DuracellEnergizer

^The only possible answer to your inquiry is this:

WedgeCyan said:

I don't care if no one reads this or if it gets buried I just need to vent.

My friend is a fucking idiot. I've mentioned him before on another thread, TPM is his favorite Star Wars movie, followed by AOTC. But that's surprisingly little of what pisses me off about him, the others which shall now be laid out for your reading discomfort.

1. He has an unwavering acceptance of all secondary material to any franchise (SW, Indy, JAWS for fuck's sake.) His ultimate wet dream is that every movie gets at least two sequels. I can't have a simple conversation with him about any movie without him bringing in every sequel and spin-off and novelization of it. For example: Aladdin. It's a classic kid's movie from the early 90s, right? Nope, apparently there were two shitty direct to video sequels and a whole fucking cartoon tv show, and I'm supposed to incorporate all of those into discussion of a goddamn kid's movie? It's not Star Trek for crying out loud! And what about Jaws, one of the greatest movies ever? It's got three dreadful sequels and it's based on a book or some shit. Who cares? I mentioned that the prequels give him a ghost wank but you know the reason? He liked the video game versions of them. What a shitty, shitty, shitty criteria to like a movie, example: E.T. (The video game adaptation for the Atari was so tragic they literally built a mass grave for all the returned copies.)

2. Movies must obey blindly all rules set forth by their original source material. This is often a moderately understandable point, usually revolving around small details of a book he liked that were slightly changed for their film adaptations (Harry Potter.) However, one thing just pisses me off beyond understanding. We were watching one of the Dark Knight films and he proclaimed at one point: "Ah, no. That's not what happened." I turned to him, utterly confused. "What? I know it didn't happen, it's fucking fictional." "Yeah, but in the comics..." I ignored the rest of the sentence. He's so dense about the notion of film adaptations and the essence of fiction being fictional that he has to point out anytime anything changed at all. I get the notion of die-hard comic book fans, but seriously? It's not exactly the same story as you're used to, so it's dumb and shit. He despised Iron Man 3 because of the whole Mandarin thing, and his delicious fanboy aneurysm made me enjoy the movie even more because of how much he hated the idea that a movie did something different in an interesting way. An interesting thing about this is that he doesn't just view original source material as superior, it's that he views ALL print material as superior. This was most evident when we watched Revenge of the Sith a few months ago. (I know it's controversial, but until watching it with him, I didn't mind it all that much.) Guess how long it took for him to mention a Star Wars novel? About 15 minutes. As soon as Dooku and Anakin trade words, guess what? Apparently they fought very recently in some book-prequel of ROTS. I let that one go, as I though it would be the only mention of the Expanded Universe. How wrong I was. At the point when Grievous talks to Sidious, he said, as he does: "Haha, no, that's not how it happened." I literally had to pause the freaking movie so as not to be overwhelmed with bullshit from both angles. "What now?" "He's not supposed to look at Palpatine in the eyes, it says in the book." "Book? You know we're watching a movie right? And that the movie isn't based on the book?" "I know, I just think it's funny that he does it even though he's not supposed to." "Maybe in the book, but that doesn't matter to the movie at all because the movie is the authority." He didn't speak for the rest of the evening. I practically jumped for joy at the prospect of seeing his face when he found out the EU was eliminated, even though I could care less if it was there or not, I'd ignore it anyway.

3. He thinks movies should be measured by the amount of money they made, otherwise known as the ever idiotic "vote with your wallet" mantra. We were discussing movies because he doesn't know anything about anything else, and he decided it pertinent to run down a list of the 50 highest grossing movies on his phone to see how many I'd seen. I'd seen 38, a higher number than I'd be proud of, noting how many shitty movies were on that list. He'd seen every single damn one of them, and was proud of it. He loved Spiderman 3. Enough said.

4. He thinks critics aren't worth shit, or are worth literal shit and the opposite of everything they say should be obeyed. This is a mockup of what I think his top 5 movies would consist of based on how many times he's mentioned every one of them.

  1. Jumper

  2. Spiderman 2

  3. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

  4. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

  5. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I guess in conclusion, what pisses me off about him is that he both knows too much about the wrong kind of movies (Prince of Persia, Transformers, Bad Boys II, etc.) and nothing about any classic movies (Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, The Deer Hunter, etc.) yet decides he is highly qualified to speak on the topic of movies and as if he is actually very knowledgeable about film as an art form.

