Vann is trolling some old-timers pretty hard, and I appreciate his efforts.
nah I just think it's dumb when people can't sit down and enjoy a perfectly entertaining movie without applying some arbitrary checklist to make sure its up to some film-major standards
apparently I'm an asshole for thinking that!
unless that is now considered trolling gosh this gets confusing quick
So, for the record, you're going to check "Idiot" instead of "Asshole?"
I have to get this down officially. For tax purposes, you know?
Vann is trolling some old-timers pretty hard, and I appreciate his efforts.
nah I just think it's dumb when people can't sit down and enjoy a perfectly entertaining movie without applying some arbitrary checklist to make sure its up to some film-major standards
apparently I'm an asshole for thinking that!
unless that is now considered trolling gosh this gets confusing quick
So, for the record, you're going to check "Idiot" instead of "Asshole?"
I have to get this down officially. For tax purposes, you know?
baby I'll let you check whatever you want
if the price is right
Now you're speaking my language.
Seriously though, applying standards different than your own doesn't make someone an uptight asshole. It means that they're not, you know, you.
This movie had tits and superheroes and hatchet killings and you guys are complaining?
But I thought that Watchmen was supposed to be so much more than tits, superheroes and hatchet killings? I thought it was supposed to be this psychological epic and the whole deconstruction of the super-hero mythos and the moral gray-areas that surround the notions of the "heroes" and the REAL super-powered man.
I thought this was supposed to be better than that?
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
If you don't think that a companion piece can be good on its own accord then I clearly don't want to be having this discussion with you.
Dude, you know I love ya, but this isn't what he said at all
He said a companion piece SHOULD be good on its own accord, and he doesn't think this one is
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
But why should it have to be a "companion" to anything? Why does it need that excuse to be good. You yourself said judging it as a movie alone it is not a good movie.
The entire implication is that the term is used an an excuse for sub-par material. He's either stupid for thinking it can't be good of its own accord or a tool for putting words in my mouth saying that I don't think it's a good movie of its own accord. I'm just not willing to have this discussion with the guy.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
If you don't think that a companion piece can be good on its own accord then I clearly don't want to be having this discussion with you.
Dude, you know I love ya, but this isn't what he said at all
He said a companion piece SHOULD be good on its own accord, and he doesn't think this one is
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
But why should it have to be a "companion" to anything? Why does it need that excuse to be good. You yourself said judging it as a movie alone it is not a good movie.
The entire implication is that the term is used an an excuse for sub-par material. He's either stupid for thinking it can't be good of its own accord or a tool for putting words in my mouth saying that I don't think it's a good movie of its own accord. I'm just not willing to have this discussion with the guy.
You should talk about why you're not having this proposed discussion with this guy
Meissnerd on
0
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
If you don't think that a companion piece can be good on its own accord then I clearly don't want to be having this discussion with you.
Dude, you know I love ya, but this isn't what he said at all
He said a companion piece SHOULD be good on its own accord, and he doesn't think this one is
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
But why should it have to be a "companion" to anything? Why does it need that excuse to be good. You yourself said judging it as a movie alone it is not a good movie.
The entire implication is that the term is used an an excuse for sub-par material. He's either stupid for thinking it can't be good of its own accord or a tool for putting words in my mouth saying that I don't think it's a good movie of its own accord. I'm just not willing to have this discussion with the guy.
I. . . I don't think that's what he said at all. I don't think that's his implication. o.O
Vann is trolling some old-timers pretty hard, and I appreciate his efforts.
nah I just think it's dumb when people can't sit down and enjoy a perfectly entertaining movie without applying some arbitrary checklist to make sure its up to some film-major standards
apparently I'm an asshole for thinking that!
unless that is now considered trolling gosh this gets confusing quick
So, for the record, you're going to check "Idiot" instead of "Asshole?"
I have to get this down officially. For tax purposes, you know?
baby I'll let you check whatever you want
if the price is right
Now you're speaking my language.
Seriously though, applying standards different than your own doesn't make someone an uptight asshole. It means that they're not, you know, you.
I suppose I can go for this
sometimes though you just have to realize your standards do not match what the film is going for, though
it's like watching an Oscar nominee and Spider-Man while applying the same critical thinking to both. it just don't work too well
wait is munkus getting angry at people putting dicks in his mouth?
man i can relate so hard
iusehappymod on
Hamlet will be Hamlet An ineffable tragedy of the human spirit that still resonates, even today.
