Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Movie Discussion Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ummm ok, try and defend The Dark Knight but lets take away Heath Ledger. Or how about There Will Be Blood, but we wont have any Daniel Day Lewis. Or lets watch Pulp Fiction on mute so we don't have any of the dialogue.

    See my point?

    You can't remove an integral part of a movie and just say "defend it". NOBODY on this board, or anywhere for that matter, has praised Avatar for it's storyline or it's acting (which I didnt find to be subpar...In fact, I found Saldana to be downright excellent, along with Ribisi)...Its a revolutionary film because of its effects. Much in the same way The Matrix gave us 10 years of bullet time special effects shots, Avatar will inspire dozens of 3D films for years to come. Yes, that is revolutionary. And if Pocahontas had those effects and did that EXACT same thing, then hell yes I'd laud it and say the exact things Im saying about Avatar now. People didn't go watch Avatar because of the dialogue...they went to SEE the effects. Visual stimulation is whats most important in this scenario.

    And please, dont give me the "boo hoo film buffs hate on movies" ********. Everyone knew Transformers 2 was garbage, and comparing it to Avatar is an insult to non-blind/deaf/stupid people everywhere. Avatar is being overly-criticized BECAUSE its popular, not because its less-then-stellar qualities are on the level of a ****** movie. It has nothing to do with Cameron being the director...If Michael Bay made movies like James Cameron does, Id be all over his jock too. The track record speaks for itself.

    And you expect more from Cameron then just effects? Really? Cause his movies certainly aren't renowned for their wordplay or visceral plotlines.
    Originally posted by Mr. Goosemahn
    The APS is strong in this one.
    Originally posted by killxswitch
    Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

    Comment


    • I just finished New York, I Love You and it was interesting. Some scenes were better than others but I enjoyed it for the most part. It was an "artsy" movie done by many different directors. The cast was excellent throughout the whole film. Anyone else see it?
      #Chop


      sig by BoneKrusher

      Comment


      • Originally posted by A Perfect Score View Post
        Ummm ok, try and defend The Dark Knight but lets take away Heath Ledger. Or how about There Will Be Blood, but we wont have any Daniel Day Lewis. Or lets watch Pulp Fiction on mute so we don't have any of the dialogue.

        See my point?

        You can't remove an integral part of a movie and just say "defend it". NOBODY on this board, or anywhere for that matter, has praised Avatar for it's storyline or it's acting (which I didnt find to be subpar...In fact, I found Saldana to be downright excellent, along with Ribisi)...Its a revolutionary film because of its effects. Much in the same way The Matrix gave us 10 years of bullet time special effects shots, Avatar will inspire dozens of 3D films for years to come. Yes, that is revolutionary. And if Pocahontas had those effects and did that EXACT same thing, then hell yes I'd laud it and say the exact things Im saying about Avatar now. People didn't go watch Avatar because of the dialogue...they went to SEE the effects. Visual stimulation is whats most important in this scenario.

        And please, dont give me the "boo hoo film buffs hate on movies" ********. Everyone knew Transformers 2 was garbage, and comparing it to Avatar is an insult to non-blind/deaf/stupid people everywhere. Avatar is being overly-criticized BECAUSE its popular, not because its less-then-stellar qualities are on the level of a ****** movie. It has nothing to do with Cameron being the director...If Michael Bay made movies like James Cameron does, Id be all over his jock too. The track record speaks for itself.

        And you expect more from Cameron then just effects? Really? Cause his movies certainly aren't renowned for their wordplay or visceral plotlines.
        Taking away acting/or a script isnt the same as taking away special effects. Special effects should never be the most important part of a movie, to me at least. I'm not saying it's not important at all, but to suggest that they are equally as important to good acting or an awesome script is silly, as its not as integral to a movie as what you mentioned is. So no, I dont see your point, because if we take what you just said, you clearly just defended my original point. Did anyone go see Transformers 2 for amazing acting or dialogue? No, they went to see giant robots Fight for two and a half hours with awesome effects. So, to go off of what your saying, the horrible plot holes, the god awful acting, shouldnt be taken into consideration here as those arent the point, its the " Visual stimulation" thats most important here .
        So thank you for just proving the exact point I made, which was clearly the worst thing to have ever been said on this discussion board


        Originally posted by WMD
        Jesse realizing Walt was Santa Claus could really shake things up.
        Originally posted by gpngc
        I don't know how old you are, but if you can get to 24/25 without getting arrested or killed, you've done well for yourself lol.

