September 05, 2015, 08:15:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 41
1441  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 06:15:46 AM
Quote from: "Raven"
First of all. I simply pointed out that a member of LULAC claimed that Texas had been "conquered" by Hispanics, which I felt was not just inaccurate, but highly insensitive.

Your post in no way indicated that you thought the quote was "inaccurate" or "insensitive." In fact, given that you chose that quote to underline your post, it seemed very much that you agreed with it. There was nothing to indicate otherwise.

But I'm a bigot for calling that asshole out.

No, you appear to be a bigot because you appear to hold to the notion that there is a vast pan-Hispanic conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. Or was it to pollute or precious bodily fluids? I can never keep track.
1442  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 04:42:36 AM
The quote in your first post said nothing about illegal immigration. It said that Texas had been taken over by Hispanics, which is:

1) Wrong.

2) Racist, the way you're using it, which is to paint this as a bad thing.

3) Denigrating to millions of Texas Hispanics who are just as much a citizen of this country as any Anglo.

You presented this claim that Texas had been taken over by Hispanics as "chilling." Why is the presence of a large population of Hispanic Americans in Texas chilling?

I think its a rather good thing.
1443  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 03:24:36 AM
No, your racist attempt to imply that eeeeevil Hispanics were trying to take this country away from the Great White People who took it away from the red heathens is not "pointing out someone else's race baiting."

Your entire first post was an anti-hispanic, racist exercise in baiting. This whole thread exists simply because you seem to hate hispanic people found some nonsense quote to support your notion that they are "taking over" the nation.
1444  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 01:28:56 AM
Quote from: "Raven"
Quote from: "godhugh"

I heard a white guy in Arkansas raped someone. We should get rid of all the white people in Arkansas. Destructive people, that's what they are.

Time to whip out the race card, huh.

Your quote in the first post started the race baiting.
1445  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 01:28:28 AM
Quote from: "Jumangi"
The people who don't think the flood of illegal immigration isn't that big of deal don't live in one of the states being affected by it. Being a Arizona resident I see it every day.

I'm a native Texan. We have a vibrant, wonderful Hispanic community in this state. We would be a far lesser community without them.
1446  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / A brief moment of honesty reveals a chilling agenda. on: July 20, 2005, 01:25:56 AM
Quote from: "Raven"
You can make any jokes you want, but not everyone shares your sense of humor when it comes to this subject, and for those Americans who are getting a bird's eye view of just how destructive illegal immigration can be, you're dismissive attitude might be seen in poor taste.

Nonsense. I live in Texas, the same as CrayolaSmoker. This state has not been taken over by hispanics, and anyone who says it has been is an idiot. I'll leave it to other to discern what sort of person might take the glib chatter of an idiot as gospel.

Illegal immigration is an economic problem. If 3 million people are coming into this country every year to take jobs that those of us already living here won't take because they're not economically worth the sort of pay that Americans demand, then we have a core economic issue to deal with. I'm not sure how to deal with it -- but I certainly don't want to be paying 2 to 3 times more for my produce and meat.
1447  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 10, 2005, 03:47:08 AM
Quote from: "whiteboyskim"
Then who was the chief architect of the Zero Hour? I seem the remember that being an ex-Green Lantern.

It was Hal Jordan, but he didn't die at the end.

Also, do the comics masters, be it DC or Marvel, do a major revamp every few years and assign it the "Crisis in..." label? You and I had a talk some time ago about that and you said whenever the word "Crisis" appeared in the title of something, it was the most serious thing you would see in the comics world.

It is in the DC comics world. I don't think Marvel's ever had anything similar, though their Infinity books got to be something of the same scale, IIRC.
1448  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 10, 2005, 02:37:22 AM
Quote from: "AgtFox"
Jason Todd, Donna Troy and Hal Jordan all being back from the dead is supposedly key to the Infinite Crisis along with the "Trinity" of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.  I started up a thread somewhere around here talking about it, but it never really caught on.  Maybe I should update it.

