to those who watched it, QUESTIONS,REACTIONS, ETC.(Discussion Thread. Heavy Spoilers)

[Infinity9999x]

Ok, I think I finally hit on your main issue with this. You have to read between the lines in this case.

When I was analyzing poetry for hours and hours at school, that's all we did, try to interpret what the author truly meant, by reading between the lines.

I think that's what we need to do with this. Trust me, if you tried to take poetry literally, you'd go insane.

The movie doesn't spoonfeed us the specifics of ghost rider's powers, but that's ok. Movies always do this, especially comic book movies I've spent years of my life discussing here. To this day, I have no idea how Spider-man's sign language web shooters work. But i just stopped caring.

Night is of course as we all know, a time when no sun light is available.

That's all there is to it. When slade says his powers only work at night, he means, they only work in the absence of sun light. I hope this clears that up...

heh, I always used to try to figure out the web shooter thing too.

Now, I wouldn't have been annoyed if they had said "the GR comes out only in darkness," but they said night, that was my only problem. If they had wanted it to mean darkness, they could have just said it.

I found that happened quite a bit in the films...you could kinda grasp what they were saying it just wasn't very clear. It was kind of the same with Blaze for me.

I mean, I understood Cage's angle with him. If I had made a deal with the devil I would probably surround myself with light hearted things too...but it would have been nicer if they had explained that a little better in the movie. Instead of coming off like someone trying to keep himself from the darkness, he kind of just came off like a goofy dude.

 

[The Kid]

heh, I always used to try to figure out the web shooter thing too.

Now, I wouldn't have been annoyed if they had said "the GR comes out only in darkness," but they said night, that was my only problem. If they had wanted it to mean darkness, they could have just said it.

I found that happened quite a bit in the films...you could kinda grasp what they were saying it just wasn't very clear. It was kind of the same with Blaze for me.

I mean, I understood Cage's angle with him. If I had made a deal with the devil I would probably surround myself with light hearted things too...but it would have been nicer if they had explained that a little better in the movie. Instead of coming off like someone trying to keep himself from the darkness, he kind of just came off like a goofy dude.

Well in the end I suppose how this line is taken depends on how deeply you want to think into it. My mind is going nuts with so many similar lines in other comic films that haven't recieved this level of focus in the past to my knowledge. One of my favorites being 'freaky loo wacka doo'. This was a strange, strange, strange bit of wording, but I let it slide, then moved on, settled down and started a family.

Seriously though I like yummy candy and happy music too so it didn't seem so strange to me. I guess you're calling me a goofy dude?

 

[Infinity9999x]

Well in the end I suppose how this line is taken depends on how deeply you want to think into it. My mind is going nuts with so many similar lines in other comic films that haven't recieved this level of focus in the past to my knowledge. One of my favorites being 'freaky loo wacka doo'. This was a strange, strange, strange bit of wording, but I let it slide, then moved on, settled down and started a family.

Seriously though I like yummy candy and happy music too so it didn't seem so strange to me. I guess you're calling me a goofy dude?

Yes, you're a goofy dude, but in a good way I never said I disliked Cage's preformance, I just thought it was different. I mean, I think most people expected Blaze to be the "burbon drinking chain smoking badass" and just to clairify it for people it would have been nice for them to explain more why he surrounded himself with happy stuff. To kind of say "yeah he probably would have been a chainsmoking burbon drinking badass, but here's why he's not.."

And what comic movie said freaky loo wacka doo, because you're right, that is some weird wording.

And don't think I'm being just nitpicky on this film. I'm like thist with every movie. The Spider-man films, which I did enjoy more then GR, still bug the heck out of me for the stuff they leave out (like the lack of Spider-man's personality. I mean, he's supposed to be a funny chatter mouth not a mute)

So yeah, I'm just one of those guys that analyses things a lot.

 

[SentinelMind]

Just seen it with few friends.....that has been the worst comic book movie I've seen in a long time. Crappy acting, horrible directing...nothing but fluff and draw out mindless pointless dialogue and gimmicky humor on top of poor comic relief. The script was utter trash. Special effects were good, but not enough to save the movie. Was there any thought put into this movie? Nothing redeeming about this movie at all.

