|
I'm not sure even rifftrax could help Airbender.
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
The Happening is an amazing B-Movie. I'm not even using that as an insult. Intentionally or not, Shyamalan made a great throwback to those schlocky sci-fi movies from the 1950's. It's dope. EDIT; this is essentially what Hbomberbuy already wrote  Nevermind!
Yaws fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
I think he's actually gone on record saying that was his intention from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
I swear that such things as recasting the heroes as white and replacing the accurate Asian text and pronunciations with ching-chong and squiggly lines is the entire point of Last Airbender. Fans of the cartoon were miffed but, as a springboard to mock Hollywood-style orientalism, it works like gangbusters.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:When did poo poo like this stop being probatable? I got probated once because I genuinely misspelled his name. Ensign_Ricky posted:It makes me angry because it's a blatant loving plot hole that the movie fails to explain. But enough of this derail. It's a movie about a born again Christian where the aliens are killed with holy water.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Hey all, let's talk about Grizzly Man by Werner Herzergalergadurf.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
No we shouldn't, this is still a thread about transformers by michael bayalayaboomboom
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Hey all, let's talk about Grizzly Man by Werner Herzergalergadurf. I loved Fitzgallardo
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
In the Cabin in the Woods/Avengers thread everyone said Josh Weedon all the time for joke purposes and nobody cared.
Corek fucked around with this message at 19:22 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Corek posted:In the Cabin in the Woods/Avengers thread everyone said Josh Weedon all the time for joke purposes and nobody cared. "In a thread (or two!) on Something Awful Forums Dot Com, some people mistyped a name for comedic purposes. This is comparable to the seeming institutionalisation of making fun of an indian man's name for sounding funny. Welcum ta urf!"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
It's not like calling whedon weedon is a laugh riot that should be repeated either. And if you've ever used that misspelling you have to hand in your license that allows you to complain about how annoying Whedon Language or how his quips fall flat because you've done something much, much more unfunny and annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:It makes me angry because it's a blatant loving plot hole that the movie fails to explain. But enough of this derail.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Corek posted:In the Cabin in the Woods/Avengers thread everyone said Josh Weedon all the time for joke purposes and nobody cared. It's not racist though. Which is why the misspelling Shyamalan's is bad. Also, TJ Miller is in this? Well, I kinda have to watch it now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
 Actual transformers movie post: I'm surprised by the tv spots spoiling that Stinger, the human-built evil red sports car, is made up of a bunch of nano-robots. I really wasn't expecting that at all, I figured he'd just be a "conventional" transforming robot. I wonder if that's his "gimmick", or if it's a trait of all the human-built robots?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
They are not spoiling the Dinobot transformations yet, though, and Hasbro has already said that will happen. I could totally see Hasbro hiring a Whedon or a Whedon-associated director like Drew Goddard if they make a movie more in line with the current IDW comics. People have said/complained that everyone in the comics talk like Whedon characters, even Optimus and Megatron.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Empire has some new info on Transformers including these "blueprints". Bumblebee looks menacing as hell.    
Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Finally, now I can build my own transformers
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:They are not spoiling the Dinobot transformations yet, though, and Hasbro has already said that will happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:Finally, now I can build my own transformers "See all that stuff in there, Homer? That's why your robot didn't work." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I liked Signs, but then I legit just don't understand how anyone could miss the "they are demons and holy water hurts them" connection, given that the guy is literally a priest and his daughter has some weird spiritual/psychological thing going on with leaving glasses of water all over the house. The "three small cities in the Middle East" reference is practically screaming it at you. I get it. Pretty sure most people get it. that doesn't mean it isn't hokey and dumb, and smashes the perfectly constructed tone of the rest of the movie. There's plenty of better, less obvious symbols than water. It's unimaginative, hamfisted. It's not that people "aren't getting it. No one is more clever than the masses ebcause they cuaght Shyamalan's dopey little symbolism. In The Room when Denny picks up and takes a big obvious bite out of the apple that's a symbol too. it doesn't make it good. Having a meaning or an idea or symbols don't matter for poo poo if you can't pull them off. Aliens being weak against water is a huge issue in a scifi home invasion movie, and just being all "No see it's about faith. it's symbolic. The plot doesn't actually matter." is a bunch of wankery that elevates one more academic form of film-reading above others. it's elitist, and disingenuous, and pretty juvenile. No see, it's not just water. it's holy water and aliens are demons. it's about faith. It's deep. Real writers and authors work hard in most cases to balance plot and symbolism, sometimes going for one more than another, and Signs does a good job on it until the end. Plots matter and people who say they don't, well, i'd love to read their screenplays and novels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:I get it. Pretty sure most people get it. that doesn't mean it isn't hokey and dumb, and smashes the perfectly constructed tone of the rest of the movie. There's plenty of better, less obvious symbols than water. It's unimaginative, hamfisted. It's not that people "aren't getting it. Actually, this whole digression started because someone repeated the common criticism of Signs, that the aliens/Shyamalan are stupid because of water on Earth. That's what people always bring up when this movie is mentioned. If you want to argue whether the symbolism is well-executed or not then fine, but first you might have to convince people that it's not just a big plothole and there was a point to it in the first place. I mean, the same thing happened with the Transformers series and then someone went and made a thread deconstructing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I don't like Signs either but that's not what "plot hole" means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:New TV ads: Greatest work in human achievement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:Aliens being weak against water is a huge issue in a scifi home invasion movie, and just being all "No see it's about faith. it's symbolic. The plot doesn't actually matter." is a bunch of wankery that elevates one more academic form of film-reading above others. it's elitist, and disingenuous, and pretty juvenile...No see, it's not just water. it's holy water and aliens are demons. it's about faith. It's deep. Why are you so annoyed by this imagined assertion about 'depth'? No-one is saying the film is deep. I am saying, that is the meaning of the film. Is it too on the nose for your liking? That's fine. That's a discussion that can be had. For me it's not - it's a film about the clash between normal life and the incomprehensible, so the ending confounding and annoying people is just an incidence of the film's deal. Calling it wanky and complaining about perceived elitism isn't really a discussion worth having, though. Seriously, your criticism amounts to 'you are an rear end in a top hat and the film is bad because it annoys me'. Like wow, you've totally raged against the machine and disproved my opinion there buddy. Why does sunlight kill Dracula? It makes no sense! I mean, the sun comes up every day! That's lovely writing right there. And don't get me started on holy water... Why does Optimus Prime use a sword sometimes when a gun would be way more efficient? Don't tell me about 'phalluses' or I'll loving scream. Why does maleficent cast a ridiculously specific spell on Beauty? Why doesn't she just stab the child in the face? ALL THESE MOVIES MAKE ME ANGRY, loving ELITISTS TELLING ME ALL THIS poo poo MEANS SOMETHING
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
You know what movie I really liked? The remake of Robocop. Why? The acting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Why are you so annoyed by this imagined assertion about 'depth'? No-one is saying the film is deep. I am saying, that is the meaning of the film. Is it too on the nose for your liking? That's fine. That's a discussion that can be had. For me it's not - it's a film about the clash between normal life and the incomprehensible, so the ending confounding and annoying people is just an incidence of the film's deal. Calling it wanky and complaining about perceived elitism isn't really a discussion worth having, though. Seriously, your criticism amounts to 'you are an rear end in a top hat and the film is bad because it annoys me'. Like wow, you've totally raged against the machine and disproved my opinion there buddy. I think if you read my post you'd see I acknowledged things as having meaning and thats ok, but it doesn't excuse poor execution. Sorry you have some kind of hangup about the word elitist. I didn't mean to trigger you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:I think if you read my post you'd see I acknowledged things as having meaning and thats ok, but it doesn't excuse poor execution. What was badly executed about it? Was the dialogue bad? Was it shot poorly? Sorry if I missed the part where you mentioned these things, I was busy trying to parse your obsession with people saying the film was deep. Wait, who but you has said anything about depth? Even the poster you're responding to wrote it was 'obvious'. E: I'm also not sure why you think I have a hangup with a particular word. I was arguing against your entire semantic field. Why yell at theoretical stupid (or elitist) people when you can state your case? