And [blackout]people are crying about the loss of Kingsley's take on the character, when Aldrich Killian really represents the Mandarin of the comics, even with freaking powers. You've got the whole package. You've got the Asian stereotype making the usual grand speeches about terror, and then you've got the soul of the Mandarin. Everytime I talk about Killian being the actual Mandarin, you completely bypass that part of what I say. So what is it about Killian that's so wrong as a movie version of the Mandarin, huh? To me it really seems like you're just ******** for falling for the twist. [/blackout]
Killian was not [blackout]the Mandarin. If Killian was the Mandarin people would be scream from the top of their lungs "Killian is the Mandarin" And all be in agreement over it.
If it was their intention to make Killian the Mandarin they should have made it clearer. Do you hear people saying: "Ken Watanabe was the real Ra's Al Ghul, not Liam Neeson" Or doubting who was the real Ra's ? No because it is made clear that Liam Neeson IS Ra's.
With Killian it's very much left to interpretation. Even with him shouting "I AM the Mandarin" at Tony
What could possibly be the point of splitting the Mandarin over two characters ?[/blackout]
The situation is different with this movie than others, and that's why you can't say "that's what YOU wanted to see" and call it a day, because [BLACKOUT]Ben's Mandarin was made the central point of most of the trailers, promo stuff, and interviews[/BLACKOUT] and it was obviously Marvel's elaborate plan to get people by their pants. If they gamble like that, some people might get disappointed, and that's exactly what happened.
But it's unfair to judge a movie for it's marketing campaign. Even if they gave you something that wasn't what they were selling, the movie itself should be judged for what it is, not for what people thought it would be.
Marvel have been jerks here yes, but judging a movie for what they were advertising is... very inaccurate. On the other side, if you simply didn't like the movie for what it was there's no problem.
Wile I haven't seen the film yet, this is the thing that has got me the most confused. I have read every issue of Tales of Suspense that Iron Man was in, plus Invincible up to some where in the 300's, plus multiple Avengers and crossover comics, and Mandarin has always been more about scheming and plotting than he's been about his magic rings and such. Black told us way back when that the rings were just rings, so no one should be surprised about that. That's no spoiler info either.
Having said that, let me just say that people always argue about interpretation of characters. There is no single interpretation of a character. While people love Ledger's Joker, and it may be the definitive model, that doesn't make Jack Nicholson's or Cesar Romero's Jokers invalid. All of those interpretations fit for the film they were in, and cannot be substituted among one another.
There are going to be some that like IM3 and some that hate it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what I don't like to see is either side telling the other that their own opinion is invalid.
I'm not saying their opinion is invalid, I'm just making my point that there is plenty of material in the comics to back this interpretation, but you make a good point. There is plenty of material in the comics to back Jack's Joker, Ceaser's Joker and Heath's Joker, but they are all a little different and some people love one, but hate others. I just think its wrong to say that there isn't anything in the comics that inspired this interpretation which a lot of people seem to be saying and implying.
Did you read my post? I just described the way [BLACKOUT]Kingsley was before he was revealed to be a drunken actor[/BLACKOUT]. I liked how he looked, sounded and appeared like, and that's what I was interested to see in this character. I can't see how it's less than [BLACKOUT]he being Trevor.[/BLACKOUT]
Killian is [BLACKOUT]Killian. The fact that he called himself that doesn't make him any less different than he is. I understand that this was their version of the character Mandarin, but other than the name he's still a different character than the one that appeared to be Ben Kingsley. And that was my point - I'm saying that HIS Mandarin was what I was interested in, not a comicbook carbon-copy, and not Killian. [/BLACKOUT]
The situation is different with this movie than others, and that's why you can't say "that's what YOU wanted to see" and call it a day, because [BLACKOUT]Ben's Mandarin was made the central point of most of the trailers, promo stuff, and interviews[/BLACKOUT] and it was obviously Marvel's elaborate plan to get people by their pants. If they gamble like that, some people might get disappointed, and that's exactly what happened.
