Phantasm - split thread

[Menard]

Oh well done.  Shrieking 'bulls**t' in response to a direct question really does demonstate the paucity of your argument.

I'll try short sentences. Perhaps then you'll understand. I have no problem with it being a negative review. If KYGOTC was bored enough to fall asleep, fine. If KYGOTC wrote that he was bored, fine. If KYGOTC wrote that he hated it, fine. If KYGOTC admits that he/she slept through parts, fine. However, saying it's hard to follow after that admission, no credibilty.
That was one of my original points. Other than shreiking 'you're wrong', you've made no cntradiction to that point.
My other point was that it was a dull review. That's not because KYGOTC hated the film. It's because it was dull to read. It was an unamusing rant. You've also made no contradiction to that point.
In fact you've repeatedly made the assertion, without any basis, that I dislike the review because its opinion on the movie differed from my own. That's particularly interesting, since I haven't given my own opinion on it (perhaps you'd like to quote where I did).

As usual, you are right about everything (yawn).

[Spiff]

As usual, you are right about everything (yawn).

Good to see that you can at least admit in an ironic fashion that you're wrong. Now if only you could see the irony of doing that while continuing to make a fool out of yourself by refusing to deal with any of the points I've made, it'd be a big step forward for you.
Aw bless, maybe someday you'll be able to join in the conversation with the grown ups.

[Menard]

As usual, you are right about everything (yawn).

Good to see that you can at least admit in an ironic fashion that you're wrong. Now if only you could see the irony of doing that while continuing to make a fool out of yourself by refusing to deal with any of the points I've made, it'd be a big step forward for you.
Aw bless, maybe someday you'll be able to join in the conversation with the grown ups.

It has been days since you last replied; and that is the best you could muster?

What has been said here is that some of us don't like the movie Phantasm. All you have done is lob insults at us, and claim that you are right about everything.

Fine. If you want to be right about everything, even to the exclusion of everybody else, then so be it.

The only thing you have proven is exactly why some people don't like a movie like this and the fans that go with it.

*Kindly note that I have not lowered myself to calling you stupid or immature just because of your opinion. If you need me to toss you a rope and help you up, just let me know.

[Andrew]

I split this off from the movie comments.  Although, I have to say that I do not think anything else productive can come from the current thread.  Really, it's just you two gents arguing, and Spiff's most recent post is no discussion or debate, it's just insult.

[Menard]

I split this off from the movie comments.  Although, I have to say that I do not think anything else productive can come from the current thread.  Really, it's just you two gents arguing, and Spiff's most recent post is no discussion or debate, it's just insult.

Ah see no need to call me a gent.

[trekgeezer]

Gee, Andrew cut it off before I got to see Menard making a fool of himself.  Actually, I think the chances of seeing the other gent involved doing that are greater.   

[AndyC]

Why stop with this thread? Separate Menard completely. Give him his own board, where we send newbies to face him as a kind of membership rite. 

[Menard]

Why stop with this thread? Separate Menard completely. Give him his own board, where we send newbies to face him as a kind of membership rite. 

http://www.dracoforums.com/thecage/

Includes its own cagefights area.

[Raffine]

That guy Reggie Bannister was in my house once. I didn't know who he was until somebody told me.

True story!

[Spiff]

It has been days since you last replied; and that is the best you could muster?

What has been said here is that some of us don't like the movie Phantasm. All you have done is lob insults at us, and claim that you are right about everything.

Fine. If you want to be right about everything, even to the exclusion of everybody else, then so be it.

The only thing you have proven is exactly why some people don't like a movie like this and the fans that go with it.

*Kindly note that I have not lowered myself to calling you stupid or immature just because of your opinion. If you need me to toss you a rope and help you up, just let me know.

Firstly, I have a life away from this board. You may have time to come on here daily to to engage in pointless debate with strangers, I have other things that take precedence. My reply was about as much as your one line comment warranted.

Secondly. I have said REPEATEDLY that I have no problem with the reviewer liking or disliking the movie. My original comment was that the review was dull. I stand by that and you have at no point made any argument against that statement, deciding instead to continually state that I don't like it because it disagrees with my opinion of the movie (which I haven't given).
As for not lowering yourself, tell me again who it was stamping his foot and shouting bulls**t in response to perfectly reasonable questions. If you'd care to read back, you'll find it wasn't me. No doubt you'll also find that that I was perfectly civil towards you up till then.

Andrew, just out of curiousity, would you really consider the post by Menard to which I was responding, namely:
"As usual, you are right about everything (yawn)."
to be discussion or debate??
For that matter, would you consider replying to perfectly resaonable questions with 'Bulls**t!' to be discussion or debate???

[Andrew]

Andrew, just out of curiousity, would you really consider the post by Menard to which I was responding, namely:
"As usual, you are right about everything (yawn)."
to be discussion or debate??
For that matter, would you consider replying to perfectly resaonable questions with 'Bulls**t!' to be discussion or debate???

To put it simply, I split the post at an arbitrary point, just to prevent it from taking the comments thread, meant to talk about the film, further off subject.  Lately, my time to work on the site has been severly limited by family and USMC duties, and my small requirement to get some sleep.