I wonder if any other than Hal will still be alive at the end of Infinite Crisis.

I am not surprised Jason is alive especially with the swerve during Hush by Loeb.

I was SO disappointed that it wasn't Jason in Hush, particularly given how that moment in the graveyard just hit me like a ton of bricks. After that, the real identity of Hush was something of a disappointment.

Now they are saying it was indeed Todd that battled Batman during Hush and that Clayface was put in at the last moment.  Someone asked Jason how he came back alive in the last Batman issue and he kind of blew it off.  A Lazarus Pit dip usually brings about insanity like what happened with Riddler during Hush and Ra's on many occasions.  Jason hasn't shown any insane tendencies yet.

The thing is, the insanity is only temporary, and it appears that Jason was brought back to life YEARS ago -- he's aged at least four or five years since his death. Which would be, what, about 10 years worth of issues? Maybe Jason's return is a long-unknown remnant of Zero Hour. ;-)
1449  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 10, 2005, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: "whiteboyskim"
Quote from: "AgtFox"
Jason Todd, Donna Troy and Hal Jordan all being back from the dead is supposedly key to the Infinite Crisis along with the "Trinity" of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.  I started up a thread somewhere around here talking about it, but it never really caught on.  Maybe I should update it.

Wait a second. I thought Hal Jordan came back during Zero Hour as the chief villain? Or has he died and been reborn since then?

Hal hadn't died at that point. Hal died a few years after Zero Hour during the Final Night -- he sacrificed himself and all his power to reignite the Sun. He ended up in Purgatory, and for a brief time was the human incarnation of the Spectre -- the spirit of God's vengeance. He's now fully back from the dead, and restored as a Green Lantern (of which there now appear to be six or seven, as opposed to just John Stewart and Kyle Rayner as before).
1450  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 10, 2005, 01:38:19 AM
Quote from: "stiffler"
Does nobody else realize how stupid it is that Jason Todd was brought back from the dead?  With the exception of wbs you all seem giddy about this turn of events, which is one of the worst things I have read in a long time.  If Batman suddenly had the ability to fly would you even blink?

Batman has had people around him come back from the dead on numerous occasions -- including Ra's al Ghul. The notion of Jason's death really doesn't have any resonance for Batman anymore. He's basically been over it for years. This dredges it all back up, and gives Batman, effectively, a replacement villain for the immortal Ra's, who died for the last time (ha ha) about a year ago.

I realize this is a fucking comic book, but to just wipe away what was such a great story and had such an impact on Batman...

How does it wipe away? It all stems from it. Jason isn't a good guy anymore, because of what he went through due to what he now sees as "Bruce's weakness." It's a twist, to be sure, but its an interesting one. And it's been handled remarkably well. They teased us with this two years ago, and then reintroduced it very carefully. And they've got some of their best writers working on it (Judd Winnick).

Jason's return might not last beyond Infinite Crisis, but its one of the most genuinely surprising "returns" in the DC Universe in recent years.
1451  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 09, 2005, 09:57:01 PM
Well Batman went nuts after Jason died, but that was over a decade ago, and he's long past that. When he discovered two years ago that Jason's body was missing, he sorta freaked out again, but its been quite busy since then.
1452  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 09, 2005, 09:13:14 PM
Nope, it seems that Jason Todd has finally come back from the dead (what a shock in comic world). I'd imagine someone dunked him in a Lazarus Pit.
1453  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Batman Begins? on: July 09, 2005, 07:10:21 PM
Joker's origins aren't covered in Year One (nor is he even featured in Year Two), but remember Year One didn't cover everything that happened that year. During the events of Year One, Batman foiled a heist at the Ace Card company that ended up chasing the bad guys into the chemical plant next door. These guys were part of the Red Hood gang -- three gangsters and the Red Hood, though in truth the Red Hood was just a guy in a mask, and a different guy everytime. This time, the Red Hood was a down-on-his-luck comic, who ended up falling into the chemical vats and emerging insane and as the Joker.