Ok, yeah I read your post, but I assumed you were in the 'its not exactly like the comics, it sucks' boat. I shouldn't have assumed. I do apologize.
And you are right, it was a gutsy move by Marvel to use the marketing basically to set up the audience, and just like any gutsy move, people will be disappointed and I respect that. However, I think it overall is a smart business move for Marvel, because the GA is eating the twist up.
What does that even mean? False advertisement? [blackout]It's a damn plot twist. Did you really expect them to reveal the plot twist in TV spots and trailers!?! Of course they're making you think he's the Mandarin. THAT'S THE POINT!
That doesn't mean I have to like it. There was a whole lot of stuff in these trailers involving [BLACKOUT]Ben Kingsley's Mandarin, scenes and lines[/BLACKOUT] that's not even in the movie. The trailers themselves show the movie as much, much more dramatic than it actually is. It's done on purpose, and the twist is the purpose, but it doesn't make it any less misleading.
I think your post is excellent, but I got to admit, I can understand how some people, real fans of the comics, which I'm not, not really, would feel a bit disappointed because I'm kind of in that camp myself.
I think the most interesting things in the movie were the issues affecting Stark/Ironman. It was a good movie, better I think than the second overall.
Though I think his stint in the Avengers has been his strongest outing so far, and would love to see him in any Avengers sequel. RDJ nails the part I think.
I understand some disappointment and everyone has their opinions. I just think people should acknowledge that there is plenty of material from the comics that backs up this interpretation of Mandarin. They don't have to like this interpretation, but its still a valid interpretation. Sort of like Burton's Batman. His Batman takes a lot from the old Bob Kane comics, such as Batman killing and I respect that its just as valid of interpretation of the comics and character as Nolan's, but I don't really like my Batman killing, so I don't dig that interpretation, but I get where Burton was coming from and I acknowledge its valid....but not for me.
But it's unfair to judge a movie for it's marketing campaign. Even if they gave you something that wasn't what they were selling, the movie itself should be judged for what it is, not for what people thought it would be.
Marvel have been jerks here yes, but judging a movie for what they were advertising is... very inaccurate. On the other side, if you simply didn't like the movie for what it was there's no problem.
I'm not actually judging the movie by for its marketing campaign, don't put words in my mouth. The marketing campaign is the reason why a person decides to see a movie or not, and if I'm given something that wasn't what they were selling (as you put it), I may not like it. And that's exactly what happened. Other people liked it, and I'm fine with that. But I didn't.
Ok, yeah I read your post, but I assumed you were in the 'its not exactly like the comics, it sucks' boat. I shouldn't have assumed. I do apologize.
And you are right, it was a gutsy move by Marvel to use the marketing basically to set up the audience, and just like any gutsy move, people will be disappointed and I respect that. However, I think it overall is a smart business move for Marvel, because the GA is eating the twist up.
Apology accepted. And as I said, I'm glad the GA is enjoying it, and I'm glad the movie's doing well. But all that doesn't have anything to do with my enjoyment, and my right to come here and give my reasons as to why I was disappointed.
That's the thing that makes me and other people harsh sometimes - people who give structured criticism get thrown in a category they don't belong.
I'm not actually judging the movie by for its marketing campaign, don't put words in my mouth. The marketing campaign is the reason why a person decides to see a movie or not, and if I'm given something that wasn't what they were selling (as you put it), I may not like it. And that's exactly what happened. Other people liked it, and I'm fine with that. But I didn't.
Well at the end of the day, its a business and these trailers focusing on Kingsley were much more appealing to older audiences who aren't into the whole comic book stuff. They don't need to market to the comic fans because they know they are going to see it anyways. Drive was marketed as a Fast and Furious film and a ton of people saw it and hated it and were pissed. Looper did it too, making it look like an action-fest and not showing any of the family scenes with the kid and once again, a lot of people were pissed it wasn't Future Die Hard like they thought it would be, but at the end of the day, it helped the film make money and it was a smart business move. It kind of sucks, but its the nature of the game. I do get the frustration though, but this kind of stuff is always going to happen.
