TheRevanchist Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 He's right around a Bill O`Reilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 If we're talking about Fox News Bill O'Reilly and not other networks/not in character Bill then damn, that is PRETTY dickish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I think the scale should go Morgan Freeman to Mel Gibson. In which case Sean Penn is a few notches underneath Russel Crowe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I think a very serious discussion needs to be held as to what the furthest side of the dick scale should end in. It'll be many months of debate but the world deserves and NEEDS to know who the biggest dick in Hollywood is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 If you can find a better example than Mel Gibson I will be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Kat Williams is on par with Mel. But, he is more of a batshit cray cray, like LiLo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Tom Cruise. Though I don't think he's quite up there with Mel Gibson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I think I'd like to back up Kat Williams. He basically has Mel Gibson's air of superiority mixed with annoying and being a general dick to fans and the general populace. I mean Gibson has the Jew hating power, but Kat has the I wanna punch that midget in the face power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 The Lorax. Just... just no. I'm usually for well done messages for kids but if they had shoved down that message further down my throat I would have died Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 I haven't seen it, but a lot of people act like the environmental message was added into the movie and wasn't in the book at all. To them I say "are you retarded?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 Watch the movie and then decide whether I'm being retarded or not. I never said the original didn't have a message to it but this one shoved it down my throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 Without having even seen it, I can say what really bothered me about the Lorax was the INSANE amount of promotional shit. I mean it was just capitalism at its absolute worst. Anyone remember the "Lorax approved" car? A CAR! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 On 1/25/2013 at 4:35 PM, Waldorf And Statler said: Watch the movie and then decide whether I'm being retarded or not. I never said the original didn't have a message to it but this one shoved it down my throat. Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. Should have made that clearer. What you said just made me remember how many people acted like there was no environmental message in the book, it was completely shoehorned into the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 There's a whole musical number about cutting down trees and how industry is the big dog eats the little dog and MONEY MONEY MONEEEEEEEEEEY. I had to skip it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 W&S can attest to this too, but in the entirety of the movie, about 5% of it even relates to the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 That's hardly surprising, the book is like 20 illustrated pages. Hard to make a full-length movie out of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 There's a difference between supplementing your own filler between the established material of a children's story (How the Grinch Stole Christmas) versus injecting a loosely similar story of The Lorax as a form of exposition for your movie "The Lorax." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) Yeah there wasn't much dealing with the actual book but that wasn't my issue. My issue was just the presentation of their message. It could have been done much more tactfully like in Wall-E. Edited January 26, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 The Lorax: never finished it. Couldn't stand it enough to bother watching the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I'm starting to feel left out of this Lorax beatdown because I haven't watched it yet. Maybe I should just get it over with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 My mum n sisters went off to watch Lorax as my treat while I watched TDKR (my treat, I get them into cinema, tmum drives me there). Of the four of us the only complaints I heard were me wrt batman. I guess as a kids film it holds up well, but the adult messages might not be things adults go to watch a Dr Suess film for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 It's the same studio of Despicable Me. They make you think that you'll go to watch something but end up watching something else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 Iron Man 3. All the parts that were exciting were ruined for me by gaping plot holes (I will give a list below) All the parts without plot holes were full of boring, poorly acted melodrama. Killian's whole conversation about how Pepper was a "trophy"? The nonsensical Werner Von Braun speech Rebecca Hall's character made, all the times Tony Stark came off (to me) as an unsympathetic ass. Look, weird deadpan rudeness can be humorous in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but Iron Man... it's just tonally very different. Holes: Reveal hidden contents How did Rhodes escape from the dungeon after Killian knocked him out? Did it just happen offscreen? If so, why would he be allowed to escape? He's clearly a threat. Killian and AIM were remotely controlling the Iron Patriot suit while President Ellis was inside it, from Air Force One to their absurd lair. So why is it that they weren't able to simply take control of the Patriot suit when Rhodes was freeing Ellis from his chained-up position on the ship? There were plenty of people around, and having an Iron Man suit on one's side would obviously be useful. When Rhodes and Stark called the Vice President, why didn't they simply call the President, as well? He was clearly available at Air Force One, and was there to greet the AIM agent who was in the Patriot suit. Why was contacting him directly not an option? Why didn't Tony immediately call in the Iron Man suits to surprise-attack Killian's cargo-ship base, as soon as he knew its location? Not really a plot hole, but there is just NO resolution of Stark's PTSD. The PTSD itself seems cheap and unbelievable, as during the Avengers he seemed quite alright. One could say "he was simply putting up a facade", but why would the Avengers experience influence him that much, and the experiences he had in Iron Man and Iron Man 2 do basically nothing to him? This is clearly forced. The powers Extremis grants were way too vague not to annoy the hell out of me. So if you just touch any Iron Man suit with Extremis, it immobilizes the user completely? This is the only explanation that makes sense, but if it were consistent throughout, the entire last battle with Killian and the fight between the suits and Extremis-users makes no sense, either. Why wouldn't they immediately immobilize the suits by simply touching them? This is a major flaw. The connections between the Tennessee case and the Mandarin