Movies That Should Have Never Been Made..

[Khihaizi]

Either Lord of the Rings or Titanic.

Also, any film based on something from Marvel or DC with superhuman capabilities, most likely obtained due to some accident and/or genetic mutation.

I see you trolling.

What, you find it hard to believe that I don't like the biggest chickflick in human history?

OH JACK, DON'T LEAVE ME.

Seriously, this shit is worse than Tyttö, Sinä Olet Tähti.

Wait, I also put that one on my list.

[Wiztopia]

-palm-

Go back to your CGI filled movies and leave me alone to relish my classics. I'm guessing you also hate Perry Mason, Hitchcock, Forbidden Planet, the 60's BBC Holmes, and othe classic movies/tv series/collections.

oh for the love of go- YOUR TALKING TO THE GUY WHO LOVES METROPOLIS AND FLASH GORDON

i hate 2001 because it is not a film, it is some artsy minimalist bullshit, the Art Direction, fine, i do not hate this film because of what it looks like, I FUCKING HATE CGI, and it genuinely insults me you jump to this rather brash and vindictive conclusion.

it is a beautify shot film, and the special effects are still impressive even today

it just had a awful fucking writer, nothing happened, and the only character we get, one more expressive and emotive than the 'main' IS A FUCKING ROBOT

if you dispute me on the cutting of the fat, i ask you this, if we cut the first chapter of the monkeys fucking around a watering hole, the only thing we would of missed would be the knowledge that the Monoliths exist, nothing else.


also something rather damning i spot here, last time i checked it was not a crime to dislike/like a movie, yet all the sudden i am grouped with those slack jawed, mouth breathers who maintain a steady BAC of .09 and will not be amused unless there is an explosion every ninety seconds

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 American epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

Pwned.

[Geniasis]

oh for the love of go- YOUR TALKING TO THE GUY WHO LOVES METROPOLIS AND FLASH GORDON

i hate 2001 because it is not a film, it is some artsy minimalist bullshit, the Art Direction, fine, i do not hate this film because of what it looks like, I FUCKING HATE CGI, and it genuinely insults me you jump to this rather brash and vindictive conclusion.

it is a beautify shot film, and the special effects are still impressive even today

it just had a awful fucking writer, nothing happened, and the only character we get, one more expressive and emotive than the 'main' IS A FUCKING ROBOT

if you dispute me on the cutting of the fat, i ask you this, if we cut the first chapter of the monkeys fucking around a watering hole, the only thing we would of missed would be the knowledge that the Monoliths exist, nothing else.


also something rather damning i spot here, last time i checked it was not a crime to dislike/like a movie, yet all the sudden i am grouped with those slack jawed, mouth breathers who maintain a steady BAC of .09 and will not be amused unless there is an explosion every ninety seconds

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 American epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

Pwned.

I think you missed what he meant. He was saying that it didn't deserve to be called a film because of it being "minimalist bullshit, etc."

He's wrong, of course. But I think it's important to represent him accurately.

[Wiztopia]

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 American epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

Pwned.

I think you missed what he meant. He was saying that it didn't deserve to be called a film because of it being "minimalist bullshit, etc."

He's wrong, of course. But I think it's important to represent him accurately.

If its called a film then it is a film regardless of how bad it is.

[Geniasis]

I think you missed what he meant. He was saying that it didn't deserve to be called a film because of it being "minimalist bullshit, etc."

He's wrong, of course. But I think it's important to represent him accurately.

If its called a film then it is a film regardless of how bad it is.

Yes, but I don't think he was denying that it technically fit the definition of a film.

[The Observer Clan]

oh for the love of go- YOUR TALKING TO THE GUY WHO LOVES METROPOLIS AND FLASH GORDON

i hate 2001 because it is not a film, it is some artsy minimalist bullshit, the Art Direction, fine, i do not hate this film because of what it looks like, I FUCKING HATE CGI, and it genuinely insults me you jump to this rather brash and vindictive conclusion.

it is a beautify shot film, and the special effects are still impressive even today

it just had a awful fucking writer, nothing happened, and the only character we get, one more expressive and emotive than the 'main' IS A FUCKING ROBOT

if you dispute me on the cutting of the fat, i ask you this, if we cut the first chapter of the monkeys fucking around a watering hole, the only thing we would of missed would be the knowledge that the Monoliths exist, nothing else.


also something rather damning i spot here, last time i checked it was not a crime to dislike/like a movie, yet all the sudden i am grouped with those slack jawed, mouth breathers who maintain a steady BAC of .09 and will not be amused unless there is an explosion every ninety seconds

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 American epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

Pwned.

explain to me how i was pwned just there, it was honestly lost on me.

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

[The Observer Clan]

If its called a film then it is a film regardless of how bad it is.

Yes, but I don't think he was denying that it technically fit the definition of a film.

if you are saying it is a film because it happens to be on stock, then you are correct

if you care calling it a film based on character development, story, etc, it is not, making it closer to a painting then an actual film

[Deus in Machina]

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 American epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

Pwned.

explain to me how i was pwned just there, it was honestly lost on me.

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

So, according to you, if plot threads are deliberately left unresolved, that automatically makes it a bad story.
Wow. Remind me to never show you 'Rashomon'.

[The Observer Clan]

I see you trolling.

What, you find it hard to believe that I don't like the biggest chickflick in human history?

OH JACK, DON'T LEAVE ME.

Seriously, this shit is worse than Tyttö, Sinä Olet Tähti.

Wait, I also put that one on my list.

