1. The Terminator Trilogy
2. Anything Peter Jackson has to do with
3. Fast and the Furious ( and it's sequal )
4. The NEW Planet of the apes
Post Edited (07-31-03 16:13)
Tranquil Featherman wrote:
> 1. The Terminator Trilogy
> 2. Anything Peter Jackson has to do with
> 3. Fast and the Furious ( and it's sequal )
> 4. The NEW Planet of the apes
Well, I liked THE TERMINATOR (1984) and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY (1991), however I have never seen TERMINATOR 3 so I can't give my opinion on it. And, I also like Peter Jackson's BAD TASTE (1987), MEET THE FEEBLES (1989), BRAINDEAD (1992; U.S. Title: DEAD ALIVE). These are the films, in my opinion, that need to be kept in restoration and in good condition. These films are quite different, but are better than some of the crap of today I assure you.
Yet despite the disagreement, I agree with you on THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS. Also, put PEARL HARBOR, THE PATRIOT, DUDE-WHERE'S MY CAR?, FREDDY GOT FINGERED, and BATTLEFIELD EARTH on that list and there you have some films that need to be destroyed.
"Anything that Peter Jackson has to do with??!!!"
Are you insane??????!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't say something like that on this board!
Peter Jackson is probably one of the most highly esteemed directors that people on this board love.
The man is a genius....plain & simple.
"Anything that Peter Jackson has to do with??!!!"
Are you insane??????!!!!!!!!
With that and The Terminator trilogy I was tempted to cry 'troll!' but I'll researve judgement given as the poster only has six posts on the board yet
I agree about Fast and the Furious and new planet of the apes, those were just horrible.
but Terminator and Peter Jackson are good, I wonder why someone would hate them?
The fast and the furious and its sequel I agree on
The planet of the apes remake I agree on.
But terminator? Are you a total knucklehead? sure T2 was only half as good as the first, but was stilla good B movie. I havent seen T3 yet so I cant say.
But putting Peter Jackson on the list show slack of intellegence, have you no respect for the amount of time effort and affection hes put into the lord of the rings trilogy? His earlier stuff was also good fun and worth seeing many times over. Are you a total dumbass!?
You're not making any friends here. Best leave the same way you came in.
My Dearest Dunners,
Did you even READ the Lord of the Rings trilogy OR like Peter Jackson did you doze off into dreamless oblivion as you sucked on your mother's teet while she attemted to read them to you.
Peter Jackson spent NO time and effort and put absolutley NO affection into the making of these films. A true Tolkien fan would agree with me. The only things he got right were the names of the characters.
And as for my intelligence......I have MORE intelligence in ONE pubic hair than Peter Jackson has in his entire bloated carcas.
Dude... If all you know about Peter Jackson is the Rings movies, I'd check out his first three. I think you'll be in for a shock. (If you have, ignore this post).
post ignored
I like just about everything Jackson has done...EXCEPT Braindead. I haven't been into the Pythonesque style of comedy since I hit puberty, and sorry, buckets of gore do not a horror film make. Now Meet the Feebles, on the other hand, is a film to be reckoned with.
"My Dearest Dunners"
I dont know you, dont try to put the moves on me mister.
"Did you even READ the Lord of the Rings trilogy OR like Peter
Jackson did you doze off into dreamless oblivion as you sucked
on your mother's teet while she attemted to read them to you"
As a matter of fact I did read them, and when I was a young boy my father read them to me as well. And now That I'm in my twenties and I'm a film student I can appriciate what peter did so much more so. He managed to cram ina good 70% of the fellowship onto the screen seamlessly. That by itself is amonumental acheivement.
" Peter Jackson spent NO time and effort and put absolutley NO
affection into the making of these films."
Wow you must be pretty blind if you didn't notice all the details an dlittl ethings he did to make the movies come to life. He also pspent a good 5 years just on the scripts alone. that takes real dedication. hes also put 4 years into film/directing/editing these movies to make sure they're as good a spossible. and hes doing the extended editions DVD's. That takes pure love to do
"A true Tolkien fan would agree with me"
That would be my father, and I dont think he'd agree with you.
"The only things he got right were the names of the characters. "
Yeah he didn't get the characters genders correct either, AND he made sure the hobbits were 7 ft tall, the elves were fat evil looking monsters, the dwarves were
piles of slime with brookly accents. Idiot.
"And as for my intelligence......I have MORE intelligence in ONE
pubic hair than Peter Jackson has in his entire bloated carcas."
I think you hold your pubic hair more valuble than your intellegence. Do us all a favor, shut up. You're obviously a loser who cant get laid who gets some kind of sexual satisfaction by complaining about a movie we all had the pleasure of viewing.
