What's new
By:

The Perfect Movie

AtheistPreacher said:
Yeah, I certainly noticed TBS had a Berserk avatar, I mentioned I liked it. I think he said he liked Claymore, Hellsing, and Death Note. But anyway, Berserk is coming out so slowly now that I stopped keeping up with it, it's all downhill after the Hill of Swords in vol 23 or so anyway. If he actually finishes it I'll read the whole thing again.

As for Batman being your first movie to see in theatres... not the same thing, but for me Fellowship of the Ring was the best theatre experience I ever had, bar none, in large part because I went in with such low expectations. I was so sure they couldn't capture LOTR that when they pretty much managed it I was blown away. I was in a daze for hours after seeing that movie. Doubt that first viewing will ever be equaled in my life.
Click to expand...

I doubt he will finish it. I agree with you. It's far away from the taste it had in the Black Swordsman Arc. Although I do got left curious about how the new power and government of Femto would be.

* * *

The intro to the first LOTR movie is like heaven to me. I wanna live there. But I do believe, you will break your own career record when they cover Silmarillion.

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is another perfect movie, almost for Jack's performance alone.
 
LazyD said:
And literally every movie if he navigates around the site

Sorry
Click to expand...

There is a difference between continuity mistakes that happen because they shoot a scene multiple times, or used to obviously get a laugh (helicopter on everest), and continuity mistakes that are absolutely germane to the story and would create an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story if the mistake didn't happen. Is Mr. Deeds a different story if there are 2 oreos on the pizza instead of 1 or whatever? No. Is JP a different story if there is no cliff for them to fall down and conveniently a tree to fall into break their fall? Yes, completely different story. Not even on the same scale.

For the record it didn't bother me when they had different flavors of ice cream on the table in JP from one cut to the next, or when minor items changed positions. It didn't bother me to see electrical wires in some old westerns. This is going to happen in EVERY movie when they reshoot scenes (except Groundhog Day which was remarkably error free, although there were some). But when you rely on a complete and total change in the topography of a location to move a story along that is just lazy film-making and deserves to be derided.
 
I don't get it, why are there no cliffs allowed in Jurassic Park?

"Welcome to Jurassic Park. This is a CLIFF FREE zone. Also, there are dinasours."
 
LogGrad98 said:
There is a difference between continuity mistakes that happen because they shoot a scene multiple times, or used to obviously get a laugh (helicopter on everest), and continuity mistakes that are absolutely germane to the story and would create an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story if the mistake didn't happen. Is Mr. Deeds a different story if there are 2 oreos on the pizza instead of 1 or whatever? No. Is JP a different story if there is no cliff for them to fall down and conveniently a tree to fall into break their fall? Yes, completely different story. Not even on the same scale.

For the record it didn't bother me when they had different flavors of ice cream on the table in JP from one cut to the next, or when minor items changed positions. It didn't bother me to see electrical wires in some old westerns. This is going to happen in EVERY movie when they reshoot scenes (except Groundhog Day which was remarkably error free, although there were some). But when you rely on a complete and total change in the topography of a location to move a story along that is just lazy film-making and deserves to be derided.
Click to expand...

tl;dr

I'm just being cute

Best part of Jurassic Park is when the girl runs to the door screaming with her arms out to keep the raptors in the building. Couldn't find the clip, someone should try, it's freaking hilarious
 
LogGrad98 said:
There is a difference between continuity mistakes that happen because they shoot a scene multiple times, or used to obviously get a laugh (helicopter on everest), and continuity mistakes that are absolutely germane to the story and would create an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story if the mistake didn't happen. Is Mr. Deeds a different story if there are 2 oreos on the pizza instead of 1 or whatever? No. Is JP a different story if there is no cliff for them to fall down and conveniently a tree to fall into break their fall? Yes, completely different story. Not even on the same scale.

For the record it didn't bother me when they had different flavors of ice cream on the table in JP from one cut to the next, or when minor items changed positions. It didn't bother me to see electrical wires in some old westerns. This is going to happen in EVERY movie when they reshoot scenes (except Groundhog Day which was remarkably error free, although there were some). But when you rely on a complete and total change in the topography of a location to move a story along that is just lazy film-making and deserves to be derided.
Click to expand...

