CaptainFoamerang

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    1484
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cynical_Gamer View Post
    This and Phantoms.
    Word, *****. Phantoms like a mother ******!
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    Those are all very different roles, though. Throw in Two Hands, Roar and Monster's Ball and you can see what he can do. Pretty impressive for a guy in his early 20s. (Ledger was 28 when he died.) Plus his ability with accents was amazing. Ned Kelly, wow.
    Just because an actor takes on different roles doesn't mean they've got range, though. It just means they've had different roles. I mean Matt LeBlanc played a legally retarded man-***** on Friends and a space captain in Lost in Space. Denise Richard played a scientist in The World is Not Enough and a tramp in Wild Things. Ledger undoubtedly had more range and talent than those two, but having several adequate performances and one great one isn't going to make me look back in hindsight and call him one of the best actors of his generation, which a lot of folks did after he passed.

    It sucked that we didn't get to see more of what he was really capable of on a consistent basis before he died, though.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by BrandX View Post
    I'd say a lot of people already considered Ledger a good actor.

    I think what got to people, was they didn't think Ledger could pull off such a different role (which was different than anything I can recall him doing), and well, let's face it, he was never going to be people's first choice for the role.
    Up until The Dark Knight all I'd seen him in was Ten Things I Hate about You, A Knight's Tale, The Patriot, and Brokeback Mountain. I thought he was adequate. After, I saw him in Brothers Grimm and Lords of Dogtown. His role as the Joker was undoubtedly the best out of what I'd seen. He was great in The Dark Knight, but that doesn't mean it reshaped my opinions of his previous performances.
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    I don't follow what you mean by that. Ledger had more than proved his acting chops and tremendous range before Nolan cast him.
    He had? >.>

    But other than that, I agree. I mean you've got guys like Christian Bale, Michael Cane, and Gary Oldman as your core cast. It's practically impossible to have a poorly acted film after that.
  5. The Core
    Timeline
    Deep Blue Sea
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    Oh, Booster in the comics is from the future.

    In my defense, I don't like DC characters so hardly ever read their books. As far as I know, I've never read a comic with Booster Gold in it.
    I picked up the first trade of the Booster Gold series by Geoff Johns and it was good. Good and fun.
  7. Yeah I saw this during the playoffs last night. Unfortunately, it has more than half a second of Blake Lively.
  8. Just wanted to share this other pic to give a frame of reference for how huge this collection is.

  9. A lot of cool effects, but whether or not this becomes a surprise gem depends on if the story and acting are much better than what we've seen from the last two X-Men movies (X3 and Wolverine) and if all the action we're seeing isn't over too quickly.

    So basically, I'm worried if this movie will be long enough for it to do what it needs to do. I mean it looks like they're going to have a bit of Xavier and Magneto when they're even younger and on their own, then they meet up and become pals, then they start talking about their ideas for mutankind's place in the world, then they meet up with a bunch of mutants to see who's interested in organizing, then they found the school, then they go on missions, they they find out about whatever the hell's going on with Cuba, then they go on the mission to Cuba, and in between all of that Xavier and Magneto have a falling out and the rest of the mutants are supposed to get fleshed out.

    It'll be much easier for them to **** this up if it's too short.
  10. Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt confirmed, but not as who we thought.

    A Wayne Enterprises suit and a beat cop? So no Talia al Ghul or Roman Jr? Are Warners and Nolan screwing with us? Did Nolan decide giving his whole Inception cast major roles was distracting? Will the third film be any less epic without the children of Batman's previous villains ganging up to seek revenge?
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    That seems to be the way SHIELD works, in the comics and now in the movies.
    Maybe under Maria Hill.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    What YOU know about Thor and what the CHARACTERS know about him are probably somewhat different.
    Why would they allow the possibility of him getting to the hammer if they didn't know something about them, though? Are they planning on letting anyone who's sufficiently motivated and skilled to get to it "just to see what happens?"
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slaunyeh View Post
    No idea. If so, too bad Marvel went for the 'brick on a stick' rather than use any of the cooler art as inspiration.


    How could you not know what Mjolnir looks like in the comics, sir? o.O
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zemblanity View Post
    This was the dumbest episode I've seen in awhile now, worthy of those season 5 plots where Lana knew kung-fu. Surprising, really, since the last 2 seasons have actually been pretty good.

    That "nooooo!" as CK is pulled back from the mirror world was just cartoonishly bad
    Luckily, we had Tess cleavage.

    Oh well, at least this week is Johns' episode.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mandu View Post
    From reviews I've read the reason that Hawkeye (and that is him) doesn't shoot is because he has been told to let Thor reach the hammer and see what happens. Then if he manages to get the hammer and looks like he's getting away take him down.
    Not sure what Hawkeye's going to do once Thor actually claims the hammer. >.>
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
    I did say it could have been done better
    Instead of "probably" it was more of a "definitely."
  17. I don't think the issue being pointed out is the way the fight went down, but how it was shot.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arnabas View Post
    This. I'd much rather have a scene like this than more shaky-cam.
    It's not like it's a choice between shaky cam and ****, though. I understand that this is far from the epic climactic battle of the film, but it'd make me feel better about their ability to do an epic fight well if I saw em do a regular fight well too.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zombie Man View Post
    So, the guy with the arrow. What exactly was he waiting for when they finally separated? Or was he there to ensure a fight? "First one to stop brawling gets an arrow in his head!"
    The scene will redeem itself if he shoots an arrow at Thor, which Thor catches and throws back at the guy, hitting him in the shoulder or something.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Seldom View Post
    I don't mind the fighting- they need to strike a balance between "he's still Thor, but is de-powered" and "he's still Thor, but is de-powered."

    That said, the bow and arrow cameo seems pretty extraneous to the scene as it is teased.
    Still, the other clips I've seen of Thor fighting The Destroyer where all we see is headshots against obvious CG backgrounds don't inspire confidence either.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by BackFire View Post
    wow. what is the complete opposite of exciting? that clip.

    someone get a fight choreographer for this movie, stat!!
    Too late, sir. It opens in two weeks.
  22. link

    Kinda weird that they'd give just any SHIELD agent a bow, eh?

    Also, the direction and editing of this little fight kinda makes me wary of the crew's ability to take on Thor. Am I alone there?
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2short2care View Post
    I didn't get to watch smallville last night, could you please post pictures of this dress you are talking about.
    Can't find pictures but here's a vid.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Primantiss View Post
    On a side note, I've always thought movies like these were a bad idea. The mystique and mystery surrounding the whole "how the Apes rose to power" event is part of what made Planet of the Apes so compelling. The same could be said for most any movie that had either a shroudy past, or a shroudy-yet-set future (cough Terminator).

    Stuff like that is best left in the imagination of the viewers. Which causes them to form their own theories, discuss it with others, then watch the movie again to confirm, all the while handing out mouth-to-mouth advertising.
    I disagree. I like seeing how the breakdown of society unfolds in different apocalyptic scenarios. I enjoyed the hell out of Dawn of the Dead. And the Terminator movies that dealt with the start of the war didn't really suffer because of their particular timeframe but due to the writing instead. Also, World War Z will be awesome.

    Also also, if this movie flops, it might be because audiences might not want to see us mowing down endangered species (in 3D!)