Along with these changes will it include making Thing look right?

[Mr Sensitive]

Malus.....Malus.....

People with "assumed knowledge" around here speak in objective facts...

People with "the enjoyment of what they see on the screen" speak in subjective opinions...

I've finally figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Assumed knowledge" is for those who have no argument at all.

So if you won't or can't admit the possibility of stating with objectivity what is good and what is bad, you pretend you never heard about it?

Or that's just a way of protecting your own taste?

[Kelly]

"Assumed knowledge" is for those who have no argument at all.

So if you won't or can't admit the possibility of stating with objectivity what is good and what is bad, you pretend you never heard about it?

Or that's just a way of protecting your own taste?

No.....I for one, was disappointed in the film, and have stated that in a thread that "I" started and discussed. Others have given their reasons why they enjoyed it, and why they thought it was good. I am not going to say that because they liked the movie, and they enjoyed it and thought it was good is only a "subjective opinion" because I think my thoughts show "more knowledge" they were and ARE just as subjective as the next person.

[Agent 194]

Here's where I feel the need to jump back in. I have felt and stated this before. . .I look at what they did with Nightcrawler in X-2. They could have endlessly CGI'd his feet to look like hoofs on screen - instead I think they made a very wise decision. They just showed them less. I think if they showed Thing as he should be. . .and just be selective about what they show, how they show it; kind of a less is more approach, I could live with that. I would almost rather that see that Thing over the Thing who distracted me because he was obvously in a suit. We pretty much saw him ugly, exposed pores and all.

EDIT: and let me amend that. I'm not going to make this a rag on Tim Story time. . .but Thing in broad daylight on the bridge was a bad lighting choice IMO. Talk about exposing weaknesses.

[Mr Sensitive]

No.....I for one, was disappointed in the film, and have stated that in a thread that "I" started and discussed. Others have given their reasons why they enjoyed it, and why they thought it was good. I am not going to say that because they liked the movie, and they enjoyed it and thought it was good is only a "subjective opinion" because I think my thoughts show "more knowledge" they were and ARE just as subjective as the next person.

I’m not a philosopher, but I enjoy reading philosophy.

I won’t ask a philosopher, or a professor of philosophy, or even a decent student of philosophy to pretend he knows nothing about it and to act like everything was just his very vague and subjective opinion on a given philosophic issue.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are people who do know some things a little better than others. To pretend it’s not true is just fostering almighty goddess Ignorance.

[Kelly]

I’m not a philosopher, but I enjoy reading philosophy.

I won’t ask a philosopher, or a professor of philosophy, or even a decent student of philosophy to pretend he knows nothing about it and to act like everything was just his very vague and subjective opinion on a given philosophic issue.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are people who do know some things a little better than others. To pretend it’s not true is just fostering almighty goddess Ignorance.

And to say that someone's opinion of a movie, they enjoyed and thought was good, is rubbish because I think my knowledge is more "knowledgeable" makes me a "pompous ass"....


Oh and BTW.....thats all just my opinion.....

[Mr Sensitive]

And to say that someone's opinion of a movie, they enjoyed and thought was good, is rubbish because I think my knowledge is more "knowledgeable" makes me a "pompous ass"....


Oh and BTW.....thats all just my opinion.....


Who said it would be "rubbish"? I, for one, wouldn't say that.

But if I insist in ignorance for the sake of my opinion, that makes me a "manifest stupid"...

Now that's just my opinion.

[Kelly]

Who said it would be "rubbish"? I, for one, wouldn't say that.

But if I insist in ignorance for the sake of my opinion, that makes me a "manifest stupid"...

Now that's just my opinion.

exchange the word "rubbish" for "bad"...feel better now?:) "Pompous Ass" still fits in that situation....

[Mr Sensitive]

exchange the word "rubbish" for "bad"...feel better now?:) "Pompous Ass" still fits in that situation....

Still off the mark.

People who enjoyed and found the movie good because of it are expressing their opinion, which was never a dilemma.

But to make it equivalent to a conscient evaluation of the movie as cinema is to make a clear confusion between two different approaches.

"Manifest Stupid" still seems perfect.

[Kelly]

Still off the mark.

People who enjoyed and found the movie good because of it are expressing their opinion, which was never a dilemma.

But to make it equivalent to a conscient evaluation of the movie as cinema is to make a clear confusion between two different approaches.

"Manifest Stupid" still seems perfect.


So be it....I don't enjoy going around in circles...which is what is happening here....we disagree.....moving on.

[Willie Lumpkin]

So be it....I don't enjoy going around in circles...which is what is happening here....we disagree.....moving on.

Maybe we can get the mods to add this smiley:

http://www.geocities.com/voodoo_sprout/horse.gif

[Wilhelm-Scream]

erf! It looked like they were eating it. :(

[w@llcrawler]

And if you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is.


If I understand you correctly, I'm just wondering what more YOU expect from a moviegoing experience.

I understand that FF didn't deliver for you (as it didn't for me) because we are long-time fans of the comic and the movie failed (IMO) to capture much of the magic of the comic. But in general, if you go to a movie that you know little about, pay your money, get some popcorn and a drink, watch the movie and are entertained, what more is missing that would have otherwise made it a 'rich' experience?

[Kelly]

Maybe we can get the mods to add this smiley:

http://www.geocities.com/voodoo_sprout/horse.gif

LOL, very true....unfortunately i'm one that has beat a few dead horses around here as well....

[Vartha]

He might can be drawn in a starfish shape in the comics, but make him look more starfish on the big screen and everyone will call him spongebob's brother....
Only artist I remember drawing Thing like a starfish and that was Byrne

[Vartha]

I can't remember the exact quote or where I saw it, but I seem to remember Tim Story once made a statement that at least hinted the Thing's look might evolve in the films as it did in the Comics.

Can anyone else remember what I'm thinking of, or - better yet - find the actual quote?
I remember that too, but, not sure if it was a Strykes thing or not.

[Mr Sensitive]

If I understand you correctly, I'm just wondering what more YOU expect from a moviegoing experience.

I understand that FF didn't deliver for you (as it didn't for me) because we are long-time fans of the comic and the movie failed (IMO) to capture much of the magic of the comic. But in general, if you go to a movie that you know little about, pay your money, get some popcorn and a drink, watch the movie and are entertained, what more is missing that would have otherwise made it a 'rich' experience?


You understand me quite correctly, yes. And I’ll tell you what’s missing.

Let’s get two different examples.

The first, if you go see a movie with or without some previous knowledge of the director’s work, like, watching Jan Svankmajer’s Faust, knowing or not that he studied medieval theatre and puppet manipulation at Praga. That he is interested in the surrealist modern movement, etc.

The movie expands your sensibility, if you’re looking for more than passing fun. It presents that old conflict between two human aspirations (heavenly & earthly), but gives images never seen before, with analogy in the place of common logic. Not CGI commonplace, but very industriously handcrafted.

You leave the cinema wondering about how things in life are bound together, you consider your own experience. You start seeing the world differently by adding new forms of thought through images.

That example is valid for filmmakers like David Lynch, Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, etc.

The second, a comicbook-based movie: the ability of a director to adapt the specific qualities of the comicbook is at hand.

In great comicbook adaptations, like Sin City (directed by Rodriguez & Miller), some things of the first example apply. Everybody could see that Sin City proposed a new way to tell a story through images in the cinema. Of course, it was the first movie that did justice to the visions of Frank Miller, that made a revolution in comicbook way of telling a story two decades ago.

Bryan Singer’s X-Men (1 & 2) makes an effort to bring to great audiences some very important issues that X comicbooks always dealt with.

What is prejudice? Where to draw the line between bad and good? (read the very intelligent interviews of Ian Mackellen) and, in cases like that of movie Rogue, how teens can feel like aliens when they’re growing up. It is a metaphor, but I suppose it is very effective, like most Stan Lee’s ideas usually are, and Singer developed his vision upon these qualities.

