Sign In

Jaster Mareel

User Group
Members
Join date
13-Sep-2004
Last activity
5-Dec-2006
Posts
387

Post History

Post
#224779
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean Two
Time
Man, Doom wasn't even decent. It was pretty much the epitome of a bad film, to be honest. Like, the single redeeming factor about the movie was Clint Mansell as the composer. Coincidentally, Mansell also composed for Sahara.

Anyway. As far as Pirates go, I thought the first one was average. Like, it wasn't bad, but at the same time I didn't see anything special about it. So, I'm pretty much indifferent towards the sequels. I'm sure I'll see them at some point, but I'm in no hurry to.
Post
#223472
Topic
original>lotr<trilogy.com petition?
Time
Originally posted by: Ingo Sucks
When does it come out?

Three “Lord of the Rings: Limited Edition” sets, one for each movie, will roll out Aug. 29 (prebook July 25) at $28.98 each. Each two-disc set will include both the original theatrical and the extended version of the film, along with Costa Botes’ feature-length documentary on each film’s creation.
Post
#222801
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Yeah, but I don't remember George Lucas ever starring in stupid self-agrandizing credit card commercials.

You've gotta be kidding me. Several celebrities have appeared in American Express ads (in fact, they're famous for it). But because he's in one it's all of a sudden self-agrandizing? Wes Anderson starred in and directed an American Express ad as well, and it doesn't mean he's SPOILED or SELFISH or whatever the hell it is you guys are trying to accuse M. Night of being, it just means HEY IT'S A BUSISNESS THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THESE GUYS DO FOR A LIVING.

Also, I've searched all around and I can't find anything that says M. Night WROTE the commercial, he just directed and appeared in it. For all we know, it might have been written by someone else. Besides, he was ASKED to direct the commercial. It's not like he DEMANDED to be able to direct a commercial. I don't even know what you were trying to prove by this post, other than "HE'S USED HIS NAME TO SELL THINGS" which is true for, like, almost all famous people ever (including Lucas).

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Yeah but I mean, what director dosen't do what he does? Spielberg does, Hitchcock did, he did self promotion constantly, had his names sustain his films (see the movies after "Birds" and you'll see what I mean), bashed actors and he was a genre director. Orson Welles did that. Tim Burton. And take no talent hacks such as Uwe Boll and McG for instance... Or George Lucas for Christ's sake! I just think you are seriously overreacting about that M Night subject in a way I don't understand...

I completely agree.

Originally posted by: zombie84
This is the most digusting, ball-less, self-serving, cry-baby-ish display i have ever seen from a director.

Hello Tony Kaye, Sam Mendes and Quentin Tarantino! Or what about Elia Kazan? He "named names" and got people BLACK LISTED because he didn't like how they would alter his work. Seriously, several directors are very defensive of their work and don't take constructive criticism well. Sure, there are a lot who are fine with constructive criticism, but the fact remains that M. Night is not the only director who's ever complained about critisism, and he's hardly the worst.
Post
#221543
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi

As much as I like M. Knight's films, I will say that it's kinda...i dunno...disappointing to know that I have to wait until the end of the film for everything to click into place (assuming I haven't figured it out already). Not that I don't like his twists, but the wait for the twist has become predictable, if that makes any sense.
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I completely agree. My point was simply that once a filmmaker has found a formula that works, they continue to use it, and it's almost never as good the second time as it was the first. That was what I meant by that statement.

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi

One of the reasons I really liked The Village was that there was so much going on in terms of character development and cinematography, that I was distracted from the "how is this going to end" mindset. I'm also a big fan of all the main characters in that film, so that certainly helped.

I agree with this too. The characters and cinematography and strong underlining messages all put his movies above the average mainstream American movie. This isn't even looking at it from a subjective view point, it's from an academic view point. Regardless of if you were entertained by his movies (I personally didn't enjoy Signs or The Village), they're still better than most the other crap put out there by Hollywood.
Post
#221511
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Hey greencapt, I'm not sure if it was a typo or what, but his name is actually M. Night Shyamalan, not M. Night Ramalamadingdong. I just thought I'd let you know, since you seemed a bit confused.

Also:
one-trick-pony filmmaker
You do realize that this pretty much describes, like, 90% of all filmmakers ever. There's a reason why people say every artist has only one masterpiece.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not really a Shyamalan fan. I just think you're ridiculously overreacting. Like others in the thread have said, there are SEVERAL directors out there who are far worse than Shyamalan. Like, at the very least, Shyamalan's stuff stands above the average ROMANTIC COMEDY or VIN DIESEL ACTION MOVIE or something else equally as stupid. Most his stuff is, regardless of whether or not you liked it, above average. I don't even see how someone could argue that they're not.

M. Night, prior to his last film, had a 'controversial' documentary(fake) made about himself to be aired on SciFi networkwhich served to take the spotlight away from the film itself. And now just prior to his NEXT film we have to hear about his 'woe is me' life in Hollywood...