2/10

 

[Mito88]

Just seen it with few friends.....that has been the worst comic book movie I've seen in a long time. Crappy acting, horrible directing...nothing but fluff and draw out mindless pointless dialogue and gimmicky humor on top of poor comic relief. The script was utter trash. Special effects were good, but not enough to save the movie. Was there any thought put into this movie? Nothing redeeming about this movie at all.

2/10

BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[mcflytrap]

u must understand firstly its a comic book movie

People need to stop saying this. It's not an excuse to make a ****ty film.

 

[The Kid]

The difference here is that Ghost Rider's not really highly regarded as a comic either.

And Does anyone know what cartoon that was blaze was watching? The one with the skull dude and the scared cats... it's probably in the credits anyway.

 

[Nivek]

Ghost Rider was never a "goofy" comic, but the movie plays it like it's Spider-man or Fantastic Four when it should've been closer in tone to the first 2 Blade movies.

 

[The Kid]

What's sort of ironic to me, is that Blade changed so much from its comic book version, it's hardly an adaptation and more of a re-imagining of the Blade comic.

 

[TripXyDE]

spider-freddie, anyone?

 

[Mr Jide]

Ghost Rider was never a "goofy" comic, but the movie plays it like it's Spider-man or Fantastic Four when it should've been closer in tone to the first 2 Blade movies.

Amen. It played out more like F4 rather than spider-man and yeah, it should have been closer in tone to the Blade movies. De Toro should have handled GR imo.

 

[Mr Jide]

What's sort of ironic to me, is that Blade changed so much from its comic book version, it's hardly an adaptation and more of a re-imagining of the Blade comic.

Ignoring that crap that was blade 3, the changes in the first 2 were good changes that worked, that didn't step on the tose of fans of the comics.

 

[The Kid]

There are fans of the blade comics?

I agree the changes were for the better. I'm just pointing out that blade too made its share of changes.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Well, I just saw it again tonight. (2nd time)

While it still isn't a good movie, and doesn't even come close to the elite group of great comic book movies, or even the 2nd tier of good comic book movies ... it does have entertaining moments, and is one of those enjoyable crappy movies.

Here is hoping there is a sequel...

 

[PenanceStare]

I'd like to see a prequel personally where we see Johnny and Roxanne hit puberty, but a sequel would be cool.

 

[Darkest Knight]

What's sort of ironic to me, is that Blade changed so much from its comic book version, it's hardly an adaptation and more of a re-imagining of the Blade comic.

But it did so for the better. GR is re-imagined in a sense and is made out to be cheesier than the horrific and serious approach taken by the comics.

This movie could've easily been a cult classic, and quite frightening horror movie. As it is, I heard some kids coming out of the theatre say they would have nightmares tonight, but imagine if they played this movie out like the tone of the first two Blade movies ... or like any other horror / monster movie?! It would have been truly frightening.

 

[Darkest Knight]

I wouldn't mind a Carter Slade / Western G.R. prequel. Sam Elliott is the man.

 

[DarkKnight21]

What A piece of crap. The movie was just okay, Nobody was really a chanllenge for G.R. He just went thru all the bad guys possing no challenge to him. Which made for a boring movie.

 

[The Kid]

But it did so for the better. GR is re-imagined in a sense and is made out to be cheesier than the horrific and serious approach taken by the comics.

This movie could've easily been a cult classic, and quite frightening horror movie. As it is, I heard some kids coming out of the theatre say they would have nightmares tonight, but imagine if they played this movie out like the tone of the first two Blade movies ... or like any other horror / monster movie?! It would have been truly frightening.

Well I prefer fun to frights. I know what you wanted to see, blood and guts splattered everywhere like in the blade films, right? What's even more ironic is Hellboy, directed by the director of blade 2, I expected to be full of blood and guts, but it played towards a more comedic side, just like GR.

But anyway, Ghost Rider's always been unappealing to me as a comic before seeing this movie, which actually made him seem interesting to me.

About the blade films. The first blade movie aimed for realism more than the second, which obviously was aiming more for fantasy, and so I like the second one's style more because it strives to push blade beyond the mundane, bland reality of the first film.

It worked. The second blade is nasty, gritty, full of cussing and cool stuff. It's the best blade film imo for those reasons.

