nicked on 16/1/2014 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
widely considered to be the worst of the Potter films
Wait, what? Goblet of Fire? That one's fine! It's certainly better than the first two, and the bizarre non-entity of the sixth.
gunsmoke on 25/1/2014 at 17:41
I have actually been melting down bits of gold salvaged from old pc boards/CPUs trcently. It doesn't look like that bullshit in the movie. My gf got me to go, she's a big fan of the LotR movies and me the books, and we were super disappointed. How are they getting another 2.5 hrs out of that ending?
Nicker on 25/1/2014 at 23:30
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
How are they getting another 2.5 hrs out of that ending?
Dragons take a lot of killing. Lots and lots.
Pyrian on 26/1/2014 at 06:37
The way these things have been made, and given that there's a dragon, an artifact-madness scenario, and a large battle to get through, I'm not sure how they're going to FIT it in 2.5 hours.
nicked on 26/1/2014 at 07:52
Not to mention all the dicking about in Dol Guldur and the inevitable half hour of lead-in to Fellowship of the Ring.
Tony_Tarantula on 26/1/2014 at 19:23
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
I have actually been melting down bits of gold salvaged from old pc boards/CPUs trcently. It doesn't look like that bullshit in the movie. My gf got me to go, she's a big fan of the LotR movies and me the books, and we were super disappointed. How are they getting another 2.5 hrs out of that ending?
Lots and lots of filler.
Still.... you know this movie was bad when my fiance'(who is a diehard LOTR movie fan) thought it was terrible. That's coming from someone who thought the first film was an amazing movie and wasn't bothered in the slightest by any of the objections people had to the first part.
Queue on 27/1/2014 at 16:31
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
.... you know this movie was bad when my fiance ... who thought the first film was an amazing movie and wasn't bothered in the slightest by any of the objections people had to the first part.
So, she has no taste in movies, either?
june gloom on 27/1/2014 at 19:29
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
(as is most women's, as evidenced by the number of chick flicks that get made)
I don't know if you're really worth the effort in responding, but hell I'll do it for the benefit of the class:
(
www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed) First of all, don't equate women's taste with what the media tells them what to like and all but forces them to consume. To make matters worse, compared to movies focusing on men, men's interests, and male problems, there aren't that many movies targeted at female audiences that
aren't recycled romcom plots starring conventional looking white people.
Second: there is nothing shameful about movies made for women's interests, even if all women's interests were reflected by chick flicks (which they aren't). A lot of movies that are degraded as "chick flicks" are actually excellent films, whether they're actually chick flicks or not. Are you going to tell me every Rambo II-esque action flick is a work of art?
SubJeff on 27/1/2014 at 20:27
Don't engage dethtoll, it's not worth it.
Besides, I think that Queue was suggesting she has bad taste in men, and bad taste in films as well.