I doubt that the documentary and book are meant to take the spotlight away from the film. I actually get quite a different impression. They're meant to make more people interested in the film. They're publicity stunts.

it IS a business after all
Post
#219034
Topic
God is Blizzard.
Time
Nobody is arguing that it's possible to disprove God, Shim. In fact, everyone agrees that it isn't. The only thing I'm saying is that nobody needs to disprove God, so the whole argument is irrelevant in the first place.

-edit-
Also,
it might actually be more harmful to organised religion then helpful.
I don't agree with this at all. If, say tomorrow, somebody (for the sake of argument) proved that God really does, without doubt, exist. I think everyone would immediately run out and join a church or something. Like, the fear of a real hell would bring everyone to religion. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but all churches would definitely see large surges in funds and other stuff like that.

-edit again-

One last thing:
i personally beleive that mans worst invention was organised religion.

I don't know, man. I think nuclear missles or guns or something would be way up above organized religion. Like, at least organized religion has given some people hope of an afterlife, and an overall more optimistic view on life. Not to mention all the missionary services that have distributed food and built houses for thousands (probably millions, actually) of people.
Post
#219026
Topic
God is Blizzard.
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
But burden of proof or not, the point still stands. A human being cannot disprove the existence of a Creator.

Obviously not, but like I said, anyone who doesn't believe in God doesn't have to worry about disproving him. So it's a useless statement. Like, the point is correct, but the point is also irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter whether it's correct or not.
Post
#219019
Topic
God is Blizzard.
Time
The first one is a correct analogy in the sense that science can't prove if God does or doesn't exist, but at the same time it's completely inane because the burden of proof doesn't rest on scientists who don't believe in God, but on the believers who proclaimed his existence in the first place.

For example, I don't believe in magical mole men who live at the center of the earth and feed on human children; but that doesn't mean I have to prove they don't exist. But, if someone were to claim they saw magical mole men, and started to tell the press, then they would be expected to provide proof of their claim.

All in all, I guess it's a funny analogy, but pointless.

And the second one just wasn't funny. =\
Post
#214997
Topic
Who Would Win?
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Perhaps Superman is not who he claims he is, an alien brought to Earth by a grumpy neon-colored Marlon Brando. Maybe he knows how to manipulate the Matrix...


I guess, since he's an alien, he might be able to manipulate the matrix the way Neo does. But really, it's just speculation. There's no telling how an alien brain would be able to handle the matrix, or how the matrix would be able to handle an alien brain.

But, based on the info we DO have, Neo would be able to rip him apart.

Of course, if it took place in the real world, things would be much different and Neo wouldn't even stand a chance.
Post
#214986
Topic
Who Would Win?
Time
Originally posted by: ricardo
hopefully this gets caught before a reply is posted. Superman vs. Neo. set in the matrix.

Assuming Superman is actually part of the matrix, all Neo has to do is realise that his powers aren't real ("there is no spoon") and then Neo could do whatever he wants to him.

But, if Superman is a human who's been plugged into and is aware of the matrix, like Neo, he'd still lose. There is only one "one", so superman would have all his powers toned down in the matrix, and wouldn't be able to keep up with Neo. He'd probably have equal powers to, like, Morpheus or Trinity. Because even if he has super powers in the real world, he wouldn't be able to manipulate the matrix as well as Neo in order to use them.
Post
#214932
Topic
Who Would Win?
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Charles Manson has an advantage because he is real.


Not to mention Manson had/has a cult fallowing. All he would have to do is sic his menions on Hannibal. To my knowledge, Hannibal worked alone. So, yeah. When you're up against 10+ people, the ability to EAT HUMAN FLESH isn't gonna mean anything.
Post
#214309
Topic
X-MEN 3 PSYCHO REVIEW
Time
I just saw it. I didn't care for it that much. I don't really know why. Like, I can't point out anything that was wrong with it. But through almost the entire movie, I was more interested in getting home and playing video games. It bored me, honestly. There were a few parts where I thought they had some cool ideas, but overall, I was just looking forward to getting out of the theater.

It's really weird, because, unlike other movies that bored me, I don't really know if there was anything TERRIBLY WRONG with this one. It seemed like they handled everything pretty well, and there's nothing really to complain about. So, even though it didn't grab my attention, I'm sure most people will probably enjoy it.
Post
#211378
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Man, this whole topic is ridiculous. Nobody makes a WII HATING THREAD or a X-BOX HATING THREAD. Seriously, what is with people and this stupid "LOL MY CONSOLE IS BETTER THAN YOUR'S" mentality? The bottom line is it's all purely subjective, so it's stupid to argue over it, and it's even dumber to just PICK FIGHTS about it. Like, nobody was even going around saying "i like the ps3" BUT NO WE NEED A TOPIC ABOUT HOW MUCH WE HATE IT BECAUSE GRR 70 BUCKS WHAT THE HELL?! I mean, it's basically the same as going around saying "my religion is better than your's!"