attacks are WAY too obvious for the FBI (who don't seem to have been compromised by AIM) to ignore. Absurd. That little kid was so freaking pointless. The biggest problem with the whole movie: what the FUCK is Killian's motivation?! He says at one point that he wants to "Own the War on Terror", and "control both supply and demand", which makes sense, but if he wants to be rich, why would he ever have this bizarre fucking roundabout plan? Because he's a mouthbreathing nerd who has had it out for our buddy Tony since he slighted him back in '99? Then why would he want to force Tony to work with him? To perfect Extremis? What is he even doing with Extremis in the first place, and how does "The Mandarin"/Slattery connect with this? His plan as it stands is absolutely ridiculous; I can conceive of an innumerable amount of simplifications for it. It really detracted from my experience. So basically, if you're able to deal with ALL OF THAT, you'll get a few good (though totally nonsensical) action sequences, a clever line or two, and... lots of shiny textures, I guess? How do people defend this movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 Reveal hidden contents Rhodes beat up the guards and sneaked out. AIM also had several dozen Extremis soldiers, Iron Patriot doesn't have an advanced AI like Jarvis to control it in a combat scenario, it needs someone specifically controlling it remotely. Eh, calling the VP allowed them to show that he was in on it, and why. As for in-universe; maybe they don't have Air Force ones phone number, unlike VP's home number. Because he didn't know there was several dozen Extremis soldiers, he did call them in once he knew though. You know in Avengers, at the very end thus he couldn't really show much reaction to it, he died right? Unlike the previous films where he didn't die and thus didn't develop PTSD. They don't immobilize the suits, they've super strength and heat powers, they grab hold of and start cooking the occupant. (Surely the fire breathing, which is true to the comics, would be the main power to pick up on as weird). I don't think FBI have Tonys massive compiled database (which includes many secret organisations and his own personal data) and AI to analyse it all to be able to look for heat signatures throughout US over a 12 month period. I shall agree on that part. Mandarin slightly muddies it, but still works, but his plan is pretty spot on to the comics. Release Extremis to the world as a weapon and wait for the gov't and other agencies to pick it up and supply further funding. Make Tony work for him so he can be the one in control, unlike back in '99 where Tony was in control of the situation. Basically after all that you get a comic book movie, a pretty good one at that. I've a feeling you went in on this one wanting to hate the movie, which is a shame (especially when movie tickets are pretty expensive things to be forcing yourself to see something you're going to hate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 I resent the accusation that I went in wanting to hate it. I have enjoyed almost all the Marvel movies (save Captain America and half of The Avengers), and I've been a staunch defender of Iron Man 2, historically. I love the Iron Man movies, and wanted this to be great. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're prejudiced against the film. Back to the holes. Reveal hidden contents After Rhodes got knocked out, are you suggesting that Killian and the other guy simply forgot to lock him up again? It was fairly tough for Stark to escape from his chains, and had to use the Iron Man suit to do it, which is obviously a privilege Rhodes didn't have. If they didn't show it or explain it in some way, this is a hole. It was tough for Stark, therefore it was worth showing. It had to have been tougher for Rhodes. Okay, so they need someone specifically controlling it remotely. I said this, before. The thing is, an Iron Man suit has distinct advantages in any combat scenario. They also could have imagined that someone could have broken in and cut the president down. It's out of character (and outside the realm of common sense) for AIM not to have simply covered their bases, there. Come on. Why would Rhodes have the number for the VP, and not for the President? He's clearly an incredibly important figure. It just doesn't make sense for Rhodes to be privileged enough to have the VP's number, but not privileged enough to have any way to contact the President. This is obviously a hole. I understand WHY they called the VP, plot-wise: to show that he was evil. That doesn't mean it made sense. It's the characters doing something that goes against the logical structure of the plot to reveal something they needed to reveal. It is sloppy writing. This is an okay explanation. This also makes sense. Why wouldn't they be able to hold the occupant in the final fight, then? Because they're just too hard to grab? The Extremis soldiers and Killian's strategies when using hand-to-hand combat ought to have been COMPLETELY different given the considerable power over the Iron Man suits we earlier saw them to have. Be reasonable. There is a clear dissonance between fights between suits and Extremis soldiers before and during the cargo area climax. They don't NEED a massively-compiled database to figure this out. The shadows that were left after the Tennessee bombings were NOT NORMAL. They were weird profile-shadows left on the walls. People would have thought this was strange for a long time, and seeing that all Mandarin attacks have this exact same method (leaving these weird profile-shadows which were completely unseen before in the area around the attack) does NOT take a genius. It certainly doesn't require an advanced AI and a massive compiled database. This is a gaping hole. Glad we agree. Even if his plan is spot on to the comics, it remains absurd. Perhaps I should take exception to the comics, as well, but Killian did not have the same sort of straightforward motivation previous villains in Marvel films have had. Again, if he wants to just release Extremis to the world and have the governments of the planet pick it up and supply further funding, then why does he do the entire Mandarin thing, which would put him immediately at odds with the people who are writing his checks? It makes sense why he would have Tony work with him (he is a mouthbreathing nerd who has it out for him), but it does not make sense for him to set up this bizarre geopolitical scheme which would take years and years of dedicated politicking, if he just wants money. If you have a superhuman formula, there are thousands of conceivable ways to make money that don't involve intense political strategy and involvement. Almost everyone I have spoken to concedes this point. Look, I really did want to like it. I liked the last two quite a bit, I like RDJ, I absolutely love Shane Black, and I enjoy almost all the Marvel movies. You've only addressed two of the holes I brought up sufficiently. I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am biased against the film after I have written out a point-by-point summary of why I thought it was flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.