Go away you idiot.
Go stand outside your local googolplex as Kevin Murphy calls them. See all those titles on the marquis? There's the answer to your question. Oh, and sic 'em, Dunners! Kill, kill! Damn Tolkien Hippies. We spray for 'em once a year around the farm.
Brother R
Bow wow! woof woof! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..WOOF WOOF!
* ROCKY IV
* THE AVENGERS (Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman and Sean Connery were completely wasted)
* KING KONG (the Jessica Lange version)
* CADDYSHACK II
Well, The Avengers did have Uma Thurman in a leather jumpsuit. Yum. About the only thing worthwhile in that movie. Now something like War of the Roses has no redeeming qualities. Ugh.
Mmm... Almost everything Christopher Lambert has been in contact with, except, maybe, "Resurrection". And yes, I include the first "Highlander" here as well, because it sucked big time.
I did not realize I was posting on a board that was clearly meant for children or the illiterate. I apologize for being truthful. Peter Jackson is and always will be a terrible director.
Your response, my little Dunners, was very immature. If you are a "film student" as you claim, you are wasting your time. Film making is a lost art. And certainly NOT ONE of your generation is capable of turning out one single minute of good entertainment. It has been proven time and time again.
Post Edited (08-01-03 11:11)
Tranquil Featherman wrote:
> I apologize for being truthful. Peter Jackson is and always will be a terrible
> director.
Well, I guess in your opinion you are being truthful. Keep in mind that it's your opinion, others might disagree or agree. Fact of the matter is, every director is going to have a group that either likes or hates them. 50% might like Jackson, and the other 50% might hate him as well. And sometimes, it varies as well.
Others here, including myself, think that Peter Jackson is a damn fine director. If you have seen his BAD TASTE, a film that took four years to complete and meet with success because of his superhuman enthusiasim, then you can see why some of us admire him. And that is because he put effort in the film and it turned out to be a fun entertaining movie. Something that directors of today lack doing.
I have a question for you, Tranquil. What do you consider a good film of this generation that needs to be saved and restored? And I ask this in the highest interest.
And he's a self righteous one to boot!
Julian Po is a fine film
not a Troll, sir, just very over-oppinionated ....... and maybe a tad bit of a pompus ass as well.
Citizen kane 1941
Silence of the lambs 1991
the fellowship of the ring 2001
hero 2003
the piano 1993
road to perdition 2002
crouching tiger, hidden dragon 2000
The art is never lost if its readily availible for the mass to view. But a film as a fine art isn't something that is mass produced, crap films are because they'r emore commercially appealing to the masses.These are some examples of good film that is artwork., you're just too stupid to look for what makes film artwork.
I give this wanker until monday before Andrew bans him.
If you're self-admittedly a pompous ass, and I'm far from innocent of that offense myself, then why do you insist on berating people for their opinions of b-movies on a B-MOVIE BOARD!? This is the wrong place to discuss French art house movies, bud (wait, no, those suck even more than Hobgoblins). I'm sure there are many lovers of Tolkein on this board, so there's no need to get snippy about that. If you don't like slightly cheesy, often gory films by eccentric or overenthusiastic directors who are nonetheless people with a love for their craft (except for Ross Hagen, he just wants to hurt us), that's fine. But approaching a message board and belittling everyone on it because they enjoy the subject that the board is specifically designed to discuss does indeed make you a troll, as well as a pompous ass. Now, either bring up an argument that we can appreciate and talk about as civilized adults or take your immature and irritating snobbery somewhere else.
You may think we're all stupid in your eyes, but an argument consisting solely of "I'm smarter than you because I said so and I'm right so there *thbbbtpppttt*" doesn't put your intelligence too high on the scale.
Brother R
I thought it was the " beast of Yucca flats" and "hobgolbins" movies trying to mate
I'm sure your pompus ass has been kicked more than once for this BS. While i've only been here for about a year now there is ageneral unity and an almost family like atmosphere here. And I like that feeling as do the rest of us here.
So if you think you can barge in here and try to stir us all up like a bunch of little kids, sorry it doesnt work that way. We may be immature, but we're still adults.You're not going to get any sympathy from us Tranquil, so you might as well put your tail between your legs and leave quietly.
The question is idiotic and asinine.....as are your choices, sir! :-P
(http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDPApsW6FZkeRWUcHLPiXvh5Xm0edVIWlXURW21qwqUz8A8bEego8k1zne6y8S6DhUUgXD!jmyHC9TQ4ekk6nLXE7cyGaLcgdO8Ts*I8Ft0K1*bg1T5*g/barkingdog.gif?dc=4675432583666048512)
Why is a hypothetical and intentionally over-the-top question intended to spark humorous conversation idiotic and asinine? Two trolls on the same thread in this short a time? Must be a record. You're not Featherman's buddy by any chance, are you?
