Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok the ones that win awards and are blockbusters but you hate them yourself. Everyone likes The Good The Bad and the Ugly but i hate it. I also dont dont like Kingdom of heaven and Narnia

Which blockbuster do you hate ??

What awards did The Good, The Bad & The Ugly get? And how much did it gross?

The "blockbusters" I don't like are usually directed by Michael Bay. Funny that.

lord of the rings...hated them

I can't think of any, I don't really hate many films.

There's an awful lot of blockbusters I don't like.

The Matrix sequels

POTC 3 + 4 maybe 2 aswell

I think all of POTC were awful.

Really ?? i liked the first one

Fantastic Four.

I rarely walk out of any movie feeling disappointed, because I never go see unless I'm sure I'll like the premise, and coincidentally it's always been pulled off.

I went to F4, as I go to most Marvel movies, cos I like the comics. It was actually the biggest piece of shit, and what annoys me is what females in the movies seem to say. Jessica Alba said "Yeah we tried to make it true to the comics, but it's also very funny and kinda sexy.". Why? Why does it need to be sexy? Just make it good.

-AC

cloverfield

I didn't think much of Fantastic Four either, haven't bothered with the sequel even. I saw it for free though, so didn't waste money on it at least.

Saw films.

Underworld films.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
cloverfield

Haha, we've actually influenced you, I knew it.

Sweet.

-AC

LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

Originally posted by coolmovies
POTC 3 + 4 maybe 2 aswell

There is a fourth movie?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

Thats just because you're a star wars fan and you're not allowed to like them

had a wee look through my dvd collection

world trade centre
28 weeks later
apocalypto
the descent

but above all....the village

Ohhh, The Village. Good one. I'm right there with you.

Mission impossible 2
Independence day
Spiderman 3
The rock
Batman forever/ Batman and robin
Alexander

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, we've actually influenced you, I knew it.

Sweet.

-AC

?

How so?

You hate Cloverfield now? All that time hyping it and you hate it? You said you liked it, now you hate it. Must be cos of the debate.

Still gonna pay money to see the sequel of a movie you hate?

-AC

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Independence day

If you hate lotr then i hate star wars

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You hate Cloverfield now? All that time hyping it and you hate it? You said you liked it, now you hate it. Must be cos of the debate.

Still gonna pay money to see the sequel of a movie you hate?

-AC

Doesn't mean i think the movie itself sucked. I hated that it did what it did and how it ended. While you loved it. So?

And debate? Were you trying to win it? I was merely discussing it with you, (directly) not trying fancy an audience.

And i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll make pt. 1'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1.

lol, it seems like that upsets you as much as my disagreeing with you.

Correction

This is how meant to write the third line:

"i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1."

The "blockbusters" I don't like are usually directed by Michael Bay. Funny that.

Yep. I call his movies fads.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Doesn't mean i think the movie itself sucked. I hated that it did what it did and how it ended. While you loved it. So?

And debate? Were you trying to win it? I was merely discussing it with you, (directly) not trying fancy an audience.

And i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll make pt. 1'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1.

lol, it seems like that upsets you as much as my disagreeing with you.

I just have a distaste for people who go see movies they hate just so they can moan.

If you hate one, why bother seeing two? Especially since AGAIN you have convinced yourself it'll be better and cure your animosity toward a movie (Sadness). Why don't you just wait and see? Why assume it will do what you want? Did the first movie not teach you a lesson?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I just have a distaste for people who go see movies they hate just so they can moan.

If you hate one, why bother seeing two? Especially since AGAIN you have convinced yourself it'll be better and cure your animosity toward a movie (Sadness). Why don't you just wait and see? Why assume it will do what you want? Did the first movie not teach you a lesson?

-AC

Well since i saw the movie first before I said hated it, it won't stop me from seeing the pt. 2 because it'll finally offer what you also have a distaste for: closure. (it better)

Obviously my first comment was too complicated. I'll make it simpler.

Why are you deciding NOW what it'll have in it, knowing that if it doesn't, it'll lead to more crying and whining about how they didn't spell it out for you in coloured crayon?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Obviously my first comment was too complicated. I'll make it simpler.

Why are you deciding NOW what it'll have in it, knowing that if it doesn't, it'll lead to more crying and whining about how they didn't spell it out for you in coloured crayon?

-AC

lol you've never liked me while i've felt indifferent about you.

and i didn't mean to make you sound dumb, sorry if you took it that way but pt. 2 will obviously have an explaination and closure. It better.

crying and whining, lol

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
lol you've never liked me while i've felt indifferent about you.

and i didn't mean to make you sound dumb, sorry if you took it that way but pt. 2 will obviously have an explaination and closure. It better.

crying and whining, lol

This isn't about you and I, stay focused, boy.