That’s what is missing if you just pay ten bucks, sit for an hour and a half, only get your fun with some jokes and one or two cliché bruhahas, and go back home to your daily life. And that’s why audiences give huge BO to unmentionable crap.

They couldn't care less.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Have you ever looked at a slide under a microscope? You zoom in closer. . . and closer . . . and closer and then . . . SNAP - you break the slide.

In my opinion that's what happens when you look too closely at art.

[Mr Sensitive]

Have you ever looked at a slide under a microscope? You zoom in closer. . . and closer . . . and closer and then . . . SNAP - you break the slide.

In my opinion that's what happens when you look too closely at art.

I recommend you seriously consider the quality of your microscope.

But yeah, let's think that art is like: a ferocious animal, isn't it? It's better to keep a safe distance.

Or: art is so delicate, so feeble. Let's put the warning "don't touch it with your mind", or even: "no thinking allowed".

"Artist working: sorry for the inconvenience".

[Kelly]

How about this......How about we ALLOW people to have their own idea of what art, theatre, cinema, movie, whatever you want to call it...is....how about we give our opinion of those things and ALLOW others to do so without TELLING them they need to change whatever......the thing about people is we are all different....we all have our likes and dislikes....just because others likes and dislikes are different from yours doesn't mean they need to change anything.......take a look at the others ideas and opinions....YES BY ALL MEANS.....but do they HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ideas and opinions to fit our own....NO THEY DO NOT....thats the beauty of being different.....I will never grow weary of hearing or reading others ideas and opinions....but I am growing weary of people assuming that one's view is better than another...our view is simply that...."our own"....you agree...you disagree....FINE...we are beginning to push our view as someone who "beats the head of a sinner with their bible"...its no longer "beating a dead horse" it is now becoming a debate into the black hole of debate.....leading absolutely no where....

[Mr Sensitive]

How about this......How about we ALLOW people to have their own idea of what art, theatre, cinema, movie, whatever you want to call it...is....how about we give our opinion of those things and ALLOW others to do so without TELLING them they need to change whatever......the thing about people is we are all different....we all have our likes and dislikes....just because others likes and dislikes are different from yours doesn't mean they need to change anything.......take a look at the others ideas and opinions....YES BY ALL MEANS.....but do they HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ideas and opinions to fit our own....NO THEY DO NOT....thats the beauty of being different.....I will never grow weary of hearing or reading others ideas and opinions....but I am growing weary of people assuming that one's view is better than another...our view is simply that...."our own"....you agree...you disagree....FINE...we are beginning to push our view as someone who "beats the head of a sinner with their bible"...its no longer "beating a dead horse" it is now becoming a debate into the black hole of debate.....leading absolutely no where....


Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.

[Willie Lumpkin]

I recommend you seriously consider the quality of your microscope.

But yeah, let's think that art is like: a ferocious animal, isn't it? It's better to keep a safe distance.

Or: art is so delicate, so feeble. Let's put the warning "don't touch it with your mind", or even: "no thinking allowed".

"Artist working: sorry for the inconvenience".


. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.

[Kelly]

Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.

Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT! :)

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to hit the target well I guess.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...

[Willie Lumpkin]

Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT! :)

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to get where there very well.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...

Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.;)

[Kelly]

Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.;)

I know....I know....but I stayed quiet all of last year w/ many people.....I don't plan on staying silent this year....well even though we are actually silent....I mean silent through my typing....:)AND don't get me wrong.....I ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT .... pointing a finger means 3 fingers are pointing back at me....I will ALWAYS keep that in mind...

[Mr Sensitive]

. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.

No, it's not visceral. You may like it or not, but artists made it with the brain. Inspiration is 1%, the rest is hard work and knowledge.

If it "defies technical analysis" why do we have so many artists that actually do that? I mean "technical analysis"?

Maybe you think art is a matter of faith, as any other possible religion, but it was created by man, and can be easily understood by man.

[Kelly]

Well, JMAfan,

Thingy wasn't very keen in giving examples or any decent explanation of his points. In fact, he tried to stop any discussion by repeating "Yah'r nat a true FF faan!" and so forth.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I only really discuss something when people are stubborn enough to use clichés as well-known truths, or if they complain or try to stop someone giving good reasons on some problems in a movie.

I'm always respectful, unless someone goes out of his/her way. Even so, I won't dismiss the person without some explanation, and I won't call names.

As to my knowledge, or the lack of it: others say (or have someone to say for them) they know much. I just won't let anybody pass without a decent explanation of what I'm saying. And I suppose this is a form of respect.

Fair enough Mr. S....but right or wrong....and VERY POSSIBLY wrong.....my perception of your posts, and apparently the perception of a few others is that you post as though your knowledge is greater than others therefore your opinion is greater than others....as I said I could be wrong.....but also as I said before "one's perception, is one's truth".

[Mr Sensitive]

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....


JMAfan,

birds sing without culture. We don’t.

If you can sing very well (congrats, carissima, by the way), it is because we are in a culture where we hear people singing all the time. If you didn’t learn it through study, you have a good ear and have good intuition. As you said, many good musicians did an do like that.

But the technique is there whenever you sing. If you sing well, your technique is even better.

It is just like in these boards, for example. How many of us studied rhetoric? Even so, all of us are applying in a way or other the laws of persuasive discourse.

Moreover, technique is not a bunch of abstract words. A vibratto, for instance, can be used sucessfully or not. When someone comes to say “I would find it better if your vibratto etc” he is just giving an opinion, and not explaining.

Dante Alighieri was a poet. We all know that. But he also wrote a book on poetry. Was it visceral? No way. The many subtleties of the poetic discourse can be understood, as he showed us. And he wasn’t a critic, he was a poet.

There is a great number of examples just like that.

As for the audience: I suppose that the more you are educated, the better. It's not a good thing to defend the ignorance of a whole audience, is it?

Plus: if they are educated, they can choose better, they won't take all that is handed them. That's one of the definitions of freedom. You have the right to choose, and actually knows how to.

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....

No question, there's a HUGE amount of both technique and talent required to produce art, but the technique is a means to an end. The end is a comunication of some complex, visceral concepts from the artist to the person experiencing the art.

If those concepts were simple enough that they could be described and put into words, I don't think there'd be any need for the art.

[Mr Sensitive]

Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT! :)

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to hit the target well I guess.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...

Well, JMAfan,

Thingy wasn't very keen in giving examples or any decent explanation of his points. In fact, he tried to stop any discussion by repeating "Yah'r nat a true FF faan!" and so forth.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I only really discuss something when people are stubborn enough to use clichés as well-known truths, or if they complain or try to stop someone giving good reasons on some problems in a movie.

I'm always respectful, unless someone goes out of his/her way. Even so, I won't dismiss the person without some explanation, and I won't call names.

As to my knowledge, or the lack of it: others say (or have someone to say for them) they know much. I just won't let anybody pass without a decent explanation of what I'm saying. And I suppose this is a form of respect.

[Kelly]

. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....

[Mr Sensitive]

Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.;)

Willie, this is terrible!

If the amount of what you knew (and, alas! forgot) is that of a 13 year old kid, man, what a nightmare.

It's just like, say, an episode of the Twilight Zone.

[Mr Sensitive]

Fair enough Mr. S....but right or wrong....and VERY POSSIBLY wrong.....my perception of your posts, and apparently the perception of a few others is that you post as though your knowledge is greater than others therefore your opinion is greater than others....as I said I could be wrong.....but also as I said before "one's perception, is one's truth".

See,

I'll give you an example: I normally agree on this matter with FieryBalrog; I appreciate both Lightning's and Herr Logan's views (even when we don't agree); I like the style of Angry Sentinel, etc.

I agreed with many posts of yours on other matters. Of course, people with whom I often disagree, and specially those that got a grudge against me will think the worst possible things of what I write, if not of me.

I like being clear, and I think it's quite honest to do so. Some things I spent a good deal thinking of, and found myself many times fighting against battered common places about art, and movies in particular.