I'm not actually judging the movie by for its marketing campaign, don't put words in my mouth. The marketing campaign is the reason why a person decides to see a movie or not, and if I'm given something that wasn't what they were selling (as you put it), I may not like it. And that's exactly what happened. Other people liked it, and I'm fine with that. But I didn't.
Okay, I want to address some of the misconceptions I see getting constantly thrown from people around here who don't seem to understand why others didn't like the movie or were left disappointed by it. I don't assume everyone who throws those does it with the purpose to put others down (although there are a few that do), but seeing how much misunderstanding is created, and how people misquote or simply put words in others' mouths(not citing anyone in particular, just addressing a continuously appearing issue), I will try to explain why this film (and its twist) didn't work for me. I'm not talking on behalf of other people, that's why I will say how *I* felt about certain things, rather than *we*, but I'm quite sure many people will agree with me on several points.
I keep seeing the same stuff being used against people who disliked IM3 and people who try to explain why, and many of them are inaccurate, some are ridiculous, and then there are others that are plain arrogant and offensive. So let me go through them individually:
"You can't accept changes to the character" - that is simply not true. Many of us accepted the re-invented character of Mandarin that Sir Ben was shown as in every trailer, promo material, interview, etc., Who I'm sure everyone will admit is largely different than his comicbook counterpart. I, for one, am a strong supporter of the idea that comicbook characters and stories, when adapted to the big screen, need their share bit of re-invention, because I understand not everything that works on the pages of a comicbook works on film. As a matter of fact, any kind of adaptation, a transition from one story medium to another, requires some sort of change. That's why it's called adaptation. Still images need to be adapted to work as a motion picture. The sole fact that something was changed is not the purpose why people don't like certain things.
"You had unrealistic expectations" - uhm, no, I had perfectly realistic expectations. The fact that Marvel had this whole elaborate plan with misleading trailers, promos, quotes and build-up just to set up a single twist just proves this. I don't think Marvel are that ignorant as to believe that pulling something unexpected like that after playing with people's expectations intentionally wasn't going to come with a cost. That's like pulling an elaborate prank on a friend, like making him believe he won a car from the lottery, or that his cat died, and then pull a Mandarin on him and tell him it was all about ****s and giggles. Some people might roll with it and find it funny, but others may not. And both sides have their good reasons for feeling how they do. You can't expect everyone to laugh at it, and to say that they didn't get it, or they had unrealistic expectations, is rather offensive and plain ignorant.
"You don't have a sense of humor" - Yes, I do. But different people find different things funny. To make another analogy, there are friends like IM1, who know when to get serious, and when to crack a joke, they seem to find this great balance and that's why you like them so much. Then there are friends like IM3 that never seem to know when to be funny, when to be serious, and most of the time try too hard to be both, but end up being neither in your eyes, and leave you with mixed feelings about them.
"You expect Mandarin to be what he is in the comics" - No! I expected what the trailers, promo stuff, creators (and even the movie itself up until that twist) promised - and what turned out to be a lie. I liked how Sir Ben's Mandarin looked, sounded and appeared. That's why I was disappointed when he was taken away for the sake of making "a funny" - I see it as a wasted potential, because I felt there was something there I was really interested in seeing it unfolded.
"You got Mandarin, because Killian is the real Mandarin" - No. I got a fire-breathing geek-turned-businessman competitor who seeks revenge, has dragon tattoos on his body and calls himself Mandarin, not the character of a mysterious terrorist-leader who calls himself a teacher, who doesn't believe in heroes, who seems to have a twisted unique ideology that never emerges beyond the lines he speaks in the trailers, who kills people on TV and who has everyone in fear. The character of Killian is still the character of Killian even after he proclaims himself as the Mandarin, and that doesn't matter at that point. He could've called himself Fing Fang Foom and it still wouldn't have made a bit difference towards what I got and what I didn't get.
And yes, I was thinking about this too. One of my favorite movies of all time - Blade Runner - was a movie I didn't like the first time I saw. So maybe on my second viewing, I might change my opinion. Unfortunately, I don't have the desire to see it in theaters. I'll wait for the Bluray, and if people are still discussing it, I may pop in if I have different thoughts.