Based on how unrealistic your "friend" sounds, I'd think you were making him up; that you have no real reason to lie is the only reason I believe you're being serious.

Is it weird to like only the first Highlander film?*

*Rhetorical question, of course.

I made Tatooine pink and Hoth blue. Other than that, though, nothing much has changed since you were here last.

Double-bladed lightsabers with two different coloured blades. It looks stupid in fan art, it would look worse in a live-action motion picture.

Suburban Beat (1985)

For something starring both Dee Wallace and the Thespian Goddess Extraordinaire Heather, this was rather lame and boring.

It isn't dramatic enough to count as a full drama and not comedic enough to count as a full comedy, so it just falls completely flat as both. Also, there are just too many characters running around, most of whom are dull as dishwater (Heather's meticulously developed and executed character, of course, being the only real exception.).

If only this had been written as a Twin Peaks episode* ...

6/10

*No, I don't understand what the hell this has to do with anything, either. Perhaps I just want to see Heather in a Lynch production.

Thanks to The Simpsons, I say "burlap" almost everytime I burp.

Frankly, I only like the first part of the duel when Qui-Gon is involved. Once it's down to Obi-Wan and Maul, it becomes too frenetic and flashy.

The cave scene on Dagobah is made faster and more intense, with extra CGI footage of Luke and Vader bouncing around the cave walls swinging their lightsabers around inserted.

"Don't Stand So Close to Me '86" (Dance Mix) by The Police.

Artists are the greatest theologians.

SilverWook said:

I never noticed before how Jimmy Smits is really tall in that shot. (And he apparently doesn't cast a reflection on Threepio.) Or is Anthony Daniels really short?

Both, from certain points of view. ;-P 

If I were in your shoes, I'd probably go into full revenge mode. Nothing violent or destructive, mind you -- I'd just follow every dog in the neighbourhood around until I had enough shit to fill the back of a pickup truck. Then I'd let it go rancid for a bit under a hot sun -- taking time to make sure a lot of maggots hatch in it -- and then I'd pelt all four sides of her house a solid brown.

I'm currently reading The Man in the High Castle, the alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick which explores a world where the Axis won World War II and America got divided up between Nazi Germany and Japan. As is par for the course with PKD, I'm enjoying the novel.

As an aside, I'd just like to mention that one thing about TMITHC in particular has me amused. One of the main characters of the book is named Frank Frink, who used to be Frank Fink before he changed his last name to hide his Jewish identity.

And to think that people actually believe Dick's claim to be in communion with a higher power was just the result of drugs and mental illness. ;-)

Prelude to Axanar (2014)

It's funny how a short, low budget, documentary-styled, short fan-film can turn out to be a far better ST film that any of the officially-made, big budget, feature-length movies released since Star Trek VI.

Suffice it to say, I definately want to see the film this leads into.

9/10

Superman: Doomsday (2007)

As an adaptation of the Death of Superman storyline, I felt this movie fell pretty flat. I also wasn't fond of some of the voice acting and character design. I did, however, like how the movie explored the idea of Superman being replaced by a clone who wasn't tempered by his moral codes and ethics. Had the shoehorned Doomsday stuff been left out, this could have been one of the best Superman stories ever.

7.3/10

Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths (2010) - 7/10

SilverWook said:

Loving Star Wars probably isn't mandatory to work at Lucasfilm anyway. ;)

A lot of the time it feels like it's the complete opposite. 

DrCrowTStarwars said:

I love all these ideas!  make comics fun and dramatic while making them for kids again.

Oh and while dealing with marvel would you please undo One More day and bring back Spider-Girl,I really like her and can't stand that she was wiped from the time line.

I assume you're talking about the May "Mayday" Parker Spider-Girl, right? If so, then she wasn't actually wiped from existence 'cause she exists on another Earth seperate from the main Marvel Universe. She, her family, and her friends continue to exist as they are unaffected by the stupid "One More Day" fiasco

http://marvel.wikia.com/Earth-982

But yeah, I'd preserve the Peter/Mary Jane marriage and have their daughter live to become Spider-Girl in the future. I'd also completely re-do the Clone Saga to get rid of all the extraneous Jackal/Traveller/Spider-Skeleton/Norman Osborn junk and give Ben Reilly a more dignified send-off.