I pulled out Menard's one "yawn" post and combined it here, since it was pointed out and I agree.

The argument that you and Menard are having over "Phantasm" and the review is not what I would normally call a debate.  Your first post was moderately insulting to KYGOTC, and Menard and your posts have reached a point where nothing is being gained.

[Menard]

Firstly, I have a life away from this board. You may have time to come on here daily to to engage in pointless debate with strangers, I have other things that take precedence. My reply was about as much as your one line comment warranted.

I am so happy to be a lifeless loser, at your service, who has no other purpose than to be on this forum. Was your comment directed specifically at me, or did you include every member of this forum who comes on here daily?

Secondly. I have said REPEATEDLY that I have no problem with the reviewer liking or disliking the movie. My original comment was that the review was dull. I stand by that and you have at no point made any argument against that statement, deciding instead to continually state that I don't like it because it disagrees with my opinion of the movie (which I haven't given).

Specifically, as you suggest that you are quoting yourself, you said the review was humorless.

Being that you like to quote people exactly, I'll include parts of the review here:

Before I saw this movie, I had heard nothing but good things about it. Everyone that I asked about it said it was great. Everyone was wrong. Near the beginning of the movie, a kid is spying on a funeral and sees some weird things and mouths quietly, "What the f**k?" That boy's words can pretty much sum up this movie. In fact, I'd be the one saying those words had I not fallen asleep while I was watching it. I've seen this movie twice now, and that's 4 times more than I should have seen it. This movie made about as much sense as that last sentence.

...

Now I'm thinking, "Hooray. Movie over." But as it turns out, that's not the case. The boy wakes up and goes downstairs to tell Reggie all about it. It was all a stupid dream. In reality, the boy's brother has been dead for a while because of a car crash and Reggie looks after the boy now. There was never any Tall Man, silver orbs of doom, or blatant Star Wars rip-offs. It was all a dream. Ok, that's simple enough. It's stupid and predictable, but simple. So the boy goes back up to his room and gets attacked by the Tall Man. The end.

I don't even want to make any sense out of this crappy movie. Plot holes, bad writing, and bad acting is all this movie provided. All that and a headache. So don't be fooled by its' trailer that makes it look awesome like I did. Just pretend it doesn't exist, and maybe it will go away.


And your first reply:

Some sympathy to the reviewer, he obviously enjoyed the movie as little as anybody will enjoy reading his review. It really stands out on a website full of largely humourous reviews of bad movies as being completely humourless.

The big question is why you would write a lengthy whine about being unable to understand what was going on while admitting that you fell asleep repeatedly (and also indeirectly that you can't spot a dream sequence in a movie (maybe you're just to used to inserting your own dream sequences)) is beyond me. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the movie, if you're not bright enough to even follow what's going on, probably best not to do a review.

(the considerate break between paragraphs was my addition)

Can you kindly point out where is his review he said:

1) He fell asleep repeatedly

2) Anything about not being able to spot a dream sequence


Your first reply was to not only insinuate things that the reviewer never said (by his own words, he fell asleep once and watched the movie twice), but to hurl insults at him as well.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of the movie, if you're not bright enough to even follow what's going on, probably best not to do a review.

You basically called him stupid because you claimed he could not follow a movie which you claim you have no problem following; although he did a good job of following it in his review, he just said it did not make sense to him.

To me, the first "Phantasm" is a good attempt to film a nightmare.  Parts of it make sense, parts of it do not, there are weird occurrences and changing facts.  One minute, the young protagonist's brother is one character, then suddenly it changes to another.  It all reminds me of those  nightmares that wake you.  Sometimes you even get some rational ability while having them and recognize that reality is changing under your mental feet as you experience the late night terrors.  And, like the killer jaw as, things you have seen in films or read in books intrude into the nightmare.

Andrew said that parts of the movie did not make sense.

Would you like to take a moment and call him stupid as well?

As for not lowering yourself, tell me again who it was stamping his foot and shouting bulls**t in response to perfectly reasonable questions. If you'd care to read back, you'll find it wasn't me. No doubt you'll also find that that I was perfectly civil towards you up till then.

Not only did you frankly bore me with your incessant rambling, but I did not see any need to break down your post into multiple bulls**ts.

If you insist, though:

I'm not pushing my viewpoint onto anybody else. The outline of the plot that I gave is in fact the plot outline.

Bulls**t!

What plot outline? The only one who gave a plot outline was the reviewer. Your viewpoint is that the review is either without humor or dull, and you continue to harp on your assumption that the review fell asleep several times and could not follow the movie; neither of which the reviewer ever said.

Not only that, but you also claim that the movie makes perfect sense and that apparently anybody who does not see it your way is not too bright and does not need to be reviewing the movie.

That is your viewpoint and you are pushy about it.

My post is neither dramatic or obtuse (I would suggest you actually look those words up).
My original post was mostly making the (correct) points that
a) the review was poor - it was unfunny and dull to read and basically belongs with all the other 'worst movie ever' rants on IMDB rather than on a site of humourous reviews of bad movies.
b) that if you admit that you have fallen asleep during a movie, you have lost all credibility in claiming that there was something wrong with the movie because you couldn't follow it.