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What was badly executed about it? Was the dialogue bad? Was it shot poorly? Sorry if I missed the part where you mentioned these things, I was busy trying to parse your obsession with people saying the film was deep. Wait, who but you has said anything about depth? Even the poster you're responding to wrote it was 'obvious'. No, it's a well acted and shot film, but the end just wrecks the rest of the film. i really enjoy like 80% of Signs, but the water thing is just dumb and ham-handed. As far as setting up unlikely coincidences it just strains too hard at credibility. The trick to doing an allegory, like "Man loses faith and has to exorcise the demons of his doubts when he sees how God is looking out for him" or how you might prefer to word it, poisonous water is just dopey. Now I can see it typing in with the idea that ultimately demons are fallible, and can be destroyed, but it fucks with the literal plot level and rest of the film, which is a wonderfully done alien invasion viewed through the lense of a home invasion. The film does a lot of work setting up that in plot land these are actually aliens. They aren't a totally spiritual thing. Their signals can be intercepted with a simple baby monitor. On a plot level they're meat beings who made an unfathomably stupid tactical mistake that makes no sense. I'm not calling it a plot hole because it isn't one, but it paints the aliens as just too unimaginably stupid and unravels what came before. It's like he wanted to do a film about resolving a faith crisis and use aliens as a metaphor, and worked really ahrd on the alien invasion bits and then tacks on the holy water ending to fulfill his symbology mandate. it's just clumsy, inelegant, and contradictory. I have no issue with the film using symbolism. poo poo, it features space alien corn symbols prominently. but water? Really? My beef is that people see that it is operating on that symbolic level and defend bad use of symbolism, because they attribute symbolism with depth and get tunnel vision in their reading of films. Any criticism against the film is treated, by some, as an attack on the use of symbols. it isn't. it's just viewed by many as really clunky symbolism that contradicts the narrative, and also relies too heavily on a pretty ridiculous series of coincidences. Movies often do, but Signs makes that part of some kind of hosed up God's plan. It also basically promotes a fairly stupid form of faith. God did it. God set it up for you, you just have to swing. God's pretty hosed up in the world of Signs, but Faith in Him is the ultimate goal. The end operates on Bad Christian Movie logic, which just sucks because the rest of the film is really well constructed. Also though, it was at the time when Shymalan was basically "The Twist" guy more than he is today, and I think when he set out to do Signs he didn't have much of a twist in mind. I can't say for sure, but the home invasion, and the bits where they're piecing together what's going on are great. Even the stuff about Fr. Mel Gibson's faith issues are well handled. I really do like Sings and I've seen it a poo poo ton fo times, but I just think they really dropped the ball precisely after they see the alien reflected in the television, which was a neat lead in even because the whole film we've only experienced the aliens through radio or TV. poo poo I'd have even been ok with just the baseball bat. That tied into what Fr. Gibsons's dying wife talked about. Throwing in the holy water just brings everything down in my view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:The film does a lot of work setting up that in plot land these are actually aliens. They aren't a totally spiritual thing. Their signals can be intercepted with a simple baby monitor. On a plot level they're meat beings who made an unfathomably stupid tactical mistake that makes no sense. I'm not calling it a plot hole because it isn't one, but it paints the aliens as just too unimaginably stupid and unravels what came before. It's like he wanted to do a film about resolving a faith crisis and use aliens as a metaphor, and worked really ahrd on the alien invasion bits and then tacks on the holy water ending to fulfill his symbology mandate. Not only is it not a plot hole it's not necessarily stupid either. Since our only knowledge of the aliens is through the family, we don't know their (the aliens) motivations. We don't know why they're here. Did they know water was harmful to them but came here anyway out of desperation? Maybe they've never even heard of water before and had no idea it was so harmful to them? The audience knows so little about the invaders that we're forced to fill in the blanks ourselves and the movie is stronger because of that. People who keep insisting that the aliens Achilles' heel being water is stupid miss the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Not only is it not a plot hole it's not necessarily stupid either. Since