[Obdigore]

Jusentantaka, on 21 December 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure no one was supposed to take that movie seriously.

DIDNT YOU KNOW THAT EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE (unless under the genre 'comedy') IS A 4 SRS ENTRY INTO THE CINEMATIC FIELD AND SHOULD BE COMPARED TO THINGS LIKE AMERICAN PSYCHO AND MEMENTO TO DETERMINE THEIR VALUE?

[Jusentantaka]

FUCK memento and everyone who likes it. << For seriously like


Less grotesque note: *ahem* The "Phillip K. Dick classic, Total Recall, with Arnold Schwarzenegger is on Sci-Fi tonight at 9EST"

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 21 December 2009 - 09:57 PM

[Obdigore]

Well I can see that you have your nights full taking care of that.

How about 'Requiem for a Dream', does that meet the nubentantanka standard for 'high-brow' movies?

PS - Highbrow = douchebag.

[Jusentantaka]

Obdigore, on 21 December 2009 - 09:57 PM, said:

Well I can see that you have your nights full taking care of that.

How about 'Requiem for a Dream', does that meet the nubentantanka standard for 'high-brow' movies?

PS - Highbrow = douchebag.

I'm starting to think youre taking this whole 'ditching mafia to go to hawaii' thing really miserably

If you were meaning to call fucento a douchebag movie though, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Obdigore]

Jusentantaka, on 21 December 2009 - 09:54 PM, said:

FUCK memento and everyone who likes it. << For seriously like


Less grotesque note: *ahem* The "Phillip K. Dick classic, Total Recall, with Arnold Schwarzenegger is on Sci-Fi tonight at 9EST"

Too bad I picked up the box set of Band of Brothers (if you say anything bad, I shall have you tarred and feathered, then possibly whipped, then drawn and quartered, then feed each quarter to a different kimono dragon, then have the 4 kimono dragons fight to the death, poison the winner with a blowfish, then feed that poisoned kimono dragon to charles manson, then after he poops what is left of you out, I shall bury it with no services in a cat's litter box.)

I like Band of Brothers. Also, logical thinking is fun!

And, I don't care if you ditch mafia. I'm bored at work, and the little mafiosos' are finishing their dragon sex and day 1 spam with random lynch. Also, I brought up the Hamilton book because I really like his sci-fi universe (before the spoilers I put in) and thought it was logical and could happen.

Perhaps that is why I like fantasy, because I can detach and think about how fun/freaky it would be if it was really like that, where as sci-fi, I always think 'that could never happen...'

Also, best movie ever made = http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/

[Jusentantaka]

Kimonos are clothes. Though I guess since we're talking about sci fi, I shouldn't quibble, cause a silk-skinned, flower-bedazzled giant lizard would be awesome.

And its odd, I like sci fi by about -a lot- more, cause, except in certain overly popular cases *cough* Star Wars sucks*cough* I go 'oh, thats possible/interesting/whatever'. Though the more divorced the fiction-world gets from ours (whether by global devastation+civ reboot, time, ect) the less it's relevant that this or that is possible. I'm a big fan of regular bathing, so I certainly don't go 'oh, fantasy-world-X' would be fun to live in.

and you think hamilton's is logical (plausible?), but you say the science in Avatar is impossible (illogical)? wahuhhh?

[Obdigore]

Sorry, I meant Kimodo, not some sort of Slake-Moth thing. Hey, that is a good way to describe their wings, as a type of billowing multi-colored kimono sliding down a womans' form. Ahh damn.

I seem to bathe frequently (and I don't post 'dont want to hang out with people have have bathed already) posts either

But Yes, I do think that the Hamilton 'time-line' in the beginning of his first book of that trilogy is much more impressive and believable than what we saw in blue-man-group.

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 21 December 2009 - 07:23 AM, said:

Sixty, on 21 December 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Dances with Smurfs was from South Park. There was an entire episode devoted just to making that joke, actually.

