No... I'm talking about the whole: Person goes through lots of hardships, then things seem to get brighter, then he randomly dies.
The teacher told me it was unnecessarily cruel. Oh well.


EDIT: Grieve... Much of it was predictable. Such as the main characters relationship with the girl, and their interaction. The things that weren't predictable just seemed random and out of place.

Your teacher is unnecessarily stupid. The 9/11 thing is probably what I would object to the least if I ever saw that film. Lives are interrupted by unexpected and tragic death every single day. Do you really think it's strange to write a story that contains this?

It just seemed very out of place. At no point was the movie about the 9/11 and nothing led up to it. It just happened at the end as a sort of "Uh oh, everything is not alright!!"

I feel it would have been better if he at least died in a car crash or something more natural like that.
I dunno. I guess with me it's kind of the same as product placements. If they are obvious and right in-your-face, they kind of shake me out of the movie-feel and I'm left feeling unattached.
I don't really think that the 9/11 incident is really old enough for it to have movies made about it. And if they absolutely feel the need to add it in the story, I think there should be a little more relevance than that.


Anyway, now I'm rambling :D Go eat cake.

I'm sure that it felt very out of place in the lives of the people who died there as well. At no point were their lives about 9/11. I think you're missing the point that unexpected death is typically unexpected.

Sounds like me and my friend Jordan.

We had to leave Clash of the Titans really fast because we were basically going "A BWAH HAW HAW HAW HAW! AHAHAHAHAHA! HAW HAHAHAHAW!" because we're douchebags and thought the way they farted the credits in was fucking hilarious.

Robert Pattinson is fuck ugly.

I know that that what it was supposed to be about. I mean... The girl even talked about how she enjoys desserts first cos she may not live through the end of the dinner course... But It was just not that well executed. It just didn't seem right and all that yada yada. I mean it's not just that scene. It's the whole movie.

But maybe it's also harder for us to relate to since we're not American or something.

But a film is trying to tell a story, not reflect everyday randomness. That sort of ending negates any sense of overall plot or narrative the film might have had.

Clash of the Titans remake. The 3d was bad. But we all know why. Watched the original just to make myself feel better.

i watched The Fifteen Streets again, brilliant film. i love Geordies.

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.