our only knowledge of the aliens is through the family, we don't know their (the aliens) motivations. We don't know why they're here. Did they know water was harmful to them but came here anyway out of desperation? Maybe they've never even heard of water before and had no idea it was so harmful to them? The audience knows so little about the invaders that we're forced to fill in the blanks ourselves and the movie is stronger because of that. People who keep insisting that the aliens Achilles' heel being water is stupid miss the point. I personally find it just a bit much, and tactical realism rarely is an issue with me. You have a good point about not being able to know the alien's motivations, but at least form what we can tell they're intelligent enough to plot out and engage in a co-ordinated attack on a global scale. Even without the implausibility of the aliens being weak against water, having "God made her leave all those glasses around" as the payoff is a bit much. It's two things that stretch the premise a little too far at once and I think it's the way both of those improbabilities pay off at the same time that makes it a strain. Also, in dumb nitpicking, it's odd how the radio man mentions finding an "ancient way" to beat the aliens instead of just blasting WATER PEOPL over and over until they were sure those darn spacemen were all gone. The thing with the baseball bat works fine as a payoff for the "God set it up" message. Adding the water seems like just a way to get in a holy water symbol, and double down on the message, and just comes off as I said, clumsy and inelegant to me. It's only get annoyed about it because I really like Signs up until that. The water isn't even that important to beating the alien. They really picked the wrong planet to gently caress with considering their two weaknesses are water and baseball bats and we have those in abundance. Weak bad guys who are shown to be defeat-able in the end are good stuff, and I like optimism and defeating our demons. The water just feels a bit much. I like the village for the most part though. I saw the Twist coming but it didn't ruin it for me. People get too hung up on the Twist sucking and never seem to discuss the rest of the movie, which isn't bad. Lady in the Water is so terrible though. That was probably the first time I've seen a movie, opening day, where the whole audience was riffing it. It's like a whole movie made out of the ending of Signs. My tastes are questionable though, as I really like Hudson Hawk and have no ability to understand why everyone else doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:My tastes are questionable though, as I really like Hudson Hawk and have no ability to understand why everyone else doesn't. If it's any consolation, neither does Bruce Willis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:The water isn't even that important to beating the alien. So why is it such a big deal????
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:My tastes are questionable though, as I really like Hudson Hawk and have no ability to understand why everyone else doesn't. Because there are terrible people in this world. Hbomberguy posted:So why is it such a big deal???? It's just really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
All this talk about the aliens aversion to water is missing the bigger picture: How the gently caress did they not manage to open a loving door?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Apples McGrind posted:All this talk about the aliens aversion to water is missing the bigger picture: How the gently caress did they not manage to open a loving door? Vampire mythos - they must be invited in to proceed. Vampires are essentially demons anyway (the origins of Dracula are literally him using black magic to live forever).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Vampire mythos - they must be invited in to proceed. At least dracula isn't dumb enough to be vulnerable to holy water. What a plot hole that would be!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Apples McGrind posted:All this talk about the aliens aversion to water is missing the bigger picture: How the gently caress did they not manage to open a loving door? M. Night did explain that! M. Night Shyamalan posted:They seem to have trouble with pantry doors. And Hbomberguy, I'm sorry that my standards are different than yours. CAN WE PLEASE DROP THIS DERAIL NOW? If you want to stick up for Shyamalan, then start a drat thread about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:They are not spoiling the Dinobot transformations yet, though, and Hasbro has already said that will happen. Leospeare posted:Actually, this whole digression started because someone repeated the common criticism of Signs, that the aliens/Shyamalan are stupid because of water on Earth. That's what people always bring up when this movie is mentioned. If you want to argue whether the symbolism is well-executed or not then fine, but first you might have to convince people that it's not just a big plothole and there was a point to it in the first place. Tuxedo Catfish posted:I don't like Signs either but that's not what "plot hole" means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:"We have FTL travel but not spectroscopes" is plenty pothole to me. No one being around to hear "Rosebud" is a plot hole, and also completely loving irrelevant. What you have here, if I were to hazard a guess, is autism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
verybad posted:No one being around to hear "Rosebud" is a plot hole, and also completely loving irrelevant. What you have here, if I were to hazard a guess, is autism. I recant my dislike for the hamfisted execution of faith triumphing over adversity via deus ex machina, clearly you are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 12:08
|
|