ChainsawAsh

Ziz said:

HotRod said:

I did like the wrapping up of the Scarecrow story tho. Surprised the actor playing him (sorry, forgot his name) agreed to such a small cameo.

 

Could have been cut in the editing room.  Might be a deleted/extended scene on the DVD.

What do you mean?  It was there.  It wasn't well done IMO, but it was in the movie.  (One of the few aspects of the film I had a problem with)

RE the Wampa scenes -

If the issue of the shoulder vs. elbow cut on the arm could be resolved, I'd suggest to remove all SE Wampa additions with the exception of the ONE shot post-amputation after Luke himself sees the creature.  That way you get a good look at the Wampa without ruining the suspense of the scene - we only see the Wampa in its full "glory" after Luke does.

I'm fine either way, just thought it'd be a compromise - but, again, this is your edit, Ady, and if you don't like it, it shouldn't be there.

How is "claymation" not animation?

So you're a Libertarian then (or at least have Libertarian philosophies), if you want to put a label on your beliefs (at least that's what the idea of libertarianism is, and what the Libertarian Party claims they stand for, but there's too much petty bullshit going on in that party [and all others] for me to affiliate myself with them).

Hey, whatever floats your boat, man.  See you later.

GhostAlpha -

You didn't like it.  We get it.  Fine.  Now do you really need to prove that you're right, or that your opinions are better than ours?  If you didn't like the movie that's fine, it wasn't your cup of tea, but do we all really need to get into these bullshit heated arguments over it because you're too bullheaded to give anyone else's opinion the time of day?

He *does* have tusks in the first Wampa shots, they're just covered by fur and snow - you can see them, but just barely.  I never understood why people thought it was something that needed to be fixed, personally.

Saying "anything not worked on by Bob Kane is EU" and that Kane approved the '89 film doesn't mean anything.  Comic books, just like TV shows, are never written by just one person.  Are you saying that every X-Files episoe not written by Chris Carter doesn't matter?  That every Lost episode not written by J.J. Abrams, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof doesn't matter?

Batman is what every author who has penned an in-canon Batman comic has made him.  Even Kane retconned several things he originally intended himself (Batman originally *was* willing to kill people, he even carried a gun on occasion).

You're absolutely right that there is no "definitive" Batman.  Everyone's Batman is shaped by what stories they choose to build his character from, and my "definitive" Batman is different from yours because I build my basis for comparison around different comics than you do.  So in my mind, no matter what, Batman killing anyone, including the Joker, is out of character (unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary where he has no other choice, or it was an unintended side-effect of something else i.e. Two-Face at the end.  I even had a problem with "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" in Batman Begins.) - even if Kane originally intended him to be willing to do so.

So, since there is no "definitive" batman, there really isn't any point in having this argument, since neither one of us is right or wrong - it's just different tastes.

Oh, and one other thing, out of curiosity - "Empire" wasn't written OR directed by Lucas, so, by your definition, would you consider "Empire" to be EU?

I consider myself to be a libertarian-minded Democrat, if that makes sense, but I'm not affiliated with any party.  That's as much as I feel like getting into my political beliefs here (no offense, I've just gotten into heated arguments over smaller things here and I don't want have to deal with this one).

Tiptup said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

We were discussing a movie, not peoples personal motives, you were the one who took the discussion out of context, I didnt make anything personal before you made a personal statement about me. Its rather illogical to expect to understand someones personal feelings and reasoning as to why they liked or disliked something when you dont even know that person. And you did assume, you made an assumtion as to why I diskliked the movie without knowing what you were talking about. That is out of line to start making personal statements about why someone acted the way they did without having any background on it. If your statements were to hold up then anyone could make any statement based on no actual knowledge of what they are speaking about. If you cant understand that you made a unfavorbale personal statement towards me, then its starting to make sense how you can ignore so many holes in this movie. And Ive mired this thread enough with an argument with someone who can not see reasoning with anything logical.

lol, you condemn a benign personal statement, falsely and directly accuse someone of absolutely "assuming things" and having poor "character," and yet, in the process, you're turning right around and doing all of those same things yourself. That's what you call being logical?

His perception of you as someone who isn't giving the movie a chance is a valid perception to mention in the context of this discussion. You're both talking about the flaws you mentioned and Ash doesn't think they were bad enough to actually ruin the movie as much as you think it does. He never claimed that his perception of you was the actual truth and he wasn't saying that in a way to attack you. He's simply trying to understand why you have such a strong opinion of it all (particularly in light of the fact that he defended his thoughts logically before that point). Your personal statements, on the other hand, are clearly hostile and designed to demean others (by comparison). Grow up.

(Yes I just said you're immature. Cry about it if you want.) :)

Thank you, Tiptup, that was much more articulate than any arguments I could have made.

No, I think as long as it's 1920x1080 you'll be fine - I'm pretty sure HD content uses square pixels.

He didn't want his family to be in danger while the Joker was still out there - he assumed that the Joker would hurt his family to get at him rather than just hurt him, so he faked his death until they caught the Joker.  (The irony, of course, being that Two-Face was the one that tried to hurt his family to get at him, not the Joker.)

skyjedi2005 said:

No matter what i like Wall-E better than that clone wars movie being promoted by Luca$hfilms and Pukas.

Well, that was necessary.

I'm not "denying the future," as you say, I'm just saying don't take exception to a movie just because it didn't advance things as much as you'd like.  There are plenty of great movies that didn't advance the technology used in them at all, and there are plenty of awful movies that had revolutionary techniques used in them.