Or at least, that's how the Joker sometimes remembers his origin. He's so crazy, he's not exactly sure where he came from, though the Red Hood notion is pretty well established.

There's a new Red Hood in Gotham today. He's a violent vigilante who's first action was beating the crap out of the Joker. With a crowbar. Because the Joker did that to him once... before he tied him to a bomb. Welcome back, Jason. smile
1454  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Fantastic 4 Movie on: July 09, 2005, 06:58:27 PM
Whiteboy, some friends of mine and I went to see this last night. I was expecting dreck, but this wasn't really so bad. We talked about it afterwards, and both Mitch and I noted the recycled Spider-Man plot.

Some things I noticed (may be some minor spoilers):

1) The villain, like in the Spider-Movies, seemed superfluous. Really, he didn't do anything. I'm getting a bit tired of superhero movies where the heroes don't even know the villain exists until 80 minutes into a 90-minute film. It's good to make the focus on the heroes and their struggle with their identity (though, how many times can we see that story?), but at least make the villain IMPORTANT to the action, OR make the third act where we fight the villain much longer.

2) Chris Evans is hot. Flame-on.

3) The gray in Reed's temples was wildly inconsistent from shot to shot.

4) Sue wore a lot of makeup for a trip to space. And nice gravity on that station. Sheesh.

5) I totally didn't buy Ben's motivations for his actions in the Third Act. The character wasn't brought to the point where he would do those things.

6) Chris Evans. Really.

7) Thing and Torch were great, perfect interplay.

Cool How does a blind person get their makeup so perfect?

9) Look, another Marvel movie villain with a Power Rangers mask.

10) There is no item ten.

All in all, it was B-grade fare. Much better than I was expecting, but not at all innovative. Frankly, I would have made the characters all younger. The Ultimates line deals with an 18 year old Reed and Sue and Ben and a 16 year old Johnny. Maybe age them a bit more than that. The guy playing Reed looked ten years older than the rest of them. It was disconcerting.

And it seems that they took out the stupid "You know that looked cool!" line from the first trailer. Good move.
1455  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retires on: July 02, 2005, 07:03:52 AM
The loss of Sandra really scares me. She was one of the deciding votes  in the decision two years ago that determined that, yes, people like me do deserve protection from having our doors kicked down and being arrested for no reason but not abiding by nonsense "Christian" morals.

My "move to Canada" urge is back. Nice cold weather, a pretty flag and I get to be a treated like an actual human being.

The one good thing is that Bush is so widely hated right now (how's that 41% approval rating sitting with you, you war-mongering right wing religious fanatic?) that he'll have a hard time leveraging any real political capital on this.
1456  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / RSS- am I missing something? on: June 28, 2005, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: "stiffler"
That NetNewsWire on the Mac looks great.  Very clean.  Especially the ability to just view the whole page in the same window if you like.

It's one of my main programs. It's written by one guy, Brett Simmons (spelling may be in error), and he and his wife do all the promotion and marketing. It's a Cocoa program, so it's got a top notch look and feel going for it. And it can do cool things like host that WebKit session inside it's main window. Most of the software I use day in and day out is similar -- written by one or two people, but absolutely professional and impressive.

And though it's most obvious use is as a news wire (thus the name), RSS is useful in a myriad of ways. You can subscribe to your Gmail account as an RSS feed, for instance, and keep up to date on your mail that way.
1457  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / RSS- am I missing something? on: June 28, 2005, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
RSS is a godsend -- its helped me find and keep track of content I never would have seen back in the days when I just browsed through my bookmarks.

I guess this is what Im not getting.  What exactly is different?  How does it differ from your bookmarks?