I'll ask you again;

WHY are you assuming what it will have in it, saying "It better.", if you know that failure to meet your expectations will result in more bitching about it? Why pledge your money to see a movie that's still in pre-production, under the premise that "It'll have closure."? Even if it does, which you don't know, who's to say it's what you'll want? He's not making this movie for you.

You're just looking for an excuse to moan, and I love the fact that after being this movie's hype-man, we've all caused you to list it as a movie you hate, which you just did.

You're easily led astray.

-AC

I didnt like the Saw movies, but I dont know if they qualify as blockbusters.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

What, Viggo wasn't hot enough for you? I bet if it had Brad Pitt, you'd be singing a different tune.

What did you hate about them? I've only ever heard someone say they "hated" the LOTR series once before.

Originally posted by Robtard
What, Viggo wasn't hot enough for you? I bet if it had Brad Pitt, you'd be singing a different tune.

What did you hate about them? I've only ever heard someone say they "hated" the LOTR series once before. Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.

Though a hilarious scene in Clerks II, it really isn't so.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This isn't about you and I, stay focused, boy.

I'll ask you again;

WHY are you assuming what it will have in it, saying "It better.", if you know that failure to meet your expectations will result in more bitching about it? Why pledge your money to see a movie that's still in pre-production, under the premise that "It'll have closure."? Even if it does, which you don't know, who's to say it's what you'll want? He's not making this movie for you.

You're just looking for an excuse to moan, and I love the fact that after being this movie's hype-man, we've all caused you to list it as a movie you hate, which you just did.

You're easily led astray.

-AC

It's not personal, lol?

In just 2 posts you've managed to degraded me, you used the words *****, whine, crying, moan, and the racist, "boy." and more, when replying to me. In just 2 posts, lol. All cause i disagree with you. It's clearly personal. And that’s too bad. I get a personal reaction outta you when i'm really looking for an objective response. Oh well; your blood pressure.

Maybe it’s, you just don't like me, i guess, lol.

So far, since 2005 we’ve disagree on every, single, issue, down to the letter, and during that time we’ve never had shite but hell and guts to say to each other. Amazing. Sucks too cause I never got anything out of it but a regretful and unnecessary waste of time. Which I don’t intend on doing anymore with personal arguments that digress from a thread topic. Especially now that I’ve gotten even more time strapped. So i ask you again, to keep it objective. Ok? Your answer will determine our fate, my opposite.

But to answer your multiple questions, it’s cause I believe that the only logical way to make cloverfield 2 (work) is by at least explaining what went on in the prequel. Surely I’d like for it to partly/mostly be its own tasty story, I’d just prefer it with some explanations sprinkled throughout it. I think it won’t upset. There’re just to many unanswered questions for him not to at least tackle at least one of the issues. For example, wouldn’t you think it improper for J.J not to address the u.f.o. seen splashing into the ocean at all, in the sequel?

I’d pledge my money to see cloverfield 2 because the want for answers and/or closure is greater than risking watching another cloverfield pt.1 and not agreeing with its openendedness again, even if it costs me. I’m confident enough in knowing it’s gonna have at least some explanation cause it has to have an explaination. And i’m assuming J.J.’s not a stupid guy; he’s not gonna create the same thing twice. And oh well if he’s not creating it for me. George Lucas created star wars for himself, as he said, and that movie experience turned out ok (by me). So I don’t care if J.J.’s not creating a movie for me but yet’ll gladly take my money.

And I’ve yet to seen how you and the likes have led me astray. I didn’t like the movies’ ending. Where’s the correlation in between that and how anyone led me anywhere?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's not personal, lol?

In just 2 posts you've managed to degraded me, you used the words *****, whine, crying, moan, and the racist, "boy." and more, when replying to me. In just 2 posts, lol. All cause i disagree with you. It's clearly personal. And that’s too bad. I get a personal reaction outta you when i'm really looking for an objective response. Oh well; your blood pressure.

Maybe it’s, you just don't like me, i guess, lol.

So far, since 2005 we’ve disagree on every, single, issue, down to the letter, and during that time we’ve never had shite but hell and guts to say to each other. Amazing. Sucks too cause I never got anything out of it but a regretful and unnecessary waste of time. Which I don’t intend on doing anymore with personal arguments that digress from a thread topic. Especially now that I’ve gotten even more time strapped. So i ask you again, to keep it objective. Ok? Your answer will determine our fate, my opposite.

I love how you've tried, and failed, the reverse psychology of telling me it's personal and that I don't like you, only to retort with a violin-worthy whinefest about racism and how I dislike you. Anyway, I'll leave you to bathe in your own self-loathing, I don't care about you, I'm discussing the movie.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
But to answer your multiple questions, it’s cause I believe that the only logical way to make cloverfield 2 (work) is by at least explaining what went on in the prequel. Surely I’d like for it to partly/mostly be its own tasty story, I’d just prefer it with some explanations sprinkled throughout it. I think it won’t upset. There’re just to many unanswered questions for him not to at least tackle at least one of the issues.

