This user has been banned.
Alexrd said:
theprequelsrule said:
He was not able to achieve this in the prequels.
To each his own.
The prequels weren't as much tacky (save for some cases of childish humor or sappiness) as they were artificial and boring.
The dialogues at their worst weren't campy and naive, they were fake and dreadful.
Really??
The menus were quite neat and creative, but seriously, they looked 5 times more fake than the worst cases of CG in EpII.
Which is alright for a menu, but come on, look at Obi-wan fighting Jango in the language selection, then compare it to the scene... really?
Bingowings said:
But who's going to run it kid...you?
What, nah, I'm not gonna run a bunch of dark people with turbans growing out of their heads, are you kidding me?
Bingowings said:
twooffour said:
Well that was pathetic.
...and your bum is too big :P
Btw, I'd like to apologize to you for something I may have said earlier - I've just looked up, and Islam is a race after all.
TV's Frink said:
I don't give a shit about the article. I was never even talking about it. And that's my point.
Ok, eat a banana or something. I've tried it out, and it's yummy. You're done.
TV's Frink said:
I'm still waiting for quotes that show what I supposedly said...
/double facepalm
Sorry, this is too much stupidity. Too much thickness. It's painful.
Mission aborted, I didn't read the article and you are all right. You were always right. Don't worry when your sunglasses start glowing, that's just the overwhelming cognitive ability shining out.
"Oh the article never mentions a paper, and paper and article sound so confusing, ahh, my brain, but please don't call me a clown for that... you're stupid"
/facepalm
Well that was pathetic.
The psychologists end the paper (forthcoming in Psychological Science) by wondering if the pleasure of spoiled surprises might extend beyond fiction
There is no need for that at all. It's childish. It's idiotic.
twooffour, all I did in the Spoiler thread was agree that it is best to ignore you and then took a (deserved) shot at your attitude. If you can find a quote from me in that thread that shows I said you were derailing the thread, post it. Otherwise, stop putting words in my mouth.
Also, someone as "intelligent" as you should know that the term "ignore" doesn't have to refer to the forum ignore function.
But that doesn't mean that there haven't been issues in my family that would cause me to be offended by your using Asperger's as an insult.
You think you know everything but sometimes you don't know shit.
I go back to trying to ignore all your bullshit.
Well seeing Palpy's face is a bit of a priority isn't it :D
RedFive said:
I know it's really, really frustrating, and I myself am having a helluva time not pointing out his awfulness and arguing my points against him, but just ignore him, Frink! Otherwise it'll never end!
And I don't want to have to stab you with an ice pick!!!!
RedFive still can't admit his mistake in the other thread, and wants to play pretend instead.
Whom is he trying to fool here?
This is so sad and pathetic, it's hard to put in words.
In case anyone is rolling their eyes at the derailment of this thread - you can blame these two jokers for that, and the evidence is in the thread history.
1) Read the other thread again. Where did I complain about you derailing the thread? Quote me.
RedFive claimed that and suggested it would be best to "ignore" me, and you supported him and joined in.
While it was obvious to anyone with half a brain who actually started the derailment.
Whether you deemed it necessary to repeat what he said, like "oh yea, he's derailing this thread, just for the record I've said that, too" honestly doesn't matter, and hiding behind that is yet another case of your dishonesty and hypocrisy.
2) Where did I claim I have disorders that are the cause of my behavior? Again, quote me.
Well then why were you offended by an (innocent) mention of Aspeger's earlier on, claiming to have some kind of baggage in the area?
At any rate, this was just a jab. You're obviously just being thick, but hey, thanks for confirming it.
And where's your "ignore" function now, hm? :p
I've said it earlier, and I'm saying it now. Quit jumping into threads and trolling my posts.
Not so much because it annoys me, or aggravates me, and is basically a form of harassment (while arguing with someone's opinion on a discussion forum is not), but because it turns you into a self-righteos, disingenuous laughing stock with no leg to stand on writing about "sensible posting", starting polls on "who's the problem", or complaining in any way about someone's argumentative behavior.