Well at the end of the day, its a business and these trailers focusing on Kingsley were much more appealing to older audiences who aren't into the whole comic book stuff. They don't need to market to the comic fans because they know they are going to see it anyways. Drive was marketed as a Fast and Furious film and a ton of people saw it and hated it and were pissed. Looper did it too, making it look like an action-fest and not showing any of the family scenes with the kid and once again, a lot of people were pissed it wasn't Future Die Hard like they thought it would be, but at the end of the day, it helped the film make money and it was a smart business move. It kind of sucks, but its the nature of the game. I do get the frustration though, but this kind of stuff is always going to happen.
Yes. I loved both Looper and Drive, but I understand why people got pissed off. In the case of Drive in particular, it's even more understandable because not everyone enjoys that kind of movie. So it sucks to be drawn in because of a trailer that makes the movie look different, but that's what it is, as you said.
I'm not saying their opinion is invalid, I'm just making my point that there is plenty of material in the comics to back this interpretation, but you make a good point. There is plenty of material in the comics to back Jack's Joker, Ceaser's Joker and Heath's Joker, but they are all a little different and some people love one, but hate others. I just think its wrong to say that there isn't anything in the comics that inspired this interpretation which a lot of people seem to be saying and implying.
Sorry wasn't saying you were implying their opinion is invalid. Some people have done that, but like you say there's 50 years of source material on this stuff, so there's plenty of room for interpretation.
Some people could make a big stink about Jarvis being a computer, but I don't recall anyone being upset about that. In fact a lot of people prefer that Jarvis and it even inspired the new Jarvis on Avengers: EMH.
As I said before, the [BLACKOUT]twist[/BLACKOUT] is not the only thing that turns out problematic for me in IM3, although it is definitely the biggest one. It is the game-changer in this film, and I'm honestly glad it worked for some, but it obviously didn't work for others, and there's genuine disappointment there. For me, the whole scene completely broke the immersion, any emotions and interest I had invested earlier, took me out of the experience and completely messed up my expectations. There were a couple of moments before that when I thought the movie is being a bit ridiculous, but I rolled with it. But this just didn't click with me. It was so ridiculous that I wouldn't have been surprised if [BLACKOUT]they had him call himself Ben Kingsley instead of Trevor Slattery, and wink to the camera, breaking the fourth wall, and saying something like "You didn't see that in the trailers, did you?". [/BLACKOUT]
From that point on I just couldn't possibly get invested in anything. When I was a kid, I always got angry at my classmate who made fun of people who take movies and stories seriously, as in being excited to see what happens, expecting to see upcoming movies and all, and just laughing at their genuine passion for films and cinema - saying **** like "Man, it's just a movie, it's not real, those are actors pretending to be characters, why do you care?!"
I always thought he was wrong, but at that moment, ridiculous as it seems, I would've agreed with him 100%. I couldn't take anything seriously anymore, and I didn't find the funny moments funny. [BLACKOUT]Why should I sympathize with Tony in this dramatic moment when Pepper supposedly dies when just a few minutes ago I saw her being infected with EXTREMIS and surviving the infection without blowing up? Why should I find it funny that Tony looked and acted as a complete goofball when the Mark 42 broke into pieces, when just a few moments ago the woman who was the center of his world and the whole reason he got obsessed with building all kinds of armors died because of him?[/BLACKOUT]
Any attempt at building tension was no longer working for me. And the worst thing is, what I liked about the first part of the movie [BLACKOUT]will now be diminished because of the twist and my disappointment of the second. All those scenes in the beginning and all the build-up are a joke, and thus completely pointless for me. It's almost as if I really believe that a movie is about a bunch of actors pretending to do something and there's no substance there to it.[/BLACKOUT]
The whole thing with the ending and the operation he has to get the arc reactor and the shrapnel removes also seems questionable and pointless. If a simple 10-second operation could save his life, why did he need to go through all this **** with integrating a technology that a whole bunch of scientists couldn't figure out into a tiny piece, in a cave with a bunch of scrap, and since even S.H.I.E.L.D. couldn't figure out how to do it, to single-handedly create a new element that was impossible to synthesize... He doesn't need the reactor to stay alive, and he doesn't need it to power up the suits anymore, he doesn't need to go IN the suit anymore, hell, he doesn't even need to stay in control of the suits, because JARVIS can do it for him. What was all that about? To get a point across? That not the suit is important, but the man? Like the first two movies and Avengers didn't already do that, he created what was considered impossible from a bunch of scrap, and created an impossible new element, and that wasn't enough to convince people that Tony Stark is a genuis, and that Iron Man is his creation and not he other way around?