Let's say I had the 100 sites I've got RSS feeds from in NNW in my bookmarks. How would I tell if they were updated? How would I know when new content was posted? NNW pings the feeds of those sites every 30 minutes. I know pretty much instantly whenever news breaks in the Mac world, or when Corey Doctorow publishes a new story or novel, etc. It would take me more than 30 minutes just to browse each of those 100 sites to see if they've been updated. NNW aggregates all that information into a unified interface and does all the work for me. I'm never out of touch, never out of date.
1458  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / RSS- am I missing something? on: June 28, 2005, 03:08:34 AM
RSS is transglorious. It's "push" done right. I use RSS to keep track of around 100 different feeds, ranging from technology news to political news to websites hosted by my friends. And since my aggregator includes a built in implementation of Apple's WebKit, I don't even have to leave it to feeds in their HTML form or visit linked sites.

Of course, this is on a Mac. I've yet to find an RSS reader worth spitting on in the Windows world (Thunderbird sort of comes close).

Click for larger version.

That's NetNewsWire 2.0 on Mac OS X Tiger. Along the left are groupings and individual feeds, as well as "Smart Lists" at the top -- lists which aggregate all instances of certain words (such as "Tiger") in all of my feeds and present them in an extrapolated list.

You can also browse sites directly in NetNewsWire:

Click for larger version.

I'd say I spend close to 50% of my "Web" time in NetNewsWire, as opposed to Safari. RSS is a godsend -- its helped me find and keep track of content I never would have seen back in the days when I just browsed through my bookmarks.
1459  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Serenity Trailer - HOLY CRAP!!!! on: June 25, 2005, 03:45:25 PM
Not only should the intro be on the DVD, I wish there were a way to show a shortened, or reshot, version of it before the actual theatrical release. That was a great introduction, and even choked me up a bit.

The movie was a rollercoaster -- an absolutely fabulous rollercoaster. I can't say enough good things about it .... or much more about it in a spoiler-free thread.
1460  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 21, 2005, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: "unbreakable"
I havent read any Superman in a really long time, but I dont remember Kent being an insecure weenie in the comics, and he wasnt in the cartoon either.  IMO, the DC cartoons are much closer to canon than the movies ever were.

The cartoons, and likely the comics you've read, were all Post-Crisis. The Post-Crisis Clark Kent is very much not a weenie, is the dominant personality and in the end is the one who gets the girl.

The Pre-Crisis Clark Kent was inconsistent, but was often the meek, bumbling bufoon Quentin Tarantino's Bill talks about.
1461  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 20, 2005, 11:48:12 PM
The worstest thing about Crusade is that we were PROMISED a show about rangers, and what we got was a Gilligan's Island plot (ie, no resolution or its all over) and Gary Cole in a very un-Office Space (ie, sucky) performance.

Galen the Techno Wanker was the deathblow.

Of course, I have very little interest in any B5 story or show without Londo, so I could be biased.
1462  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 20, 2005, 11:38:22 PM
Quote from: "Dafones"
Ehh, watch the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 to hear Tarantino's opinion on Kal-El's identity.

Actually, the dialogue from Kill Bill v.2 was taken, if not word for word, then certainly thoguht for thought, from Stanley Kauffmann's review of the first Superman movie for the 13 January, 1979, issue of the New Republic.
1463  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 20, 2005, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: "Jumangi"
Don't bother with the movies. They range from ok, to crap IMO. Just felt like weak/cheap addons that didn't add anything to the B5 universe.

And the same goes for "Crusade."
1464  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 07:40:21 PM
In 1985, DC rebooted its continuity. Many characters, including Superman, were completely revamped. Superman's powers were drastically scaled down, the Superman/Clark Kent dominant personality dynamic was inverted, Lex Luthor was changed dramatically, Lois Lane was made a more direct love interest for Clark, not Superman, etc, etc, etc.

Pre-Crisis (a la the Donner film) Superman had powers from the word "goo goo." His parents were dead. He could travel through time. There were all varieties of Kryptonite. Lex Luthor was  mad-man/scientist.