        Comment


        • No, because the "visual stimulation" in Transformers 2 wasn't any ******* good. It was noisy, crowded, ridiculous, confusing, and even the action sequences had plot holes (hello, giant sand sucking robot who sucks in cars but not people...) That two and a half hours of robot fighting was ******** cause no one knew who the **** was on which side. Also, Transformers heaven is one of the most god awful things I have ever witnessed on a screen of any kind. That ALONE means it should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Avatar.

          Avatar was an effects driven film, so yes, its every bit as important as good acting or good story. Just because YOU PERSONALLY dont value effects as highly as you do acting or script doesnt mean they arent a crucial aspect of alot of films.

          but to suggest that they are equally as important to good acting or an awesome script is silly, as its not as integral to a movie as what you mentioned is.
          And you are suggesting that the effects arent as important as acting or script? I doubt Avatar would of made 2 billion dollars if the entire background was a green screen. Just sayin'...

          Your argument is ridiculous. I didn't prove your point at all...because the acting and script in Avatar weren't horrendous, a la Transformers. They were a vehicle used to transport the audience into the EFFECTS DRIVEN world Cameron created. So dont do that ZOMGZ I won ********, because that "visual stimulation" I was talking about in Avatar doesn't exist with Transformers 2, or G.I Joe, or any of the other ****** movies that get torn up by me and everyone else on here.
          Originally posted by Mr. Goosemahn
          The APS is strong in this one.
          Originally posted by killxswitch
          Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

          Comment


          • APS... Moon sucks. Go!

            Comment


            • Go fight a kangaroo, Aussie.
              Originally posted by Mr. Goosemahn
              The APS is strong in this one.
              Originally posted by killxswitch
              Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by A Perfect Score View Post
                I doubt Avatar would of made 2 billion dollars if the entire background was a green screen. Just sayin'...
                It's "would have", and just because something makes money doesn't mean it is good, it just means Americans spend money on dumb ****.


                Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                  It's "would have", and just because something makes money doesn't mean it is good, it just means Americans spend money on dumb ****.
                  It's not only Americans.
                  #Chop


                  sig by BoneKrusher

                  Comment


                  • Before we get too carried away with the "Yea, the story sucks, but..." talk, I call BS. It didnt suck. It was simple, yes. It's been seen before, yes. But that doesnt change the fact that its a good ******* story.

                    You can take whatever the **** story you want - if theres a good storyteller behind it, then it will be at least passable.

                    And as simple as the plot is on paper, that cant even begin to describe the storytelling that goes on, on the screen, while no one says a damn word. Is that storytelling driven by effects? Yes. But its just as good of a way to get a story over to the audience as witty dialogue or facial reactions from the best actors in the world.

                    Not all effects driven movies are the same. Comparing Transformers 2 to Avatar because they were both visually driven is like comparing Pulp to a guy who tries to imitate a Kevin Smith movie by using dialogue, but just churns out **** while doing it.

                    You realize how many "heir to the throne" and "destroy the evil artifact!" stories there had been by 2001 when the LOTR movies came out? Yet people who had never read the books were sucked into the story because it was told well. There was backlash to LOTR for the same reasons btw, everytime they came out. The SAME EXACT stuff. Effects driven drivel that wouldnt be nearly as loved if it didnt have giant flame monsters and trolls, exposing it for being the weak rubbish that it really is. Why do I remember that? Because I was the one that was defending it every day.
                    Last edited by comahan; 02-15-2010, 02:18 AM.




                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                      It's "would have", and just because something makes money doesn't mean it is good, it just means Americans spend money on dumb ****.
                      Completely unrelated to the argument, but if you completely take away the money it made domestically, then it still almost trumps Titanic for highest grossing film of all time at nearly 1.7 billion.




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by A Perfect Score View Post
                        No, because the "visual stimulation" in Transformers 2 wasn't any ******* good. It was noisy, crowded, ridiculous, confusing, and even the action sequences had plot holes (hello, giant sand sucking robot who sucks in cars but not people...) That two and a half hours of robot fighting was ******** cause no one knew who the **** was on which side. Also, Transformers heaven is one of the most god awful things I have ever witnessed on a screen of any kind. That ALONE means it should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Avatar.

                        Avatar was an effects driven film, so yes, its every bit as important as good acting or good story. Just because YOU PERSONALLY dont value effects as highly as you do acting or script doesnt mean they arent a crucial aspect of alot of films.



                        And you are suggesting that the effects arent as important as acting or script? I doubt Avatar would of made 2 billion dollars if the entire background was a green screen. Just sayin'...