People can be very harsh around here, and they usually do so pretending to be nice. I'm very courteous with courteous people.

[Warhammer]

Thing looked fine to me.

[w@llcrawler]

You understand me quite correctly, yes. And I’ll tell you what’s missing.

Let’s get two different examples.

The first, if you go see a movie with or without some previous knowledge of the director’s work, like, watching Jan Svankmajer’s Faust, knowing or not that he studied medieval theatre and puppet manipulation at Praga. That he is interested in the surrealist modern movement, etc.

The movie expands your sensibility, if you’re looking for more than passing fun. It presents that old conflict between two human aspirations (heavenly & earthly), but gives images never seen before, with analogy in the place of common logic. Not CGI commonplace, but very industriously handcrafted.

You leave the cinema wondering about how things in life are bound together, you consider your own experience. You start seeing the world differently by adding new forms of thought through images.

That example is valid for filmmakers like David Lynch, Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, etc.

The second, a comicbook-based movie: the ability of a director to adapt the specific qualities of the comicbook is at hand.

In great comicbook adaptations, like Sin City (directed by Rodriguez & Miller), some things of the first example apply. Everybody could see that Sin City proposed a new way to tell a story through images in the cinema. Of course, it was the first movie that did justice to the visions of Frank Miller, that made a revolution in comicbook way of telling a story two decades ago.

Bryan Singer’s X-Men (1 & 2) makes an effort to bring to great audiences some very important issues that X comicbooks always dealt with.

What is prejudice? Where to draw the line between bad and good? (read the very intelligent interviews of Ian Mackellen) and, in cases like that of movie Rogue, how teens can feel like aliens when they’re growing up. It is a metaphor, but I suppose it is very effective, like most Stan Lee’s ideas usually are, and Singer developed his vision upon these qualities.

That’s what is missing if you just pay ten bucks, sit for an hour and a half, only get your fun with some jokes and one or two cliché bruhahas, and go back home to your daily life. And that’s why audiences give huge BO to unmentionable crap.

They couldn't care less.

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.

Likewise, other movies that didn't expand my sensibilities but that I love are the James Bond films, The Last Boy Scout (a blast of two-fisted gratuitous violence and nasty one-liners!), True Lies, even Spider-man (which IMO was done fairly close to right but didn't leave me pondering some 'deeper' issues of life as I left the theater.)

I think you're entitled to go to a movie looking for what YOU want from it and judging it on how much of that it provided you. But I DON'T think its fair for you to tell others that their experience is 'poor' because they don't go looking for the answers to their existence in the movie theater.

Usually when I go to a movie, I just want to be entertained. If I want to learn deeper meanings of life or whatever, I'll study philosophy or the Bible. I think I understand what you're saying but to me, every movie doesn't have to hold some 'higher meaning' or deal with 'important issues' to be good, even great!

The movies I mentioned above are just good "wholesome";) escapist fun and paying my $10 and watching them was anything but a poor experience. It doesn't sound as if you've had the enjoyment of such a simple pleasure.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Heh, I love the hundreds of words of analysis and debate and then:

Thing looked fine to me.

[Mr Sensitive]

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.

Likewise, other movies that didn't expand my sensibilities but that I love are the James Bond films, The Last Boy Scout (a blast of two-fisted gratuitous violence and nasty one-liners!), True Lies, even Spider-man (which IMO was done fairly close to right but didn't leave me pondering some 'deeper' issues of life as I left the theater.)

I think you're entitled to go to a movie looking for what YOU want from it and judging it on how much of that it provided you. But I DON'T think its fair for you to tell others that their experience is 'poor' because they don't go looking for the answers to their existence in the movie theater.

Usually when I go to a movie, I just want to be entertained. If I want to learn deeper meanings of life or whatever, I'll study philosophy or the Bible. I think I understand what you're saying but to me, every movie doesn't have to hold some 'higher meaning' or deal with 'important issues' to be good, even great!

The movies I mentioned above are just good "wholesome";) escapist fun and paying my $10 and watching them was anything but a poor experience. It doesn't sound as if you've had the enjoyment of such a simple pleasure.

Man, you went to the movies with your son!

Come on, even I can agree that kids are not fit for certain things.

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

And I hate this word "escapism".

No matter what one can do, one can't escape from himself, don't you think?

Maybe fool himself till it is too late, but to "escape"? Pas possible. Not even with the help from the word of god.

[Malus]

Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.

You don't understand the grumbles...jeez...(grumbles)
It's that...
Dude, you're participating in a forum for the expression of individual opinions and ideas - in an electronic format, yes, but no different really than if we were all sitting around a table talking all this "nerdshop" over a few beers (or for some folks, maybe Kool-Aid...) - and you're basically saying "Fantastic Four is a bad movie, and that's not just my opinion, that's a fact."
And while I (and several others here) may agree with your ass-essment of the movie, I don't think anyone's going to concur with your "it's a fact, not an opinion" thing...

Y'know, before you even started dropping all the director-artiste names, I was finding myself flashing back (unwillingly) to the three years that I owned and operated an independent/cult classics video store.
Most of my customers were cool...some a little weird, of course, just like in comics shops or any other entertainment niche...and most were either college graduates, or college students...Anyway, most of the time it was a stimulating and fun place to be. It was great to be able to talk about Fellini or Woody Allen with other film buffs...and yes, there was often difference of opinion, but it was (as the kids these days ) "all good."

Except for the periodic visits by Martin.
Martin always managed to clear the place out by joining the friendly conversations and debates and turning them into arguments. To him, Bergman and Fellini were artists of a gleaming magnitude that no American director could ever hope to match. This, to him, was an undeniable statement of fact.
Martin spent a good bit of money in my shop, but he probably cost me half as much in missed sales because once he started "getting into it" with one or more of the other customers, nearby browsers would just leave.

I tried to talk to Martin about it, but to no avail.
"If they just had more knowledge of what they're talking about, they'd understand," he would say. (Martin was a would-be film maker...He's been "to school" for that.)
"You can't compare Alred Hitchcock to Dario Argento!" he exclaimed once to another patron, "That's like comparing steak and cow <excrement>."

Ah, Martin... I'm reaching for the Pepcid as I travel through the memory...
I guess if there was one silver lining about going out of business, it's that I wasn't forced to finally ban him from my shop.
Which I really didn't want to do, because I actually kinda liked Martin personally. And I agreed with just about all of his opinions.
Unfortunately, for me and all my other customers, he didn't consider them opinions.

To consider one's own opinion in art or literature absolute and irrefutable is normal. I think those kind of thoughts practically every day about one thing or another.
But to declare one's own opinion absolute and irrefutable is to discount and even demean the thoughts and sensibilities of others.

So yeah, most people don't really like that very much.
Even those who may agree with your opinion.

My heart is beating. That is a fact.

I just paid the gas bill. That is a fact.

Citizen Kane is a great film. That is an opinion.

Citizen Kane is considered by many to be a great film. That is a fact.

Y'know, I'd like to think that some of this hubbub is attributable to semantics...perhaps a language barrier of some sort...
But whatever...I'm walkin' away from this horse...
They're circling a zebra over on the Superman board that thinks Quest For Peace was a good movie... ;)

[Mr Sensitive]

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.


Oh, and, BTW, Spongebob brings that very important notion of true friendship, and how to live successfully down the fathoms of mother Ocean.

[Mr Sensitive]

You don't understand the grumbles...jeez...(grumbles)
It's that...
Dude, you're participating in a forum for the expression of individual opinions and ideas - in an electronic format, yes, but no different really than if we were all sitting around a table talking all this "nerdshop" over a few beers (or for some folks, maybe Kool-Aid...) - and you're basically saying "Fantastic Four is a bad movie, and that's not just my opinion, that's a fact."
And while I (and several others here) may agree with your ass-essment of the movie, I don't think anyone's going to concur with your "it's a fact, not an opinion" thing...

