Originally posted by omgchos
Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.
Disagree, if Armageddon had ended with McClane not saving the world and Ben Butt-****ing Affleck not getting to slip it some more to that sexy little nymph Liv Tyler, the movie would have been a notch above complete shit.
P.S. That avatar is sick, I was going to do it next, you bastard.
Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree, if Armageddon had ended with McClane not saving the world and Ben Butt-****ing Affleck not getting to slip it some more to that sexy little nymph Liv Tyler, the movie would have been a notch above complete shit.P.S. That avatar is sick, I was going to do it next, you bastard.
And thank you.
Originally posted by omgchos
It's just looks like another Knowing. Tho if they somehow manage to actually survive without the help of the whisper people ill be thoroughly pleased. Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.
I think it is very interesting if they completely get destroyed at the end of the movie, at least it is different, that is partially why deep impact was far better than armaggedon. Cause ALL the major characters die in deep impact and there is much more wide spread destruction, and in armaggedon they found out that we only had 18 days before it hit earth if this was true, we wouldn't have a hope in hell.
There is a 2 part show on ABC i think, called impact, part 2 is on on sunday. but after a huge brown dwarf hits the moon, it changes the moons orbit and it will impact the earth in 39 days. it is interesting and entertaining, but they will probably save the day in some stupid way but in reality they don't have any hope.
Originally posted by omgchos
But if the whole movie was, Here comes an asteroid, then we know how to stop it, then oh no we can't stop it, it would be a waste of time.And thank you.
Well, the premise would have to be that humanity thought it could stop it, but in the end, it fails. Though it would have to be a tightly kept secret, of the likes of Cloverfield, otherwise it would fail with audiences if they didn't have that surprise 'fail' ending
Originally posted by Robtard
I enjoy him, but truthfully, he's a bit like OCstner, he plays the same role in just about every film.
Yeah, but don't you think thats the role he is cast to play? He does have diversity but in most films he does play John Cusack which leads me to believe that that is how he was directed? Maybe i've just become over-saturated with cinema but it seems like most of the marquee actors play the same character in every movie. I can understand this, too because if you have a big name actor that you're paying millions of dollars for you might want to play it safe and make sure that he portrays the character he's hired to play with similar characteristics that he exudes in all of his hit movies.