This kind of ending would've worked better for me if this was the last movie in a well-structured trilogy of a franchise. But given how disjointed the IM trilogy is, with it's second film being more of a prequel to another movie, and its third film being more dependent on that "another movie" rather than it's second film, this just doesn't bring any satisfying conclusion to me, nor does it work as a trilogy.
And again, if other movies like IM2, TIH and Thor "tricked" me into believing that important plot-points from their very conclusions turned out to be pointless and were disregarded with the use of one or two lines, then I guess it won't be a problem if [BLACKOUT]they disregard the ending of this later on, with a line from Tony Stark explaining that he needs a new arc reactor again because the doctors accidentally left a surgical instrument inside him.[/BLACKOUT]
I'm getting a little away from the point, but I wanted to address these issues too. Marvel stated several times that their intention post-Avengers when it comes to their heroes is to put them against the wall once again to prove that they're still relevant on their on as they are united. And I like that. But unfortunately, the way they handled in IM3 was disappointing for me. I don't try to force my opinion on everyone, I'm not trying to offend people that did enjoy the movie, I'm just trying to explain why the movie didn't work for me.
Just to quote myself, for a 10th time, I'm actually genuinely glad that the GA is eating up the movie, and that fans are liking the movie. I, myself, wish nothing but success for the movie, both financially and critically, and of course among the fans, and I hope to see RDJ back for another take as the character. That being said, I sure hope the next installment leaves me a little more satisfied than IM3.
Sorry wasn't saying you were implying their opinion is invalid. Some people have done that, but like you say there's 50 years of source material on this stuff, so there's plenty of room for interpretation.
Some people could make a big stink about Jarvis being a computer, but I don't recall anyone being upset about that. In fact a lot of people prefer that Jarvis and it even inspired the new Jarvis on Avengers: EMH.
No need to apologize dude, I wasn't offended or anything. I just look into all of this as friendly discussions, even if some people on the boards are extreme in opposite directions of me, I try and discuss in a friendly manor and unless its obvious someone is being offensive to me, I just assume they are doing the same. So, I figured you weren't implying anything negative about my opinion. You made some solid points...and a great point about Jarvis. I actually never even thought about that.
As I said before, the [BLACKOUT]twist[/BLACKOUT] is not the only thing that turns out problematic for me in IM3, although it is definitely the biggest one. It is the game-changer in this film, and I'm honestly glad it worked for some, but it obviously didn't work for others, and there's genuine disappointment there. For me, the whole scene completely broke the immersion, any emotions and interest I had invested earlier, took me out of the experience and completely messed up my expectations. There were a couple of moments before that when I thought the movie is being a bit ridiculous, but I rolled with it. But this just didn't click with me. It was so ridiculous that I wouldn't have been surprised if [BLACKOUT]they had him call himself Ben Kingsley instead of Trevor Slattery, and wink to the camera, breaking the fourth wall, and saying something like "You didn't see that in the trailers, did you?". [/BLACKOUT]
From that point on I just couldn't possibly get invested in anything. When I was a kid, I always got angry at my classmate who made fun of people who take movies and stories seriously, as in being excited to see what happens, expecting to see upcoming movies and all, and just laughing at their genuine passion for films and cinema - saying **** like "Man, it's just a movie, it's not real, those are actors pretending to be characters, why do you care?!"
