NationStates

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.

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

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?

[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.

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. ^.^ ))

Any High School Musical.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most sequels.

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

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.

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.

Pirates.

So not a porn.

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.

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.

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.

any Wes Craven film after New Nightmare.

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.

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.

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.