Jan 6 2010, 8:59 am
|
|
Uxor
 |
Fail movie is fail.
|
SuperAntx wrote:
69 comments total, 6 are opinions or viewing experiences of Avatar, 63 are people flinging shit at each other. I like throwing shit at people =D I would like to see Avatar. I have not seen it yet. I also had the same view as Silk when I first saw the scenes. I thought it was going to be some lame ass movie but I've heard amazing things about it and have decided that I would much like to see it. I've been trying to get Vermolius to go see it but...that has not worked >_> | |
The Naked Ninja wrote:
And to Silk: I liked your Gamers pilot better when it was called Big Bang Theory The reason that I was on a plane to LA getting signed less than a week after I posted the Gamers trailer online is because despite its flaws, Gamers was a wildly original piece of work. Funny you should mention Big Bang Theory though, because a large part of the reason Gamers never ended up on network TV is because that show's creator completely dicked us over and by stringing us along for 5 months and going with Big Bang Theory at the last minute instead. He's also the guy behind Two and a Half Men, and he's a giant douche. Afterwards, I turned down another development deal with a network who wanted to make Gamers as "Monk with Videogames", in which the kids used video games to solve mysteries. So yeah, don't start with me, because I've literally turned down thousands and thousands of dollars in the past by standing by my original work. :P The Naked Ninja wrote: Below he even had the audacity to state something as ridiculous as "The average movie-goer doesn't have particularly good taste in films"... wtf? Which I stand by, because not a single person in this thread has tried to tell me that the story was actually good. All of you just liked the movie because of all the pretty pictures. Zaole wrote: at the risk of starting something up again, i must say that silk was indeed right in everything he said (concerning himself/his games) in the original 20 or so comments; pop and verm were being extraordinarily retarded and had no logical leg to stand on Thank you for noticing. And you're also correct here: Zaole wrote: i may be called a silk cocksucker for that (since base insults seem to be the only available retort) but it's true ...because anyone who agrees with me is instantly dismissed as a suck up. Never mind the fact that I think you've actually been banned from my blog before, and that we disagree as often as we agree. Nope, these kids want to cluster into cliques and fight - anyone who dissents is the enemy. Even in 2010 people are still moronic enough revert to tribalism. | |
i'd like to note: the "everything has been done a million times already (aka simpsons did it)" argument isn't really a sound one. an original idea doesn't have to be something 100% off the wall and completely unknown; it just has to do something interestingly new.
avatar is a zeta rip but with pretty beam graphics | |
SilkWizard wrote:
The Naked Ninja wrote: Which I stand by, because not a single person in this thread has tried to tell me that the story was actually good. All of you just liked the movie because of all the pretty pictures.Below he even had the audacity to state something as ridiculous as "The average movie-goer doesn't have particularly good taste in films"... wtf? This reminds me of a comment by a sports talk radio host after a caller mentioned, "why do you talk Yankees and Red Sox, and no Tampa Bay or Kansas City baseball." The reason why is that no one really cares about Tampa Bay baseball... The Yankees are sexy... the Red Sox are sexy... ask Joe Schmoe on the street and he can't name one player on the Tampa Bay and Kansas City roster combined. The average movie-goer generally doesn't go to movies at all. When they go, they go to movies with recognizable actors and huge advertising budgets. We want to be entertained -- $12 isn't trivial to the average movie-goer. Why even go a perhaps decent and pithy film when none of the theater experience is lost when it's available on Blu-Ray for one's 50" 1080p in three months? The average movie-goer doesn't have particularly good taste in films because the menu is overpriced and lacks quality and differentiation. So the movies with the most fat (advertising) and sugar (A-list actors) generally are funded and watched. Anyone care to name one movie that is worth the $12 theater ticket? | |
I'm really indifferent on the matter, the movie however does not appeal to me.
| |
Meh, can't we all just agree that Paranormal Activity was much worse and in fact maybe the worst movie this past decade?
| |
SilkWizard wrote:
The reason that I was on a plane to LA getting signed less than a week after I posted the Gamers trailer online is because despite its flaws, Gamers was a wildly original piece of work. Riiight. I'm not saying that it was a rip-off, but it certainly wasn't a wildly-original piece of work. Funny you should mention Big Bang Theory though, because a large part of the reason Gamers never ended up on network TV is because that show's creator completely dicked us over and by stringing us along for 5 months and going with Big Bang Theory at the last minute instead. I would say that the issue was that it wasn't terribly funny, but The Big Bang Theory is pretty good evidence that a sitcom doesn't have to be funny to be a) on TV, or b) wildly viewed. You seem to associate originality with being inherently good, which is an issue when you're making a sitcom which isn't funny. A good counterexample is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which is not terribly original, but is one of the most hilarious shows (if not the most hilarious) on TV. Maybe you should take note of this. | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
You seem to associate originality with being inherently good I think that is what people have gleamed from my comments about Avatar, but that's not the case. I actually can't stand people who make something off the wall for the sake of "originality", which is why I hate both hipsters and art house films. Also, the structure of almost every story is inherently the same. When I say "originality", I'm mostly referring the the quality of the story, the characters, and the dialogue. So, taking your example: Popisfizzy wrote: A good counterexample is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which is not terribly original, but is one of the most hilarious shows (if not the most hilarious) on TV. It's Always Sunny is a very original show. The characters, the humor and the dialogue are all incredibly fresh and unique. For example, just because Cheers was also a show about a group of friends who own/frequent a bar, it doesn't mean that It's Always Sunny isn't unique and original, or that the two shows have much in common. Another example: Napoleon Dynamite. Love it or hate it, it was an incredibly original movie. Yet at it's core, the structure of the film is that of a romantic comedy. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
It's Always Sunny is a very original show. The characters, the humor and the dialogue are all incredibly fresh and unique. It was pitched as "Seinfeld on crack", and that's really exactly what it is. They're taking a fair amount of what Seinfeld was, turning it up to eleven, and getting waaay less politically correct. The characters certainly don't match up with those of Seinfeld, but you could certainly say they all take a hell of a hint from George Costanza, with a few splatterings of others in the show on occasion (Charlie could probably be a bit of Kramer, in regards to his... aloofness, to put it kindly). Rob McElhenney knew exactly what he was aiming for when he pitched the show, and it wasn't for something completely original. | |
Tell that to the
| |
Again, all characters are based off of certain archetypes. It's the way that the characters interact, the way they develop, and the situations they find themselves in that makes this show so unique. "Seinfeld on crack" was a nice pitch line, and might be a good way to describe the basics, but Always Sunny and Seinfeld are completely different animals.