Post-Crisis, Superman's powers developed gradually over time. Green kryptonite is the only "real" form of Kryptonite -- though other varieties can be artificially created. Superman cannot travel through time at will, nor is he anywhere near as strong as he was in 1984. Lex Luthor was an award-winning scientist, a billionaire industrialist, the US President, and now the leader of an international organization of supervillains.

In effect, there are two very different characters which to the public seem like the same character: Superman. Whether one is discussing pre- or post-Crisis Superman makes a large difference in the nature of the character. Things that would have been sacrelige in the pre-Crisis era (such as asserting that Superman was a fake identity for Clark Kent, not vice versa) are part of the basic continuity of the post-Crisis era.

Umm... as an on-topic comment, Batman didn't change much as a result of Crisis.
1465  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Doesn't anyone except me have a problem with the idea of Lex Luthor being portrayed as some loner wacko hanging around in an abandoned subway station, ranting to himself and his two lackeys and antagonizing Superman for no apparent reason?  I'm no comic book buff, but Gene Hackman's version of Lex Luthor seems pretty radically different from every other version of the character I've seen -- it couldn't have been much campier if they'd cast William Shatner.

Yeah, Hackman's Luthor was a bit too campy. Of course, pre-Crisis Luthor was a lot campier than post-Crisis Luthor.
1466  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: "Dafones"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.

Wait, waa? Why would he have to be on earth for 12 years? Superman as a wee child lifted up the Kents' truck moments after landing on Earth.

Brodie's conversation takes place post-Crisis.
1467  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: "farley2k"
I think it is fair to say that Fireball cares more about Superman 2 than I have ever cared about a movie.

It's not Superman 2. I like Superman 2 just fine -- but it's only a silly, meaningless movie. It's Superman 1 that matters. It's a seminal film, one that created a genre, one that still stands up today because it has a powerful, coherent story, despite aged special effects.

I wrote a course paper on Superman as part of my film minor in college.
1468  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
Fireball1244 - you sure have it in for Lester don't you? :wink:

If I had a dollar for each time you mentioned Lester vs. Donner...

That's because the difference in style between Lester and Donner is the entire reason Superman II fails to match the original -- it has no coherent theme, no consistent tone, and lurches from Donner's more serious picture to Lester's hokey nonsense (epitomized by Superman III) from scene to scene.

Anyway, the green crystal thing.  Come on use some imagination here. :wink:

When the audience has to "use imagination" and come up with rationalizations that contradict the universe as presented on screen in order to make the plot coherent, that's called bad screenwriting.

He picked up the green crystal and used it to re-construct the crystal control panel so that he can get back into the chamber and bring his powers back!

How? The chamber was contained "red sun" energy -- that energy could NOT be used to restore Superman's powers.

Yes, they don't show this on film, but it is implied.

Implied major changes for characters -- in this case, half of Kal-el's arc for Superman 2 is being "implied" -- is BAD writing.

He just didn't "magically hold the crystal" and his powers came back.

From the story presented on screen, that's precisely what happened.

If the crystal can create the entire Fortress of Solitude then it can certainly rebuild the crystal control panel.

Which, from what we've seen of that panel and the devices in the Fortress, gets Superman NO closer to having his powers restored.

What's wrong with comprehending the powers in that kiss?

The fact that Superman doesn't have those powers. In any case, it was the coffee, not the kiss. I  checked my copy of the original screenplay.

Like I said, if he can shoot lasers from his eyes, blow subzero breaths, and disappear/reappear, then we can suspend some disbelief and accept the "forgetfullness" powers of the kiss.  At least I can.

You seem far too willing to suspend disbelief of things that fly completely against the character.

The idea about losing your powers to "be" with a human is also implied and again I used my imagination.

