libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Waste of space.
Lol, movies basically grossed a billion already, 785 million without non-domestic totals for the last 5 days.
the movie is ALRIGHT but if it wasn't for the fuckin special effects it would be mind-numbingly dull. Just goes to show that CGI can really make up for lack of plot and good characters. Seriously, without all that fancy 3D biznizz would y'all still think it best movie of the year? I don't think so. It'd be another second-rate sci-fi straight-to-DVD piece o'shit.
Yes, but the visuals are pretty amazing and pretty groundbreaking you have to admit. Visuals obviously are an essential part of a movie so saying "if it didn't have all that fancy 3-d" etc etc is completely irrelevant. Its like saying "If the Shawshank Redemption didn't have a captivating storyline would you still like it".ruisleipa wrote:
the movie is ALRIGHT but if it wasn't for the fuckin special effects it would be mind-numbingly dull. Just goes to show that CGI can really make up for lack of plot and good characters. Seriously, without all that fancy 3D biznizz would y'all still think it best movie of the year? I don't think so. It'd be another second-rate sci-fi straight-to-DVD piece o'shit.
Yeah they are amazing...but without them the film would kinda suck. Let's face it, there's not much interesting characterisation and the story is pretty ridiculous.
Think about a film like Alien - there's hardly any special effects yet it's a nail-biting, exciting, scary film. Shawshank redemption - NO (?) special effects and a totally engrossing story. Of course a film has to look minimally good but tbh if I want computer graphics I might as well play Avatar The Game rather than watch the movie. It's not completely irrelevant at all. Would you say the special effects are EQUALLY as important as storyline, characters etc.
Or, better example, Star Wars Ep. IV-VI there were special effects obviously but the writing was so good and the development of the story etc was what made it, even though there were bits like attacking the death star where you went 'wow that's kickass!', even without those it would still be interesting to watch. But ep I-III were SHIT, DESPITE the 'amazing' special effects. So you can have a great film with dodgy visuals (let's face it, most films made prior to 1970 look pretty shit now but can still be great) but only having brilliant effects doesn't make a great film.
Think about a film like Alien - there's hardly any special effects yet it's a nail-biting, exciting, scary film. Shawshank redemption - NO (?) special effects and a totally engrossing story. Of course a film has to look minimally good but tbh if I want computer graphics I might as well play Avatar The Game rather than watch the movie. It's not completely irrelevant at all. Would you say the special effects are EQUALLY as important as storyline, characters etc.
Or, better example, Star Wars Ep. IV-VI there were special effects obviously but the writing was so good and the development of the story etc was what made it, even though there were bits like attacking the death star where you went 'wow that's kickass!', even without those it would still be interesting to watch. But ep I-III were SHIT, DESPITE the 'amazing' special effects. So you can have a great film with dodgy visuals (let's face it, most films made prior to 1970 look pretty shit now but can still be great) but only having brilliant effects doesn't make a great film.
You're complaining about a predictable plot, no movie has an original plot anymore and the only way you can call a movie's plot original/not predictable is if you haven't seen the movie it ripped off of in the first place.
True, but I can still appreciate the film for its excellent visuals. I knew I wasn't in for the narrative of the century, I was there for the eye-sex Some films are based around an excellent story, some are made for the spectacle.ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah they are amazing...but without them the film would kinda suck. Let's face it, there's not much interesting characterisation and the story is pretty ridiculous.
Think about a film like Alien - there's hardly any special effects yet it's a nail-biting, exciting, scary film. Shawshank redemption - NO (?) special effects and a totally engrossing story. Of course a film has to look minimally good but tbh if I want computer graphics I might as well play Avatar The Game rather than watch the movie. It's not completely irrelevant at all. Would you say the special effects are EQUALLY as important as storyline, characters etc.
Or, better example, Star Wars Ep. IV-VI there were special effects obviously but the writing was so good and the development of the story etc was what made it, even though there were bits like attacking the death star where you went 'wow that's kickass!', even without those it would still be interesting to watch. But ep I-III were SHIT, DESPITE the 'amazing' special effects. So you can have a great film with dodgy visuals (let's face it, most films made prior to 1970 look pretty shit now but can still be great) but only having brilliant effects doesn't make a great film.
No, i said it was ridiculous, never mentioned predictable! Although it WAS predictable, now you mention it But, it wasn't a good story, predictable or not, imo, so that's enough to say it was ALRIGHT but not film of the year by ANY means.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
You're complaining about a predictable plot, no movie has an original plot anymore and the only way you can call a movie's plot original/not predictable is if you haven't seen the movie it ripped off of in the first place.
and, while we argue 'predictable' this and 'awesome' that, James Cameron laffs all the way to the bank . . .
well that was always gonna happen!burnzz wrote:
and, while we argue 'predictable' this and 'awesome' that, James Cameron laffs all the way to the bank . . .
burnzz wrote:
and, while we argue 'predictable' this and 'awesome' that, James Cameron laffs all the way to the bank . . .
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
It was a typical, predictable action movie.
terrible movie.
Something tells me that you think Michael Bay is a good director.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
True, but I can still appreciate the film for its excellent visuals. I knew I wasn't in for the narrative of the century, I was there for the eye-sex Some films are based around an excellent story, some are made for the spectacle.
Those are just special effects Michael, we need ideas.NooBesT wrote:
Something tells me that you think Michael Bay is a good director.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
True, but I can still appreciate the film for its excellent visuals. I knew I wasn't in for the narrative of the century, I was there for the eye-sex Some films are based around an excellent story, some are made for the spectacle.
"THEN THE TRANSFORMERS GO BOOOOOOOM AND FLY AND BOOOOOM"
Thats how you make movies.
Its good but I haven't seen it yet
probably gonna end up highest grossing worldwide of all time, topping Titanicburnzz wrote:
and, while we argue 'predictable' this and 'awesome' that, James Cameron laffs all the way to the bank . . .
god damn James Cameron just buy the nation of Barbados while you're at it
Speed Racer looked a lot better.
Oh god its miggle
o' beacon of shining wit
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
And trollface extraordinaire,
wait
wait
Last edited by N00bkilla55404 (2010-01-03 16:45:14)
Still haven't seen it, don't really want to either.
