2010 = the best year for sci-fi? Upcoming movies (includes non sci-fi)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's see....

Iron Man 2: A crappy sequel to a laughably bad movie
Really? Huh. Well, ok, I guess people have different tastes...


Inception; I'll give it a shot
Well, I figured you might be more excited for one of this generations greatest filmmakers next movie but at least you are willing to give it a shot....

Lovely Bones: Pete Jackson is hack and I hope this movie fails
Wuh... wha... what? WHAT?!?
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Iron Man 2: A crappy sequel to a laughably bad movie
Go home, you have failed.[/QUOTE]

I disliked the movie, and I'm going to dislike the sequel. I'm not sorry for that and won't extol the virtues of something I don't like. I simply don't believe comic books should be made into movies, they loose something vital in the translation and become caricatures of themselves.

/sulks and watches Lost Highway


Lovely Bones: Pete Jackson is hack and I hope this movie fails
Wuh... wha... what? WHAT?!?[/QUOTE]

I dislike Peter Jackson, mainly for the reason that he's been given licences to do what ever he wishes because of LOTR, which I disliked heartily. He tries way, way too hard to make everything since that epic and sweeping regardless of whether or not the movie deserves it. It ends up being nothing more than, in my mind him saying "Look all all the giant scenery and emotion! You're supposed to be moved now!"
 
Espy said:
Lovely Bones: Pete Jackson is hack and I hope this movie fails
Wuh... wha... what? WHAT?!?
I dislike Peter Jackson, mainly for the reason that he's been given licences to do what ever he wishes because of LOTR, which I disliked heartily. He tries way, way too hard to make everything since that epic and sweeping regardless of whether or not the movie deserves it. It ends up being nothing more than, in my mind him saying "Look all all the giant scenery and emotion! You're supposed to be moved now!"
While it's fair to not like LOTR, I know many who don't, what movies are you talking about?

He's made 2 movies since then, and one of them JUST opened this weekend and I doubt you've even seen it yet. The other was KING KONG which... is kind of an epic tale so I'm getting the feeling you have some weird hate for Jackson that doesn't have much to do with his movies...

How many of his flicks have you watched exactly? LOTR? Heavenly Creaturs? Bad Taste? The Frighteners? Meet the Feebles? Dead Alive? I've seen pretty much every one of them and I can safely say the only ones that "seem epic" are the ones that are SUPPOSED to be EPIC.
 

fade

Staff member
i find your conviction of Iron Man odd. There wasn't much comicky about the movie. I agree when they try to do a direct transliteration, but they were pretty far from that in IM.
 

fade

Staff member
Has nothing to do with evil. Has to do with the fact that a gun is ineffective against the supernatural, though a "blessed" blunt/sharp object has the power to destroy it.

I can add WolfofOdin to the list of people that I will do the exact opposite of when it comes to film reviews/opinions.
Why? Why can't you bless a bullet or a gun? Hellboy does it. And of course in pop culture, the only means to kill a werewolf is with the purity of a silver bullet. I guess you could tape it onto the end of a sword.
 

fade

Staff member
On another note, I always hated it when a gun proves ineffective, but the protagonist grabs an ordinary stick and it knocks back the baddie. Sure, a hot slug of metal moving faster than sound can't hurt him, but my 2x4 can.
 
Maybe because a bullet has no pushback, where a huge 2x4 does when it hits?

Also I never said a bullet couldn't be sanctified, I'm just saying Vs angels, or used by angels I "personally" find it offputting.
 
J

JCM

Has nothing to do with evil. Has to do with the fact that a gun is ineffective against the supernatural, though a "blessed" blunt/sharp object has the power to destroy it.

I can add WolfofOdin to the list of people that I will do the exact opposite of when it comes to film reviews/opinions.
Why? Why can't you bless a bullet or a gun? Hellboy does it. And of course in pop culture, the only means to kill a werewolf is with the purity of a silver bullet. I guess you could tape it onto the end of a sword.[/QUOTE]



Amen
 
W

WolfOfOdin

How about an Angel looking like they actually look like in the Old Testament? Solidified wind, fire, eyes and multiple wings with a booming voice?
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
How about an Angel looking like they actually look like in the Old Testament? Solidified wind, fire, eyes and multiple wings with a booming voice?
Then people would bith about how the movie is copying Neon Genesis Evangelion...

