Rorschach and the Comedian actually came across as great characters, but there's no real lead character, and nothing to draw you into the movie.

And you forgot to mention the smex scene. It's actually translated from comic to movie much better than most of the other foreground action--which makes it disturbing and unpleasant. A friend of mine has a bit of a crush on Malin Åkerman (Laurie in the movie), but afterward, he said, "Well, I'll never be able to fantasize about her again."

Still, if you ever read the comics straight through again, watch the movie right afterward, and I'll bet you'll enjoy it.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

272

Thursday, July 23rd 2009, 10:10pm

And you forgot to mention the smex scene. It's actually translated from comic to movie much better than most of the other foreground action--which makes it disturbing and unpleasant. A friend of mine has a bit of a crush on Malin Åkerman (Laurie in the movie), but afterward, he said, "Well, I'll never be able to fantasize about her again."

No, I didn't forget; I just didn't know of a way to discuss that aspect (and all the other related aspects) without getting my post deleted.

Oh, and the only comment I could really think of with regards to Malin Akerman was definitely not within the realm of "forum safe discussion." For what it's worth, the comment actually came from Shannon (the wife) and involved a comparison between the topless Ms. Jupiter Jr. and fat 13-year old boys. It definitely wasn't very flattering (although it was certainly funny).

I guess about the only "safe" thing I could say about her would be that she's one actress I'd prefer to see with her clothes on from now on.

Still, if you ever read the comics straight through again, watch the movie right afterward, and I'll bet you'll enjoy it.

Well, I never did read the comic book in the first place, so I'm guessing that's probably a big part of the reason I disliked it. Of course, I'm not so sure I want to, now.

Mulvers

Unregistered

273

Thursday, July 23rd 2009, 10:23pm

I guess about the only "safe" thing I could say about her would be that she's one actress I'd prefer to see with her clothes on from now on.


Ouch! Thats harsh :P

Buba the Great

Professional

Posts: 594

Location: Oklahoma City

  • Send private message

274

Saturday, July 25th 2009, 9:34pm

Im watching Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid :thumbup:

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

275

Wednesday, August 26th 2009, 8:05pm

Rented Watchman

Guys:

I really enjoyed it. Thought it was different. Did not like the ending so much, but the rest of the movie was good. The male nudity was barely noticeable. Life of Brian---now that's male nudity!

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

276

Wednesday, August 26th 2009, 8:19pm

The most noticeable male nudity I can remember was in The Piano, mainly because of the sound of every woman in the movie theater saying, "Ohmigod, Harvey Kietel is that small?" in perfect sync.

As for Life of Brian, apparently Graham Chapman used to jokingly complain about Terry Jones getting all the nude scenes, so they wrote him the nude scene to end all nude scenes. And I love that they made it an important enough part of the movie that it can't be edited out for TV, so they have to do bizarre things like zoom in on the upper half of the screen and pan-and-scan so they can show it.

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

277

Wednesday, September 23rd 2009, 1:08am

Murder by Death

I hated this movie when i was a kid.....I guess I get all the jokes now. Give this movie a second chance! I liked it more the second time around.

Mulvers

Unregistered

278

Wednesday, September 23rd 2009, 2:16pm

so they have to do bizarre things like zoom in on the upper half of the screen and pan-and-scan so they can show it.


Youre kidding right? .... they actually do this?

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

279

Wednesday, September 23rd 2009, 3:22pm

so they have to do bizarre things like zoom in on the upper half of the screen and pan-and-scan so they can show it.


Youre kidding right? .... they actually do this?
Yes, they do. They already have to pan-and-scan movies to show on TV--either that, or letterbox them. (Even widescreen HDTV isn't the same aspect ratio as movies, but traditional TV isn't even close.) But for that scene, they zoomed in the picture, and they do some really jerky panning whenever the camera moves. I guess they thought that would be a little less cheesy than a black censor bar hovering in front of him, but it really isn't.

Mulvers

Unregistered

280

Wednesday, September 23rd 2009, 3:53pm

Whats the [goddam] point?!?!

Im not a fan of censorship .... ooo dear body parts! bull[poop] ...



AND WHATS THE [flying monkey lizard]ING DEAL WITH ALL THE BANNED WORDS!!! KIDS!?!?! [flying monkey lizard] 'EM!!! ... not literally coz thats wrong...

I swear like a mother[flying monkey lizard]ing trooper ... but these "kids" are more foul-mouthed than me .... Protect their sensibilities? Give their [male body part]head parents something to whine about rather ... :thumbdown:


Anyway ... Rant over ....


¬_¬