They're not necessarily unanswered, you just don't have it in you to figure it out, and that's not a diss, it's clearly true.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
For example, wouldn’t you think it improper for J.J not to address the u.f.o. seen splashing into the ocean at all, in the sequel?

If you had bothered to pay attention to the story and the viral stories, you would know what the falling object was, in all probability. Obvious, you didn't. Another mark against your so-called analytical mind.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I’d pledge my money to see cloverfield 2 because the want for answers and/or closure is greater than risking watching another cloverfield pt.1 and not agreeing with its openendedness again, even if it costs me. I’m confident enough in knowing it’s gonna have at least some explanation cause it has to have an explaination. And i’m assuming J.J.’s not a stupid guy; he’s not gonna create the same thing twice. And oh well if he’s not creating it for me. George Lucas created star wars for himself, as he said, and that movie experience turned out ok (by me). So I don’t care if J.J.’s not creating a movie for me but yet’ll gladly take my money.

And I’ve yet to seen how you and the likes have led me astray. I didn’t like the movies’ ending. Where’s the correlation in between that and how anyone led me anywhere?

Because you said Cloverfield is a movie you hate. That's pretty strong considering that you previous were hyping it like the second coming, then it became "I just dislike the ending.", now it's hate of the movie.

-AC

calling someone "boy", is in no way racist. wtf. You're not even black.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though a hilarious scene in Clerks II, it really isn't so. To me it does.....walking...walking...walking......the occasional battle scene...........................more walking.

Originally posted by BackFire
Underworld films. Hardly blockbuster....



For me, Harry Potter.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


I love how you've tried, and failed, the reverse psychology of telling me it's personal and that I don't like you, only to retort with a violin-worthy whinefest about racism and how I dislike you. Anyway, I'll leave you to bathe in your own self-loathing, I don't care about you, I'm discussing the movie.



They're not necessarily unanswered, you just don't have it in you to figure it out, and that's not a diss, it's clearly true.



If you had bothered to pay attention to the story and the viral stories, you would know what the falling object was, in all probability. Obvious, you didn't. Another mark against your so-called analytical mind.



Because you said Cloverfield is a movie you hate. That's pretty strong considering that you previous were hyping it like the second coming, then it became "I just dislike the ending.", now it's hate of the movie.

-AC

How was I trying to use reverse psychology? I wasn't’t trying to convince you or anyone of anything while hoping to spur you to believe the opposite.

What the matter?

I thought the movie clearly has unanswered issues that necessarily need to be answered or else it’s just footage.

Maybe I haven’t seen your subjective view of the movie cause I’m more practical, analytical, and mechanical minded. And you get it cause you’re an artsy, liberal guy, maybe. You did say that you saw a beautiful scene in the Sweeny Todd movie. And I’m not calling you artsy to diss you. Not all people would think you’d be gay or effeminate for being that way.

And it’s been a few days since i’ve researched the u.f.o. incident and what it apparently is, but J.J. should still address it in the 2nd movie. Wth, lol? What, just cause it’s on the internet it means J.J. shouldn't’t at5 least mention the incident at all and/or completely leave it out?

I was anticipating cloverfield cause J.J. poster’s and his trailers were enticing. Beside the fact that I’m fan monster movies. Sue me.

I hate the movie cause the ending suck, to me. My opinion. And i extremely, strongly, and fiercely disagree with you. Why does that get you so upset?

The movie was supposed to be like 'just footage'. That was it's purpose.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
calling someone "boy", is in no way racist. wtf. You're not even black.

“Boy” can be used as derogatory word used by racist whites when wanting to degrade Blacks.

AC is white, fact, and knows what the term means and knows inside what he meant by it when he said it, clearly.

And I’m not black?

My skins brown and my hairs’ short and course, both parents have brown skin just like both their parents do. All were born in the Dominican Republic, a former slave colony. We don’t look like the slaughtered natives of the island which were Taino Indians with copper-hued skin and long soft hair. And we don’t look white like the European Spaniards who were there.

Do the math.

I’m black. I am of African decent. It’s just sometime in my lineage, my ancestors were forced to learn the European captors language of Spanish or die.

But i digress.

Originally posted by BackFire
The movie was supposed to be like 'just footage'. That was it's purpose.

And now it's new purpose should be for it to get analyze, investigated and concluded. Just like footage.

Oh, do shut up, please.

Enough with the racist bs. This isn't about you or me, or racism or anything, it's about Cloverfield.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I thought the movie clearly has unanswered issues that necessarily need to be answered or else it’s just footage.

It's not "just" footage. The questions have answers out there if you bothered to look. All that hyping of Cloverfield and you didn't actually bother to look into what Abrams was laying down. You forgot to follow the breadcrumbs, Hanzel. You either forgot to, or it flew over your head.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Maybe I haven’t seen your subjective view of the movie cause I’m more practical, analytical, and mechanical minded. And you get it cause you’re an artsy, liberal guy, maybe. You did say that you saw a beautiful scene in the Sweeny Todd movie. And I’m not calling you artsy to diss you. Not all people would think you’d be gay or effeminate for being that way.