                        Your argument is ridiculous. I didn't prove your point at all...because the acting and script in Avatar weren't horrendous, a la Transformers. They were a vehicle used to transport the audience into the EFFECTS DRIVEN world Cameron created. So dont do that ZOMGZ I won ********, because that "visual stimulation" I was talking about in Avatar doesn't exist with Transformers 2, or G.I Joe, or any of the other ****** movies that get torn up by me and everyone else on here.
                        So had Transformers 2 had the same visual effects that Avatar had, it would have been ok for the plot and acting to suck because the effects are ******* amazing? Or are you saying that since Avatar, had a plot that has been done multiple times, had decent acting, and fewer plot holes then that of Transformers 2 it makes it a a great movie? I am not saying that Transformers 2 was by any means good, it was honestly the worst thing I've seen this year. However, Transformers 2, as horrible as the plot and acting were, still served as a "vehicle" to drive along an "EFFECTS DRIVEN" plot, so I still dont see your point. Sure it was horrible, but horrible, and overly done cliche plots really arent anything to be basing your entire argument off of. If it's all about driving a movie forward to show off how much money a company can spend on effects, then they should just start making movies without professional actors, or directors, and just shooting a dog pissing on a tree. And stop with the exaggerated ZOMGS, and etc... I havent resorted to that just because I think your arguments are ridiculous either.


                        Originally posted by WMD
                        Jesse realizing Walt was Santa Claus could really shake things up.
                        Originally posted by gpngc
                        I don't know how old you are, but if you can get to 24/25 without getting arrested or killed, you've done well for yourself lol.

                        Comment


                        • Fair enough, everyone buys dumb ****.


                          Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                            Fair enough, everyone buys dumb ****.
                            Snuggies = best invention ever because they are now selling well


                            Originally posted by WMD
                            Jesse realizing Walt was Santa Claus could really shake things up.
                            Originally posted by gpngc
                            I don't know how old you are, but if you can get to 24/25 without getting arrested or killed, you've done well for yourself lol.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jvig43 View Post
                              So had Transformers 2 had the same visual effects that Avatar had, it would have been ok for the plot and acting to suck because the effects are ******* amazing? Or are you saying that since Avatar, had a plot that has been done multiple times, had decent acting, and fewer plot holes then that of Transformers 2 it makes it a a great movie? I am not saying that Transformers 2 was by any means good, it was honestly the worst thing I've seen this year. However, Transformers 2, as horrible as the plot and acting were, still served as a "vehicle" to drive along an "EFFECTS DRIVEN" plot, so I still dont see your point. Sure it was horrible, but horrible, and overly done cliche plots really arent anything to be basing your entire argument off of. If it's all about driving a movie forward to show off how much money a company can spend on effects, then they should just start making movies without professional actors, or directors, and just shooting a dog pissing on a tree. And stop with the exaggerated ZOMGS, and etc... I havent resorted to that just because I think your arguments are ridiculous either.
                              So wait...I can't base an anti-Transformers argument on its terrible cliched plot...isnt that exactly what your anti-Avatar argument is based on, its cliched plot and subpar acting?

                              And BF, the argument was much less about the money and more about the fact that special effects can be just as vital to a film as dialogue or acting. To think otherwise, especially when talking about a movie like Avatar thats 50% CGI, is stupid.
                              Originally posted by Mr. Goosemahn
                              The APS is strong in this one.
                              Originally posted by killxswitch
                              Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jvig43 View Post
                                So had Transformers 2 had the same visual effects that Avatar had, it would have been ok for the plot and acting to suck because the effects are ******* amazing? Or are you saying that since Avatar, had a plot that has been done multiple times, had decent acting, and fewer plot holes then that of Transformers 2 it makes it a a great movie? I am not saying that Transformers 2 was by any means good, it was honestly the worst thing I've seen this year. However, Transformers 2, as horrible as the plot and acting were, still served as a "vehicle" to drive along an "EFFECTS DRIVEN" plot, so I still dont see your point. Sure it was horrible, but horrible, and overly done cliche plots really arent anything to be basing your entire argument off of. If it's all about driving a movie forward to show off how much money a company can spend on effects, then they should just start making movies without professional actors, or directors, and just shooting a dog pissing on a tree. And stop with the exaggerated ZOMGS, and etc... I havent resorted to that just because I think your arguments are ridiculous either.
                                Again, theyre not the same at all. Cameron was telling a story with his effects, every scene was full of life while not being overly cluttered and ridiculous. Bay just blew stuff up and had pointless effect after pointless effect.

                                Disclaimer, since im sure youll point out again that everyone who likes Avatar is only of that opinion because theyre riding Cameron's dick; I dont like any of his movies except T2.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information