You can deride it all you want, but some people (myself included) just don't let stuff like that diminish their enjoyment of a film. I really just don't care. And besides, your "mistake that would create an entirely different story" argument doesn't really track with this example because it's so easy to fix. If they were paying attention, they could have made the big cliff a little to the left or right of where the T-Rex stepped off, it would have been as simple as that. Done. Fixed. Sure, it's lazy that they didn't fix the continuity problem. But there are often fairly easy ways to fix these things in order to tell the story you want. This J-Park example wouldn't have been particularly hard to correct, so saying that correcting it would necessarily have made the story "ENTIRELY DIFFERENT" is a gross exaggeration. It just ain't true.

To take what to me is a better example, everyone and their mother has pointed out that in LOTR, they could have just flown one of the friggin' eagles over Mount Doom and dropped the one ring in that way, and then the trilogy is over before it began. Does that huge oversight of Tolkien's bother me? Maybe a little, but I still love me some LOTR. I don't get worked up over these things because there's no gain in doing so. All it does is make me enjoy a piece of entertainment less. So I recognize these problems and then laugh it off. Otherwise I'm cheating myself out of enjoying a film that I otherwise might have loved.

TL;DR: Why so serious?
 
AtheistPreacher said:
You can deride it all you want, but some people (myself included) just don't let stuff like that diminish their enjoyment of a film. I really just don't care. And besides, your "mistake that would create an entirely different story" argument doesn't really track with this example because it's so easy to fix. If they were paying attention, they could have made the big cliff a little to the left or right of where the T-Rex stepped off, it would have been as simple as that. Done. Fixed. Sure, it's lazy that they didn't fix the continuity problem. But there are often fairly easy ways to fix these things in order to tell the story you want. This J-Park example wouldn't have been particularly hard to correct, so saying that correcting it would necessarily have made the story "ENTIRELY DIFFERENT" is a gross exaggeration. It just ain't true.

To take what to me is a better example, everyone and their mother has pointed out that in LOTR, they could have just flown one of the friggin' eagles over Mount Doom and dropped the one ring in that way, and then the trilogy is over before it began. Does that huge oversight of Tolkien's bother me? Maybe a little, but I still love me some LOTR. I don't get worked up over these things because there's no gain in doing so. All it does is make me enjoy a piece of entertainment less. So I recognize these problems and then laugh it off. Otherwise I'm cheating myself out of enjoying a film that I otherwise might have loved.

TL;DR: Why so serious?
Click to expand...

I guess that is part of being different people. I don't get worked up over it, I just don't ever watch it again. I view it as wasted money and time, so why waste my money and time again.

The Tolkien thing was actually the first questions I asked my english teacher in 9th grade when he encouraged us all to read the series. I asked why Gandalf didn't just take it himself to Mordor, or why they didn't just get one of the eagles to fly Frodo there. He got mad, started talking about the way it all intermeshed in Middle Earth and how the eagles were not subject to the whims of man, and blah blah blah. He went nuts when I said "so you don't know why either huh?"

No work of fiction is ever going to be perfect. I think that is a huge duh. But if I run into things that dumb down the story enough to pull me out of it and I start seeing the mistakes, or plot holes, or obvious deus ex machina, more than I see the story, especially on the first viewing, then it isn't worth rewatching imo. If you never see anything in a movie that pulls you out of the story then kudos to you, as I imagine from your point of view every movie must be the best movie ever made since nothing could ever diminish it as a work of pure entertainment. I guess you are different from me. Imagine that.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I guess that is part of being different people. I don't get worked up over it, I just don't ever watch it again. I view it as wasted money and time, so why waste my money and time again.

The Tolkien thing was actually the first questions I asked my english teacher in 9th grade when he encouraged us all to read the series. I asked why Gandalf didn't just take it himself to Mordor, or why they didn't just get one of the eagles to fly Frodo there. He got mad, started talking about the way it all intermeshed in Middle Earth and how the eagles were not subject to the whims of man, and blah blah blah. He went nuts when I said "so you don't know why either huh?"

