Movies That Should Have Never Been Made..

by **Wiztopia** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:14 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
The Corparation wrote:Only if you expect it to be a worthwhile film. Uf you go in to see its CGI effects and laugh at its utter stupidity 'is all good.

That was my thought. The same for the asteroid/comet movies from a few years ago, or "The Day After Tomorrow." Comic books, not great literature.

I liked The Day After Tomorrow. Also blasphemy. Comics rule.

by **Wessontonia** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:15 pm

Super Mario Bros.
Street Fighter (the live action one)
All of the Resident Evil movies (with the exception of the first one)
the Twilight series of movies
Battlefield Earth
Robocop 3
Be Cool

by **Michael Kenmore** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:49 pm

Jurassic Park 2-3
Stargate: Ark of Truth
Avatar
Star Trek movies in general
disaster movies in general
Tranformers 2

and for bonus points... who can guess the name of that awful thing that stars as the first movie to feature a fully CGI character?

by **The Corparation** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:00 pm

[quote="Michael Kenmore";p="5252640"
Star Trek movies in general[/quote]
KHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! disagrees. As does the Borg Collective and the Whale probe.

When it comes to Star Trek Films remember this simple rule: Even good, Odd bad. There are a few exception to this like 11 falls into good, 10 falls into bad. But it holds well. :geek:

by **Michael Kenmore** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:21 am

The Corparation wrote:
Michael Kenmore wrote:Star Trek movies in general

KHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! disagrees. As does the Borg Collective and the Whale probe.

When it comes to Star Trek Films remember this simple rule: Even good, Odd bad. There are a few exception to this like 11 falls into good, 10 falls into bad. But it holds well.

Pfft, don't quote The Rule to me. I was first known as a Trekker before I went Stargate. But I think they'd have done a fair sight better if they didn't make ANY. 70's and 80's Trek is blasphemy.

EDIT: ((But look at my sig...I can quote the Rules of Aquisition. ^.^ ))

by **Marcheria** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:37 am

Any High School Musical.

by **Minoriteeburg** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:27 am

Michael Kenmore wrote:Jurassic Park 2-3
Stargate: Ark of Truth
Avatar
Star Trek movies in general
disaster movies in general
Tranformers 2

and for bonus points... who can guess the name of that awful thing that stars as the first movie to feature a fully CGI character?

Howard the Duck? No wait that was a suit.

by **The Floor Kippers** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:35 am

Michael Kenmore wrote:Jurassic Park 2-3
Stargate: Ark of Truth
Avatar
Star Trek movies in general
disaster movies in general
Tranformers 2

and for bonus points... who can guess the name of that awful thing that stars as the first movie to feature a fully CGI character?

No, you don't mean? Casper?

by **Minoriteeburg** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:42 am

The Floor Kippers wrote:
Michael Kenmore wrote:Jurassic Park 2-3
Stargate: Ark of Truth
Avatar
Star Trek movies in general
disaster movies in general
Tranformers 2

and for bonus points... who can guess the name of that awful thing that stars as the first movie to feature a fully CGI character?

No, you don't mean? Casper?

Roger Rabbit? No, that was a good movie.

by **Michael Kenmore** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:21 am

Minoriteeburg wrote:
The Floor Kippers wrote:No, you don't mean? Casper?

Roger Rabbit? No, that was a good movie.

No, Casper was the first to feature a CGI lead character. I meant the first photorealistic CGI character bar-none, and that was Young Sherlock Holmes.

For the knight in the stained-glass window.

by **Tallorn** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:33 am

RobCo Industries wrote:
Rolamec wrote:How about anything with Nicholas Cage?

Hey he was good in that one movi-

Well what about that other mov--

He wasn't that bad in that one mo---

Damn it.

I like them, though:
Its true, his films are all really... weird.

by **Minoriteeburg** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:12 am

Michael Kenmore wrote:
Minoriteeburg wrote:
Roger Rabbit? No, that was a good movie.

No, Casper was the first to feature a CGI lead character. I meant the first photorealistic CGI character bar-none, and that was Young Sherlock Holmes.

For the knight in the stained-glass window.