What does this have to do with anything, at all? Are you that poor at debating? What does my opinion of a scene in another movie have to do with us discussing Cloverfield? You THINK you are analytical because you want answers, but you're not. You cannot discuss, you need it all laid out for you. You just like to THINK you are being analytical, when you are being oblivious.

It's nothing to do with being artsy, it's to do with you not being able to understand what this film is about, and it's really not even complicated. You're just

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And it’s been a few days since i’ve researched the u.f.o. incident and what it apparently is, but J.J. should still address it in the 2nd movie. Wth, lol? What, just cause it’s on the internet it means J.J. shouldn't’t at5 least mention the incident at all and/or completely leave it out?

He has mentioned it, multiple times. This is why you're not analytical, cos you're about as dense as Scotch mist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I was anticipating cloverfield cause J.J. poster’s and his trailers were enticing. Beside the fact that I’m fan monster movies. Sue me.

That's your fault. You based and entire opinion on what would be in the movie, on that...yourself. You messed up.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I hate the movie cause the ending suck, to me. My opinion. And i extremely, strongly, and fiercely disagree with you. Why does that get you so upset?

It doesn't get me upset, I'm very glad you dislike it. I'm very confused that you were saying, not long ago, that you liked it. Now you hate it, and you're still gonna pay to see the sequel.

I have influenced your opinion of the movie. You hate it NOW because I loved it, and you don't want to be seen as being like me, despite me and those who agree with me being the truly analytical ones. I actually know more of the story than you, cos I looked.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And now it's new purpose should be for it to get analyze, investigated and concluded. Just like footage.

So start doing it, and catch up with us who know the answers you're currently seeking. I'm willing to bet that if nobody here tells you what fell in the ocean, you'd never know until Cloverfield 2, despite it being said by Abrams himself.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.
By that logic I could say "Interview With the Vampire" is just a movie about two vampires who move from place to place over decades of time and suck people's blood.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
“Boy” can be used as derogatory word used by racist whites when wanting to degrade Blacks.

AC is white, fact, and knows what the term means and knows inside what he meant by it when he said it, clearly.
You guys are debating the movie Cloverfield, I really don't think AC meant "boy" as a racial slur.

AC is white.

It's obvious that he's racist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
“Boy” can be used as derogatory word used by racist whites when wanting to degrade Blacks.

AC is white, fact, and knows what the term means and knows inside what he meant by it when he said it, clearly.

AC knows his intent more than you do. His word means more than yours when it comes to this.

Honestly, you're looking the fool with this false accusations of racism.

Now he's going to weasel out and say "No, I mean he happens to be white and that happens to be a racial slur. I didn't say he meant it racially.".

All this because he can't understand Cloverfield.

-AC

Originally posted by Röland
By that logic I could say "Interview With the Vampire" is just a movie about two vampires who move from place to place over decades of time and suck people's blood. You could say that, and I could also say SW is just a bunch of idiots running around blowing shit up. I could say the Godfather is a bunch of Italians talking with funny accents. I could say Forrest Gump is all about a retard who had amazing experiences.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh, do shut up, please.

Enough with the racist bs. This isn't about you or me, or racism or anything, it's about Cloverfield.



It's not "just" footage. The questions have answers out there if you bothered to look. All that hyping of Cloverfield and you didn't't actually bother to look into what Abrams was laying down. You forgot to follow the breadcrumbs, Hanzel. You either forgot to, or it flew over your head.



What does this have to do with anything, at all? Are you that poor at debating? What does my opinion of a scene in another movie have to do with us discussing Cloverfield? You THINK you are analytical because you want answers, but you're not. You cannot discuss, you need it all laid out for you. You just like to THINK you are being analytical, when you are being oblivious.

It's nothing to do with being artsy, it's to do with you not being able to understand what this film is about, and it's really not even complicated. You're just



He has mentioned it, multiple times. This is why you're not analytical, cos you're about as dense as Scotch mist.



That's your fault. You based and entire opinion on what would be in the movie, on that...yourself. You messed up.



It doesn't get me upset, I'm very glad you dislike it. I'm very confused that you were saying, not long ago, that you liked it. Now you hate it, and you're still gonna pay to see the sequel.

I have influenced your opinion of the movie. You hate it NOW because I loved it, and you don't want to be seen as being like me, despite me and those who agree with me being the truly analytical ones. I actually know more of the story than you, cos I looked.



So start doing it, and catch up with us who know the answers you're currently seeking. I'm willing to bet that if nobody here tells you what fell in the ocean, you'd never know until Cloverfield 2, despite it being said by Abrams himself.