No work of fiction is ever going to be perfect. I think that is a huge duh. But if I run into things that dumb down the story enough to pull me out of it and I start seeing the mistakes, or plot holes, or obvious deus ex machina, more than I see the story, especially on the first viewing, then it isn't worth rewatching imo. If you never see anything in a movie that pulls you out of the story then kudos to you, as I imagine from your point of view every movie must be the best movie ever made since nothing could ever diminish it as a work of pure entertainment. I guess you are different from me. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Man, you must have been the badass of the year in your school for being a smart-*** to your teacher about Lord of The Rings.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
I'm serious. I can remember some of the script by heart. Also the piano tune that's used throughout the movie.
Click to expand...

I see KKK as one of those dudes who likes musicals a little too much. Like he likes them more than your little sister and he tries out every year for a role in the HS musical but never gets it, but he never gives up then he gets a small role his senior year and it's awful but everyone cheers him on cuz they know he worked so hard for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Cyrone Torbin said:
I see KKK as one of those dudes who likes musicals a little too much. Like he likes them more than your little sister and he tries out every year for a role in the HS musical but never gets it, but he never gives up then he gets a small role his senior year and it's awful but everyone cheers him on cuz they know he worked so hard for it.
Click to expand...

This sounds like it hits close to home...
 
I see Cyrone as one of those dudes that looks over the divider to see you're junk when you're peeing next to him at a urinal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
LogGrad98 said:
I guess that is part of being different people. I don't get worked up over it, I just don't ever watch it again. I view it as wasted money and time, so why waste my money and time again.

The Tolkien thing was actually the first questions I asked my english teacher in 9th grade when he encouraged us all to read the series. I asked why Gandalf didn't just take it himself to Mordor, or why they didn't just get one of the eagles to fly Frodo there. He got mad, started talking about the way it all intermeshed in Middle Earth and how the eagles were not subject to the whims of man, and blah blah blah. He went nuts when I said "so you don't know why either huh?"

No work of fiction is ever going to be perfect. I think that is a huge duh. But if I run into things that dumb down the story enough to pull me out of it and I start seeing the mistakes, or plot holes, or obvious deus ex machina, more than I see the story, especially on the first viewing, then it isn't worth rewatching imo. If you never see anything in a movie that pulls you out of the story then kudos to you, as I imagine from your point of view every movie must be the best movie ever made since nothing could ever diminish it as a work of pure entertainment. I guess you are different from me. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

I see the same things you do, I just don't react the same way. That doesn't mean I think that "every movie must be the best movie ever made," it just means that most things that don't make a lot of sense I shrug off. I don't find LOTR any less powerful because of the stupid eagles. I roll my eyes once when they show up and then forget about them. For the other 11 hours of those films (and the books) it's not a problem. Yeah, I remember being annoyed the first time I read the books and the eagles saved Frodo and Sam -- I would have rather they died, frankly, rather than be saved in such a silly way -- but I'm not going to never read the books or watch the movies again because of it. They're too damned good for that. Do you really view LOTR as a waste of time? Because the eagles are much worse than the cliff in Jurassic Park.

In any case, yes, different strokes. I feel bad for you that you can't enjoy films because of meaningless stuff like that.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
I see the same things you do, I just don't react the same way. That doesn't mean I think that "every movie must be the best movie ever made," it just means that most things that don't make a lot of sense I shrug off. I don't find LOTR any less powerful because of the stupid eagles. I roll my eyes once when they show up and then forget about them. For the other 11 hours of those films (and the books) it's not a problem. Yeah, I remember being annoyed the first time I read the books and the eagles saved Frodo and Sam -- I would have rather they died, frankly, rather than be saved in such a silly way -- but I'm not going to never read the books or watch the movies again because of it. They're too damned good for that. Do you really view LOTR as a waste of time? Because the eagles are much worse than the cliff in Jurassic Park.

In any case, yes, different strokes. I feel bad for you that you can't enjoy films because of meaningless stuff like that.
Click to expand...

For the thing like the eagles, I just assume Tolkien has background story on them in his mind, but doesn't feel the need to explain it. You can take pretty much every movie ever made and think of ways they could have done stuff more pragmatically and efficiently.

I like doing that and thinking about it for fun, but I would never let it ruin a movie for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top