Wherever I may have overdone it by being too assertive or pompous in some debate, you're DOING IT WORSE.
And a bit of self-relection never harmed anyone.
It's a rather cute spectacle when someone who's apparently around his 50s or 60s (certainly a grown man) behaves like an immature kid from the schoolyard not for the lulz, but because he can't do any better (and doesn't even realize it).
Just on the other thread, you were complaining about me "derailing" that thread, even though RedFive and you started derailing it in the occasion.
Now, minutes later, here you are, derailing THIS thread with your childish personal bullshit - like you did so many times before, and I maybe once or twice (if at all).
"Oh, he said something, I should tease him".
Should I blame your alledged "disorders" for this bullshit, or are you just being incredibly thick?
Oh, sure, Ledger was chewing the scenery, every single second. It's the way he did it, and (imo) made it believable (the character is a freak who enjoys quirky theatralics just for the sake of it, even when no one's watching), that people love.
Having that said, I did find all the "best villain evah" exclamations pretty fucking ridiculous, because there are also villains in more serious films that don't chew scenery by virtue of being based on flashy, hammy comicbook characters, and being one who constantly wears a mask and hides behind his quirky mannerisms, is one inherent disadvantage that simply can't be overlooked.
RedFive said:
I like this thread, let's not let him derail it, please! Just ignore him...
You disingenuous pillock.
Me: "I didn't read the original paper, just relying on the article (meaning: sorry if the paper got it better)."
You: "OMG U DIDNT READ THE ARTICLE YET POST YOUR LONGWIDED BULLCRAP, YOU TROL OLO!"
Me: "I read the article, you dyslexic oaf."
...
You: "Oh this troll again, if we just ignore him he'll stop derailing the thread, it's not like this was entirely my fault..."
Not being able to admit a mistake when it's so obvious to see for everyone, is a rather sad personality trait, and a clear sign of a vulnerable, defensive ego.
If that's what you want to display, please do go on - I'm not gonna help you two derail this thread any further ;)
The gif is funny. You posting it as your only defense is fucking pathetic. (And will become even more so, the more gifs you post. Do as you wish :p)
TV's Frink said:
RedFive said:
Eh, fuck it. Just ignore him, and he'll go away.....That seems to be the best move, but I don't think he'll go away.
I swear if everyone here ignored him, he'd just start arguing with himself.
And there go the biases and double standards again... you're pathetic.
Eh, fuck it. Just ignore him, and he'll go away.....
A long-winded reply that starts out by admitting the poster didn't even read the (relatively short) original article? Do not want.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I thought the acting was universally horrendous, but I don't blame the actors. No matter how good an actor is, they need good material, a clear vision of their role, and be given guidance and context by the director. That so many good actors could give such utterly wooden performances speaks of bad script, bad direction, and a general lethargy that must have permeated the whole moviemaking experience.
If you had put Christopher Walken somewhere in there, do you think a bad script would've made him boring?
Did the memorable performance by McDiarmid (not so much in Clones, imo) have to do with the fact that his character was the only one Lucas had a connection to? Or because the actors made it on his own?
Having that said, some musicians are put off by a bad instrument, or co-players, others say "fuck it" and manage to produce something awesome out of it.
I've heard Art Tatum made horrendous pianos sound good.
So it goes both ways, I just wanted to point that out.
Neeson and McDonald were okay. Sometimes entertaining, sometimes very boring, but never really off-puttingly artificial like lots (but not all) of the moments with VINH or Her Highness.
I haven't read the original paper, but from the way it's described, it's a poor one.
Yes, the anticipation of a twist or shocking tragedy at the end, can theoretically be as exciting as being blown away while clueless.
However, it so, so incredibly depends on the details and quality of how it's done.
I remember watching a 24 episode, of the last of the 1st season. I had read a spoiler that Jack was about to bring a "preparated" mobile to President Palmer without knowing it. So there I sat, with my nose at the screen, screaming "don't give him the phone, oh no, you've bought Hopper's lie, no, don't!" all the time... was it poisoned? Was Palmer gonna die?
Alright, there we come to the deciding moment... it's revealed that there's a bomb inside, Jack notices it, throws it away, resolved.