I always thought he was wrong, but at that moment, ridiculous as it seems, I would've agreed with him 100%. I couldn't take anything seriously anymore, and I didn't find the funny moments funny. [BLACKOUT]Why should I sympathize with Tony in this dramatic moment when Pepper supposedly dies when just a few minutes ago I saw her being infected with EXTREMIS and surviving the infection without blowing up? Why should I find it funny that Tony looked and acted as a complete goofball when the Mark 42 broke into pieces, when just a few moments ago the woman who was the center of his world and the whole reason he got obsessed with building all kinds of armors died because of him?[/BLACKOUT]
Any attempt at building tension was no longer working for me. And the worst thing is, what I liked about the first part of the movie [BLACKOUT]will now be diminished because of the twist and my disappointment of the second. All those scenes in the beginning and all the build-up are a joke, and thus completely pointless for me. It's almost as if I really believe that a movie is about a bunch of actors pretending to do something and there's no substance there to it.[/BLACKOUT]
The whole thing with the ending and the operation he has to get the arc reactor and the shrapnel removes also seems questionable and pointless. If a simple 10-second operation could save his life, why did he need to go through all this **** with integrating a technology that a whole bunch of scientists couldn't figure out into a tiny piece, in a cave with a bunch of scrap, and since even S.H.I.E.L.D. couldn't figure out how to do it, to single-handedly create a new element that was impossible to synthesize... He doesn't need the reactor to stay alive, and he doesn't need it to power up the suits anymore, he doesn't need to go IN the suit anymore, hell, he doesn't even need to stay in control of the suits, because JARVIS can do it for him. What was all that about? To get a point across? That not the suit is important, but the man? Like the first two movies and Avengers didn't already do that, he created what was considered impossible from a bunch of scrap, and created an impossible new element, and that wasn't enough to convince people that Tony Stark is a genuis, and that Iron Man is his creation and not he other way around?
This kind of ending would've worked better for me if this was the last movie in a well-structured trilogy of a franchise. But given how disjointed the IM trilogy is, with it's second film being more of a prequel to another movie, and its third film being more dependent on that "another movie" rather than it's second film, this just doesn't bring any satisfying conclusion to me, nor does it work as a trilogy.
And again, if other movies like IM2, TIH and Thor "tricked" me into believing that important plot-points from their very conclusions turned out to be pointless and were disregarded with the use of one or two lines, then I guess it won't be a problem if [BLACKOUT]they disregard the ending of this later on, with a line from Tony Stark explaining that he needs a new arc reactor again because the doctors accidentally left a surgical instrument inside him.[/BLACKOUT]
I'm getting a little away from the point, but I wanted to address these issues too. Marvel stated several times that their intention post-Avengers when it comes to their heroes is to put them against the wall once again to prove that they're still relevant on their on as they are united. And I like that. But unfortunately, the way they handled in IM3 was disappointing for me. I don't try to force my opinion on everyone, I'm not trying to offend people that did enjoy the movie, I'm just trying to explain why the movie didn't work for me.
Just to quote myself, for a 10th time, I'm actually genuinely glad that the GA is eating up the movie, and that fans are liking the movie. I, myself, wish nothing but success for the movie, both financially and critically, and of course among the fans, and I hope to see RDJ back for another take as the character. That being said, I sure hope the next installment leaves me a little more satisfied than IM3.
See, that's how you express an opinion! I disagree, but I can definitely get behind your post and thoughts. Much better than the [blackout]those bad, bad guys tricked me and now I'm mad[/blackout] schtick you were going for previously.
See, that's how you express an opinion! I disagree, but I can definitely get behind your post and thoughts. Much better than the [blackout]those bad, bad guys tricked me and now I'm mad[/blackout] schtick you were going for previously.
To be clear, I was always going for what I posted above and expressed myself several times before. Maybe I didn't get my point across as clear as I hoped I would, but I wanted to say that I'm not a hater of Marvel or anything, and I'm not a person who bashes them just because, or I like to irritate others, or I demand my money back because what I saw was trash or something like that.