And I highly disagree about the whole movie feeling artificial.  That's what I feel the major advancement was - pretty much the entire opening on Earth felt real to me (except the way the "digitized video" was done, as you put it), even to the point where once or twice I caught myself forgetting it was an animated movie.  Once they got on board the Axiom, things changed, but that's to be expected.

Now if the humans on board the Axiom had looked as photo-realistic as the Earth scenes, would you still say the same thing about it, or would that be enough of an advancement for you to be able to enjoy the movie? (Note that I'm not trying to be a smartass with this statement, I'm just curious if this whole thing really brought the movie down for you that much)

I really don't like the idea of 3D replacing 2D films.  I've yet to see a 3D anything that was more than a stupid gimmick.  And virtual reality?  Really?

These things don't come overnight.  There's no such thing as "revolutionary," the way you want to see it - everything that advances anything is "evolutionary," and yes, that includes the "revolutionary" concept of Toy Story being the first feature-length 3D-animated film.  It wasn't revolutionary at all, it just took things Pixar had been doing for years and made it an hour and a half long.  Why did it suceed?  The story was good, too.

If you're sick of "more boring 2d processes" when they're just coming into their own in the past two decades is like being sick of sound films after 1940.  "Okay, sound is boring, now what can we do?"  Let it mature before you consider it "boring."  There were hand-drawn animated movies for seventy years before anything close to a computer-animated movie was around, and you already expect the same drastic step away from computer-animated movies after less than twenty?  Really?

WALL-E actually made me forget I wasn't watching a live-action movie a few times, and *that* is something I consider revolutionary.  If that's not enough of an advance for you, fine, but these fantasies of "real advances" in 3D coming about anytime soon, and especially of anything coming of virtual reality in the next 20 years, are all ludicrous.

Now when you can strap me into something that will actually make me believe I'm having sex with Heather Graham, then we can talk.

Alright, this is going nowhere, and I'm not going to waste my time trading personal attacks back and forth with you.  I disagree with you, and you disagree with me.  Let's just leave it at that.

GhostAlpha26 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I don't think I've read a single "Batman" comic where Batman *didn't* save the Joker when he was about to die.  That's completely in character for Batman - it was Burton's version that was out of character for him.

 

Those were the two that jumped out at me, but it really seems to me like you really didn't want to like the movie to begin with and you're just trying to nitpick it to death.

 

In this movie, I feel it would have worked well though, especially since Ledger can no longer be cast.

Excuse me if  I get a bit defensive, but I was absolutly amped for this movie to come out. I really enjoyed Batman Begins as I have stated before. I watched the trailers, and all the short clips, I scoured the net for the "The first 6 minutes," I watched the HBO special which I had not done for a movie in several years, I thought the movie was going to be amazing and I was there for the midnight showing. Then after not enjoying it I gave it another go and watched it a second time and came to the same conclusion. So to start going after me personally like that I find to be out of line. Really showed your character there, I didnt come on here and just say it sucked this movie blows, I attempted to explain why I didnt like it. But you just wanted to assume for yourself, do yourself a favor and think with your head next time you make a statement about someone.

I think you're a bit out of line here - I wasn't making a personal attack, I'm just trying to understand your complaints about the movie.  If you didn't like it, that's fine, more power to you.  But I just can't understand how the things you listed really hurt the movie that much for you, but they obviously did, so I'm sorry if I offended you.  But to say I'm "showing my character" by "assuming" things for myself and not "thinking with my head" is much more out of line than me thinking you're being too nitpicky with the movie.  Try not to take things so personally.

I think that was on the shrink wrap on the outside, so it wouldn't be on the physical sleeve itself.

Agreed.  I hate lines like that in movies - the ending of "Batman Begins" was full of them (yes, we KNOW the water mains across the city will blow if the train reaches Wayne Tower ... now why do you have to cut back to the guy saying the same thing 4 different ways?), and while that particular Threepio line never bothered me, now I know it will every time I watch it.

--Batman saving The Joker.--

I don't think I've read a single "Batman" comic where Batman *didn't* save the Joker when he was about to die.  That's completely in character for Batman - it was Burton's version that was out of character for him.

--The Joker making a deal with the mob to get their money when he cares about nothing.--

He just wanted them under his thumb.  He didn't care about the money, and if he did, it was just to see their faces when he burned "his half."

Those were the two that jumped out at me, but it really seems to me like you really didn't want to like the movie to begin with and you're just trying to nitpick it to death.

The 1993 and 1995 laserdiscs used the same masters that the 1995 VHS tapes did, and as such were better quality than the VHS tapes were, being laserdiscs and all.

What I mean is, the idea that the original Cylons were "skinjobs" of a sort doesn't gel with current Galactica mythology, so unless there's something that changes this (and a few other things) by the end of the season, I'm not terribly interested in "Caprica."

I'm not impressed, intrigued, or hopeful after seeing that trailer.  Unless something really big happens in the next 10 episodes of BSG that make some of the outlandish things in that trailer make sense, I couldn't care less about this.

Nonetheless, I'll give it a shot.  I thought the same thing about BSG before the miniseries aired ... then I watched it.  And I'm still watching it.  And I'll be upset when the last episode finishes.  But nothing's gotten me excited about "Caprica," which sucks because I'd like something to fill that void when BSG is gone.

Wow - I disagree with all 10 of those (except #5, which I can't really argue since, well, it's a fact, but the fact that it happened didn't bother me at all).  I don't know what people expected out of this movie, but it seems like all the people that disliked it wanted something smack in the middle of the Schumacher style and the Nolan style of Batman movies.

Wait ... you thought "Meet the Spartans" looked good from the trailer?