Originally posted by: sean wookie
I heard today that the PS3 games will be 69.99$
When the PS2 came out, games were 60 bucks. 70 is only 10 dollars higher. Besides, after it's out for a few months, they'll start getting a greatest hits list and games will go down.

Originally posted by: Switch Radic
70 bucks for a stinkin' game!! they are going to lose big time this round!
See, this is what bugs me. Can't people just PLAY THE GAMES instead of worrying about WHO'S BETTER?

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Who here will actually buy one?

Me. I'm not going to be picking it up when it first comes out, because $600 is ridiculous, no matter how you look at it. But I definitely plan on getting one, simply because I prefer the game catalog. Oh wait, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was I HATE YOUR STUPID WII GRRR COMPETITION COMPETITION COMPETITION!

Originally posted by: zombie84
arent games usually highly priced when they are first released?

Yes, obviously.

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Besides from seeing 100$ N64 games no.

This is the second time you've done this, so I think it's safe to assume it wasn't a typo, but the dollar sign goes before the number. Also, I guess it depends on your definition of high priced, but the games for the Game Cube, PS2 and X-Box were all around 50-60 when they first came out. So, uh... yeah, 70 is such a huge difference.
Post
#207428
Topic
Funky Godfather Trailer
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Good job. You make it look like a unintelligent action movie.

...Aren't you the same guy who told me I would never understand what made Advent Children such a good film?

Also, yeah, good job with the trailer. The sound seemed a little awkward in a few places, but it definitely came across the way you wanted it to.
Post
#201047
Topic
New PSP to offer touch screen
Time
Now, seems to me most of you are not bothered by the PSi (the new PSP) featuring a touch screen, even though I've heard AGAIN and AGAIN from PSP owners and Sony-lovers how the touch screen is "dumb". What next? Two screens?

Man, who cares? It's all stupid politics. As long as you're getting to play the video games you want to be playing, who cares how or why they got to you? Seriously, the only reason I pick Sony over Nintendo is because the PS has more RPGs. Besides that, I don't see much of a difference.

Besides, can you really blame Sony for wanting to make money? That's the whole reason big corporations exist. To make money. The DS is selling better than the PSP, so what do you expect Sony to do? Sit on their hands and say "we can't be copy cats!"? No, of course not. Obviously they're going to go where the money's at. That doesn't mean they're FIGHTING DIRTY, it just means they're good businessmen.
Post
#197378
Topic
Kingdom Hearts 2
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
By saying it's nothing amazing, are you comparing it to the first Kingdom Hearts, or do you not find the series in general anything special?

I'm saying that it doesn't have a very good story or any real emotional involvement. If you're looking for something thought provoking or powerful, this really isn't the game for you. But if you're just looking for an entertaining game to burn a few hours on, this one's pretty fun. This is how I felt about the first one as well.

I read a review that said it sucks compared to the original, in that the oversimplified combat system ruins everything...


If you liked the original, I see absolutely no reason why you wouldn't like this one. It's basically the same game, just with a new paint job.

Also, it sounds like that review sucked. The battle system is basically the only good thing about the game. Like sean wookie said, the cut scenes are pretty long and drawn out, and the story is pretty slow and corny. The characters are just there to make you say "oh, cool, it's [insert disney or FF character]" and you have no real attachment to them at all.

There's really not much reason to play the game except for the combat and the puzzles. Oh, and if you're a big graphics buff, then obviously (it's Square-Enix) the graphics are top notch. But yeah, story has never been KH's strong suit.
Post
#197279
Topic
Kingdom Hearts 2
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Wait, it's out? When was it released? I totally missed the boat on this!


It was released, like, 4 days ago.

I got it yesterday, and I've already racked up almost 9 hours of game play (as if that's something to brag about). It's pretty fun so far. I'm enjoying it. I mean, it's obviously nothing AMAZING, but for what it is, it's pretty entertaining.
Post
#196772
Topic
Snakes on a Plane
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Jaster, I think you are mistaken. I too thought that Snakes On A Plane was intentionally bad, but now I don't think so. I think it's just bad, but people online have seen how bad it is, and turned it on it's head in a 'so bad it's good' way. But I don't believe it was the original intention. I think Samuel L is very lucky that people online are treating his steaming turd of a movie the way they are, because now he will have a hit instead of a turkey.


Samuel L Jackson said in an interview that the only reason he took the job was because of the name. They were planning on changing the name, but Jackson wouldn't let them. I think it's obvious he knows what he's doing. Seriously, they even implemented the "motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane" line into the movie. How can the writers not be in on the joke? Did you watch the trailer? It had a clip of Jackson using a snake as a WHIP. If you honestly think that Samuel and the writers and the director don't know what they're doing, then you're seriously underestimating them.

Besides, even if the entire crew IS taking this film seriously, the audience still isn't going too. Even in the slim chance that they actually think they're making an AMAZING, THOUGHT PROVOKING MOVIE, that still doesn't change the fact that it's so terrible it's bad. In fact, it'd probably only make it funnier, seeing Jackson do interviews talking about how he thinks the movie has reached out and made a huge impact on several people.