Y'know, before you even started dropping all the director-artiste names, I was finding myself flashing back (unwillingly) to the three years that I owned and operated an independent/cult classics video store.
Most of my customers were cool...some a little weird, of course, just like in comics shops or any other entertainment niche...and most were either college graduates, or college students...Anyway, most of the time it was a stimulating and fun place to be. It was great to be able to talk about Fellini or Woody Allen with other film buffs...and yes, there was often difference of opinion, but it was (as the kids these days ) "all good."

Except for the periodic visits by Martin.
Martin always managed to clear the place out by joining the friendly conversations and debates and turning them into arguments. To him, Bergman and Fellini were artists of a gleaming magnitude that no American director could ever hope to match. This, to him, was an undeniable statement of fact.
Martin spent a good bit of money in my shop, but he probably cost me half as much in missed sales because once he started "getting into it" with one or more of the other customers, nearby browsers would just leave.

I tried to talk to Martin about it, but to no avail.
"If they just had more knowledge of what they're talking about, they'd understand," he would say. (Martin was a would-be film maker...He's been "to school" for that.)
"You can't compare Alred Hitchcock to Dario Argento!" he exclaimed once to another patron, "That's like comparing steak and cow <excrement>."

Ah, Martin... I'm reaching for the Pepcid as I travel through the memory...
I guess if there was one silver lining about going out of business, it's that I wasn't forced to finally ban him from my shop.
Which I really didn't want to do, because I actually kinda liked Martin personally. And I agreed with just about all of his opinions.
Unfortunately, for me and all my other customers, he didn't consider them opinions.

To consider one's own opinion in art or literature absolute and irrefutable is normal. I think those kind of thoughts practically every day about one thing or another.
But to declare one's own opinion absolute and irrefutable is to discount and even demean the thoughts and sensibilities of others.

So yeah, most people don't really like that very much.
Even those who may agree with your opinion.

My heart is beating. That is a fact.

I just paid the gas bill. That is a fact.

Citizen Kane is a great film. That is an opinion.

Citizen Kane is considered by many to be a great film. That is a fact.

Y'know, I'd like to think that some of this hubbub is attributable to semantics...perhaps a language barrier of some sort...
But whatever...I'm walkin' away from this horse...
They're circling a zebra over on the Superman board that thinks Quest For Peace was a good movie... ;)

Malus,
let me make it clear for you: no language barrier, and no semantics involved.

"Citizen Kane is a great movie". I'm sorry, it's a fact. If you are able to speak or write the word "movie", that's a great movie beyond doubts.

An opinion (and a very frequent one): "Citizen Kane is the best movie of all times". I don't think so, but it's an opinion, good as the next one.

People don't get angry because I said that was a fact. People get angry because they can't admit it's possible to make an objective judgement of any given work of art.

And: Martin was wrong, as you already know. There are in the least 2 American (from USA) filmmakers that can match the quality of Fellini and Bergman.

What a nutjob this Martin character.

[w@llcrawler]

Man, you went to the movies with your son!

Come on, even I can agree that kids are not fit for certain things.

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

And I hate this word "escapism".

No matter what one can do, one can't escape from himself, don't you think?

Maybe fool himself till it is too late, but to "escape"? Pas possible. Not even with the help from the word of god.

Well, I'm sorry you hate the word escapism. I happen to love the word and what it entails.

Why do you like James Bond movies? There is no deep meaning hidden in them and they aren't really faithful to the Ian Fleming novels (with a few exceptions) so what is in them for you? The entertainment value? Certainly not for you!Wouldn't be worth the $10!

I don't go to the movies to escape from myself. And unlike some, I don't go to the movies to find myself

I go to the movies for entertainment! And there's nothing poor about that experience no matter what you think for yourself!

And it's the word of God.

[Agent 194]

Okay, I appreciate the reflective and deeply introspective observations.

Back to my original point....Let's make The THING look right.

Also as an aside. . .has anyone gotten the Sky Captain DVD and seen the behind the scenes stuff? I'd like to see these guys set lose on a Marvel project. Say, . . . .the Fantastic Four maybe.

[Kelly]

Heh, I love the hundreds of words of analysis and debate and then:

i was laughing about the same thing.....

[Mr Sensitive]

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

wallcrawler, carissimo,

please: read before writing down your rants. Can you see it above? Hope it helps.

Who goes to the cinema to find himself? Don't they have a mirror?

Anyway, although you've gotten that all wrong, all messed up, I think it's time to get back on track.

To Agent 194's suggestion: that's a great idea.

I've seen it in Sky Captain's DVD and it would be really really nice.

[Willie Lumpkin]

"Citizen Kane is a great movie". I'm sorry, it's a fact. If you are able to speak or write the word "movie", that's a great movie beyond doubts.



Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.



1. The film is cliché - “Money can’t buy happiness” - a very tired theme indeed
2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a “Great Film”. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.
3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.
4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky).
5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

[Mr Sensitive]

Don’t try to criticize what you do not understand.

Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.

It can’t.
You did that because of two things, combinated: a) You did not understand certain parts; b) you mixed opinions on the film and generic broad accusations that have nothing to do with it.

1. The film is cliché - “Money can’t buy happiness” - a very tired theme indeed

This is not the film. The film is: “All the steps to power, and downfall”. With everything inside of it. You've watched Monster-in-Law and thought it was Kane

2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a “Great Film”. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.

“Camera angles and movements are extreme”: this coming from who liked the perfect stupidity of Story’s cameras. Welles puts his camera where it is needed, even in these “extreme” angles you labled. That’s called cinema.

How is the music overdone? And you may start excluding moments like political campaign or the failure of the singer, in which it underlines the grotesque situations.

The characters are the complete opposite of caricature. I give you one scene: when Bernstein is talking about his vision of a girl in that ferry. If THIS is caricature, then you can forget that cinema has existed.

3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.

That’s just absurd. You simply did not understand it. Kane IS NOT EVIL, but much more complex than this marxist hogwash of yours. Remember that Welles was very well-read in Shakespeare and Montaigne, masters of subtlety.

Kane, as a character, is tragic. He tried to be a critique to the omnipotence of money from inside of it, and succumbed to it.

4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky).

This part is the worst of your gibberish. It doesn’t matter if it is inspired in Hearst, it doesn’t matter what Rosebud is outside the movie itself. The Rosebud name plays a totally different part in the story, and to justify your “tacky” remark with something that comes out of the work does no good to your effort of argument.

5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

This part speaks more of your utter incapacity to understand and appreciate a great movie than of Welles and his movies. Plus: your ad hominem discourse against what you call an “ambitious, arrogant and spiteful man” just shows you could not find ANY argument in the movie, and started speaking evil of the man.

According to this chain of thought (and supposing your moralistic blabber is right), only virtuous men would be able to make good movies. Well, then we should wait for the Church to canonize them as saints and afterwards they could get a camera.

If you’re trying to prove that the movie is disputable with this, sincerely: watch the movie again, and start from scratch. And make a bigger effort next time. Orson Welles could have said all that just for fun, in one of his interviews when he was bored to death.

Funny: and you are one of those who came to attack me for saying some truths about a lame superhero movie. Your mind really runs backwards.

[Kelly]

Looks to me like 2 people simply have a difference of opinion on a movie....

[Willie Lumpkin]

Don’t try to criticize what you do not understand.

Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.

It can’t.
You did that because of two things, combinated: a) You did not understand certain parts; b) you mixed opinions on the film and generic broad accusations that have nothing to do with it.

1. The film is cliché - “Money can’t buy happiness” - a very tired theme indeed

This is not the film. The film is: “All the steps to power, and downfall”. With everything inside of it. You've watched Monster-in-Law and thought it was Kane

2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a “Great Film”. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.

“Camera angles and movements are extreme”: this coming from who liked the perfect stupidity of Story’s cameras. Welles puts his camera where it is needed, even in these “extreme” angles you labled. That’s called cinema.

How is the music overdone? And you may start excluding moments like political campaign or the failure of the singer, in which it underlines the grotesque situations.