Everytime you have to "use your imagination" to rationalize away a plot point that doesn't make sense based solely on the film is an indictment of the incompetence of the filmmakers. You're not supposed to "imagine" the character arc.

I really got attached to Lois Lane, Ursa, & Zod.  Terrence Stamp was brilliant as Zod.  Ursa was gorgeous and kick ass.  Lois Lane, well, I always loved Margot Kidder and her raspy voice! :wink:

You are right about Superman III.  Now there was bad casting - Richard Prior???

It should be pointed out that Donner cast everyone you liked. And Lester cast Richard Pryor in Superman III. smile
1469  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 06:32:20 PM
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.
1470  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Scary stuff - Big Brother wants to watch your ISP on: June 17, 2005, 06:25:18 PM
The notion that only people who "have something to hide" should be concerned about such egregious violations of our privacy is spurious at best, dangerous at worst.
1471  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 06:16:47 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
I rather liked this beginning.  Besides, making the sequal a part of the first movie would have just watered them both down in my opinion.  For me this is an example of getting too much information.  The same thing happened with KOTOR 2.  Until people starting reading about what was cut they really liked the game.  I'm just wondering if you didn't somehow find and read about the proper draft would you have still liked the way the movie opened?

The movie's opening is bad because it's poorly written and executed. The reason it's poorly written and executed is because it was directed by Richard Lester, not Richard Donner, because the Salkinds screwed with the story and fired Donner when he wouldn't go along.

I don't think Superman and Superman II would have worked as one film. However, creating redundant elements in Superman II (yet ANOTHER nuclear explosion in space) simply because Lester wanted the film to be more "his" separates the film from Superman needlessly, and weakens the story.

I thought it was his kiss that had some kind of power to affect the mind and make her forget.

Superman doesn't have that power. It is untrue to the character to just up and give it to him.

A stretch I know, but anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes I guess we can't really complain about the power in that kiss.

Yes we can. It's not a Superman power. Superman can't do that. Superman has a fairly specific set of powers. Magic superkiss is not one of them.

I believe he had to give up his powers because he could not have "physical relations" with a human due to his super abilities.  His father or mother (can't remember who) told him this when he was studying one of the crystals.

That is nowhere in the film.

This is how I saw it.  Did you notice the first time he takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude he shows her the green crystal, trying to explain to her how it "called to him".  Then she says she is hungry and he says I will be right back.  When he gets back she puts the crystal down on the ice and the camera focuses on it.  That's a clue right there because when he goes back later to try and get his powers back, seeing the main control panel burnt out he realizes all is lost.  Until he notices the green crystal lying on the ice right where she left it.  What luck!  So there is reasoning behind getting his powers back.

That's not reasoning. Reasoning would explain or at least indicate how it is that the green crystal can do that. We all know it was the green crystal that gave Superman back his powers. That's right there on the screen. But it appears that just finding it gave them back -- that's not a journey, that's not an accomplishment -- that's certainly NOT drama. He walks to the Fortress, picks up the green crystal, and from all we know, magically his powers are instantly restored -- which completely contradicts what his mother was saying in the crystal message. That is poor writing. Pathetic writing, even.

And no suffering?  How about the three villians rampaging around destroying everything, taking over the White House, and he himself getting punched out in the diner.  Plus, the fact that he realizes too late that what he did (losing the powers) was wrong and he realizes now why he is here.  Seems like suffering enough to me.

That's NOT suffering to GET his powers back -- that's suffering BECAUSE his powers are gone. Getting beaten up in the bar was not a step towards what should have been his final acceptance of his destiny as Superman. At that point, he wasn't trying to become Superman again. We never see him try. It just happens. This is so wrong from a screenwriting point of view that its painful to watch.

As far as the rest of the stuff concerning the two directors and the details you noted or observed, I'm not that picky when it comes to things like that in movies.