Really? Never knew that. I am really behind on my SP watching.

QuickTidal, on 21 December 2009 - 03:30 AM, said:

Also, I am curious when the sci-fi special effects extravaganza movie YOU are directing is coming out? I'll be sure to rush out and see it and then go rant about it not being good enough cause I have nothing better to do. You wanna complain, well that's your god given right, but until you produce something better yourself, you're a just a fanboy whiner in my books. A dime a dozen from the AICN forums. an aspiration if I ever heard one. Sweet merciful jeebus...it's like you exist to hate on things...what's that about?

Hey. Hey. QuickTidal. Is a customer banned from complaining about a hair in his soup unless he owns a six-star restaurant? No, he is not. Roger Ebert doesn't make movies. Is he then not permitted to critise movies? If something isn't as good as the advertising makes it out to for some people, then you don't have to jump down their throats just because it makes you feel all tingly in your special places. And 'well I'd like to see you do better' is the pathetic argument of a dimwitted child. Stop using it.

PEOPLE CAN DISLIKE WHAT YOU LIKE, IT'S ALLOWED
DON'T BE A DICK

Besides, existing to hate on things is my job.

Actually, I am fully within my rights to jump on someone who has done nothing but rip on stuff in threads for the last little while. People are fully allowed to dislike what I like, absolutely, but your argument works just as well to say I have the right to not only contest it, but call them on their assinine statement.

Actually, mine is not the argument of a dimwitted child, though I can see how you'd view it as such sir. Allow me to explain...Quentin Tarantino worked at a video store before being a director....didn't like what he saw in the movies that were being made at the time...so he went out and started making ones he thought would be better....the same is true of Sam Peckinpah (in Westerns), Thomas Wynding Redfern, Tom Tykwer, Takashii Miike, Takeshi Kitano. Hell, even some actors have done it, Clint Eastwood himself has done nothing but star in his own stuff now for a while, written AND directed by him, not to mention a few other folks. Mine is actually a VERY valid statement and argument. If I was upset with the movies that came out in a genre I liked enough to rip on them, I'd likely get involved in such a capacity as well.

....Roger Ebert's JOB is to critique films...he gets paid to do it and has done for a great many years...and reviews movies with an objective eye....as his job entails...If he dislikes a film he doesn't throw up bullshit reasons cause he NEEDS to dislike it...he simply will tell you what worked and what didn't in his opinion...Complaining about a hair in your soup, on an INTERNET FORUM about that specific soup is useless, because if we are going to use your ludicrous analogy here, then the issue Sombra had was with the flavour and colour of the soup (which that person CHOSE) and not the restaurant itself where some douche waiter or cook let their hair fall into it. He was not attacking Cameron or 20th Century Fox...but the effects...you see how that analogy doesn't work now Illuyankas?

Anyways, feel free to call me a dick dude. If that makes you feel like a big man, be my guest. It makes no difference to me. (Oh, and use capitals too if you like, cause people who yell (read: use capital letters) at others on the internet are super cool)

Back to issue: It pisses me off to watch someone disparage something for the sake of disparaging it cause they didn't like it, and then toss out a bullshit reason for that opinion. Back it up with something more solid or expect people to call you on it. If you don't like it, that's fine, no problem....but to piss on the technology that was on the screen (which is cutting edge) is ridiculous and a goddamned insult to all the people who worked on the film. I have a few friends in the film industry and they deserve a little more respect, sorry.

...and let that be the end of this ridiculous argument that I started, as that will be my last word on the subject lest we be smote for straying off topic or having a flame match.

[QuickTidal]

Jusentantaka, on 21 December 2009 - 10:17 PM, said:

Kimonos are clothes. Though I guess since we're talking about sci fi, I shouldn't quibble, cause a silk-skinned, flower-bedazzled giant lizard would be awesome.