The characters are the complete opposite of caricature. I give you one scene: when Bernstein is talking about his vision of a girl in that ferry. If THIS is caricature, then you can forget that cinema has existed.

3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.

That’s just absurd. You simply did not understand it. Kane IS NOT EVIL, but much more complex than this marxist hogwash of yours. Remember that Welles was very well-read in Shakespeare and Montaigne, masters of subtlety.

Kane, as a character, is tragic. He tried to be a critique to the omnipotence of money from inside of it, and succumbed to it.

4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky).

This part is the worst of your gibberish. It doesn’t matter if it is inspired in Hearst, it doesn’t matter what Rosebud is outside the movie itself. The Rosebud name plays a totally different part in the story, and to justify your “tacky” remark with something that comes out of the work does no good to your effort of argument.

5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

This part speaks more of your utter incapacity to understand and appreciate a great movie than of Welles and his movies. Plus: your ad hominem discourse against what you call an “ambitious, arrogant and spiteful man” just shows you could not find ANY argument in the movie, and started speaking evil of the man.

According to this chain of thought (and supposing your moralistic blabber is right), only virtuous men would be able to make good movies. Well, then we should wait for the Church to canonize them as saints and afterwards they could get a camera.

If you’re trying to prove that the movie is disputable with this, sincerely: watch the movie again, and start from scratch. And make a bigger effort next time. Orson Welles could have said all that just for fun, in one of his interviews when he was bored to death.

Funny: and you are one of those who came to attack me for saying some truths about a lame superhero movie. Your mind really runs backwards.

Most of your points are too far off the mark of what I actually posted to address without going into an endless cycle correcting and re-correcting your twisting of my words.

If Welles film was truly great, it might convince me to spend time watching and re-watching it for subtleties. It's his job to draw me in, if he fails and needs to be defended by some guy on the internet, then he didn't make a great film as it relates to me.

Over directing (as Welles did in Citizen Kane and Steven Spielberg did in The Color Purple) can be just as bad if not worse than the underdirecting of Tim Story in Fantastic Four (and despite your tactic of constantly twisting my words to suit your arguments, I have never said Story did a great job directing FF).

IN MY OPINION, a director who over-directs distracts from the film-going experience. When the viewer sees dramatic, unnatural camera angles and movements, he/she is reminded that he/she is watching a film, and the director's effort to draw attention to him/herself can distract from the story.

I'm not sure if your technique of condescencion and insisting that your opinions are fact while anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is designed to convince me, others, or yourself that you are actually right, but I can assure you it doesn't work on thinking people.

[Mr Sensitive]

Okay.

Most of your points are too far off the mark of what I actually posted to address without going into an endless cycle correcting and re-correcting your twisting of my words.

Sure. If that’s so, prove it. Oh, I forgot, you can’t, can you, Willie?

If Welles film was truly great, it might convince me to spend time watching and re-watching it for subtleties. It's his job to draw me in, if he fails and needs to be defended by some guy on the internet, then he didn't make a great film as it relates to me.

He didn’t fail. You inverted it: YOU failed with his movie. That’s different, and you should admit it, for your own good. He wasn’t trying to relate to you, whatever may be your real interests. He made a great film, and that’s all.

And, by the way, I don’t know if you are aware of it, you are also a, how did you put it? “a guy on the internet”. And more: Welles is the director he is, and his films are well-known for their obvious qualities. You are the “guy on the internet” dreaming you are able to deny it with petty glossolalia. Dream on.

Over directing (as Welles did in Citizen Kane and Steven Spielberg did in The Color Purple) can be just as bad if not worse than the underdirecting of Tim Story in Fantastic Four (and despite your tactic of constantly twisting my words to suit your arguments, I have never said Story did a great job directing FF).

Again: over directing? Yes, if compared to Story’s very morbid camera anemia.

a) not twisting your words; I’ve never said you wrote he did a great job. Nonetheless, you took yourself to the two absurd troubles of: 1) baselessly defend Story, who is a bad director; 2) pour nonsense over a Welles’ masterpiece.

You don’t need my twisting your words, they’re already twisted enough.

IN MY OPINION, a director who over-directs distracts from the film-going experience. When the viewer sees dramatic, unnatural camera angles and movements, he/she is reminded that he/she is watching a film, and the director's effort to draw attention to him/herself can distract from the story.

“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, answered Magritte to those who insisted to say the picture is not like the thing. “Unnatural camera angles” is an expression void of meaning, as a camera is not a natural thing.

Your tricks are remarkable, but can be spotted, look: very righteous, you write “in my opinion” and after that states as a fact that the director “over-directs”. It is also YOUR OPINION that he over-directs, as you didn’t mention ANY example whatsoever to defend your idea.

I'm not sure if your technique of condescencion and insisting that your opinions are fact while anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is designed to convince me, others, or yourself that you are actually right, but I can assure you it doesn't work on thinking people.

Thinking people think, and I’m very comfortable as to what they’ll think about what I said.

My words are not directed, evidently, to whom, like you, are already in this to have a quarrel with me for some personal grudge; but to those who will occasionally consider the matter for themselves, and in itself.

You firmly state your “opinions”, that you see as facts, too; and that could be called by people in ill will “condescension” also, fot it’s easy to deny things without argument, in ill will.

[Kelly]

You firmly state your “opinions”, that you see as facts, too; and that could be called by people in ill will “condescension” also, fot it’s easy to deny things without argument, in ill will.

You are wrong in this statement...Willie is not stating his as fact, he is using this movie to show you simply that his view (opinion) of this movie is different from yours....he's not trying to PROVE any point except that the two of you view the movie differently....YOU are the one trying to prove your view of the movie as the correct view....which means you are not getting Willie's point at all.....

His point is not to prove one way or the other about "Citizen Kane" as a good or bad movie...his point was the two of you have different opinions of the movie as do many....but as always you HAVE TO prove yourself as the one who is right...as the opinion that is fact...when in reality you are simply very eloquently stating your opinion of a movie that happens to be different from Willie's very eloquently given opinion....i'm impressed by both....but both are opinions...that happen to be stated quite well.

[Mr Sensitive]

I am precise in my statement. Read carefully the following.

You are wrong in this statement...Willie is not stating his as fact, he is using this movie to show you simply that his view (opinion) of this movie is different from yours....he's not trying to PROVE any point except that the two of you view the movie differently....YOU are the one trying to prove your view of the movie as the correct view....which means you are not getting Willie's point at all.....

I know you are trying to protect him, but you are wrong.

He just doesn’t realize how much he believes what he is saying is the truth. I’ll give you an example (direct quotation): “The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky)”.

Although this is just a very raw and hurried opinion, it is stated as a fact: “if the rumors…that’s just plain tacky”. He didn’t say “I think so”, or “In my humble opinion”.

His point is not to prove one way or the other about "Citizen Kane" as a good or bad movie...his point was the two of you have different opinions of the movie as do many....but as always you HAVE TO prove yourself as the one who is right...as the opinion that is fact...when in reality you are simply very eloquently stating your opinion of a movie that happens to be different from Willie's very eloquently given opinion....i'm impressed by both....but both are opinions...that happen to be stated quite well.

Now that’s an opinion, And a very partial one, as both of us know you are sided with him no matter what, which is commonly called esprit de corps.

See: he doesn’t give 1 example, he states his doubtful and insecure diatribes in a vacuum, and uses ad hominem arguments to back his poor opinion on the movie. Was Welles arrogant, or all the other moralistic epithets he’s thrown around? Who cares?

Have you watched Citizen Kane? Do you remember it quite well? Because if you do, you know the allegation that the characters are caricature is just believable if the person has never seen it, or has a numb, blurred and distant remembrance of it.

He surely has an opinion on it, but it is just quite vague and without quality as an argument.