Brother R
Tranquil Featherman....this is a rather close knit group of regulars that frequent this board.
I myself have been a regular for about 2 years now.
Now...I do admit that I've stirred the pot here more than a few times and p**sed quite a few people off but in the end I've always apologized and got back into the flow of regular conversation with everybody here.
If you want to be accepted then I do advise that you apologize for your previous remarks and maybe remedy the situation by starting a new topic that we can all bulls**t about.
Coming here to this board and talking smack right off the bat is not a good thing to do.
I know that this is not my website but trust me Featherman...I speak from experience and so can all of the other regulars here because we've seen it happen before....Andrew, the owner of this website WILL ban you if you keep making trouble here.
Now I implore you, please be civil and hang out with us and chat about absolutely HORRIBLE movies that we all love for some unknown reason!
OK?
We'd much rather have you as a friend than as an enemy.
Post Edited (08-02-03 03:54)
"The Terminator" films and anything by Peter Jackson should be destroyed ?! That's surely a lot of hatred that you have for both Mr. Jackson and James Cameron(even though Jonathan Mostow directed T3,which is the ewakest of these films,even though it is pretty entertaining),Tranquil,since they're both little guys who became multi million dollar filmmakers who can film anything they'd like to,and they've somewhat become pretty snotty when their films became the mega successes they they deservingly are.
On the other hand,both that stinky "Apes" movie and that dopey Vin Diesel celluloid tripe do absolutely suck,but just beware the wrath of all of Vin's female fans when they get hold of this.
Tranquil might well believe that those movies should be destroyed, but I do have to ask this: why? For what reasons do you hate them so much that should have never existed? And, I also have to ask: have you seen every film made by Peter Jackson?
Bad Taste
Meet the Feebles
Braindead (aka Dead Alive)
Heavenly Creatures
Forgotten Silver
The Frighteners
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
I am with Krieger though, no movie should ever be destroyed. If it reaches a new pit of awful, well - how would I or anyone else ever know if it was destroyed?
How about if we all try being POSITIVE for a minute. Maybe we should change the topic of this thread to "movies that should be lovingly restored."
As for Peter Jackson and the whole Tolkein debate, I have said it before and I will say it again: it is NOT a filmmaker's duty to be true to the original source material. A filmmaker is creating a filmed INTERPRETATION of someone's written text (often, a novel that has been turned into a screenplay). It is the filmmaker's OWN VISION of the story and characters. Even writers who adapt their own stories for film often make HUGE changes. This is necessary because film and novels are two COMPLETELY different forms of expression. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Novelists can get their readers inside the minds of their characters. This is very difficult to accomplish in film (unless you use endless, tacky voiceovers).
I never read any of Tolkein's works, but I found FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING to be a very entertaining film. So, for me, it succeeded AS A FILM. If I read the novel, I will judge it on its own merits.
Now let's just give one another a big hug, join hands, and sing "We are the World."
I have read Tolkien's works, and I think Jackson has done a great job so far.
BTW, I hated ROAD TO PERDITION and CROUCHING TIGER.....
Dead/Alive should have earned Peter Jackson a Nobel Prize, an ambassadorship, or a free meal at Denny's. The greatest fricking movie ever made.
...how DARE you call me a troll? I consider myself a semi-regular here on Andrew's board....if you bothered checking through some threads here and there, you'd notice that. I also happen to know Andrew and several other regulars/semi-regulars who post here, because we also post on other boards.
I didn't find Featherman's question humorous at all....and if you indeed thought (if for a moment) that it WAS intended in humor, then why make that simultaneous (and asinine) comment about "two trolls" and insinuating that I might be Featherman's "buddy"?
(http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDPApsW6FZkeRWUcHLPiXvh5Xm0edVIWlXURW21qwqUz8A8bEego8k1zne6y8S6DhUUgXD!jmyHC9TQ4ekk6nLXE7cyGaLcgdO8Ts*I8Ft0K1*bg1T5*g/barkingdog.gif?dc=4675432583666048512)
Brother Ragnarok wrote:
> Why is a hypothetical and intentionally over-the-top question
> intended to spark humorous conversation idiotic and asinine?
> Two trolls on the same thread in this short a time? Must be a
> record. You're not Featherman's buddy by any chance, are you?
Y'know, I notice this kind of thing happens here more often than it should. Some dumbass comes along, says something to rile everyone up, and we're all at each other's throats.