But what you're calling "picky" IS what makes a reel of celluloid either a film or just a movie. Superman is a film, Superman II is just a movie. A fun movie, but ultimately meaningless. Cinema would be less than it is were it not for Superman. You could remove Superman II from history, and it wouldn't change a thing.

If it was entertaining and I got attached to the characters then it was a great movie.

Which characters did you get attached to? Zod? Most of his scenes were Donner. Luthor? All Donner.

Now I feel like watching both Superman I & II back to back!!!

Just don't watch Superman III afterwards. Yikes.

(Well, Superman III did have one great scene in it: the fight between Superman and Clark Kent that scandalously implied that CLARK is the true, proper personality -- quite controversial at the time).
1472  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Tom Cruise proposes on: June 17, 2005, 04:19:38 PM
And she's converting to Scientology.

I'm sure she'll be happy as a clam.
1473  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 03:38:34 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
Wow.  I never seen anyone who didn't think Superman II was great or at least better than the first.  Superman II was so much more action packed than the first one and it enabled Superman himself to actually put his powers to the test.

Well, the first one actually employed Superman's greatest pre-Crisis power -- time travel. But beyond that, being "action packed" does NOT make a movie good. I'm not bashing Superman II here... it's cheap fun. But it's only a superhero movie. Superman is, as of yet, the only real superhero film to ever be produced. It is epic in scope and theme and remarkably true to the source material.

Superman II suffers because of the hack job that was its birth. It was originally supposed to be the third act of the first movie, but it was later broken off. However, between the original shoot and the shooting done to make Superman II into a full story in its own right, the Salkinds fired Richard Donner and brought in Richard Lester.

Everything directed by Lester, with the exception of the reallly cool fight in the streets of Metropolis, was inferior to the material directed by Donner. And I think even that fight scene isn't as good as the finale scene in the Fortress -- most of which was directed by Donner. The easy way to tell who was directing what is that Donner directed all the scenes with Lex Luthor -- Gene Hackman never worked with Lester.

Lester directed the needlessly stupid opening in Paris (in the proper draft, the nuclear missile Superman deflected from New Jersey was what released the supervillains). Lester directed the painful "romance" between Clark and Lois -- which was only painful because it is totally sold out at the end using a power Superman doesn't have (Super-make-her-forget-coffee?).

And then there's the stupid "give up the powers for the girl" meme. Again, a not-bad-idea, but totally whiffed in execution. Kal El gives up his powers and becomes Clark (without ever establishing WHY he would have to do that to be with Lois), and is told he can never get his powers back. And then he does, with no real effort or suffering or cost. He just goes north and finds the green crystal. That's bad storytelling.

Lester was a hack. There are moments that shine in Superman II, but they're all Donner moments. Having studied both films, it is painfully obvious who was directing what: the performances in the Lester material are hammy, the story is inconsistent.

The first Superman flick is one of the best science fiction films ever made, and the standard by which all other superhero films are judged. The second one is just a serviceable action movie. Thematically, artistically and dramatically, they are not even remotely in the same league.

I'm actually looking forward to the new Superman movie and I hope they do it justice - and dedicate the film to Christopher Reeve.

I want to see the script to the new movie before I get excited. So many of the previous drafts toyed with the character of Superman or Luthor -- Jesus, one even "revealed" that Luthor was also from Krypton -- that I will have no confidence in this production until someone gives me a reason to.
1474  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:52:48 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
Another guy missing the point - I'm not debating it because there is no debate.

There certainly IS a debate on the war on "terror." It's one of the main debates in this country right now.

We disagree and I'm not about to tell you your wrong. I respect your opinion.

Then why are you here?

Can we disagree without me going into some diatribe to prove to you how much I know about something when you, in turn, will post something showing how smart you are and, in the end, we'll just disagree like we did before we started posting in here?

So you're saying that human beings are incapable of learning or changing their opinions? Then why do we, as a society, have debates on issues at all?
1475  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:45:00 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
It's fun!

...and I think the war on terror is going just fine!