[Kelly]

it doesn't matter whether i remember watching Citizen Kane or not, nor am i protecting anyone....difference of opinion Mr. S thats it.....this is becoming a joke of a discussion......you are still making the discussion about Citizen Kane and its not....you are not going to move past that....therefore the continuance of of this discussion is worthless....i happen to think his argument as well as yours was given very well......and i also think we are seeing true colors here through this discussion....and as for me....that is a good thing.....knowing where people stand, as far as i'm concerned, is a good thing....i see "toleration of different opinions" in our posts Mr. S....not "respect of different opinions"....to me there is a huge difference between toleration and respect...

"The movies we love and admire are to some extent a function of who we are when we see them." i agree w/ this quote... And to say to someone your opinion of the movie is wrong...to me is a level of disrespect that hits the person at a very personal level...i've read in your posts a semblance of allowing others opinions...not sure if i've seen much more than that....

[Agent 194]

I can appreciate Citizen Kane; how old Welles was when he did it, the technological achievements and innovations, all the hats he wore making it and the subject matter that he tackled at the time. Especially given that person was still alive and very powerful. I have to admit I have often found Orson Welles' roles to be a bit too self indulgant. I'm guessing much like the man himself was in real life.

However, given all that,. . .I enjoy Casablanca more. I notice something new every time I watch it. I think it's pretty much a perfect film.

Oh, . . .and make The Thing look right.

[Willie Lumpkin]

You firmly state your “opinions”, that you see as facts, too; and that could be called by people in ill will “condescension” also, fot it’s easy to deny things without argument, in ill will.

You are wrong in this statement...Willie is not stating his as fact, he is using this movie to show you simply that his view (opinion) of this movie is different from yours....he's not trying to PROVE any point except that the two of you view the movie differently....YOU are the one trying to prove your view of the movie as the correct view....which means you are not getting Willie's point at all.....

His point is not to prove one way or the other about "Citizen Kane" as a good or bad movie...his point was the two of you have different opinions of the movie as do many....but as always you HAVE TO prove yourself as the one who is right...as the opinion that is fact...when in reality you are simply very eloquently stating your opinion of a movie that happens to be different from Willie's very eloquently given opinion....i'm impressed by both....but both are opinions...that happen to be stated quite well.

:o I have a confession, but don't tell anybody.

I'm just playing with Mr. S. because it's too easy and fun to push his buttons and get him to launch into one of his lengthy, pretentious posts.

I show them to people at work and they get a kick out of them.

It's a character flaw, I know, but it's like when someone walks into work wearing a hideous shirt saying: "Don't make fun of my shirt" . . . I just can't resist.

Actually I like Citizen Kane and I've got it on DVD.;)

I can't absolutely promise, but I'll try not to do it again.

[halfapple]

God, do you people just enjoy living in denial so much?:confused:

Things can be done.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/grinchface.jpg

Those ^ are not normal human facial proportions and his face was plenty expressive.


/Agree!

[Kelly]

:o I have a confession, but don't tell anybody.

I'm just playing with Mr. S. because it's too easy and fun to push his buttons and get him to launch into one of his lengthy, pretentious posts.

I show them to people at work and they get a kick out of them.

It's a character flaw, I know, but it's like when someone walks into work wearing a hideous shirt saying: "Don't make fun of my shirt" . . . I just can't resist.

Actually I like Citizen Kane and I've got it on DVD.;)

I can't absolutely promise, but I'll try not to do it again.

:mad:

[Willie Lumpkin]

:mad:

Oh, I'm sorry. Have you never had a little fun with someone who took themself too seriously at one time or another?

I probably wouldn't have admitted it, but I felt bad when I saw you were getting into it too.

[Mr Sensitive]

it doesn't matter whether i remember watching Citizen Kane or not.

If you are to say something in a discussion about that movie, it does.

And, by the way, the one who transformed that in a discussion was Willie, not me.

[Mr Sensitive]

:o I have a confession, but don't tell anybody.

I'm just playing with Mr. S. because it's too easy and fun to push his buttons and get him to launch into one of his lengthy, pretentious posts.

I show them to people at work and they get a kick out of them.

It's a character flaw, I know, but it's like when someone walks into work wearing a hideous shirt saying: "Don't make fun of my shirt" . . . I just can't resist.

Actually I like Citizen Kane and I've got it on DVD.;)

I can't absolutely promise, but I'll try not to do it again.


That doesn't suprise me a little.

You have been one of the most dishonest debaters with which I've discussed something. That's the character you bring to other places, such as your work.

You combine both ignorance of what you are saying and this cowardice out of the topic discussed, as you are unable to keep with arguments all your silly comments. So, if you were playing, it was a pleasure to play with you, because it is so easy to show your flaws.

But you know that better than I do.

Oh, you got Citizen Kane on DVD? Why, if you can't watch it once and for all?

Why do I ask, it's so obvious: it would demand a great effort of yours to understand it.

It may look well in your shelf.

[Willie Lumpkin]

That doesn't suprise me a little.

You have been one of the most dishonest debaters with which I've discussed something. That's the character you bring to other places, such as your work.

You combine both ignorance of what you are saying and this cowardice out of the topic discussed, as you are unable to keep with arguments all your silly comments.

But you know that better than I do.

Oh, you got Citizen Kane on DVD? Why, if you can't watch it once and for all?

Why do I ask, it's so obvious: it would demand a great effort of yours to understand it.

It may look well in your shelf.

Pssssst, my name's not really Willie Lumpkin either.;)

[Mr Sensitive]

Pssssst, my name's not really Willie Lumpkin either.;)

I know.

I can think of four or five names that would describe you better than that.

[Kelly]

If you are to say something in a discussion about that movie, it does.

And, by the way, the one who transformed that in a discussion was Willie, not me.

MR. S....helllloooooo the movie was used as an example...the discussion wa about opinions and how they differ.....he simply used the movie as his example how some people can see a movie one way and some see it differently.....sooooo no it did not matter if I remembered the movie or not....ANY movie could have been used for that example....including THE FANTASTIC FOUR.....some enjoyed it, some didn't......thats cool.....

I loved the movie Crash, my sister hated it....we have a difference of opinion...am I going to say hers is wrong because it won best movie...no because her opinion is just that her own....

One of my favorite movies of all times is "Imitation of Life" my mom absolutely could not watch that movie, I loved it and watch both versions every time they come on classic movies....difference of opinions....makes the world go around....

I use examples in my classroom all the time, and change my view of them to fit the discussion....the example was to simply show people have a difference of opinion.....not how good or bad the movie "Citizen Kane" was or wasn't.....

Same thing with Thing....people have different opinions of what they want him to look like. Who's right? those that want him to look like Kriby's Thing....or those that might not have ever picked up a comic, and liked how he looked in the movie....or those that have been reading the comic for 40+ years and want only a few changes....who's right? who's wrong?

As for me...I would like to see a more pronounced brow, but they don't have to be jutting out like a major cliff on the forehead....I loved that we saw Michael's performance...and want that to continue...I think the changes that have been stated can be done.....but was I totally falling in the floor, pounding Kirby's grave over what he looked like in the movie. No.

[Kelly]

Oh, I'm sorry. Have you never had a little fun with someone who took themself too seriously at one time or another?

I probably wouldn't have admitted it, but I felt bad when I saw you were getting into it too.

I take people's difference of opinion very seriously....I saw it slammed continuously last year. I saw people demeaned because of their desires for this or that in the movie.....and very little was said.....I was happy to see someone who I felt was a leader on this forum stand up for those differences....there was nothing playful about it at all.....I can play with the best of them....but when we had people leaving this forum because they were slammed for simply enjoying what they were seeing leading up to the movie...I saw nothing enjoyable or playful about that....and usually they were being demeaned by people who thought themselves more knowledgeable about film or the comics.....it was nice to see someone who has knowledge of both able to see that a difference of opinion is simply that....

Sorry, didn't know it was playful discussion....:)

I am hoping those that left last year will return for this go around...I enjoyed the differing opinions...

[Mr Sensitive]

MR. S....helllloooooo the movie was used as an example...the discussion wa about opinions and how they differ.....he simply used the movie as his example how some people can see a movie one way and some see it differently.....sooooo no it did not matter if I remembered the movie or not....ANY movie could have been used for that example....including THE FANTASTIC FOUR.....some enjoyed it, some didn't......thats cool.....