GR 2, I'd like to see achieve something like that, but without the WWF moves thrown in for no reason.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Well I prefer fun to frights.

Alot of people (especially grown ups) find satisfaction and fun IN BEING frightened.

I know what you wanted to see, blood and guts splattered everywhere like in the blade films, right?

Who said I wanted blood and guts from Ghost Rider? I just wanted it played more serious, threatning, and cool than how it was packaged for us.

What's even more ironic is Hellboy, directed by the director of blade 2, I expected to be full of blood and guts, but it played towards a more comedic side, just like GR.

Two completely different types of characters. Hellboy always has jokes, and there is a comedic elements to the character and mythos. That isn't the case with Ghost Rider, and the re-imagined Blade franchise.

But anyway, Ghost Rider's always been unappealing to me as a comic before seeing this movie, which actually made him seem interesting to me.

Which doesn't make sense to me, because I know you're a Batman fan. And for all intensive purposes, Ghost Rider in his true form, is one of the Marvel characters that is almost a spitting image if Batman in terms of characterization.

About the blade films. The first blade movie aimed for realism more than the second, which obviously was aiming more for fantasy, and so I like the second one's style more because it strives to push blade beyond the mundane, bland reality of the first film.

Why is reality mundane? Blade 2 kept the same tone of realism as a means to justify the fanastical elements. That's what made the character so cool in the first one. It felt real, as if there really could be a character out there like this fighting an entire underground of monsters. Do you have something against realistic takes and explanations for fantastical characters?

It worked. The second blade is nasty, gritty, full of cussing and cool stuff. It's the best blade film imo for those reasons.

So was the first film, and the first film worked just as well. The first film however hit you more in the face, because it felt real. It didn't have that blockbuster feel to it either. It was a cult hit. It had uniqueness to it, that made it feel like an independent film. From the editing, the style, etc. I can't say which Blade film I like more, Blade or Blade 2 ... but as you know you'r dreaded "realism" factor is what makes the character cool. Because as you saw in the third it completely aimed at fantasy, and came out looking like a ******ed cartoon, as opposed to a threatning character and world which felt real. Realistic takes on the fantastical always works out for the best. Because it sucks you in as the viewer, and makes you believe. Batman Begins, Superman: the movie, Spider-man movies, Blade 1 and 2, Hulk, TMNT, X-men films etc. When films go all out with the fantasy is when the franchises go to crap.

 

[Nathan]

This movie could've easily been a cult classic, and quite frightening horror movie. As it is, I heard some kids coming out of the theatre say they would have nightmares tonight

About what? Wes Bentleys bad acting?

 

[PenanceStare]

About what? Wes Bentleys bad acting?

LMAO, I said pretty much the same thing today. t:

 

[crazy sock]

Alot of people (especially grown ups) find satisfaction and fun IN BEING frightened.


Who said I wanted blood and guts from Ghost Rider? I just wanted it played more serious, threatning, and cool than how it was packaged for us.


Two completely different types of characters. Hellboy always has jokes, and there is a comedic elements to the character and mythos. That isn't the case with Ghost Rider, and the re-imagined Blade franchise.


Which doesn't make sense to me, because I know you're a Batman fan. And for all intensive purposes, Ghost Rider in his true form, is one of the Marvel characters that is almost a spitting image if Batman in terms of characterization.


Why is reality mundane? Blade 2 kept the same tone of realism as a means to justify the fanastical elements. That's what made the character so cool in the first one. It felt real, as if there really could be a character out there like this fighting an entire underground of monsters. Do you have something against realistic takes and explanations for fantastical characters?


So was the first film, and the first film worked just as well. The first film however hit you more in the face, because it felt real. It didn't have that blockbuster feel to it either. It was a cult hit. It had uniqueness to it, that made it feel like an independent film. From the editing, the style, etc. I can't say which Blade film I like more, Blade or Blade 2 ... but as you know you'r dreaded "realism" factor is what makes the character cool. Because as you saw in the third it completely aimed at fantasy, and came out looking like a ******ed cartoon, as opposed to a threatning character and world which felt real. Realistic takes on the fantastical always works out for the best. Because it sucks you in as the viewer, and makes you believe. Batman Begins, Superman: the movie, Spider-man movies, Blade 1 and 2, Hulk, TMNT, X-men films etc. When films go all out with the fantasy is when the franchises go to crap.

i concur. hah, did you notice how in ghostrider when blackheart took in the souls it was practically the same as deacon frost taking in the pure blood souls in blade? i know stephen norrington was originally attached to direct ghost rider, but did msj have to rip norrington off?