And its odd, I like sci fi by about -a lot- more, cause, except in certain overly popular cases *cough* Star Wars sucks*cough* I go 'oh, thats possible/interesting/whatever'. Though the more divorced the fiction-world gets from ours (whether by global devastation+civ reboot, time, ect) the less it's relevant that this or that is possible. I'm a big fan of regular bathing, so I certainly don't go 'oh, fantasy-world-X' would be fun to live in.

and you think hamilton's is logical (plausible?), but you say the science in Avatar is impossible (illogical)? wahuhhh?

See, now I find this interesting, as it reminds me of a theory I have that there seem to be a fair number of sci-fi/fantasy fans who need to be too grounded to take the ride to the escape that this sort of genre fiction is meant to be. Like if it becomes too unbelievable that means it is no longer fun to watch, or lame....but isn't the very nature of this type of fiction the "implausibility" of it, an escape that is fantastic, or out completely out there. Why does Sci-Fi science have to make sense (or be believable) to us as humans in this day and age, when history has repeatedly taught us for hundreds of years of human invention that not only have we been wrong, but VERY wrong about how the universe works...Can we not learn to accept that we may not be able to explain all things? In two thousand years I bet all our scientific theories will seem completely stone age to those folk....Why does it have to be grounded to our current human common sense to be good? Are we so introverted as a species that we can't accept the more far flung ideas that bend and twist our sense of what can be real and what can't?

Sorry, just a curiosity I had.....thoughts?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 22 December 2009 - 03:25 AM

[Darkwatch]

dktorode, on 21 December 2009 - 03:50 PM, said:

I was wondering why the humans didnt just nuke them from orbit...

Win.

After things like Terminator 1 and 2 and Aliens. I find it hard to comprehend why Cameron went solely for the visuals and let the story slide.

[Jusentantaka]

QuickTidal, on 22 December 2009 - 03:20 AM, said:

See, now I find this interesting, as it reminds me of a theory I have that there seem to be a fair number of sci-fi/fantasy fans who need to be too grounded to take the ride to the escape that this sort of genre fiction is meant to be. Like if it becomes too unbelievable that means it is no longer fun to watch, or lame....but isn't the very nature of this type of fiction the "implausibility" of it, an escape that is fantastic, or out completely out there. Why does Sci-Fi science have to make sense (or be believable) to us as humans in this day and age, when history has repeatedly taught us for hundreds of years of human invention that not only have we been wrong, but VERY wrong about how the universe works...Can we not learn to accept that we may not be able to explain all things? In two thousand years I bet all our scientific theories will seem completely stone age to those folk....Why does it have to be grounded to our current human common sense to be good? Are we so introverted as a species that we can't accept the more far flung ideas that bend and twist our sense of what can be real and what can't?

Sorry, just a curiosity I had.....thoughts?

For me, a big part of many of my favorite sci fi stuffs is that its a take on how very plausible technology will/can play out and how people roll out widely different takes on it. (Like Neuromancer v. Terminator)

I don't particularly give a damn about how some writer decides to make FTL travel, or huge beamy lasers of dhoom or whatthehellever work, because those are lame. Its nice when they make a go at it with something like high temperature superconductors forming x-thousand Josephson junctions to enable low temperature fusion. Clever, sure. Not overly relevant, but it definitely made me ask an physicist if it was possible. (The answer for anyone who might care was something like "well, technically? yeah. The reactor would be phenomenally huge or the superconductors would have to be unbelievably tiny, and we're no where near making a superconducting material which can do so at a thousand or two kelvins. But I've heard worse ideas...')

--But more to point of what (I think) you're going at: To me fiction is about exploring themes and ideas. period. 'Genre' can be the bastion for the corporate metafanfic that gets churned out to teenagers for all I care. (and I so loathe teenagers) A very ironic point, if I may diverge, cause the only writer I've 'dialoged with' that has published novels has written a ton of those same things I dislove.

Having some grounds which can be easily (or directly) related to, as far as 'how the world/universe works', is essential to me, for a creator getting their ideas across. If there's no identification with the world's system, it is very detrimental to the ability to identify with those who populate the world, and therefore give a damn about their problems. When these connections get cut, a work ends up relying on a swift moving and -it damned better be- original story.