I loved the movie Crash, my sister hated it....we have a difference of opinion...am I going to say hers is wrong because it won best movie...no because her opinion is just that her own....

One of my favorite movies of all times is "Imitation of Life" my mom absolutely could not watch that movie, I loved it and watch both versions every time they come on classic movies....difference of opinions....makes the world go around....

I use examples in my classroom all the time, and change my view of them to fit the discussion....the example was to simply show people have a difference of opinion.....not how good or bad the movie "Citizen Kane" was or wasn't.....

Same thing with Thing....people have different opinions of what they want him to look like. Who's right? those that want him to look like Kriby's Thing....or those that might not have ever picked up a comic, and liked how he looked in the movie....or those that have been reading the comic for 40+ years and want only a few changes....who's right? who's wrong?

As for me...I would like to see a more pronounced brow, but they don't have to be jutting out like a major cliff on the forehead....I loved that we saw Michael's performance...and want that to continue...I think the changes that have been stated can be done.....but was I totally falling in the floor, pounding Kirby's grave over what he looked like in the movie. No.

Citizen Kane was used as an example of personal nonsense.

Everybody can go watch a movie and start groaning like that. If it is presented as an opinion, it's fine. It was not, so I discussed that.

He is allowed to say whatever crap he wants about a movie, but should expect somebody wouldn't agree with him.

As to Thing: it wasn't rocky enough, and missed the brow. Common moviegoers will take anything, and readers of the comicbook want to see it done properly.

It seems very simple to solve this problem.

[Mr Sensitive]

I take people's difference of opinion very seriously....I saw it slammed continuously last year. I saw people demeaned because of their desires for this or that in the movie.....and very little was said.....I was happy to see someone who I felt was a leader on this forum stand up for those differences....there was nothing playful about it at all.....I can play with the best of them....but when we had people leaving this forum because they were slammed for simply enjoying what they were seeing leading up to the movie...I saw nothing enjoyable or playful about that....and usually they were being demeaned by people who thought themselves more knowledgeable about film or the comics.....it was nice to see someone who has knowledge of both able to see that a difference of opinion is simply that....

Sorry, didn't know it was playful discussion....:)

I am hoping those that left last year will return for this go around...I enjoyed the differing opinions...

Reading Machiavelli lately?

[Kelly]

Citizen Kane was used as an example of personal nonsense.

Everybody can go watch a movie and start groaning like that. If it is presented as an opinion, it's fine. It was not, so I discussed that.

He is allowed to say whatever crap he wants about a movie, but should expect somebody wouldn't agree with him.

As to Thing: it wasn't rocky enough, and missed the brow. Common moviegoers will take anything, and readers of the comicbook want to see it done properly.

It seems very simple to solve this problem.

Thats just it Mr. S he does expect there to be disagreement of opinion....that was his point....

But when someone comes on here and says, I thought that Thing looked good in the movie....they should be able to have that opinion without being "put down" because they are not a reader of the comic. Some have seen the pics from the Kirby era and still prefer the movie version, and they should not be made to feel stupid because they have that opinion....people on this forum such as Willie, Cappy and others have allowed those discussions, while others called those people sheep, idiots, morons, non-fans, etc....the few I mentioned above allowed those differing opinions without making those of us who are not as knowledgeable of the comics feel stupid....I've read some of the history of the F4, and now reading all versions pretty much on a regular basis, I'll catch up some this summer....the point is.....

Anyone, and everyone should be able to come to this forum, speak their opinion and not be told that their opinion means less than others....whether you are a fan of the comics for 40+ years, fan of the actors, fan of the comic for a year, fan of the UFF, regular version, MK, Adventures, etc.....your opinion means something....it is valid....if someone enjoyed the movie, and someone didn't....thats ok....they should be able to give their opinion without a reply of bloviation to make them feel their opinion is less than others.....my hope is that this forum will be more open to that this time around....I was a "common moviegoer" and I enjoyed what I saw in the movie (even with flaws here and ther), but knew that there was much more to see, and was edited (my biggest problem) out for who knows what reason. I'll be damned if I'm going to say that someone else's opinion is less valid because they loved the movie...(AND JUST BECAUSE THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS (not valid) ARE NOT USED.....THERE ARE WAYS OF TELLING SOMEONE YOU THINK THEIR OPINION IS LESS VALID, WITHOUT USING THAT TERM, ITS DONE DAILY AROUND HERE AND ALLOWED). If some are happy with the way Thing looked, more power to them....I wasn't totally happy, and hope changes are made.

There is a way of giving an opinion, showing your opinion is different, without making the other person feel stupid, less valued opinion, etc.....IT CAN BE DONE......some just need to learn how to do that....will that happen around here? my hopes of that are dwindling on a daily basis.

[Willie Lumpkin]

I take people's difference of opinion very seriously....I saw it slammed continuously last year. I saw people demeaned because of their desires for this or that in the movie.....and very little was said.....I was happy to see someone who I felt was a leader on this forum stand up for those differences....there was nothing playful about it at all.....I can play with the best of them....but when we had people leaving this forum because they were slammed for simply enjoying what they were seeing leading up to the movie...I saw nothing enjoyable or playful about that....and usually they were being demeaned by people who thought themselves more knowledgeable about film or the comics.....it was nice to see someone who has knowledge of both able to see that a difference of opinion is simply that....

Sorry, didn't know it was playful discussion....:)

I am hoping those that left last year will return for this go around...I enjoyed the differing opinions...

I understand what you're saying and I apologize again (I certainly have never considered myself any kind of "leader", but I guess in these slow times, there aren't very many of the originals hanging around).

I'd never consider leaving just because someone posted something I didn't like, and I'd hope most other people could find a way to put things in perspective enough (this is a web-site devoted to discussing a movie based on a comic book for crying out loud - we're not trying to save the world her, just have a little fun) to let things roll off their shoulders.

I was pushing Mr. S's buttons partly because it made me laugh, but also partly because people like him, who respond to people who disagree with them by throwing out insults, are a big part of the problem. I was sort of hoping that if he was insulting me it would keep him too busy to insult other people who might not be able to deal with it as easily.

Maybe it will still work. I seem to have really got his panties in a bunch this time, so maybe he'll be too busy with me for a while to bother other people.;)

[Mr Sensitive]

I understand what you're saying and I apologize again (I certainly have never considered myself any kind of "leader", but I guess in these slow times, there aren't very many of the originals hanging around).

I'd never consider leaving just because someone posted something I didn't like, and I'd hope most other people could find a way to put things in perspective enough (this is a web-site devoted to discussing a movie based on a comic book for crying out loud - we're not trying to save the world her, just have a little fun) to let things roll off their shoulders.

I was pushing Mr. S's buttons partly because it made me laugh, but also partly because people like him, who respond to people who disagree with them by throwing out insults, are a big part of the problem. I was sort of hoping that if he was insulting me it would keep him too busy to insult other people who might not be able to deal with it as easily.

Maybe it will still work. I seem to have really got his panties in a bunch this time, so maybe he'll be too busy with me for a while to bother other people.;)


So you were the "leader". That's a killing one. The first leader in History without any head. :cool:

Only a correction in your so thoughtful statement.

I never insult. With a bit of liberty, we could even say that your posts on Citizen Kane were an insult in themselves.

And you will have to be a much better debater and insulter to make me busy with your inane blabber.

[Kelly]

I understand what you're saying and I apologize again (I certainly have never considered myself any kind of "leader", but I guess in these slow times, there aren't very many of the originals hanging around).

I'd never consider leaving just because someone posted something I didn't like, and I'd hope most other people could find a way to put things in perspective enough (this is a web-site devoted to discussing a movie based on a comic book for crying out loud - we're not trying to save the world her, just have a little fun) to let things roll off their shoulders.

