You obviously weren't paying attention; I clearly meant my post, which was about your views on the movie and were entirely on topic. You are the one weeping because I'm challenging your views, as you always do.
If you can't back them up, or if you know that they can be taken apart with logic, and your only way of defending them is immaturity, try not moaning when it happens.
No, you factually weren't, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, since it has nothing to do with what I meant or in relation to what I was talking about.
I said post something not about me, relevant to the thread. Clearly, to anyone capable of perception, I was refering to now, because I had replied to your initial posts, which you then quoted. So obviously I knew you had done so previously.
I really tire of having to hold your hand and explain everything to you. I feel like I've taken one of the special bus kids to the zoo every time I debate with you. Please try reading my posts, and if you aren't sure, rather than assume, ask me.
You should deal with it. I have no problems with you replying to my post, and I even said in my first reply that you aren't wrong to have the opinion you do, I just disagree. You just can't deal with the fact that I don't put up with your bs. If anyone else had replied to you saying the same, you'd not have replied so angrily.
I'm not entirely sure where to start, because there's enough material here to go on forever.
A) I don't start arguments about ME, others who can't debate, do.
B) I never once called anybody a moron for having an opinion, probably ever, much less on this site, even less in this thread. I don't think anybody, including Dwarf, is a moron for having an opinion. People should have opinions. I don't even think he made, necessarily, ALL ridiculous points, I just disagree. Yours were actually the views of an idiot who needs big explosions.
B) If you DISLIKE the movie, fine, but don't come in here trying to argue stupid points, idiotic points, and incorrect points, then acting smarter than everyone else because you feel good grades indicates intelligence, especially when you never paid the slightest bit of attention and lack the capacity to understand the movie in the first place.
All of which you did.
You're a hypocrite and you're stupid, congrats.
Is there anything else I can help you with? Your next reply will be met with a PM, as I'm not going to drag this any further off topic with you, Spartan.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
You clearly ask for something relevant to the movie. Now, you're saying it has do to with relation with what you said. You're either confuse or doing it on purpose.
I did that...WTF are you blind or stupid?
No one...but NO ONE ask you to do anything here...you can't take discussions...your problem...not mine.
I have to deal with it? See, how you turn things around...you are the one coming here and call people out.
If I'm not wrong in posting my opinion....what business of yours is it?
I'm sure you were not in charge of this production...so what's in it for you?
Nothing....I presume.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on May 6th, 2008 at 07:12 PM
1) Hate to break it to you, but yeah, you do start arguments. A lot.
2) Last time I checked, moron is a synonym for idiot. And why exactly are my views idiotic again?
3) Again I didn't come in here arguing; you started it. And for the record I wasn't acting smarter than anyone at all, I was simply defending myself from your insults.
Wrathful Dwarf, can you please ban him or something. I'm sick of people arguing with me on a freaking INTERNET FORUM about a movie. How mature.
I'm only taking your personal issues with ME to PMs. I am not taking the Cloverfield debate to PMs, because that's finished, as you simply do not have any logical or believable points.
As Backfire said, you're nitpicking and simply don't like the fact that at the end of the day, it's a FILM.
It's a slightly less serious Japanese manga that describes the attack on the Chuai Rig and delves into a bit more of the scientific/military secret aspects of the possible story.
It's good, but you'd have to find a transcribed version. I can't remember where I found the one I read.
Then every movie in existence opens a can of worms. In Dawn of the Dead, oh, how convenient that one of them happens to know how to fly a helicopter. Oh, how convenient that they land on a mall and there are no people in it already. Are these now faults with the movie? Of course not. These are things that need to happen in order for the film to function. Same thing with Cloverfield. It IS a movie, afterall. And really, you can find trivial coincidences to nitpick in any movie out there. They have no bearing on the quality of the film, though.
Yes, she was injured. She seemed fine, though. Her life wasn't in danger from the wound. It's not as if the military made them wait a significant amount of time before getting them on the second helicopter, anyways. The first helicopter flew away and then they got immediately into the second one. They had her wait a total of about 10 seconds. Plus, I think they had the wound covered up. So he may not have seen it.
No, it wasn't following them. A gigantic monster was wandering around a rather small area for about 8 hours. It's not at all outlandish that they'd bump into it several times. This complaint really is moot. What, you don't want them to run into the monster on occasion? I don't follow.
What's wrong with a parasite being in a building? The monster kept shedding those things all over the place. There will be some of them here and there. So, it had a jump scene. One jump scene. The original Night of the Living Dead had a jump scene. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a jump scene. Jump scenes are now problematic and faults in a film?
And as far as the monster looking at Hud. So what? Sometimes animals look at things. Granted, this is the scene I had the most problems with. But not because it stayed there looking at the camera. I just though it would have been a better film had we not gotten such a close up look at the monster. I would have preferred for it to stay a bit more ambiguous.
I think that they definetely should have ran into the monster that many times, but maybe they could have done it differently. It seems a bit too coincidental that the monster smacks the helicopter down to the ground and then as soon as the survivors get out, its just standing there.
And I love how the monster's being engulfed by flames and then sees this tiny little innocent white light in the air and goes "**** YOU" and kills it. lol
But these aren't honestly the main problems to me. I just think the 1st person camera was very unecessary, if not just irritating. It seemed more to me like the camera idea was just an excuse not to have a good plot or good special effects. Just my 2 cents
It was after it had been bombed. It was annoyed from the bombings and just went after the only moving thing it saw. Think of when you're annoyed, and a fly is going around you, you swat at it.
That's fine though. The film style isn't for everyone, obviously. And while you're right that the style wasn't necessary to have a good story and show good special effects; it was necessary to be as immersive and realistic as it was. That was its main purpose. They wanted to show a monster attack in a realistic plausible light. And the subjective camera helped with that immensely.
That part wasn't even after it knocked the copter down, as you pointed out, it was hours after.
People are just bitter that they did everything wrong.
Abrams didn't promise anything, so it's not his fault that the movie didn't deliver what lots of people built themselves up to expect. In Spartan's case, a Godzilla movie.
I await a certain person's response to you saying they may have not seen the wound as it was covered. Because I would have gotten a tirade of "You're sucking everything up and making excuses.", despite it being plausible.
KMC Community Forums
May 6th, 2008 06:18 PM