And when that's not there, it might as well be some brainless supermodel. And these supermodels are a dime a dozen in the summer, and far as I'm concerned, when you've seen one...

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 22 December 2009 - 05:32 AM

[Tsundoku]

QuickTidal, on 22 December 2009 - 03:11 AM, said:

Actually, I am fully within my rights to jump on someone who has done nothing but rip on stuff in threads for the last little while.

I disagreed with you in 2 recent threads. Grow up.

Quote

People are fully allowed to dislike what I like, absolutely, but your argument works just as well to say I have the right to not only contest it, but call them on their assinine statement.

... but people aren't allowed the luxury of doing the same in reference to your behaviour?

Quote

Actually, mine is not the argument of a dimwitted child, though I can see how you'd view it as such sir.

Yes, it is. What you did, in essence, was to grab me by the lapels, an scream (frothing) into my face "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO NOT LIKE SOMETHING I CONSIDER THE HIGH MARK OF ALL HUMAN EVOLUTION TO THIS POINT!!!" (capitals deliberate) into my face. I suggest you don't try that on anyone in real life. They may not be as tolerant.

Quote

Allow me to explain...Quentin Tarantino worked at a video store before being a director....didn't like what he saw in the movies that were being made at the time...so he went out and started making ones he thought would be better....the same is true of Sam Peckinpah (in Westerns), Thomas Wynding Redfern, Tom Tykwer, Takashii Miike, Takeshi Kitano. Hell, even some actors have done it, Clint Eastwood himself has done nothing but star in his own stuff now for a while, written AND directed by him, not to mention a few other folks. Mine is actually a VERY valid statement and argument. If I was upset with the movies that came out in a genre I liked enough to rip on them, I'd likely get involved in such a capacity as well.....

Good for Quentin, I like a lot of his stuff and his attitude.

So you have never, ever expressed a negative opinion in your life about something that is not your job? You, good sir, are an absolute saint.

Quote

Roger Ebert's JOB is to critique films...he gets paid to do it and has done for a great many years...and reviews movies with an objective eye....as his job entails...If he dislikes a film he doesn't throw up bullshit reasons cause he NEEDS to dislike it...he simply will tell you what worked and what didn't in his opinion...

What are his credentials? I didn't find anything on his website about qualifications, so I'm going to assume it's something to do with journalism, possibly even a film specialty.
Suffice it to say - he has never made a movie. According to your own logic that precludes him from expressing an opinion on movies. Actually, it also precludes YOU.

Quote

Complaining about a hair in your soup, on an INTERNET FORUM about that specific soup is useless, because if we are going to use your ludicrous analogy here, then the issue Sombra had was with the flavour and colour of the soup (which that person CHOSE) and not the restaurant itself where some douche waiter or cook let their hair fall into it. He was not attacking Cameron or 20th Century Fox...but the effects...you see how that analogy doesn't work now Illuyankas?

Actually, what I said was basically that for me it did not live up to the mass-wankings that I have read and heard plastering the media. The tech was a refinement of what they had already done for Gollum. I got nothing from Avatar that I had not already seen in LotR or several other films (Transformers 2 included). It was cleaner and smoother, sure. It had many, many more computers working harder on sweeter resolution. Great, nice work - I actually mean that. But most of the time it was in the fantasyland green screen context, which felt just like a very good cut scene from a video game. When they combined with live it was quite good, but it still didn't make me cream my pants. Sorry.
Essentially I am saying it was OVER-HYPED. It was a good film, just not the "greatest thing evarrrr" that it has been made out to be. And I believe I said that may have been partially due to the clunky script.

Next time, may I suggest reading the post properly, before going off half cocked next time and just embarrassing yourself. Illy was right, just very blunt about it. You came across as a dick, and personally attacked me for my opinion. Not cool. However, I'm not saint when it comes to being fiery at times, so I was willing to let it go, but oh no, you just had to make an even bigger fucktard of yourself. So now I'm responding, and believe me, this WILL be the end of it.