Handman said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Let's say you were asked to come up with an idea and setting for a twenty odd episode per season new series of Star Trek to be aired in 2016. What would you characters,setting,and story be.  it can be anything as long as it would work in the Tv and not movie format.

I'd simply go with a reboot of TOS that remains faithful to the spirit of original Trek while also embracing modern storytelling and character development.

 So, like Star Trek Continues? Or like a TV version of the new movie crew?

It wouldn't be a prequel/midquel/sequel to TOS or a spinoff of Abramstrek. It would be a plain, straightforward retelling of the original five-year mission from beginning to end -- a serialized TOS with a modern facelift, so to speak.

If I was placed in charge of DC and Marvel Comics, these are the changes I would implement throughout both companies.

REBOOT THE ENTIRE LINE OF COMICS

All storylines currently in progress would be wrapped up, the worst-selling/extraneous titles would be cancelled, and the best-selling figurehead titles would receive complete and total reboots, starting over with brand new issue #1s. The slate would be wiped completely clean; there would be absolutely no "have my cake and eat it too"-styled reboots ala Crisis on Infinite Earths or Nu52.

THE CHARACTERS WOULD AGE AND EVOLVE IN REAL TIME

No more compressing decades worth of storylines, sliding the timeline, or utilizing cosmic resets to preserve the status quo and keep the characters static while the world(s) around them changes. One year of storylines in the real world would approximate one year of events in-universe -- no exceptions. As the readers age, start careers, get married, have children, and eventually die, so to will the characters in the books (The mortal ones with average human lifespans, anyway.).

LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TITLES FOR ANY SPECIFIC SUPERHERO

So that means Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, etc. only get one or two titles each; no more three-five-seven-nine+ titles for anyone.

NO MORE SHARED UNIVERSE(S)

Basically, each superhero would exist in his/her title as if s/he was the only superhero in existence; allusions to other superheroes in other titles would be done in only the vaguest of ways, and guest appearances/crossovers would be rare and more-or-less considered out of continuity.

ALL MAIN TITLES WOULD BE WRITTEN FOR AN ALL-AGES AUDIENCE

Brutal violence, gore, sex, and profanity would no longer be allowed. All primary superhero titles would be written so as to appeal to adults and children both. All the R-and-X-rated stuff is to be reserved for miniseries published outside of the main titles.

NO MORE "WRITING FOR THE TRADE"

Character and story arcs can go on indefinately, but specific storylines must be resolved within one-to-four issues; no more decompression.

CROSSOVER EVENTS WOULD BE RARE

There would be no more of this annual "events that shake the world/galaxy/universe/multiverse" crap. Events would be very rare events --one every seven-to-ten years or so. Furthermore, events would be written so as to be standalone miniseries; there would be no tie-in miniseries/storylines or interference with the main titles. 

IF A MAJOR/SUPPORTING CHARACTER IS TO DIE, IT MUST BE WITH DIGNITY

Deaths likes this one

are all well and good when used sparingly, but deaths like this one

are completely unacceptable and absolutely anathema.

NO OVERPOWERING CHARACTERS

Characters must have limitations so that they can be reasonably challenged. In other words, Superman can't move planets or travel at/past the speed of light, Wolverine can't regenerate from atomic explosions, Batman can't beat everyone with enough prep time, etc.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Let's say you were asked to come up with an idea and setting for a twenty odd episode per season new series of Star Trek to be aired in 2016. What would you characters,setting,and story be.  it can be anything as long as it would work in the Tv and not movie format.

I'd simply go with a reboot of TOS that remains faithful to the spirit of original Trek while also embracing modern storytelling and character development.

Why do people always talk about things I will never have?

^Visiting that universe is a scary prospect.

doubleofive said:

It will be fascinating to see how the characters evolve as Rebels progresses. Especially in light of what is revealed in the book, that the Jedi ban on romantic relationships is not part of the Jedi Code but an addition to their rules for life later.

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly that line means. Is the reviewer trying to say that the "no attachments" rule is something that wasn't originally part of the Jedi Code but became dogma years/centuries/millennia later?

And a mango, just in case anyone gets hungry.

SilverWook said:

I've got two questions in regard to this ad:

1. Is his lightsaber white or a very pale blue?

2. Why do I care about something so trivial?