Movies That Should Have Never Been Made..

by **The Observer Clan** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:40 am

Nationstatelandsville wrote:
The Observer Clan wrote:no country for old men also comes to mind

i don't give a fuck how many awards it got, it is a shitty film where nothing happened, much like another film which shouldn't of been made, 2001 a space odyssey

You sir, are not of this earth. NOT OF THIS EARTH, I SAY! NOT OF THIS EARTH!

why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

by **Nationstatelandsville** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:41 am

The Observer Clan wrote:
Nationstatelandsville wrote:
You sir, are not of this earth. NOT OF THIS EARTH, I SAY! NOT OF THIS EARTH!

why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

It's 2001: Space Odyssey. I shouldn't have to defend it. It is science fiction.

by **The Observer Clan** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:44 am

Nationstatelandsville wrote:
The Observer Clan wrote:
why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

It's 2001: Space Odyssey. I shouldn't have to defend it. It is science fiction.

again, WHY, why should it's undeserved legacy shield it from the fact it is a shitty film?

by **Nationstatelandsville** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:45 am

The Observer Clan wrote:
Nationstatelandsville wrote:
It's 2001: Space Odyssey. I shouldn't have to defend it. It is science fiction.

again, WHY, why should it's undeserved legacy shield it from the fact it is a shitty film?

It's not a shitty film. It's symbolic, you must not like that type of film.

by **Delator** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:01 am

The Observer Clan wrote:
Delator wrote:
Well certainly Clarke didn't...he did write three sequel books that hash it all out quite well, after all.

You can't sell books if you spoil 'em before you write 'em.

As soon as you learn the difference between "impossible to understand" and "completely understand", I might be able to take your criticism seriously. Not before.

what is with you people being so fucking blind...

What's with you being so fucking rude? :eyebrow:

i perfectly understand the diffidence, but why the fuck, would you ever go into an endeavor, only to come away with only a vague understanding rather than a complete one?

So you're saying no movie can be considered good unless every viewer has a complete understanding??

Yeah, sorry...that's not how this game works.

i understand the importance of reading but the thing you seem to be describing is shameless self promoting where the other writer was more or less saying "ah ha! want to know where i was going with this nothing? well you better lay down a few extra bucks because i got a few books..."

2001: written 1968
2010: written 1982

Clarke's only credit in the movie was as screenwriter.

I'm sure the vagaries of the movie were entirely due to his shameless self promotion and money-grubbing nature...

...or maybe he just wanted to make you think.

by **Horsefish** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:13 am

The Observer Clan wrote:why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

I'm so hipster.

by **Imperial isa** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:35 am

they doing a Blade Runner reboot

by **Rambhutan** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:50 am

Imperial isa wrote:they doing a Blade Runner reboot

At least it is Ridley Scott doing it.

by **Dizyntk** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:00 am

Rambhutan wrote:
Imperial isa wrote:they doing a Blade Runner reboot

At least it is Ridley Scott doing it.

Which does not necessarily mean it is going to be any good. I personally think he needs to leave it alone. It was perect as it was.

by **Dizyntk** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:02 am

And I cannot believe you all are STILL going on about 2001. Get over it. Suffice to say that it is one of the finest cures for insomnia ever devised by man. So move on please.

by **Wiztopia** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:13 am

The Observer Clan wrote:
Nationstatelandsville wrote:
You sir, are not of this earth. NOT OF THIS EARTH, I SAY! NOT OF THIS EARTH!

why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

How's your teenage angst treating you?

by **Wazkyraque** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:36 am

All Bad pornos...
if that hasn't been said before.

by **Dizyntk** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:42 am

Wazkyraque wrote:All Bad pornos...
if that hasn't been said before.

Doesn't that describe about 98% of them?

by **Wiztopia** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:56 am

Dizyntk wrote:
Wazkyraque wrote:All Bad pornos...
if that hasn't been said before.

Doesn't that describe about 98% of them?

Depends on what they mean by bad. If its just the sex then probably 98% like you said. If they mean story and plot then its 100%.

by **Dizyntk** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:57 am

Wiztopia wrote:
Dizyntk wrote:Doesn't that describe about 98% of them?

Depends on what they mean by bad. If its just the sex then probably 98% like you said. If they mean story and plot then its 100%.