Oh right. It's been ages since I have seen that film.

by **The Corparation** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:45 pm

Michael Kenmore wrote:
The Corparation wrote:KHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! disagrees. As does the Borg Collective and the Whale probe.

When it comes to Star Trek Films remember this simple rule: Even good, Odd bad. There are a few exception to this like 11 falls into good, 10 falls into bad. But it holds well.

Pfft, don't quote The Rule to me. I was first known as a Trekker before I went Stargate. But I think they'd have done a fair sight better if they didn't make ANY. 70's and 80's Trek is blasphemy.

EDIT: ((But look at my sig...I can quote the Rules of Aquisition. ^.^ ))

No 2000's trek is blasphemy. 70's 80's area mixed lot but post ds9 it all sucked.

by **Sibirsky** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:48 pm

Most sequels.

by **Wiztopia** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:58 pm

I saw Battle: Los Angeles which wasn't too bad. Why would aliens who can travel in space use projectile weapons?

by **The Corparation** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:00 pm

Wiztopia wrote:I saw Battle: Los Angeles which wasn't too bad. Why would aliens who can travel in space use projectile weapons?

Because they're cheap and easy to use. Thing I hate about alien invasions, why do we always win? They are smarter, faster, stronger and more advanced but we always win. Its stupid I want one where we lose.

by **The Floor Kippers** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:02 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:I saw Battle: Los Angeles which wasn't too bad. Why would aliens who can travel in space use projectile weapons?

Because they're cheap and easy to use. Thing I hate about alien invasions, why do we always win? They are smarter, faster, stronger and more advanced but we always win. Its stupid I want one where we lose.

Daleks Invasion Earth 2150, at the start we've already lost the invasion battle.

by **Zeth Rekia** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:03 pm

Pirates.

So not a porn.

by **Wiztopia** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:08 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:I saw Battle: Los Angeles which wasn't too bad. Why would aliens who can travel in space use projectile weapons?

Because they're cheap and easy to use. Thing I hate about alien invasions, why do we always win? They are smarter, faster, stronger and more advanced but we always win. Its stupid I want one where we lose.

If they were that advanced then they would be using energy weapons.

by **Ceannairceach** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:14 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:I saw Battle: Los Angeles which wasn't too bad. Why would aliens who can travel in space use projectile weapons?

Because they're cheap and easy to use. Thing I hate about alien invasions, why do we always win? They are smarter, faster, stronger and more advanced but we always win. Its stupid I want one where we lose.

In the horrible abomination known as Skyline, they do win.

by **Michael Kenmore** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:22 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Michael Kenmore wrote:
Pfft, don't quote The Rule to me. I was first known as a Trekker before I went Stargate. But I think they'd have done a fair sight better if they didn't make ANY. 70's and 80's Trek is blasphemy.

EDIT: ((But look at my sig...I can quote the Rules of Aquisition. ^.^ ))

No 2000's trek is blasphemy. 70's 80's area mixed lot but post ds9 it all sucked.

Hell, it's all blasphemy. Hence they shouldn't have been made. Though.... I own that I quite enjoyed 2 and 4 momentarily.

by **Minoriteeburg** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:13 pm

any Wes Craven film after New Nightmare.

by **Atlantian Empire** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm

That one, no real reason or need for it. Would have made more sense to just make it a 5 part mini series on TV instead.

And this one, from what I heard it sucked.

by **The Nuclear Fist** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:26 pm

Zeth Rekia wrote:Pirates.

So not a porn.

I miss the days when you could just record people fucking, give it a name, and sell it.

by **Atlantian Empire** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:27 pm

Minoriteeburg wrote:any Wes Craven film after New Nightmare.

Yeah no. Scream came after a New Nightmare so you are wrong. I really liked Scream and am looking forward to Scream 4.

Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here	A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.	Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End ~~2020~~ 2024	WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety	This Cell is intentionally blank.

Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here	A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.	Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End ~~2020~~ 2024	WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety	This Cell is intentionally blank.

Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here	A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.	Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End ~~2020~~ 2024	WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety	This Cell is intentionally blank.

Movies That Should Have Never Been Made..

Who is online