-AC

W/e you say. All I know is that you used the word towards me in a derogatory sense. And it isn't about me yet you continue to defiantly talk about me as if we know each other personally while masking the fact by saying it's about cloverfield at the beginning of all your statements.

But despite your slights, I still strongly disagree with you cause i think your totally wrong in saying the ending was good.

And debating? You're the one debating, i'm merely discussing Cloverfield by reiterating my opinion. I'm not on here looking for someone to beat in an argument or to influence anyone, or to "win a debate". I just come on here to say what's on my mind, read others views, and that's it.

And it doesn't matter if he mentioned the u.f.o. multiple times, i still think he should still address it in Cloverfield 2. Just to get the characters take/reaction on it.

And i still can't see how i messed up or how it's my fault that J.J. made an endless movie.

Like i said, just cause i don't like the movie doesn't mean it sucks. I didn't't like it cause of it's ending. That's all. And i'll watch the sequel cause it'll most likely address pt. 1. Which will make the story contentable, to me.

And wrong again; you haven't influenced my opinion, not even in the least. I still think the ending sucked, as i've always thought. And realized that a movie with a disagreeable ending is a movie i abhor

lol and i hate cloverfield because you love it? (that one made me slightly chuckle) Ok, again i hate the movie cause i didn't't like how it ended. I liked the action and the suspense and how real J.J. made it all seem. Like I said before, cloverfield brought me closer to a dramatic character experience more than any other film I’ve seen in a while. And cloverfield it all the more intense cause of its surreality. It’s just I didn't’t like the way it ended. If you thought it was beautiful and you loved it, then that’s you.

And even if J.J. mentions all the spoilers and all the details of cloverfield 2, including answering all cloverfield 1 questions via viral content, he should still put it up on screen and address it there too.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You could say that, and I could also say SW is just a bunch of idiots running around blowing shit up. I could say the Godfather is a bunch of Italians talking with funny accents. I could say Forrest Gump is all about a retard who had amazing experiences.

Which kind of cheapens your reason for disliking LOTR...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
W/e you say. All I know is that you used the word towards me in a derogatory sense. And it isn't about me yet you continue to defiantly talk about me as if we know each other personally while masking the fact by saying it's about cloverfield at the beginning of all your statements.

Why not drop it?

But despite your slights, I still strongly disagree with you cause i think your totally wrong in saying the ending was good.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And debating? You're the one debating, i'm merely discussing Cloverfield by reiterating my opinion. I'm not on here looking for someone to beat in an argument or to influence anyone, or to "win a debate". I just come on here to say what's on my mind, read others views, and that's it.

Neither am I, I've just clearly influenced you. If not me then other posters. You liked Cloverfield, except the ending, until this discussion started. Now you hate it.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And it doesn't matter if he mentioned the u.f.o. multiple times, i still think he should still address it in Cloverfield 2. Just to get the characters take/reaction on it.

It does, if you are saying he needs to explain what it is, cos he had.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And i still can't see how i messed up or how it's my fault that J.J. made an endless movie.

Open-ended, not without end. There is a difference. It's YOUR fault for assuming there would be neat, safely packaged closure for your kind of fan. He never suggested anything of the sort.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Like i said, just cause i don't like the movie doesn't mean it sucks. I didn't't like it cause of it's ending. That's all. And i'll watch the sequel cause it'll most likely address pt. 1. Which will make the story contentable, to me.

Yes, but haven't you learned your lesson? You assumed everything'd be wrapped up in this, and now you've changed your opinion a million times simply because you can't analyse. Now you're doing the same again? Silly.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And wrong again; you haven't influenced my opinion, not even in the least. I still think the ending sucked, as i've always thought. And realized that a movie with a disagreeable ending is a movie i abhor

I have, because you liked the movie in general, now you hate it.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
lol and i hate cloverfield because you love it? (that one made me slightly chuckle) Ok, again i hate the movie cause i didn't't like how it ended. I liked the action and the suspense and how real J.J. made it all seem. Like I said before, cloverfield brought me closer to a dramatic character experience more than any other film I’ve seen in a while. And cloverfield it all the more intense cause of its surreality. It’s just I didn't’t like the way it ended. If you thought it was beautiful and you loved it, then that’s you.

Who said anything about the movie being beautiful?

Secondly, you liked it, but hated the ending, now you hate the MOVIE because of the ending. This has been since our debate, you've been influenced by me.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And even if J.J. mentions all the spoilers and all the details of cloverfield 2, including answering all cloverfield 1 questions via viral content, he should still put it up on screen and address it there too.

He has done that; answered all questions via viral content. Look.

It's just not your kind of movie, which you said yourself. You also said this little gem:

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
This movie has the significance of your regular video that's throw up on youtube.

Something you just throw to show. Doesn't have to be meaningful, just as long as it satisfies basic human understanding.

This, from a man allegedly very analytical and logical minded, who managed to, in the above quote, miss the two main points of the movie while admitting he needs it simple.

