Originally posted by Toku King
The "Harry Potter" movies in general sucked(with the exception of 1, and 4 was ok), and as for the "Star Wars" movies, it really depends on which movie.
Blasphemy.
Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban was a solid yet interesting effort, and the latest, Order of the Phoenix, really kicked a stale series of adaptations up a few notches. I'm not sure how an adult can enjoy the first two, but if you are a kid, I can see your point.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Jack Nicholson probably won't ever be surpassed.-AC
Incorrect.
lb8fWUUXeKM&NR=1
0kU34BQveuo&feature=related
Originally posted by exanda kane
Blasphemy.Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban was a solid yet interesting effort, and the latest, Order of the Phoenix, really kicked a stale series of adaptations up a few notches. I'm not sure how an adult can enjoy the first two, but if you are a kid, I can see your point.
I'm not a kid, and the second one sucked, as did the third one. Both were way too slow paced, and the characters were far more annoying than likable(except Hagrid, Dumbledore, and Vodemort). I was done after 4, so I didn't care to watch 5.
Originally posted by Toku King
I'm not a kid, and the second one sucked, as did the third one. Both were way too slow paced, and the characters were far more annoying than likable(except Hagrid, Dumbledore, and Vodemort). I was done after 4, so I didn't care to watch 5.
Well, the first two are unceremoniously childrens films (it's a given that the books reached a wider audience than that) so the my biased logic would put you as an unceremonious child, especially coupled with the fact that Alfonso Cuaron captured aspects of the franchise that the first two didn't even hint at. The third film is when the series starts growing up, and while the plot is a little mirky, it is simply better than any of the previous films, and the fourth, which is incredibly messy for Mike Newell. Entry five had a much better pace and balance.
I'm not sure whether yours is a veiled criticism of teenagers in general or an off-keel insult at the characters themselves - either way, the characters are the antithesis of innocent kids. I'm not sure how that is annoying or dislikable.
However, on the subject of Iron Man: Banana.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Well, the first two are unceremoniously childrens films (it's a given that the books reached a wider audience than that) so the my biased logic would put you as an unceremonious child, especially coupled with the fact that Alfonso Cuaron captured aspects of the franchise that the first two didn't even hint at. The third film is when the series starts growing up, and while the plot is a little mirky, it is simply better than any of the previous films, and the fourth, which is incredibly messy for Mike Newell. Entry five had a much better pace and balance.I'm not sure whether yours is a veiled criticism of teenagers in general or an off-keel insult at the characters themselves - either way, the characters are the antithesis of innocent kids. I'm not sure how that is annoying or dislikable.
However, on the subject of Iron Man: Banana.
You really need too back off on your 'biased grouping'.
Originally posted by Toku KingI think all the Harry Potter movies are great. They fall under 'those movies' that can sweep me away to another land, such as Star Wars and the Lord Of The Rings films, where I can sit back and get lost in the movie.
The "Harry Potter" movies in general sucked(with the exception of 1, and 4 was ok), and as for the "Star Wars" movies, it really depends on which movie.
Originally posted by Toku King
What [b]you think is a bad film. Personally, I think "Prisoner of Azkabam" sucked horribly. It went no where fast. Oh wow, Harry got mad! So not interesting. [/B]
I would like to believe that maybe you just don't get the structure and pacing of the film. But the structure of the story is similar to every other single Harry Potter film. So instead I'll give you this ultimatum to consider:
Either it is a bad film (which it is) or you are an unceremonious child (of which I won't comment on). Take your pick.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I would like to believe that maybe you just don't get the structure and pacing of the film.
I am in a video class, and have made at least five movies, each with perfect pacing and all getting A's on both story structure and pacing continuity. I completely understand movie structure and pacing, and HP3 sucked on both accounts.
But the structure of the story is similar to every other single Harry Potter film.
Which isn't a good thing.
Either it is a bad film (which it is) or you are an unceremonious child (of which I won't comment on). Take your pick.
I'll pick "You're a self-righteous, ignorant person who can't understand that people aren't stupid or feeble for having a different opinion".
Originally posted by Toku King
I am in a video class, and have made at least five movies, each with perfect pacing and all getting A's on both story structure and pacing continuity. I completely understand movie structure and pacing, and HP3 sucked on both accounts.
Yes, but you aren't Alfonso Cuaron fishboy. Ergo, no you don't no idea what constitutes structure and pacing, even with your prodigious body of work.
I'll pick "You're a self-righteous, ignorant person who can't understand that people aren't stupid or feeble for having a different opinion".
That's almost right. But I would change 'stupid' and 'feeble' for simply 'wrong' Mr. Emmerich.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, but you aren't Alfonso Cuaron fishboy. Ergo, no you don't no idea what constitutes structure and pacing, even with your prodigious body of work.
That's like saying a farmer doesn't know how to milk a cow, even though they've done it before.
That's almost right. But I would change 'stupid' and 'feeble' for simply 'wrong' Mr. Emmerich.
This is so perfectly what I was saying that nothing I say to encompass it will fit any better.
The greatest ignorance and self-righteousness is the kind viewable to all.
Originally posted by Toku King
That's like saying a farmer doesn't know how to milk a cow, even though they've done it before.
No it isn't. Because if you were a farmer, you'd open up secretly after hours and sell the 'special meat.' Just because you attended a hick summer school doesn't mean you've become Baz Luhrmann overnight, nor does it rebute the fact that the pacing and structure of Alfonso Cuaron's installment are incredibly well managed and executed. But obviously an avant garde pioneer such as yourself looks to anything below Chris Columbus' work as medicore to the last.
This is so perfectly what I was saying that nothing I say to encompass it will fit any better.
The greatest ignorance and self-righteousness is the kind viewable to all.
Make sense once?
Originally posted by exanda kane
No it isn't. Because if you were a farmer, you'd open up secretly after hours and sell the 'special meat.' Just because you attended a hick summer school doesn't mean you've become Baz Luhrmann overnight, nor does it rebute the fact that the pacing and structure of Alfonso Cuaron's installment are incredibly well managed and executed. But obviously an avant garde pioneer such as yourself looks to anything below Chris Columbus' work as medicore to the last.
It's not a summer school, you ass. It's a class I take every day, and I have done for the past two years. I know about films inside and out. Who the hell are you to tell me I don't just because I don't like a movie that you do? Stop being such a rude and naive prick and realize that you're not the center of the universe, Mr. Bigshot.
I'm done with you. Onto the Ignore List you go.