Pornos are supposed to have stories and plots? :blink:

by **Geniasis** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:14 pm

Wiztopia wrote:
Dizyntk wrote:
My point is that 2001 was so poorly made that you almost have to read the book to understand it. It was dull, lacked plot development and the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the movie made you care about them.

You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

Yes there is. The Godfather for one. The original book was weighed down by unncessary subplots and clutter. The movie was much improved in that regard.

It is however, a rare exception.

by **Geniasis** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:18 pm

Horsefish wrote:
The Observer Clan wrote:why? because i just so happen not to conform to liking a film, which everyone by law purportedly must like given the landslide of bullshit last night?

what makes this film so great to you anyway

I'm so hipster.

2001 is too mainstream.

I'd tell you my favorite movies, but they're pretty obscure. You've probably never heard of them.

by **Wiztopia** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:48 pm

Geniasis wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:
You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

Yes there is. The Godfather for one. The original book was weighed down by unncessary subplots and clutter. The movie was much improved in that regard.

It is however, a rare exception.

So the book had more plot to it? Then it must be better.

by **Geniasis** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:01 pm

Wiztopia wrote:
Geniasis wrote:
Yes there is. The Godfather for one. The original book was weighed down by unncessary subplots and clutter. The movie was much improved in that regard.

It is however, a rare exception.

So the book had more plot to it? Then it must be better.

The book had more unnecessary plot. Subplots that added little to nothing, and only served to drag the pacing down.

Contrary to popular belief, more is not better. Better is better.

by **Minimum Fruit** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:06 pm

Geniasis wrote:
The book had more unnecessary plot. Subplots that added little to nothing, and only served to drag the pacing down.

Contrary to popular belief, more is not better. Better is better.

More is better!

I watched the extra 11 hours of footage on the "Cocoon 2: The Return", which was called "Cocoon 2: The More Time Consuming Return", and it was really a better film. Around hour 9, Jesus Christ appeared to me and absolved me of the guilt of killing my mother in childbirth, which was a relief since she's alive and retired in an active living high rise.

by **Horsefish** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:36 pm

Geniasis wrote:Yes there is. The Godfather for one. The original book was weighed down by unncessary subplots and clutter. The movie was much improved in that regard.

It is however, a rare exception.

I only appreciated the movie after I reasd the book though. And I still thought the book was better.

by **Minoriteeburg** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:18 pm

Wiztopia wrote:
Minoriteeburg wrote:
I don't understand what was unclear....

You didn't check the bolded?

Ah sorry I was a bit drunk then, but yes American Beauty was garbage. I haven't been that bored during a film since Pay It Forward.

by **The Corparation** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:19 pm

Wiztopia wrote:
Dizyntk wrote:
My point is that 2001 was so poorly made that you almost have to read the book to understand it. It was dull, lacked plot development and the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the movie made you care about them.

You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

Geek time

: Arthur C. Clarke wrote the novel as the screenplay/movie was being made/written. And iirc may of come out after the movie did The original source material is actually a short story by Clarke called "The Sentinel" that really only covers a guy finding the monolith (In the story a pyramid shape much smaller then in the novel/movie) and then it gets blown to atoms.

by **Grave_n_idle** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:26 pm

The Observer Clan wrote:
AETEN II wrote:

KILL THIS MAN, HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT CULTURE!
2001 is one of the best and most classic space films ever made, I mean fuck, it's 2001, you can't hate 2001, how, how is this possible?

very easily in fact, NOTHING... FUCKING... HAPPENED, it's just a bunch of artsy bullshit that forces you to write the film for Kubrick because he was just being a shitty writer

because he put it much better than me, for my entire opinion, i advise you to watch Confused Mathew's review of it, it more then subs it up

"Confused Matthew" just didn't get it. I really didn't want to have to say that, but he really didn't.

by **Minoriteeburg** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:27 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
The Observer Clan wrote:
very easily in fact, NOTHING... FUCKING... HAPPENED, it's just a bunch of artsy bullshit that forces you to write the film for Kubrick because he was just being a shitty writer

because he put it much better than me, for my entire opinion, i advise you to watch Confused Mathew's review of it, it more then subs it up

"Confused Matthew" just didn't get it. I really didn't want to have to say that, but he really didn't.

I agree. 2001 is a true classic Science Fiction film. If you don't like it, it's only because you didn't understand it.

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