 

[The Kid]

Alot of people (especially grown ups) find satisfaction and fun IN BEING frightened.

Are they masochistic?

Who said I wanted blood and guts from Ghost Rider? I just wanted it played more serious, threatning, and cool than how it was packaged for us.

Ok, maybe they can do that next time.

Two completely different types of characters. Hellboy always has jokes, and there is a comedic elements to the character and mythos. That isn't the case with Ghost Rider, and the re-imagined Blade franchise.

From my knowledge, hellboy took liberties with the mythos too by killing hellboy's father and some other stuff. Not a hellboy fan, so I didn't care. I enjoyed it and own the director's cut. Decent fun movie.

Which doesn't make sense to me, because I know you're a Batman fan. And for all intensive purposes, Ghost Rider in his true form, is one of the Marvel characters that is almost a spitting image if Batman in terms of characterization.

The difference in why Ghost Rider's not up there with Batman for me personally lies mostly in how his rogues have always sucked to me.

Why is reality mundane? Blade 2 kept the same tone of realism as a means to justify the fanastical elements. That's what made the character so cool in the first one. It felt real, as if there really could be a character out there like this fighting an entire underground of monsters. Do you have something against realistic takes and explanations for fantastical characters?

It's all in terms of style. Blade's style was very straight forward, very bland and mundane to me, and the cgi was crappy, but thats how it was back then I guess. I think this is because it tried to evoke a feeling of being reality mixed with crazy fantasy bits. Del Toro made the right decision in changing the style to a more gritty, dirty gothic feeling than the first, not just to try something new, but I think to add his own artistic touch, which I liked. I like to see directors use their own artistic style to make the film their own rather than standard ho hum reality we see everyday. I like being transported to another world... thats why the western vibe worked for me in gr. Nobody does westerns anymore except for whatever Tarantino borrows from them... heck I'd say this was a lot like his kind of film.

So was the first film, and the first film worked just as well. The first film however hit you more in the face, because it felt real. It didn't have that blockbuster feel to it either. It was a cult hit. It had uniqueness to it, that made it feel like an independent film. From the editing, the style, etc. I can't say which Blade film I like more, Blade or Blade 2 ... but as you know you'r dreaded "realism" factor is what makes the character cool. Because as you saw in the third it completely aimed at fantasy, and came out looking like a ******ed cartoon, as opposed to a threatning character and world which felt real. Realistic takes on the fantastical always works out for the best. Because it sucks you in as the viewer, and makes you believe. Batman Begins, Superman: the movie, Spider-man movies, Blade 1 and 2, Hulk, TMNT, X-men films etc. When films go all out with the fantasy is when the franchises go to crap.

I never saw the third blade film. Spidey movies, I actually wish would try to be less campy and more realistic like batman begins, blade, hulk etc. They're already coming too close to the 'crap' as you call it because of their over reliance on Raimi's wacky loopy b-movie sensibilities.

Sin City for instance, is as un-realistic as you can get I guess, but I liked it. I'd never watch it ever again but I liked it. So I disagree that going all out with the fantasy makes it crap. Most film makers have just been to scared to try it. I don't mind it at all when they embrace the comic's comic-bookish fantasy aspects since that's what I'm paying to see. If it turns out like blade and out-does its mediocre source material then yipee skippy.

 

[daywalker2007]

do you think maybe Ghost Rider deserved a director like Del toro or Stephen Norrington?

I still think Norrington's Blade movie stands up today as an example of creating a comic book character that can exist in our own reality,
it was bloody, exciting and bloody good stuff!

i think most people seem to say that Ghost Rider should have been in this sort of "reality" in the film.

The Blade universe created was very realistic although a great deal came from Wesley Snipes who just oozes coolness on screen!

I dont know, maybe Norrington should have been hired, he didnt do anythng since 2003's ex league of gentlemen