Quote

Anyways, feel free to call me a dick dude.

You tend to draw that label on your own without anyone elses' help.

Quote

If that makes you feel like a big man, be my guest.

It doesn't, it makes me annoyed and sad, and I hate feeling either, let alone both.

Quote

It makes no difference to me.

Au contraire, if this latest defensive spray is any indication.

Quote

(Oh, and use capitals too if you like, cause people who yell (read: use capital letters) at others on the internet are super cool)

They are also used for emphasis when you are talking to people who display childlike tendencies ie "Lalalalalala I'm not listening to you - you suck!"

Quote

Back to issue: It pisses me off to watch someone disparage something for the sake of disparaging it cause they didn't like it, and then toss out a bullshit reason for that opinion. Back it up with something more solid or expect people to call you on it.

I expressed an opinion that was counter to yours. It's a forum. We have discussions. They tend to have more than 1 perspective. Get used to that. I backed up why I didn't like it with my feelings on it, why I didn't mind it but didn't think it was the greatest thing ever. I didn't go to film school, so all I can do is offer opinion. Same for you.

Quote

If you don't like it, that's fine, no problem....but to piss on the technology that was on the screen (which is cutting edge) is ridiculous and a goddamned insult to all the people who worked on the film. I have a few friends in the film industry and they deserve a little more respect, sorry....and let that be the end of this ridiculous argument that I started, as that will be my last word on the subject lest we be smote for straying off topic or having a flame match.

I have the utmost respect for the craft involved, and the people who put this stuff together. As I have stated previously, I just don't think it was the awesomest thing in the history of awesome. I still gave it 3.5 stars - which you may have noticed if you had bothered to read to the bottom of the post. My gripe was the overreaction. You may have also noticed sentiments similar to mine in a lot of reviews (try www.rottentomotoes.com), and posts here as well. Are they all wrong too?

NOW, we're finished.

Everyone else, we apologise for the interruption to your broadcast, normal service is resuming now.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 22 December 2009 - 09:22 AM

[dktorode]

wow....erm...ok

I think you two need to just whip it out and settle the arguement quick and clean like.

[Imperial Historian]

[MOD VOICE]

Before anyone else feels the need to weigh in to this little arguement, don't. Take it to PM if you feel it warrants discussion.

[/MOD VOICE]

I've not seen Avatar yet, but I am looking forward to it, off to see it on the IMAX on thursday. My expectations on the storyline are fairly low, but I'm expecting some entertaining big budget hollywood flare.

[dktorode]

I wish we had IMAX here... having seen it on a normal sized screen (in 3D) I just know im missing out on something bigger...a complete visceral visual experience!!

[cauthon]

Darkwatch, on 22 December 2009 - 04:36 AM, said:

dktorode, on 21 December 2009 - 03:50 PM, said:

I was wondering why the humans didnt just nuke them from orbit...

Win.

After things like Terminator 1 and 2 and Aliens. I find it hard to comprehend why Cameron went solely for the visuals and let the story slide.

Come on. I can summarize the plot for both Terminator and Aliens in 5 lines each. I think the plot for Avatar was at least as strong. I think the movie was simply epic.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Saw it on Saturday and thought it was near-perfect. When I exited the theatre I just wanted to go back in and watch it again. It was that AWESOME.Stunning visuals, great acting, eerily lifelike animated characters, a host of cool plants and creatures, which all looked like they belonged on the same planet, a love story that wasn't over the top or took up too much of the movie and an epic battle with choppers and dragons. What more do you need?Now Hollywood must ask itself: How the fuck do we top that?

[Yellow]

I haven't seen this yet, and probably won't at the cinema - the trailer made it seem dire. It looks like Pocahontas In Space.

