Furio
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Quote:And younger in standard 616...but not having Scott in the film, suggests older.Originally Posted by NeoDarke
Okay, I'll bite. Is Havok the older brother or the younger brother in this movie? I know he was older in the Ultimate universe... -
Quote:Doesn't matter if you believe in them...if science is showing that there is something wrong in the wiring of someone that becomes addicted to a behavior...well...science trumps your personal beliefs, imo.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
The following are the only legitimate mental disorders, every other is just an excuse to enable bad behavior:
Schizophrenia (and it's little brother, paranoia)
Multiple Personalities
Psychopathy and Sociopathy (i.e., being EVIL)
Retardation
REAL Bipolar Disorder (as in, uncontrollable rage followed by attempted suicide, not just using it as an excuse to be a weepy wuss and a huge jerk in the same sentence)
That's it. I do not believe in any other mental disorders. At all. Citing them does nothing against my argument because my argument is that they are not real. -
Just found Manly Guys Doing Manly Things, unfortunately, I've read all of them today. Funny though, I'f you know your videogame chars
-
Quote:If an officer had a warrant to search the contents of the belt, and Bats didn't comply, that's illegal. If he did, and let the booby traps go off, destroying it's contents, that's tampering/destruction of evidence, another crime.Originally Posted by Durakken
Assault and Battery (thousands of charges) ... The funny thing is that what he does that you are considering here is completely legal.
Any number of anti-Terror charges. ... like?
Though he doesn't do it often, he has hit police officers in the past, so assaulting an officer ... Only one I can remember thus far and that was a set up.
Likely several different charges depending on the contents of the Utility Belt at time of apprehension, say explosives, most lockguns are restricted to LE officials, and etc. ... They'd have to prove he has those things which they can't because the belt is locked and booby trapped. Trying to prove he has it would result in no proof whatsoever and actually lose some evidence.
Endangerment of a minor, doesn't have to be wreckless, he just has to do it... This can be massively argued as putting an incompetent person in a car is endangerment.
The Batmobile probably isn't street legal.... indeed.
Almost everything Batman does in pursuit of his mission is illegal... But it's not, there are only a few things he isn't legally allowed to do, but most of it is perfectly legal. The whole taking down criminals thing is not Vigilantism. To be vigilantism you have to use deadly force and such.
Taking a teen out into situations where they will be fighting adults, often armed with guns both mundane and exotic is a far cry from letting an incompetent drive a car. -
Quote:Oh I may still see the movie, my decisions on my entertainment spending have nothing to do with you, critics, the exchange rate of tea, etc etc. If I meant to say "me" in that line, I would have said that. I said "people like me" , the aformentioned group on the fence.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
Implication that it's no longer an option, and so you have made your decision.
-
Incorrect.I'm not trying to stamp out discussion in any way.I'll restate, again what my responses to to you were.
As one of those on the fence people, I'm simply telling you how those "see it anyway" replies come across. I've said nothing negative about either the movie, it's lead actor or the source material. I ve been reading and participating in the thread. It should be obvious that I'm interested in the topic...and given the fact I've said nothing negative about it, I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that I've decided against the movie....especially since I've yet to make any decision. You can continue to try to make me out to be some kind of bad guy, but I'm not sure what that accomplishes. -
Quote:I'm going to pretend that veiled insult at the end is an actual question.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
No. Saying "see it because of x, y or z" to someone who is withholding seeing an entire movie because they don't like an actor in it is hoping they can develop some common sense of their own. I'm hoping I can appeal to something else that they may want to see the film for.
But, this is the Scott Pilgrim thread. No one has came in here pissing all over the movie - That was in the "Vs. Expendables" thread, so it's misplaced here.
People can see it if they want, or not if they don't. I'm stating reasons why anyone who has similar interests as I (and I assume you all do since we're all gathered on a very niche message board) would do well to give themselves a chance at seeing the film.
And I'm doing it in the SCOTT PILGRIM thread, where everyone frequently reading has either already seen it, is deciding whether they should see it, or is trolling. Which category are you, again?
I'm in the group you're trying to reach. Completely on the fence. Unfamiliar with the source material and no real opinion on Cera either way.
My responses in this thread to you were mainly to help you with your professed confusion that people on the same internet forum as you might have a different opinion on a particular subject. I'm just putting together what I've heard from people I know that dislike Cera, some responses from here, and summarizing them. Not my opinion, and that's the way I worded it. Your response to that? "nevermind the lead actor, see it because of supporting actor and theme!" That's akin to handing someone who hates coconut an Almond Joy and saying "enjoy the chocolate and almonds!"
And that's generally been the tone of your responses to anyone expressing a negative opinion, and in your zeal to defend your precious from all threats real and perceived, you're alienating the very people you're trying to reach. You're not gonna get the people who hate Cera. Give up on them. It's the people like me that you *could* have gotten. But much like Dalantia said in the other thread, you've instead pushed people away. -
Quote:That's not the intent of my post. I clarified that in my last post.Originally Posted by Amy_Amp
How dare people talk about a movie they like in a thread about the movie. I mean, what are those people thinking?
Am I disappointed it didn't do better? Yes. I'm not exactly surprised it got third out of the big 3 opening this past weekend. -
Quote:Very mature. I'm simply saying that saying "see it because of x, y or z" to someone who dislikes the lead in the movie is pushing the bounds of common sense. They may see it eventually, but I can't see expecting them to pay for it. And, it may work on someone that actually knows you...but a random name from a message board carries a lot less weight.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
Right on, feel free to ignore me. I'm not going to censor myself (well, I suppose I just did, because obscenities were the first words to enter my mind) about anything that pops into my head on an open forum, especially not on account of you.