I was pushing Mr. S's buttons partly because it made me laugh, but also partly because people like him, who respond to people who disagree with them by throwing out insults, are a big part of the problem. I was sort of hoping that if he was insulting me it would keep him too busy to insult other people who might not be able to deal with it as easily.

Maybe it will still work. I seem to have really got his panties in a bunch this time, so maybe he'll be too busy with me for a while to bother other people.;)

Had nothing to do with not liking the other person's opinions, it had everything to do with being called names, and being made to feel that their opinion had no valid reason for being on this site. After awhile that gets extremely irritating...and a few finally got tired of it....hopefully there will be more of an OPEN discussion of opinions...rather than a discussion between people who think they know more than others...No one knows more about these comics around here than you, frankie, cappy, iron maiden and LS....and ya'll were the 5 that allowed that open discussion. I remember I made a mistake in describing one of the characters...can't remember exactly what it was....but Iron Maiden let me know my mistake, and corrected it with patience, intelligence, and has had some great discussions w/ me even though my knowledge of these comics falls well below hers...its fun discussing like that...its not fun discussing with someone that it seems their sole purpose is to show you that they know more than you do...and when you call them on it, the name-calling begins.....if you have the knowledge by all means use it here....thats how I've learned as much as I have about this comic is through you guys giving your knowledge away....but you did it without being condescending....which is an art that some need to learn around here....

[Willie Lumpkin]

. . .its not fun discussing with someone that it seems their sole purpose it to show you that they know more than you do...

I've always found that people who are really knowledgable don't feel like they need to convince others that they are.;)

It's the ones who are insecure who you have to watch out for.

[Kelly]

So you were the "leader". That's a killing one. The first leader in History without any head. :cool:

Only a correction in your so thoughtful statement.

I never insult. With a bit of liberty, we could even say that your posts on Citizen Kane were an insult in themselves.

And you will have to be a much better debater and insulter to make me busy with your inane blabber.

He was and is, a leader, he has been around this forum for a long time, and has taught me alot about this comic.....and he has done it with humor, kindness, and patience.....he did not give the title to himself...those of us that have been here for the last couple of years did that....and he deserves it....but again, nice to see some true colors coming out....good to know, sometimes its hard to read people without faces, hard for me anyway....

[Kelly]

I've always found that people who are really knowledgable don't feel like they need to convince others that they are.;)

It's the ones who are insecure who you have to watch out for.

Totally agree, in fact I believe theres a quote somewhere to that effect...:)


Also, Mr. S if I've totally misread your posts, I humbly apologize, I am simply stating what I perceive...

[Wilhelm-Scream]

/Agree!I'm glad. It's weird how nay-sayers just ignore that. It's like they just can't accept the possibility that the Thing could have looked more like the real Thing even with make-up, so they go "NANNANAANAANANNNANANANAN-I can't HEAR you-blahblananananblablablaNANANANA". :confused:

[Kelly]

I'm glad. It's weird how nay-sayers just ignore that. It's like they just can't accept the possibility that the Thing could have looked more like the real Thing even with make-up, so they go "NANNANAANAANANNNANANANAN-I can't HEAR you-blahblananananblablablaNANANANA". :confused:

well one did that.....dang, and you did that so well.....thats exactly what his posts looked like...:up:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

lol

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm glad. It's weird how nay-sayers just ignore that. It's like they just can't accept the possibility that the Thing could have looked more like the real Thing even with make-up, so they go "NANNANAANAANANNNANANANAN-I can't HEAR you-blahblananananblablablaNANANANA". :confused:

On more than one occasion, I've seen/heard make-up people, Michael Chiklis and, I'm pretty sure, Tim Story say they could have made him look however they wanted, but they chose to make him more human and less "cartoony".

So either they were being misleading or it's purely a matter of choice - not something that can't be done.

I'm optimistic that there's at least some hope for improvement in the sequel.

[Agent 194]

On more than one occasion, I've seen/heard make-up people, Michael Chiklis and, I'm pretty sure, Tim Story say they could have made him look however they wanted, but they chose to make him more human and less "cartoony".

So either they were being misleading or it's purely a matter of choice - not something that can't be done.

I'm optimistic that there's at least some hope for improvement in the sequel.

As am I. I also remember hearing things about the "right" direction they could have gone/should have gone. That it was possible.

[Spider - Man]

:o I have a confession, but don't tell anybody.

I'm just playing with Mr. S. because it's too easy and fun to push his buttons and get him to launch into one of his lengthy, pretentious posts.

I show them to people at work and they get a kick out of them.

It's a character flaw, I know, but it's like when someone walks into work wearing a hideous shirt saying: "Don't make fun of my shirt" . . . I just can't resist.

Actually I like Citizen Kane and I've got it on DVD.;)

I can't absolutely promise, but I'll try not to do it again.

Hey man, you need to come hang out and dispense some of your attitude on the SM3 boards. The place is overrun by brats who are just waiting to jump on anyone who makes the most minor mistep with meaness that has just sucked all the fun out of it for me. The majority of the posts are insults. I've quit hanging out there for getting so pissed! Maybe you can go in and straighten the place out! :D

[Mr Sensitive]

I've always found that people who are really knowledgable don't feel like they need to convince others that they are.;)

It's the ones who are insecure who you have to watch out for.

You have made a great effort to prove yourself on Citizen Kane, and couldn't.

Just repeating your petty taglines all over doesn't make magically knowledge.

You may first learn, and I do suggest you start it when you can.

[Kelly]

Damn its still about Citizen Kane....lol.....*walks out of thread*

[Mr Sensitive]

Totally agree, in fact I believe theres a quote somewhere to that effect...:)


Also, Mr. S if I've totally misread your posts, I humbly apologize, I am simply stating what I perceive...

Yes, you have totally misread my posts, but that was really your intention; so, you obviously don't need to apologize.

That's also learning.

[Kelly]

Yes, you have totally misread my posts, but that was really your intention; so, you obviously don't need to apologize.

That's also learning.

You have no idea what my intentions are....nor do you have any idea what the discussion was actually about.....but thats ok.....maybe one of these days....you'll learn something new.....if you haven't already learned everything.....

i was in fact, being sincere, but as i can now see.....i haven't misread your posts at all....you are the bearer of all knowledge.....and i bow down to you.....:)

[Mr Sensitive]

You have no idea what my intentions are....nor do you have any idea what the discussion was actually about.....but thats ok.....maybe one of these days....you'll learn something new.....if you haven't already learned everything.....

i was in fact, being sincere, but as i can now see.....i haven't misread your posts at all....you are the bearer of all knowledge.....and i bow down to you.....:)

That's where you are wrong.

I've learned a great deal with you and Postman. I was just acknowledging it in my last post.

Both your intentions were clear as crystal.

[Kelly]

That's where you are wrong.

I've learned a great deal with you and Postman. I was just acknowledging it in my last post.

Both your intentions were clear as crystal.


Then in reality, you've learned nothing from me at all.....thats ok....really.

[Agent 194]

interestingly/coincidentally, Casablanca and Citizen Kane were on TCM last night.

[Kelly]

interestingly/coincidentally, Casablanca and Citizen Kane were on TCM last night.

When "Imitation of Life" is on TCM, I'll be tuning in.....

[Agent 194]

Don't believe I know this movie.

[MJB]

Its very dificult to bring comic book characters into real life due to certain reality rules, Stuff like this can easily be achieved with CGI, But when you have an actor in full costume, Its pretty much hard to get the same exact look you see in the comics, Cause the comic book versions always have the exaggerated looks to them.

You can't tell me that James Cameron wouldn't rocked the hell out of the f4.

[Kelly]

You can't tell me that James Cameron wouldn't rocked the hell out of the f4.

Oooooh lord here we go again....LOL same song verse 2.0

[gerbstat]

http://members.aol.com/gerbstat/sanitized.jpg

[Kelly]

Sources at Dr. 90210 have announced that the Thing suit will be getting a boob job for the sequel..

Awesome news...:D