And I know many of us who were disappointed aren't like that too. That's why my other point was that we shouldn't be quick to disregard other people's comments as being hateful or close-minded or being invalid or being dishonest about what they think.
Both movies are generally hated by fans of the characters and the general audience. Both were franchise killers. Iron Man 2 led to Avengers and isnt hated by its fans, generally. Its ratings are better than either movie. Not sure what your point is.
It is very clear, you are just ignoring it. Evey film has its fans. Whether you like that or not. Claiming people like a movie doesn't mean anything, because every film has its fans.
Came back before, I really enjoyed it, it wasnt Avengers class for me, and I would probably put it below IM1 and Thor as well, but I liked it.
The movie was great fun, with some very funny moments, along with a decent bad guy, talking of which the twist didnt bother me at all, I actually found it quite clever, and this is someone who has read IM comics in the past. The cast were all great, but RDJ was obviously the stand out, the movie focused on Tony Stark and was the better for it. Once again, despite this having the best action of the trilogy, I still didnt find any of the set-pieces amazing, I dont see why its so hard to make a great Iron Man action scene, when Joss Whedon did it in The Avengers, a couple of times actually. But oh well, the character moments made up for it, and the bits OUT of the suit were actually really good this time, and this hasnt always been the case in the previous movies. My only dissapointment really was [BLACKOUT]Tony Stark not getting Extremis himself, I thought thats why they were introducing it, to make Stark a bit more powerful for the bigger threat in Avengers 2, but this was my only real dissapointment[/BLACKOUT].
Overall though it was great, better than IM2 by quite a bit, but not quite IM1 level either, 9/10 for me though.
Kingsley's take was an Osama Bin Laden caricature. It actually makes more sense to me that they'd go the route they did. Replace one racist caricature with another?
Why in the world should an Osama bin Laden caricature be "racist"?!?
Osama caricatures are no more racist than Hitler, Gaddafi, Stalin, Castro or Mao caricatures. I'd say making caricatures is the best thing you can do with dictators, mass murderers and terrorists. It's what Chaplin did.
Just because the terrorist is from a different culture doesn't make it racist.
Dude, you're being incoherent. Either it worked, or it didn't. Either you liked or you didn't like the movie.
I miss the old days when you could discuss these movies as what they are, movies, and not in how they work as jack-off material for fanboys.
Hopefully for your sake the mods won't be hard on your post. They, especially C. Lee, have already given out warnings to the people who have been trash talking fans who don't like the twist. Personally, I don't think they should have given warnings, they should have just started putting people on probation right away.
It's funny that people are getting trash talked for not enjoying the twist. I can't wrap my head around the fact that people are seemingly taking offense towards those who hated the twist.
The only one that has surprised me was Peter Travers. I figured he'd like it, he's generally positive toward the genre. He gave a positive review to TASM, and I thought that was crap.
It's funny that people are getting trash talked for not enjoying the twist. I can't wrap my head around the fact that people are seemingly taking offense towards those who hated the twist.
I can't wrap my head around it either. Its bizarre. I just have to laugh at some of the posts in here because they are taking a difference of opinion way too personally.
I can't wrap my head around it either. Its bizarre. I just have to laugh at some of the posts in here because they are taking a difference of opinion way too personally.
Just look at what I've done on this very page only - a million words trying to explain myself, and a million before, and yet people still misinterpret what I'm trying to say.
But I guess everyone takes other people's opinions differently. I like discussing things with people that are interested in real discussion, not name calling and finger pointing. I have learned a lot from posters I disagree with on SHH and I always appreciate a good discussion with reasoned people, no matter if we agree or disagree on something. But everyone's different. As long as people are being respectful to each other, it's all good.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I just described the way [BLACKOUT]Kingsley was before he was revealed to be a drunken actor[/BLACKOUT]. I liked how he looked, sounded and appeared like, and that's what I was interested to see in this character. I can't see how it's less than [BLACKOUT]he being Trevor.[/BLACKOUT]
I disagree, but I can definitely get behind your post and thoughts. Much better than the [blackout]those bad, bad guys tricked me and now I'm mad[/blackout] schtick you were going for previously.