Heck, I could draw parallels between the character dynamics in Seinfeld and Star Wars... but that obviously wouldn't mean anything. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
but Always Sunny and Seinfeld are completely different animals. They're certainly different shows, but it would definitely be debatable as to whether the latter would exist at all without the former. Heck, I could draw parallels between the character dynamics in Seinfeld and Star Wars... but that obviously wouldn't mean anything. Of course it wouldn't, but this is a red herring because it probably would if you did so with It's Always Sunny, as it's heavily influenced by Seinfeld. | |
Last comment from me on the topic of Always Sunny, because you're just running the discussion in circles. The fact that Always Sunny was inspired by Seinfeld, doesn't make it an unoriginal work. Whatever DVD commentaries you've watched where the creators discuss their original intentions doesn't have much bearing on the reality of the two shows side-by-side.
| |
I didn't say it was unoriginal. I just said it wasn't absolutely, completely original, and the influence of Seinfeld is extremely obvious to anyone who's watched the two shows.
| |
*sigh* I was in the middle of reading the Silk fight! Suddenly all comments dissapear. *cries moar*
I enjoyed the movie! I went with a female companion and we both left it satisfied, maybe my taste are a bit cheesy at times, but ah well, it was still fun to me. There have been so many movies in the past, that in the future most, if not all of them will have similarities to other movies that came prior. So the similarity critics will soon become very commonplace. | |
i nayed you for deleting all the fun comments
take that | |
I did a little cleaning up on this thread, trying to keep it on topic and the childish remarks from all angles kept to a minimum.
If this thread is to turn into a debate I'd rather an intellectual one than a contest of who can be the biggest asshole. Everyone has their angles and opinions are welcomed here, but please keep the trash off my lawn. @SilkWizard: "Gamers was a wildly original piece of work"...Maybe a few months earlier when it was called The Guild. And in all fairness I did express opinions on features of the movie I enjoyed other than the stunning visuals, but those visuals were the main purpose of the movie. The story was captivating, the characters were enticing and there was enough going on to keep a person's interest. I really enjoyed the characters of Jake Sully, Neytiri, and even a handful of the supporting cast who were obviously written specifically for a subtle foreground. I loved the world of Pandora, and still I would've loved it if I simply just read a story about it. I especially loved the concept of everything being symbiotic. Nothing's for everyone, personally I enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite (in skits, not as a whole production) and Kill Bill, which for your information was almost an exact duplicate of the 1970s manga-made-movie Lady Snowblood. @Bootyboy: "Anyone care to name one movie that is worth the $12 theater ticket?" It's $9 here for non-matinee but The Hangover would be the first movie that would come to mind where I actually walked out thinking that. @Mecha Destroyer JD: "Meh, can't we all just agree that Paranormal Activity was much worse and in fact maybe the worst movie this past decade?" I will only respond by linking to this College Humor Gold | |
Zaole wrote:
i nayed you for deleting all the fun comments Indeed. What kind of a weirdo just goes through and deletes half the comments? Especially after I silenced all detractors? With Ninja's sophomoric understanding of film, it's not like people were going to have an intelligent discussion about Avatar anyway. I know a blog that I won't waste my time commenting on anymore. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Zaole wrote: It's rather sad when you lack the ability to have a civil discussion about something without invoking insults. You're wrong about certain things, you can't face them, you childishly insult... I get it. I deleted the comments that had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, it got out of control and trash like that doesn't belong here, you can take it back to your Disillusioned Digest. I could always approach things from your direction, ban anyone with logic and opposing views from my blog and treat everyone else like they're beneath me... No thanks. I think I'll keep things rather level. Some people were having an intelligent discussion about the movie Avatar, others such as yourself were taking a topic as simple as movie discussion to a personal level. You wasted your time commenting on silly bickering and bias statements, if you were to waste no more of your precious time here I can't say it'd be missed. This post wasn't for you and you posting here is your pleasure alone. This isn't the inside of your head, you're not a celebrity here. | |