Krieger, if knowing Andrew consists of posting on other boards with him, then I know him too. Hell, we've met at B-Fest. If you know him personally, then I misunderstood. As for knowing you're a semi-regular (isn't that an oxymoron?), no I didn't. I don't usually read through old posts that have gone off the main page, and furthermore I rarely even pay attention to who said what unless they say something that p**ses me off or that I think is really cool and deserves a personal response. I read new threads as the subject line interests me, not by who wrote it. In fact, I didn't even realize that Feather guy started this thread until you pointed it out. I viewed your dubbing of the thread "asinine" as an insult to everyone who had posted on it saying they too were asinine, so that's what flagged me to your name.
These misunderstandings happen when the only medium of communication between a group of people, especially one this large, is a screen with some typing on it. Typed words have no personality, and it's damn near impossible at times to gauge what someone means when they say something.
So, aside from the bit about Tolkien Hippies, I apologise if I said something off the cuff that upset anyone while I was p**sed about this immature crap . That's never my intention on this board.
Brother R
How dare you call Bad Taste rubbish! If you said that to my face I'd kick you in the willie! Stick your bloody feather up your arse you stinking wanker pig!
Brother Ragnarok wrote:
> Y'know, I notice this kind of thing happens here more often
> than it should. Some dumbass comes along, says something to
> rile everyone up, and we're all at each other's throats.
Exactly what a dumbass troll does, right? :-)
> Krieger, if knowing Andrew consists of posting on other boards
> with him, then I know him too.
Exactly that....from other boards, and Andy and I have communicated very well all around.
> As for knowing
> you're a semi-regular (isn't that an oxymoron?), no I didn't.
> I don't usually read through old posts that have gone off the
> main page, and furthermore I rarely even pay attention to who
> said what unless they say something that p**ses me off or that
> I think is really cool and deserves a personal response. I
> read new threads as the subject line interests me, not by who
> wrote it.
I do the same thing on boards....only reading through threads that interest me...but if you've been on a board long enough, you'd have to run into a person's name a few times now and then, which is why I made that comment.
> In fact, I didn't even realize that Feather guy started this thread until you pointed it out.
Kinda hard to miss that, since his post and his name are the first ones in this thread.
> I viewed your
> dubbing of the thread "asinine" as an insult to everyone who
> had posted on it saying they too were asinine, so that's what
> flagged me to your name.
Oh, I never meant that at all.....my first reply here was directed at Feather, not everyone else. :-)
> These misunderstandings happen when the only medium of
> communication between a group of people, especially one this
> large, is a screen with some typing on it. Typed words have no
> personality, and it's damn near impossible at times to gauge
> what someone means when they say something.
ABSOLUTELY! It's entirely a personal, subject thing, isn't it? When I react to someone's post on a board, I always try to get myself to "react" as soon as a post or reply opens up before me...I think there's more problems involved if one lingers on a message for too long and tries to "analyze" it. One usually ends up getting more p**sed off than when one reacts to the immediate reading.
> So, aside from the bit about Tolkien Hippies, I apologise if I
> said something off the cuff that upset anyone while I was
> p**sed about this immature crap . That's never my intention on
> this board.
>
> Brother R
No prob.....Big, macho hugs and a slap on the back! :-)
....and that was a bunch of immature crap, wasn't it?
i can't believe people would go out of their way to attack even the lowest of the low films.
regarding lord of the rings, i am a big fan of both the books and the films, the films, whilst enjoyed thouroughly by me, left me fairly annoyed with the lack of some details in the films, but i highly commend jackson for fitting in as much as he could in the short amount of time he had [each book could easily have a trilogy for themselves]. i quite agree with the point that novels made into movies always tend to be different and should be judged on their seperate merits.
now as for fast and furious: i will always automatically hate this film for ripping off legend of speed, right down to the slightly 'odd' computer mechanic guy, but i enjoyed the effort and didn't think it to be so bad [considering the horrible scriptwriting] so therefore i think we should all be in agreement that films made purely for greed and all else is forgotten in the making of them, [such as actual effort in the script] should be disregarded as purile trash, and little attention should be given to them at all.
and yes there is a difference between greed-trash and just trash like braindead. that kind of trash is the stuff you can watch many times over [fantastic, though i can see why people may not like it, i don't think telling that to a bunch of b-movies fans to be an especially wise move!]
cheers :D
.......just repeat to yourself, "It's just a message board, I should really just relax".........
I've got an idea! all of you turn off your computers for a while, go out and get some air.....and then watch "Killdozer" or "I Spit on your Grave" or something, jeeez!!!!!
Post Edited (08-03-03 14:32)
I've seen every one of his films. They ALL reminded me of a kindergardener that's been handed an old polaroid instant camera and told to go take pictures of his "happy suprise" he's made in the "john" that morning.