Bulls**t!

First, your post was dull.

Correct points? What correct points? Are you the only one who sees everything so correctly that you know better than Andrew if a review belongs on his site?

Once again, you are pushing your viewpoint; which you claim to have not done.

If someone falls asleep during a movie because they found it to be boring, that is the fault of the movie and not because they were not bright enough to get it.

However, since we seem to have wandered off that point, in light of you last comment, perhaps you'd like to explain to me how the outline of the plot that I gave is incorrect. At the very least enlighten me with the parts of the movie that you had trouble following.

Bulls**t!

Once again, what outline? The only outline given was by the reviewer.

Andrew, just out of curiousity, would you really consider the post by Menard to which I was responding, namely:
"As usual, you are right about everything (yawn)."
to be discussion or debate??
For that matter, would you consider replying to perfectly resaonable questions with 'Bulls**t!' to be discussion or debate???

Just a statement of fact.

Your incessant harping on points in the review which you have fabricated is just really dull in its repetition.


As for your opinion on this movie, you don't need to state it.

You have come on here and insulted the reviewer, fabricated parts of the review to make your own over-laden viewpoint, claimed to have the 'correct points' that aren't even in the review in question, then proceeded to shove it down our throats if it is not accepted blindly.

Insulting and name calling and acts of emotion. You have been quite passionate in your effort to insult two members of this board and push your points which have no merit in the review in question. These are not the acts of someone who is neutral on the film in question; a 3 year old could read between the lines here.

If you want to be right about everything...

...well, fine, be right about everything; but your constant fabrications contradict that. If you want to be right about everything, try a little honesty first.



Now kindly stop boring me and wasting my time.

Hey dude, it's just a movie.

[Spiff]

Your feelings about your own life are your own business. My comment was in response to your 'it took you days' remark, as if I'd spent all that time brooding over this nonsense. I was merely pointing out that I have other responsibilities that take precedence. If you have the free time, good for you. If it bothers you that you have that free time, not my problem (and I'd imagine you'll think differently when it disappears).

Now you have actually found a point on which I was wrong (see what actually checking can do for you). The reviewere did not say that he fell asleep repeatedly and I retract that. However, I think that falling asleep at all and then bemoaning the difficulty of following the movie does not carry any credibility.

As for the dream sequence, the review said:

The boy goes to bed, but soon realizes that his bed is in the middle of the cemetery and a bunch of zombies drag him off of his bed while the Tall Man watches

Now I would have said that was obviously a dream sequence.

Menard:
Bulls**t!

First, your post was dull.

Correct points? What correct points? Are you the only one who sees everything so correctly that you know better than Andrew if a review belongs on his site?

Once again, you are pushing your viewpoint; which you claim to have not done.

If someone falls asleep during a movie because they found it to be boring, that is the fault of the movie and not because they were not bright enough to get it.

You thought it was dull, fair enough but that's not what you said at the time. You said it was dramatic and obtuse and, as I said, it was neither.

I've already dealt above with point b) that I made.
Point a) is an opinion. You are of course free to disagree with it. Surely instead of getting petulant (Bulls**t!), it would have been better to actually refute what I said about the review.

Menard: Bulls**t!

What plot outline? The only one who gave a plot outline was the reviewer.

Hmm... I do remember writing this and it does seem to still be there:

Alien (possibly extra-dimensional) with shapeshifting powers uses an undertaker persona to steal corpses so he can reanimate them and use them as slaves on his home wrold (dimension). Local kid finds out and investigates. Whacky shenanigan ensue (fingers that turn into giant flies, flying killer spheres etc.)

That is an outline of the plot (one that you may not agree with, though you've never attacked any specific points, but it is there). See, even you can make a mistake.

Menard:
These are not the acts of someone who is neutral on the film in question; a 3 year old could read between the lines here.

You should probably ask one to help you out then, because you're way off.
My actual opinion, is that it's a bad movie but enjoyable enough on that basis (i.e. comical). The acting is atrocious and the script is terrible. It drags in places where efforts to build up tension don't really work out. It does have some good points. I thought score was atmospheric and some of the imagery was quite good. It does seem to trade somewhat on the fact that it originally had an X cert. So not exactly fan boy then, huh.
There is so much worthy or mockery in it that the review should have been a hoot even slating it.
Seems to me the real problem is your visceral hatred of the movie (did fan boys once beat you up or something?) which has coloured and clouded your responses to my comments on a review that agrees with you.

Menard:
Now kindly stop boring me and wasting my time.

If this is the amount of effort you put into something that bores you, you must forget to eat and sleep when doing things that interest you. That said, nobody can waste your time but you. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to write here. And still I'll bet you'll reply to this.
This posting will certainly be the last of my time I waste on this, so you go ahead and waste some more of your's to get the last word. Go on, you know you want to.

Menard:
Hey dude, it's just a movie.

Whaddaya know, something we can agree on.

[Menard]

That was actually a fairly civil reply.

(yawn)