-AC

OKay guys. Cut it out.

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

^?

I'm not insulting him; just having a discussion.

Well there's not much to discuss now, so we might as well let it go.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You could say that, and I could also say SW is just a bunch of idiots running around blowing shit up. I could say the Godfather is a bunch of Italians talking with funny accents. I could say Forrest Gump is all about a retard who had amazing experiences.
That's my point...

So how can you say you dislike the LOTR films because "it's just walking with some battle scenes thrown in."?

I'm not saying you have to like the LOTR films, we all have different tastes, but your reasoning for not liking it is just ridiculous.

keep it in one thread at least

The bottom line is, you can simplify almost anything to make it seem like nothing if you want.

Some things genuinely do not have a lot there, and some do. Rocky is the action version of Jessica Alba's Honey. Youngster against adversity but achieves success in the end. That's pretty much all it is.

But to say something like The Matrix is nothing but "Fighting the bad guys and then winning.", you'd obviously be wrong. You have to look at what is AIMED at achieving, and what's actually achieved.

I personally didn't like any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Bored me to utter death.

-AC

I agree with you

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I personally didn't like any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Bored me to utter death.

-AC

Refreshing view... and rarely heard.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Which kind of cheapens your reason for disliking LOTR... good point....lets just say I hate the LOTR movies for my own reasons, because they bore me to death.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
good point....lets just say I hate the LOTR movies for my own reasons, because they bore me to death.

Fair point then.

300, and The Matrix.

Originally posted by SelphieT
300, and The Matrix. I liked 300, but the matrix......I agree. meh.

Spider-Man 3, The Matrix 2 and 3, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Borat, The Island, Terminator 3................to name a few.

Originally posted by Impediment
Spider-Man 3, The Matrix 2 and 3, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Borat, The Island, Terminator 3................to name a few. Not bad, meh and meh, Loved it, meh, never saw it, GOOD, Not bad.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I liked 300, but the matrix......I agree. meh.

300 is just not my kind of movie......I mean, I like violence, but this is like a "yay it go boom boom" kinda movie.

Meh, anything with Keanu Reeves excluding Bill and Ted is just usually laughably pathetic.

Originally posted by SelphieT
Meh, anything with Keanu Reeves excluding Bill and Ted is just usually laughably pathetic.

Probably the other way around, but to each their own.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Probably the other way around, but to each their own.

-AC

I guess I haven't seen the good Keanu Reeves movies then.

But I did see that Little Budda movie, and his accent was the funniest thing......

My guilty pleasure is that I own Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Raeann totally despises that movie.

Originally posted by Impediment
My guilty pleasure is that I own Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Raeann totally despises that movie.

One of the few movies Keanu acted well in.

Originally posted by SelphieT
300 is just not my kind of movie......I mean, I like violence, but this is like a "yay it go boom boom" kinda movie.


Maybe thats the whole point of 300 being an action movie thats based on a famous battle.

Originally posted by Röland
That's my point...

So how can you say you dislike the LOTR films because "it's just walking with some battle scenes thrown in."?

I'm not saying you have to like the LOTR films, we all have different tastes, but your reasoning for not liking it is just ridiculous. No its not, like AC said, and I said previously, they bore me to death. I fell asleep so many times I lost count.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Maybe thats the whole point of 300 being an action movie thats based on a famous battle.

........I thought it was based on a graphic novel, which loosely based the actual accounts.

Originally posted by SelphieT
........I thought it was based on a graphic novel, which loosely based the actual accounts.

More or less, yeah. It is.

Originally posted by Impediment
More or less, yeah. It is. That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be. 300 soldiers against how many Persians?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be.


How about the frank Miller graphic novel is it the same deal, I reackon it would be if its a comic.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be. 300 soldiers against how many Persians?

That actually, is how the story goes. There's another version of it made in the 60s or something: 300 Spartans.

I dont buy that. No way they hold their own against an army that big.

Originally posted by queeq
OKay guys. Cut it out.

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

One of the most stupid phrases around, that one.

As for some more blockbusters that I don't like:- Matrix, Star Wars, Bruce Almighty, Any Arnold Swarchenegger film, Rush Hour, American Pie (2 onwards).

Communist.

Originally posted by queeq
That actually, is how the story goes. There's another version of it made in the 60s or something: 300 Spartans.

That's a classic! I'd take that over 300 anyday, which verges on homoeroticism.

There is a movie I really disliked but it wasn't a blockbuster...and that movie is halloween 6, it was terrible

Originally posted by exanda kane
That's a classic! I'd take that over 300 anyday, which verges on homoeroticism. whether one likes 300 or not, one must admit that the cinematography was AMAZING.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No its not, like AC said, and I said previously, they bore me to death. I fell asleep so many times I lost count.
That's all fine then.

But when you first said you didn't like them you said "walking, walking, more walking, occasional battle."

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I dont buy that. No way they hold their own against an army that big.
300 was just Frank Miller's adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, which did happen.