Besides, our popular culture today is saturated with angels basically being pretty people with wings. Trying to give something "authentic" would just be weird to Phineas Q. Manofthestreet.
 
I

Iaculus

How about an Angel looking like they actually look like in the Old Testament? Solidified wind, fire, eyes and multiple wings with a booming voice?
Then people would bith about how the movie is copying Neon Genesis Evangelion...

Besides, our popular culture today is saturated with angels basically being pretty people with wings. Trying to give something "authentic" would just be weird to Phineas Q. Manofthestreet.[/QUOTE]

Ripping off NGE, or ripping of just about every piece of Western fiction involving angels? Statistically, the former's slightly more original. Just... let's ease off on the Freudian subtext this time, mmm?
 
Not to mention that even though many knights wore plated mail armor, they also wore tabbards or some piece of cloth. Being struck by a flaming blade might not damage the plated mail, but it set their clothing on fire.
Sounds unlikely... the intimidating factor was probably it... though would it even last long? And when where they using for them? If Greek Fire (which was basically a Molotov) was considered extraordinary.
 
How about an Angel looking like they actually look like in the Old Testament? Solidified wind, fire, eyes and multiple wings with a booming voice?
Then people would bith about how the movie is copying Neon Genesis Evangelion[/QUOTE]Or Madeline L'Engle.

JCM, I would pay good money to see a well-done Preacher movie. Trouble is, they'd probably get Nicholas Cage to play Jesse Custer. I just don't think he'd do the role enough justice.

--Patrick
 
A

Alucard

Iron Man-going to be fucking awesome and enjoyable
The Wolfman-should be interesting with Anthony Hopkins
Tron-looks cool
Clash of the Titans-going to see how this one plays out to the classic one.
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Yes, but technically, Angels don't have a form remotely resembling a human. They're either chimaric nightmare creatures (cherubim) or a mass of wings wreathed in fire and lightning
 
While the ones in the Bible are like that i think that the humans with wings variant also existed for along time. Heck, the greeks had Thanatos.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
How about an Angel looking like they actually look like in the Old Testament? Solidified wind, fire, eyes and multiple wings with a booming voice?
Then people would bith about how the movie is copying Neon Genesis Evangelion...

Besides, our popular culture today is saturated with angels basically being pretty people with wings. Trying to give something "authentic" would just be weird to Phineas Q. Manofthestreet.[/QUOTE]

Ripping off NGE, or ripping of just about every piece of Western fiction involving angels? Statistically, the former's slightly more original. Just... let's ease off on the Freudian subtext this time, mmm?[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I just wanted an excuse to use the name "Phineas Q. Manofthestreet" :p
 

fade

Staff member
Wait, I just read the descriptions of angels from the Bible on several websites. While the Wheels certainly seem wacky, the seraphs and cherubim, and the new testament angels seem to fit the modern image fairly well. The seraph have 6 wings: 2 for flying, two over their heads, and two covering their body like robes. The cherubim are described as having four faces, but otherwise seem humanish. Michael is described as a man in Joshua. Gabriel is described in "the form of a man". Of course they do say "form".
 
As i recall most of the descriptions of angels aren't in he actual books of the Bible, but in all sorts of apocrypha.

And the Seraph look more like wings with heads in most painted images i saw.

he cherubim are described as having four faces, but otherwise seem humanish.
Aren't some of the heads those of animals?
 
W

WolfOfOdin

The Cherubim that guard the Throne of the Lord are supposedly a combination of Eagle, Lion and Man, covered in fire and light so bright that it burns to look at. Seraphim are either solidified lightning and wings with human faces in the center...the only ones remotely described as human-like are Gabriel and Michael whenever they see fit to talk to humans. I believe the original idea was that Angels, the first-born creations of God Almighty were so beyond our comprehension in their perfection and glory of form that our mind would kind of just impose an us-shaped image ontop of them so we didn't go stark raving mad at the very sight.
 

fade

Staff member
I'm trying to find the lightning thing. All I can find from canon is the six-winged description.
 
How do we know that Heavenly Armed Forces didn't upgrade over the years? They're based in heaven, so I'm sure that the bidding process goes quickly and efficiently.
 
Legion was fucking terrible, and the worst thing I can say about it is that it was boring. It was seriously the most bored I've been watchin a movie in a while. And for the stupid as fuck argument we were having earlier:
no angel fires a gun ever in the whole movie

so lame. I honestly wish I had that time back, not to mention the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top