Well, then you should be discussing, instead of just thumbing your nose at those who don't agree with you.

Frankly, it just seems as if you're incapable of actually debating the issue, the way you seem to go to great lengths to avoid doing so.
1476  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:37:41 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
You'll see what you want to see.

So you claim. Yet you've no evidence of this, either.

It seems the only one not trying to have an actual conversation here is you. So why keep posting?
1477  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 16, 2005, 08:10:19 PM
On every level except the "gee whiz" factor -- acting, pacing, writing, direction, tone -- Superman II is inferior to Superman. Richard Lester was a hack. Dropping Donner was a huge mistake -- the only parts of Superman II that really worked (again, aside from the fight on the streets) were the ones he directed.
1478  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / The HiddeN Cost of War on: June 16, 2005, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: "MrZubbleWump"
I'm trying to get a handle on what you just said and filter out the propaganda.  I wonder what the Middle East would be like if it did not sell oil to the west? I'm thinking a poor under developed country.  I'm trying to understand why I should feel bad about buying oil from these nations?

Feel bad? You shouldn't. However, you should feel concerned, because a great deal of that money, particularly when dealing with Saudi Arabia, goes directly towards the funding of anti-American groups and terrorist networks. Oil dependency is a major security risk. We're literally funding our enemies.

You do understand that in Iraq the U.S. is attempting to make sure that the people share in the oil wealth not just a handfull of the elites.

There is no evidence of that, unless by "the people" you mean the American companies we have had the interim government give longterm, extremely nice contract to.

Do you think the U.S. should support regime change in Saudi Arabia?

Regime change in Saudi Arabia at least would make sense -- unlike Saddam, the House of Saud is a major threat to our nation.

How would that work?

It probably wouldn't. The history of externally-imposed democracies is very uninspiring.

The answer to this puzzle of yours is to switch our electrical grid to be far more dependent upon nuclear energy than it is today.  Combine that with hydrogen fuel for our cars and we begin to remove the west from depending upon foreign fuel.  I'm just trying to figure out how the people of those Middle Easter nations will feel when their oil becomes worthless in about 100 years.

Well, oil will always be needed for the production of polymers and plastics. We'd best hope that we're not still fuel-dependent upon oil in 50 years, much less 100.
1479  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 16, 2005, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: "Devil"
Bottom line, and personally agree with it or not, Iraq was a war of Dubya's choice and Saddam posed no threat what so ever to the security of the United States, period.

Another knee slapper!! Where do you guys get this stuff, much less pass it off as cold, hard facts.

Evidence to the contrary? The Bush Administration certainly hasn't been able to show that the war on Iraq was anything BUT a choice. Nor has there been one shred of evidence presented that indicates ANY sort of threat against the US from Saddam.

In fact, basically everything Bush and his cabal claimed prior to the needless invasion has since been shown to have been untrue: there was no link to al-Qaeda, there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, why, precisely, are we over there? What compelling national interest was there to throw away 1,700 American lives?
1480  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / The HiddeN Cost of War on: June 16, 2005, 06:35:34 PM
Just because they attacked those voting doesn't mean they specifically hate democracy. Terrorists look for predictable targets -- lines of those waiting to vote is a pretty good target. So would lines of folks waiting for Star Wars: Episode III, were there to be a big release in Baghdad.

Now, I'm sure that the insurgents have a low opinion of democracy. Tehy're more of the theocratic bend.

But anyone who actually thinks the terrorists don't like "our freedom" and that's the reason they attack us is many steps removed from reality. Terrorists hate America because, well, for one thing they follow insane leaders. For another thing, American foreign policy in that area of the world has sown a whole lot of reasons for those people to hate us.

Of course, I'm sure I'll be accused of hating my country because I have the audacity to admit that we've treated those people like shit, and now they're trying to get revenge. In Bush's America, honesty about America's checkered role in the world is one step removed from sedition.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.54 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.111s, 1q)