0
Sars_BoyRest, You Are The Lightning.Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
also when in the book is it implied that the comedian shot JFK? I know he did just from discussing it, but I never caught the part where they imply it or talk about it or anything
also when in the book is it implied that the comedian shot JFK? I know he did just from discussing it, but I never caught the part where they imply it or talk about it or anything
I'm pretty sure it was in "Under the Hood"
McCly on
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
also when in the book is it implied that the comedian shot JFK? I know he did just from discussing it, but I never caught the part where they imply it or talk about it or anything
"Just don't ask me where I was when JFK was shot"
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Sars_BoyRest, You Are The Lightning.Registered Userregular
also when in the book is it implied that the comedian shot JFK? I know he did just from discussing it, but I never caught the part where they imply it or talk about it or anything
"Just don't ask me where I was when JFK was shot"
huh, oh yeah
totally forgot about that line
i should reread the book again soon, but i'm letting my dad read it right now
which is awesome because he's enjoying it and for the most part is getting what is going on, which he rarely seems to do with most things
If you don't think that a companion piece can be good on its own accord then I clearly don't want to be having this discussion with you.
Dude, you know I love ya, but this isn't what he said at all
He said a companion piece SHOULD be good on its own accord, and he doesn't think this one is
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
But why should it have to be a "companion" to anything? Why does it need that excuse to be good. You yourself said judging it as a movie alone it is not a good movie.
The entire implication is that the term is used an an excuse for sub-par material. He's either stupid for thinking it can't be good of its own accord or a tool for putting words in my mouth saying that I don't think it's a good movie of its own accord. I'm just not willing to have this discussion with the guy.
Perhaps it was not you who said that as a companion piece this is great but as a movie it is bad. I thought that was you, and if I am misquoting you then I apologize.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2009
I said that it was a great companion piece to the book and that it's not as great as the book, but I loved the movie.
Critics who say "It's too close to the comic!" are stupid. The movie is a great introduction to the comic or a great companion piece. It is entertaining in its own right. The fact that the director decided against changing key points of the movie to "make it his" is a good thing.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Posts
baby I'll let you check whatever you want
if the price is right
Jordyn kind of made those fun.
Fo reelz.
from my parents basement in milwaukee, i stab at thee
i am terrible for laughing when he was all limp after the interrupted sex with Laurie
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Seriously though, applying standards different than your own doesn't make someone an uptight asshole. It means that they're not, you know, you.
But I want my blind devotion to this movie to be rewarded with mass acceptance!!
But I thought that Watchmen was supposed to be so much more than tits, superheroes and hatchet killings? I thought it was supposed to be this psychological epic and the whole deconstruction of the super-hero mythos and the moral gray-areas that surround the notions of the "heroes" and the REAL super-powered man.
I thought this was supposed to be better than that?
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
The entire implication is that the term is used an an excuse for sub-par material. He's either stupid for thinking it can't be good of its own accord or a tool for putting words in my mouth saying that I don't think it's a good movie of its own accord. I'm just not willing to have this discussion with the guy.
You should talk about why you're not having this proposed discussion with this guy
I. . . I don't think that's what he said at all. I don't think that's his implication. o.O
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
I suppose I can go for this
sometimes though you just have to realize your standards do not match what the film is going for, though
it's like watching an Oscar nominee and Spider-Man while applying the same critical thinking to both. it just don't work too well
this is true
but I sure as shit wasn't NOT entertained.
CGI dongs to be exact.
There were times when I was entertained.
But there were large gaps of time where I was wondering if the previous entertaining moment was going to be the last of the film.
Hamlet will be Hamlet
An ineffable tragedy of the human spirit that still resonates, even today.
man i can relate so hard
Hamlet will be Hamlet
An ineffable tragedy of the human spirit that still resonates, even today.
I'm pretty sure it was in "Under the Hood"
"Just don't ask me where I was when JFK was shot"
I know right
yeah well, Watchmen is a better movie than Wanted
What about CGI tits vs. real dong?
I have to wonder if such a movie exists
totally forgot about that line
i should reread the book again soon, but i'm letting my dad read it right now
which is awesome because he's enjoying it and for the most part is getting what is going on, which he rarely seems to do with most things
Perhaps it was not you who said that as a companion piece this is great but as a movie it is bad. I thought that was you, and if I am misquoting you then I apologize.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
Beowulf maybe? I never saw it though...
there was a fake dong in Boogie Nights, if that counts.
That entirely depends on the quality of dong.
this dong is not blue enough for TV
Not yet.