Battle of Thermopylae

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whether one likes 300 or not, one must admit that the cinematography was AMAZING.

It wasn't amazing, it was indulging.

Originally posted by Röland
That's all fine then.

But when you first said you didn't like them you said "walking, walking, more walking, occasional battle." thats my description of it, deal with it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats my description of it, deal with it.
I am dealing with it...

Get pissed off more because someone questioned you?

Originally posted by Röland
300 was just Frank Miller's adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, which did happen.

Battle of Thermopylae

I was just about to post that!

Try some history, Rogue!

Originally posted by Röland
I am dealing with it...

Get pissed off more because someone questioned you? no, not pissed off, just curious as to why some people cant deal with the fact that I see those horrid movies in a certain way. You dont have what it takes to piss me off.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
no, not pissed off, just curious as to why some people cant deal with the fact that I see those horrid movies in a certain way. You dont have what it takes to piss me off.
Deal with what? I'm not going to debate with someone over there reasons for not liking a movie, but you seem to think I am upset over you not liking the movie, which I'm not.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats my description of it, deal with it.

Actually, that's (more so) Kevin Smith's humorous description of it.

Originally posted by Röland
Deal with what? I'm not going to debate with someone over there reasons for not liking a movie, but you seem to think I am upset over you not liking the movie, which I'm not. I meant him, the guy from before. oops.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I meant him, the guy from before. oops.
It's all good.

Originally posted by Röland
It's all good. your post was OK, but dude couldnt believe I didnt like LOTR.

Transformers.

I liked that one.

Doubt it was a blockbuster, but I know it was popular. Eurotrip.

I remember my dad dragging me to see Close encounters of the third kind. I cried I hated it so much.

And you only see the aliens for like, what? 5 minutes at the end?

I know, right? I seriously cried because I had to see it like three times.

CE3K is one excellent film. The few minutes of aliens were perfect.

And disliking Close Encounters because you only see the aliens for five minutes is a bit like dislikin' Cloverfield because you get no profile shot of the monster, nor is there any exposition to where it came from or how to stop it.

Originally posted by exanda kane
And disliking Close Encounters because you only see the aliens for five minutes is a bit like dislikin' Cloverfield because you get no profile shot of the monster, nor is there any exposition to where it came from or how to stop it. I disliked Close Encounters because I thought it was incredibly dull and boring.

I meant in general, not to anyone in particular, but I'll take the bait; do you think every film is dull and boring? Yet you like 300? In the words of G.O.B, COMON!

Originally posted by exanda kane
I meant in general, not to anyone in particular, but I'll take the bait; do you think every film is dull and boring? Yet you like 300? In the words of G.O.B, COMON!

OK, here is a list of boring films, along with a list of non boring kickass films.

BORING: Close encounters, LOTR, Eternal sunshine, Star Trek, Charlies angels.....



NON BORING KICK ASS: SW, Shoot 'em up, ID4, Love actually, indy trilogy, Boondock saints......


This is my opinion, thats all, due to my taste....and 300 is FAR from boring.

Oooooo...Controversial.

Shoot 'Em Up and Indy are good choices, but considering there are only two good Star Wars films, can you just say SW as a blanket term for all of them? LOTR was a far better trilogy.

300 though, dear, dear me.

It's gonna be hard to have a decent filmnight with Rogue.

Yeah, probably end up watching the Bring It On trilogy (is there a trilogy btw?).

300 was continual hype from beginning to end. I don't see how anyone could find that boring, but that's me.

-AC

Well, I can. I personally found it rather enjoyable, not great but alright. But in defense of those bored by it, it is very constant from beginning to end. It shows very little variation in tempo, style or story. The only thing that changes are the looks of the assailants (which goes from ugly to the ridiculous). Other than that it pretty much flatlines in story development.

Any movie involving a Marvel Comics Character.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
300 was continual hype from beginning to end. I don't see how anyone could find that boring, but that's me.

-AC Exactly, non stop killing and blood flying everywhere, what more do you want?

It does get boring.

what parts?

I hate the movie Rambo 4..

I bet you do.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what parts?

Well, it's just shouting and fighting all the time. After a while you think killing them is doing the viewer a favour.
Too bad, because the story itself lends to a great film. This was just testosteron top gear.

the blood....OH THE BLOOD.

Yeah, that got boring after a while.

I'm gonna have to agree with AC and Rogue Jedi on this specific matter. 300 is one of the least boring films I can think of; even if you're somehow bored to death with the story/action, the movie looks amazing visually. Secondly, the battles weren't really gratuitous if you think about it. If I remember correctly, there were 3 main battles in the film; none of them lasted too long and each one was different (in choreography, etc). Lastly, if you're bored by stunning visuals and tons of action then I think you ended up watching the wrong movie in the first place. "Wild Hogs" was in theaters at that time, maybe you guys should've seen that instead >_>

I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.