I'll probably watch it one day, so I hope it's good

[Sir Thursday]

@Yellow: This is a film that I think is probably only worth watching in the cinema in 3D. The visuals are what you should got to the cinema for - the rest is pretty weak, really. You won't get anywhere near the same experience if you watch it on a small screen in 2D, I don't think.

The 3D technology is used very well to enhance the beauty of the film, IMO. There isn't a whole lot of in-your-face usage (arrows flying into your face, that sort of thing), but every scene is beautifully crafted to be subtly improved by extra depth and the realistic image. I think it's something that works best if you don't try and think about the technology behind it too hard (which is, admittedly, difficult when everyone is telling you how amazing it is).

@Sombra: Perhaps it would have been more impressive for you if you'd got the 3D goggles to work?


Sir Thursday

[QuickTidal]

Jusentantaka, on 22 December 2009 - 05:30 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 22 December 2009 - 03:20 AM, said:

See, now I find this interesting, as it reminds me of a theory I have that there seem to be a fair number of sci-fi/fantasy fans who need to be too grounded to take the ride to the escape that this sort of genre fiction is meant to be. Like if it becomes too unbelievable that means it is no longer fun to watch, or lame....but isn't the very nature of this type of fiction the "implausibility" of it, an escape that is fantastic, or out completely out there. Why does Sci-Fi science have to make sense (or be believable) to us as humans in this day and age, when history has repeatedly taught us for hundreds of years of human invention that not only have we been wrong, but VERY wrong about how the universe works...Can we not learn to accept that we may not be able to explain all things? In two thousand years I bet all our scientific theories will seem completely stone age to those folk....Why does it have to be grounded to our current human common sense to be good? Are we so introverted as a species that we can't accept the more far flung ideas that bend and twist our sense of what can be real and what can't?

Sorry, just a curiosity I had.....thoughts?

For me, a big part of many of my favorite sci fi stuffs is that its a take on how very plausible technology will/can play out and how people roll out widely different takes on it. (Like Neuromancer v. Terminator)

I don't particularly give a damn about how some writer decides to make FTL travel, or huge beamy lasers of dhoom or whatthehellever work, because those are lame. Its nice when they make a go at it with something like high temperature superconductors forming x-thousand Josephson junctions to enable low temperature fusion. Clever, sure. Not overly relevant, but it definitely made me ask an physicist if it was possible. (The answer for anyone who might care was something like "well, technically? yeah. The reactor would be phenomenally huge or the superconductors would have to be unbelievably tiny, and we're no where near making a superconducting material which can do so at a thousand or two kelvins. But I've heard worse ideas...')

--But more to point of what (I think) you're going at: To me fiction is about exploring themes and ideas. period. 'Genre' can be the bastion for the corporate metafanfic that gets churned out to teenagers for all I care. (and I so loathe teenagers) A very ironic point, if I may diverge, cause the only writer I've 'dialoged with' that has published novels has written a ton of those same things I dislove.

Having some grounds which can be easily (or directly) related to, as far as 'how the world/universe works', is essential to me, for a creator getting their ideas across. If there's no identification with the world's system, it is very detrimental to the ability to identify with those who populate the world, and therefore give a damn about their problems. When these connections get cut, a work ends up relying on a swift moving and -it damned better be- original story.

And when that's not there, it might as well be some brainless supermodel. And these supermodels are a dime a dozen in the summer, and far as I'm concerned, when you've seen one...

Very well thought out reply! Makes me rethink my theory somewhat. Thanks for the input. It's funny I was out having dinner with my GF and her family and her sister-in-law and I were discussing the fact that she didn't buy that two of the three characters in The Hangover weren't suited to be friends and she found it unbelievable enough to notice. A similar thing really. Upon reflection, I could see how that could bring you out of the film a little, and so that of course works for books as well.

So, yeah, I feel your explanation is very valid in that regard, and it puts a new perspective on something that niggles at me with sci-fi fans. Kind of like how the Dragon Cow in The Name Of The Wind took me out of the narrative a tad. LOL!