Had I not known it in advance, I probably would've just shrugged my shoulders!
But the excitement was all due to the spoiler, not the episode.
Not to make a sweeping statement about it (24 had lots and lots of strong moments), but many scenes or plot lines in it were boring and dragging, and the only thing that saved it was the constant tension of what was going to happen next, and the regular mind-blowing twists.
On the other hand, sometimes those twists seemed to almost justify the weaker parts that came before, because it may have been boring, but this is what they had planned for you!!
So, do you enjoy it more without the spoilers, because the tension and twists keep you at your toes? Or... do you accept the boring parts more readily because you know what's in store and can't await how it's gonna all turn into shit?
Do we really wanna see Kim make out with that stupid street boy? But... IT'S A GIANT CONSPIRACY BY TERRORISTS THAT WILL ONLY BE FULLY REVEALED IN 9 EPISODES... BRILLIANCE, BETTER PAY ATTENTION TO EACH WORD!!
And there already, we have a massive ambiguity.
I watched the 6th sense the other day, already knowing the twist - it was cool, but like watching it a second time.
I enjoyed the little deceptive details here and there, but I would've done so on second viewing, and feel like having missed the mind-blowing twist at the end.
I quite enjoyed "Identity" in the same way at the second viewing, but was BLOWN AWAY by the twist the first time around.
I knew the LOST spoiler ahead, but blended it out while watching Season 6, because it seemed so much like actual flash-sideways, the fact that it was going to resolve into afterlife seemed non-existent.
So it's probably all the same, I was in for a disappointment and wasn't negatively shocked by it. On the other hand, maybe I would've been a tide more intrigued and excited without knowing it... then again, preparing myself for an even bigger disappointment.
Shutter Island? I knew about the spoiler, but it was so brilliant (to me), and was prepared so convincingly, I was blown away by it even when I watched it!
It all depends on various factors like this.
How well prepared is the twist? Or how artificial, and deceptive the preparation?
Do the parts before the spoiler hold up on their own? Or do you need the twist to come to a terribly needed rescue?
At the end of the day, both the anticipation and the surprise can have positive effects, but it all depends on those factors, and the QUALITY of how it's executed.
A study that doesn't take any of that into account and attempts to make a sweeping statement based on a few students reading a few books? Do not want.
captainsolo said:
And this lack of nearly anything somehow gives it the pretense of "importance"?
I think its "importance" is supposed to stem from the dilemmas, "social experiments" and the characters acting out different viewpoints on the end justifying means, holding to principles, or issues of human morality.
But in my opinion, it failed for doing this in a way too convenient, contrived matter.
A boat with citizens and convicts (and we're talking about Gotham here).
The citizens are represented by a loud-mouthed unpleasant guy who has a justified pragmatic point - but then pulls out due to "conscience" at the last moment.
The most decisive and intimidating among the bad motherfuckers in orange suits, turns out to be an awesome guy with moral principles.
So... contrary to what the Joker said, "humanity" doesn't get at each other's throats when the chips are down!!
But... it could've very easily.
So then apparently all the patients are safely evacuated from the hospital, that's nice.
The dialogue betwen Two-Face and Oldman at the end seems way too contrived and artificial - Dent basically just wants to kill people, has gone completely unreasonable, and avoids arguments in a defensive manner.
Oldman: "Just leave my son in peace!"
Dent: "Oh, I will. If the coin turns out right."
*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*
I think that's it really, it did nicely by taking several philosophical (or maybe political) issues and compounding them in one plot line, but most of the time, it either beat your over the head with the obvious simplicity of its dialogue, or failed to hit the head by taking a way too convenient approach.
Sometimes it's good when an issue is just raised, and played out in a scenario - it gives certain arguments or imagined scenarios a shape, it becomes easy to reference it and immediately explain what you mean by something, and that's cool.
But that has less to do with the actual movie quality.
WHY DIDN'T THE JOKER'S GOONS HAVE FIREARMS???! WHERE DID BATMAN COME FROM?!
I just looked up, untypical is a word :PD