I liked Wild Hogs.

it wasnt that bad.

Originally posted by queeq
I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.

The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.

And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.

Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.

Originally posted by BackFire
Saw films.

Underworld films.

Hey, BackFire I agree with you. I also hate films with topic related to underworld activities.

this has to be a joke.

Ok I liked alien but now i really hate it becouse the movie looks out of date

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.

And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.

Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.

Well, why not? Or as Uberto Eco stated: a film is a film, a book is a book. (or graphic novels) They need different things to work.

I never read Miller's graphic novel, I heard he withdrew from the project as well. But even so, a film should be good. It was rather entertaining, but it did feel like a big missed chance to do more with it. Some character development would hev been nice.

Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.

I thought the film was much better than the graphic novel by the way. It actually added quite a bit more (the entire subplot about the Queen/events back at Sparta, etc). So, in my opinion, if they added any more to the film, it would've been just too different from the source. They did an excellent job making an action-packed, visually stunning, badass movie. Don't know what else anyone (who knew anything about the project) was looking for.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.

I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.

while i think 300 was great...perhaps gates of fire would have been a better source for dramatic effect...although alot of its drama was put into context by huge amounts of background of the characters which probably would not have be plausible to cover in a 2 hour film

Thought 300 was big, loud, way over-hyped, cliche ridden, and so over oiled and muscley that it comes across as something the missus is more likely to like than I.

The jerky undercrank/ overcrack effect in the action is an effect overused and over celebrated too.

I mean, did the improved roto-camera effects and shit hot CGI save the Matrix sequels....?

True, I only watched it the once, but those were the memories of the experience. I felt it wasn't terrible, but that also I wouldn't be breaking my neck to get a copy in.

I felt angry though as usual at the hype machine for getting me all expectant and leaving me pissing in the wind.

I agree, it was entertaining, but not really something entertaining enough to watch a couple of time. They kinda overdid the testosteron in this one.

Originally posted by queeq
I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.

Did you not read the rest of my post? They did add a decent amount of things to make it work as a film.

Straying too far from source material is usually what makes a shitty adapted film. I don't look at it as a restriction anyway; if you don't want to stay true to what you're making a film on, then don't do it at all, go make your on film on the Battle of Thermopylae.

Good one.

So whatcha mean anyway? One cannot debate a film unless you remake it yourself? I paid money to see it, I think I can discuss whether I felt it was my money's worth...

If you don't want to debate films, whacha doing here?

Again, you missed my point entirely.

In my previous post, I wasn't saying "you" as in YOU, I meant: if "one" doesn't want to stay true to the film, then don't make it.

Are we clear on that?

In no way did I say that you shouldn't be able to discuss the film and your opinion of it. I'm actually surprised that that is what you took away from my post.

OKay sorry...

But being true to the film is... being true to the film. Which is the end product. If you mean being true to the graphic novel, I disagree. You can take the spirit or approach or even visual style, but you still have to mold it to make it into a movie.

I agree with Queeq. After all, he's being reasonable.

Originally posted by queeq
OKay sorry...

But being true to the film is... being true to the film. Which is the end product. If you mean being true to the graphic novel, I disagree. You can take the spirit or approach or even visual style, but you still have to mold it to make it into a movie.

I did mean stay true to the source/graphic novel. And of course you have to mold it to make it into a movie, but what you were saying previously was borderline ridiculous, considering you were heavily implying changing the film completely from the graphic novel.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I agree with Queeq. After all, he's being reasonable.

And thank you. Your comments are always so very insightful.

Cheers wuzzletoff, jaded insults from you are always welcome.

But 300 just isn't that interesting to discuss, so I'm leaving it to others. If I want to see a bad film, I'll watch one that knows it is a bad film, i.e. Bloodsport or Commando.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I did mean stay true to the source/graphic novel. And of course you have to mold it to make it into a movie, but what you were saying previously was borderline ridiculous, considering you were heavily implying changing the film completely from the graphic novel.

I never said completely. But what works for a grpahic novel, doesn't have to work for a movie.

I kinda like how Sydney Pollack selects stories: he sometimes takes lousy books with a great idea. He gets the rights cheaply (since th ebook's not very good) and works out the idea properly to be good for movie. I was thinking more along those lines.

BTW, didn't Frank Miller back out of the project because he didn't like where it was going?

Wait, how can you feel it wasn't true to the graphic novel?

There was about 8 pages of the novel, 300, so obviously for it to be a movie there had to be more.

-AC

How is the novel, compared to the movie?

It's good, it's nothing amazing, really.

It's not Sin City quality or depth. I think it actually works better as a movie.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How is the novel, compared to the movie?

i think it couldn't have been more directly comparable to the novel

http://videoeta.com/news/2243

http://www.solaceincinema.com/2006/10/04/300-comic-to-screen-comparison/

the link shows the parts from the novel compared directly to their scenes in the film