Unless the narrative is about the futility of planning ahead, or some such other thing. Obviously it would be annoying if there were a massive amount of films in which this happen, but there isn't. Art is a reflection of life and vice versa. I see no problem with occasionally having a film reflect the randomness of the life it is trying to imitate.

Okay, yes, but that comes in to the narrative and the way they express such ideas. In the right film, that can be brilliant, but if it's just shoved in arbitrarily it turns out just about as shit as T-Nex is describing.

Clash of the Titans was actually better then I expected. The plot was pretty stable and the monsters were pretty cool.

Also, I liked the Djinn guy.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure the film is a piece of shit. I'm just saying that I don't think that the unexpected death of a main character is necessarily a bad thing. I'm my own main character, and my death may be quite unexpected.

So does the ending to The Dark Tower, but numerous people love the ending. I'm not one of them, but the saying "Its not about the destination but the journey", sometimes has its merits.

Watched Destination Moon since I realized I never did get around to it. Was nice to have a 50's movie about space travel done somewhat realistically, for it's time at least.

Kick Ass

I loved it. Really dark humor, not normally my favorite, but it worked for this movie. The bits of dialogue between Bid Daddy and Hit Girl were probably the funniest. Bid Daddy and Hit Girl stole the show, me liking Big Daddy slightly more. I'm actually surprised how well Cage acted in this, as normally I hate him. The action was awesome as well, with Kick Ass mostly getting his ass kicked. The only major problem I had was the jetpack. The movie mostly stayed in the realm of reality up until that point. The ending was also overly cheesy, but the rest of the movie made up for it

Considering just about everything you like is stupid, I'm not surprised. They fucking raped that movie. Hades was horrible. He was Voldermort with a nose. The Kraken was predictable, Bubo was "nothing" [!], Pegasus was black [and there was a whole herd? come on], the Djinn was a less vocal jar-jar binks etc etc. The movie sucked fucking greek cocks. Or fucked greek asses, as it were.

Watching Stephen King's Langoliers on TV. First time I've seen it for a good decade.

Hades had a cool voice and I liked his death mothball hair wings thing, but if there's some similarity to Voldermort I wouldn't know, I gave up the films after Azkaban. The Kraken looked really cool, and it made a great setpiece for the dogfight. Bubo is a retarded clockwork owl, I loved how they were all "this is serious movie, leave that there" because that in-and-of-itself was a joke. The Djinn was a less vocal Jar Jar, which is good, because the most annoying thing about Jar Jar anyway.

And complaining about a black horse? can you be any more racist? This is Obama's America!

My Hades/Voldermort claim was in reference to the fact that Ralph Fiennes plays both characters. The only difference, like I said, is that this time he had a nose. Oh, and some hair.

The Kraken didn't look cool at all. Maybe it's because I'm a sentimental bastard who watched the original clash a few times a week for about a year when I was younger, or maybe it's because I expect more out of movies in general, but the god damned Kraken just looked like a clusterfuck of cgi to me. It was weak.

Fuck Sam Worthington, too. That fuck has said in several interviews now that he is the only reason Bubo was cut from the movie, which is pathetic. Who the fuck can't compete with an animatronic owl? It probably would have taken my attention away from his horrible acting. Fuck him, fuck the movie, and fuck that god damned black pegasus. It was just stupid. It was all they could have done to make him different other than giving him a fucking unicorn's horn.

To remake a classic like Clash of The Titans is a pretty tall order. I predicted from the first trailer that alot of people were going to hate it. I haven't seen it yet, and I can't say I have much interest either.

I'd say more of the former then the latter.

Bubo's retarded. And to be honest, I'm sure it was more then just the Bricklayer who had a say in his axing from the remake.

I think the original Greek myth was best. I lost interest in the original movie at 'Kraken'.

Well, yeah, but that's half the point of someone wanting to remake a movie, right? To say, "Yeah, I fucking loved this, I want to show it to the current generation so they can feel the same way I did".

Or that's what a decent filmmaker does, at least.


Sure, Bubo was a poor-man's r2d2, but he still worked. You and Sam Worthington are some of the few who don't like the bird. Worthington actually threatened to break Bubo. Confirmed. Fucking google it. He's a pissy little bitch who thinks he's a hotshot because he was in Avatar, which also sucked dick.

It's pathetic. People are content with a lack of story and [edit for clarity] lack of good acting as long as the visuals are okay. That shit used to fly with video games, but movies? Fucking sad state of affairs.

That's far from a new thing. Movies are a visual medium, so of course people will care about that aspect, even if the plot or acting isn't good. Take a look at A Trip to the Moon from 1902, just a bunch of random set pieces to show off some awesome visuals. I don't know why people insist that movies that exist for no other reason than to show off some special effects while the story and acting are an afterthought only started to happen in the last couple decades.

Yeah, but it was 1902. People were impressed with moving pictures in general back then, regardless of what it was. For fuck's sake, they were experimenting with a brand new medium. You can't apply that to the films of today.

So where does the Nightmare on Elm Street remake stand in all of this?

What IS lack of story? What IS good acting?

This, to an extent.

It doesn't, really. The fact that Robert Englund isn't even on board speaks volumes. There's a solid difference between someone having a go at a remake, and someone looking to line their pockets with a money making franchise while calling it a remake.