Put gone with the wind on there while your at it, i have had quite my fill of Southern Bells and Mary Sue's who always have this air of "OH WOO IS ME" over something very minor considering

also fences are a threat to all of humanity

[The Observer Clan]

explain to me how i was pwned just there, it was honestly lost on me.

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

So, according to you, if plot threads are deliberately left unresolved, that automatically makes it a bad story.
Wow. Remind me to never show you 'Rashomon'.

wow, way to take what i said way out of purportion, great job... and what plot threads were there left unresolved? THERE WERE NONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, just a bunch of over bloated scenes bringing people to places, which could of been cut down and probably turn this 2 hour film into a 30 minute short fim

i am more then ok with unresolved plots, it allows speculation and blah blah blah. well you want to know something? if your entire fucking film is just us guessing and making our own shit up, why didn't we make this film? we are writing it for him so we might as well of. i do not want constant hand holding to make sure everyone is up to speed, but i also dislike this movie more or less throwing us off a cliff and saying "good luck, you figure it out"

[Deus in Machina]

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

wow, way to take what i said way out of purportion

Is it too much to hope for that you get the irony here?

[The Observer Clan]

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

wow, way to take what i said way out of purportion

Is it too much to hope for that you get the irony here?

no, i get where you are coming from with the joke, but it is stupid because well, while he more or less said "we didn't want you figuring this out", meaning they are making an excuse for the movie's bullshit and crippled plot.

while you took me saying i don't want something plotless and saying all a sudden i hate all lose ends

[Norstal]

Every movie based on a video game.

[Wiztopia]

Yes, but I don't think he was denying that it technically fit the definition of a film.

if you are saying it is a film because it happens to be on stock, then you are correct

if you care calling it a film based on character development, story, etc, it is not, making it closer to a painting then an actual film

film(film)
Syllabification:OnOff
Pronunciation:/film/

noun

2 a motion picture; a movie:
a horror film

[Khihaizi]

I'm pretty sure the pronunication of film is /fɪlm/ and not /film/.

[Dizyntk]

I will probably catch some flak here, but I happen to agree with Observer. I have been a film buff for a long time. I personally own over 500 movies, everything from the thirties right up to this year. Chick flicks, dramas, action, sci-fi, horror, I have examples of everything in my collection. This goes by way of saying that I have a wide taste in movies. That being said I thought that 2001 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Unless it was meant to be a cure for insomnia, then it was perfect. Observer has a point about the plot, it did not really exist.

[The Observer Clan]

if you are saying it is a film because it happens to be on stock, then you are correct

if you care calling it a film based on character development, story, etc, it is not, making it closer to a painting then an actual film

film(film)
Syllabification:OnOff
Pronunciation:/film/

noun

2 a motion picture; a movie:
a horror film

congratulations, you know how to look a word up in the dictionary, i am so proud. you do understand that words usually have multiple meanings for various purposes right? if i use the most stalk, generic term for film, yes, it qualifies, AS I EXPLAINED

but if i go by any modern understanding of a film having a plot, characters, character development... it has NONE of those things, making it not qualify

[Khihaizi]

To be honest, like the Godfather, Donnie Darko, Cube and other such films I have the idea that the majority of people who praise it actually find it boring as fuck but just say what they are expected to say about 'classics'.

A lot of people who praise it are of course sincere. But reading the reviews the films get on a lot of sites I'm really like 'Well, didn't you completely miss the point and just say crap to justify that you are saying what you have to say.'

Same with Bach or reviews of StarCraft II really.

[Dizyntk]

but if i go by any modern understanding of a film having a plot, characters, character development... it has NONE of those things, making it not qualify

Actually, I would argue that this definition has been relevant for 80 years.

[Khihaizi]

I would sort of define film as any projected rapid succession of static images giving the illusion of motion.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

300

There, I said it. >_<

[Norstal]

film(film)
Syllabification:OnOff
Pronunciation:/film/

noun

2 a motion picture; a movie:
a horror film

congratulations, you know how to look a word up in the dictionary, i am so proud. you do understand that words usually have multiple meanings for various purposes right? if i use the most stalk, generic term for film, yes, it qualifies, AS I EXPLAINED

but if i go by any modern understanding of a film having a plot, characters, character development... it has NONE of those things, making it not qualify

It's a film. Your "modern understanding" is your subjective view of the definition, which isn't really a "modern understanding" of films at all.

[Norstal]

300

There, I said it. >_<

Odd. I'd thought that you'd enjoy movies that features big gigantic holes.

[The Observer Clan]

but if i go by any modern understanding of a film having a plot, characters, character development... it has NONE of those things, making it not qualify

Actually, I would argue that this definition has been relevant for 80 years.

i would have to agree, now to say to the person above, people are blinded by what it has done rather than what it is. i can not denigh it has heavily influenced Sci-Fi... but that should matter, we MUST review something for what it is, not for what it has done.

here, i'll use my complaint about the Manga Berserk to explain.

you are walking in a museum, you turn down a lesser used hall and found a sight. a beautiful painting of a hill side with meadows or blah blah blah. on closer exception you find it is made with the blood of several corpses. the art community raves it is one of the best works in years, while people like me can't stop screaming IT'S MADE IN A PERSON'S BLOOD!

while this doesn't totally mesh the idea is still the same, what it shows and influences doesn't change the fact the movie still sucks

[Khihaizi]

I'm still quite certain the pronunciation is /fɪlm/ not /film/ˌ /i/ is not a phoneme in Enɡlishˌ /iː/ is however.

Then again, due to the lack of contrasting /i/ phoneme you might as well argue that the phoneme is actually /i/ but just realize with a long off-glide in every context.