This is the thread about Scott Pilgrim. If you don't want to hear about Scott Pilgrim, maybe you should clicked on some other thread?
Or go fu.... Steady...
It should be noted, I'm not one of those people. I have no problem with Cera, and was simply pointing out things I've heard from people who do dislike the roles he's played.
But, continuing to say, in essence, "well you should see it any way!" every time someone gives a reason they're not interested, imo, is actually working counter to your goal. -
Quote:Really. It's getting annoying at this point. We get it. You like the movie. People will see it if they want to, and won't if they, for whatever reason, don't want to... but your constant proseltyzing is wearing very thin.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
So don't go see Scott Pilgrim for Cera's acting. See it for Kieran Culkin's hilarity or the absolutely magnificent videogame and comic inspired style and narrative.
-
Quote:I'm beginning to think he *is* Michael Cera.Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake
ok chris, i'm beginning to think you are starting to take this way too personally.
-
Quote:Difference being, no one's going to see the Expendables for the acting.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
He's signed on for the movie since then I believe.
So... Cera can't act, but those critical were lining up to see The Expendables, certainly a pinnacle of the theater arts.
Also, Innovator, certainly many of those people you've listed could arguably be claimed as only being able to play one type of character, I believe the problem with Cera for his detractors is that they *don't like* the character he's good at pulling off. -
Quote:The bat emblem is back to the 89 movie version, the bat symbol inside an oval with a yellow background. the belt is more streamlined and tech looking. The cape is also gathered behind the emblem, as if the emblem were a clasp of some sort. Also the dark blue/black bat-briefs are gone.Originally Posted by Vanden
I literally can't see the difference.
-
Statham got some really good scenes...but Crews and that BFG stole the show....i was wishing Lundgren got to say "I will break you" at some point, and that Crew would have said "EXPLOSION!"
-
Quote:"Prior" means before. You seem to be looking for a period of time *in* the 80s-90s when Last specifically said "prior" to that time. Batman has been shown carrying a gun and killing in his early days. I believe thats what he's talking about.Originally Posted by Durakken
I also meant to cover that...
That is highly unlikely when you consider that the CCA was in effect and had most of that banned from 1954 till the mid 80s so if anything the No killing rule was not only for batman but was pretty much for every character. Maybe you are talking about a very brief period between say 83 and 87 but that is hardly a blip on the radar of a 75 year old character.
But then that can't be right either because batman getting his darkness back is largely attributed to The Dark Knight Returns which was released in Feb-Jun of 86. Are you trying to make the case that between July and December Batman was that much more darker than he was in the beginning of 87? Yeah, I don't buy it. -
Quote:This. The man may not command a Will Smith type payday on each movie he does, but I'm sure he's got enough cash that "throw money at him" isn't an effective negotiating tactic to keep him away from something he *really* wants to do.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
The bottom line is that Ryan Reynolds really, really wants to do Deadpool, so there's no way he'd let someone else box him in and prevent him from doing it.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by BafflingBeerMan
Plus, Marvel already has a full slate of properties to take care of from Capt. America, to Thor, to the Avengers movie. Most of their promotional push will go towards those movies.
.
Deadpool is NOT a property that Marvel themselves will be pushing. Deadpool is Fox, not Marvel Studios. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
I loved the story, but I have a weird theory about the dissonance between people that think it was "Brilliant but too complicated" and people that think it was fun and easily understandable.
Look at the confused
Then back at me
Back to the confused
Then back. to. me.
Sadly, they aren't me.
But they could be if the played video games all their lives
Look down, look up. Where are you?
You're on a video game forum discussing complicated plots like LOST and the Nemesis arcs as if they are basic simplicity.
What's in your hand? I have it.
It's a post explaining the Infinite Crisis so simply a newb could understand.
Anything is understandable when you submerse yourself in intelligent and/or convoluted story lines instead of Jersey Shore.
I'm a llama.
Saw an article in the Star Ledger (jersey newspaper) that basically said the same thing. Gamers all, almost universally, got Inception. Older folks/ non-gamers had a harder time of it. -
Quote:It's very important to keep that separation. The movie rights to the X-men chars belong to Fox currently, and for the most part, those non Marvel Marvel movies have sucked. That being said, RR being a huge Deadpool fan (and i saw somewhere that Robert Rodriguez *might* direct) bodes very well for the movie. I really hope these behind the scenes shenanigans don't screw it up.Originally Posted by Cynical_Gamer
As it's been said many, many times over in this forum; Marvel had nothing to do with Wolverine. Or the X-Men movies, Spider-Man movies, Ghost Rider, Punisher movies, Fantastic Four movies, etc... The only films Marvel has actually produced are the Iron Man movies and the Incredible Hulk; with Thor and the Avengers coming up soon.
-
Quote:Besides that, where in Gotham are you going to find 12 people with an impartial view of the Joker to act as a jury? I don't think it's possible for the Joker to get a fair jury trial anywhere in the countryOriginally Posted by White Hot Flash
Because everyone knows the Gotham court system is bought out by the Mob, or mind-controlled by some powerful psychic, and the police rolls are filled with dirty badges.
-edit- Ok, maybe in Lancaster PA, with a jury made up of the Amish. -
Quote:Yeah...I'm thinking it's a gadget of some sort.Originally Posted by Rylas
The emblem/cloak clasp gets a "hmmm." But the illustration makes the emblem look like a large medallion sitting on his chest, rather than part of the costume. Feels a little out of place.
-
-
Any film lifted from a comic book automatically has more stories to tell. And personally I *like* that a studio believes in their project enough to plan a sequel before waiting on box office.