Avatar/Not Avatar. I get that you're trying to troll me, and I could almost respect that if you weren't doing such a horrible job.

Special effects films with little to no plot have been going on ever since though. So why is it such a bad thing for a brainless effects extravaganza to come out nowadays? It's not like "good" movies aren't being made anymore either, so I don't see an issue with people enjoying forgettable popcorn flicks.

The issue is that the ratio of mindless, popcorn movies to well-written, thought provoking ones is staggeringly unbalanced. Films are less and less about art and more about making money. Whereas films were once a collaborative, artistic effort to tell a story that was meaningful and iconic, they're now dedicated to shoving as much flashy bullshit their computers can produce down your throat.

There are those rare cases where the special fx aren't there purely to make up for the lack of story/substance, I'll cite Bladerunner as a good example. The movie wasn't made purely to try out new movie-making technology or to squeeze the hapless masses for every penny they're worth. Even if it totally flopped at the box office, it would still be worth just as much as a movie. It tells a meaningful story with artful effectiveness through metaphor and skilled acting, it makes you think, and it just happens to take place in a cool, cyberpunk neo-futuristic environment. The story is what carries the film, not the fx. The core of a film can survive in any environment if it's done right, the eye candy is just a bonus. When a movie relies entirely on what little story there is to be embedded in eye-raping visuals, then it's no better than a pop-up book is it? At least a pop-up book is cheaper and knows it's fucking place.

Avatar is a prime example considering it's essentially just Dances with Wolves. The story is still just as interesting (and a bit better imo) without the indians being blue giants, and the colonialists being war-mongers with gunships and robot suits. In this way, Avatar isn't necessarily a bad movie, just an unoriginal one.

I'm not talking about Avatar. What about the original Clash of the Titans? did it have a more complex plot, better acting and writing?

No really, I haven't seen it.

Very meaningful and iconic.

If anything, I think our ratio of "good" to "bad" movies is much better than it was from the 50's to the 70's. Or at least, what actually makes it to theaters.

Let's just agree to disagree.
As to the video, every decade had it's shitty films. Though that one looks like a winner.

Yeah, I'll be honest, I miss the days when someone could just grab a lizard, film it, and there's your movie.

Of course you haven't seen the original. And now that you've seen the remake, the original will seem like utter trash. What Ray Harryhausen did for that movie was fucking gold, but most people prefer cgi. "It looks more real, lol". Ugh.

To answer your question, the original was a well written decently acted low budget movie. The plot was great. Why they changed it at all in the remake is beyond me.

The original was a fucking stinker and you know it, don't try to have any uber-elite pride about it. The only reputable thing about it was Harryhausen's definitive stopmotion for it (I met the guy when I was about 10 btw, he has a lovely teddy-bear esque voice and disposition).

Original Clash of the Titans is a very important part of my childhood and you fuck off how about that?

From the very first trailer I thought it was going to be fucking awesome.

But it wasn't.

The first time I saw the Kraken I thought it was going to be the best fucking part of the movie.

It wasn't.

When I realized it was Sam Worthington playing Perseus I figured he would be average-pretty okay.

He wasn't.
While Ghost is entitled to like it (hell, I liked it), it was a fucking terrible movie. I was so, so looking forward to the Kraken, but it was a fucking pussy.

I actually have seen Harryhausen's great stop-motion before (7 Voyages of Sinbad), plus I like Godzilla movies, so I can enjoy a movie even if the effects suck.

No, not really. Uber-elite pride aside, I put myself in the decade. Most people watch older movies and poke fun, but I do a little time warp and enjoy the fuck out of them. Night of the living dead? God damned scary if you stop to think that up until that point nobody had seen a movie full of the walking dead, let alone the walking dead eating other people. Sure, that 'leg' was obviously a ham hock, but back then nobody cared. Same rule applies for the original Clash. So fuck off.

Stop contradicting yourself.

YOU AND I WOULD HAVE SO MUCH FUN WATCHING DARK SHADOWS!

:hobo:

Well, suck from a modern standpoint.

I was too much of a lazy arsehole to go to the cinema to see Avatar. So i just bought the DVD. Watched it today.
It was a brilliant film, great special affects, and was very emotionally stirring (from my point of view anyway) i'm just astounded that after all that work the only name they could think of for the "Really rare metal" was "unobtainiam"...


EDIT: I mean for christ sake, ten years could have produced a far better and cooler name for this illusive, priceless substance.

They didn't come up with it. "Unobtainium" is sciency slang for a dream material, like one that could make interstellar travel as easy as it's portrayed in movies. They were being witty.

Unobtanium is actually a nerdy reference joke, it was used in aerospace engineering a lot to refer to non-existent but otherwise perfect materials, and it was referenced in everyones favourite soft sci-fi movie The Core, where it was the name of the alloy that the drill was made of.

EDIT: Damn that Gay-buh

God, not you now. Your explanation was better, btw. Let's have nerd make-up sex.

I saw Woody Allen's Sleeper not too long ago. Good ol' bizarre, cynical, hilarious Woody Allen.

As an aside, Avatar's DVD sales have broken all the records, and it's selling Blu-Rays like a mad thing.