New Movies.

[km1]

Originally Posted by Rachel

...2012...far fetched...

Speaking of 2012 and far-fetched, hows about Cusack as a writer/limo driver all of a sudden becoming the best driver in the history of the world. Didn't buy that for a second, didn't buy much of that film but that was the clincher. Woody kicked ass though, he had a good year what with Zombieland and The Messenger.

And while on the subject of far-fetched movies, ladies and gentlemen I give you Law Abiding Citizen.

[smc]

Originally Posted by km1

Speaking of 2012 and far-fetched, hows about Cusack as a writer/limo driver all of a sudden becoming the best driver in the history of the world. Didn't buy that for a second, didn't buy much of that film but that was the clincher. Woody kicked ass though, he had a good year what with Zombieland and The Messenger.

And while on the subject of far-fetched movies, ladies and gentlemen I give you Law Abiding Citizen.

Let me get this straight. In an epic movie that is completely far-fetched, with every imaginably ridiculous catastrophe and special effect, the thing that was most far-fetched to you was the driving of one of the characters? That's an absolute hoot!

I'm just curious: which part of the first Star Wars movie was the most far-fetched to you? Was it Obi-Wan's ability with the light saber at his advanced age? Or R2D2 facility with languages? Or perhaps how well the gun-turret chairs swivel in the Millenium Falcon?

[km1]

smc, the difference between Star Wars and 2012 is that Star Wars is a good movie, 2012 is not.

The driving of Cusack's character is pretty well essential to there even being a movie, as they would have been killed off early in the film. I didn't buy him as the character for a second, and seeing as he's the main character and I don't rely on just visuals of a film for me to pass judgement, it stood out to me the most. Special effects are just that, I mean I like the 1933 King Kong the most of the three, so I don't put too much stock in that. As for the destruction (catastrophe) of the earth and that being far-fetched, anything is possible and while I don't believe that the world will end in 2012 (or change) I do know that our little time of civilized existence here is absolutely nothing compared to the life of the planet, or the universe for that matter, who knows what could happen. Hey, but at least the girl solved that bed-wetting problem.

As for Star Wars, Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master, I don't think age has much to do with it. R2D2 is a droid, I have no idea what has been programmed into his (her?) robot brain and don't care to know. Simple is better sometimes, less is more. The main problem with the prequels. Gun-turret chairs in the Falcon? You're stretching on that one there. Now back to shemales, I have another site for movies.

Just one question though smc, who shot first?

edit: my 100th post, that was quick!

[Rachel]

The flying scenes were some of the most far fetched I thought. The Antonov would stall if you tried to make it climb like that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by km1

smc, the difference between Star Wars and 2012 is that Star Wars is a good movie, 2012 is not.

The driving of Cusack's character is pretty well essential to there even being a movie, as they would have been killed off early in the film. I didn't buy him as the character for a second, and seeing as he's the main character and I don't rely on just visuals of a film for me to pass judgement, it stood out to me the most. Special effects are just that, I mean I like the 1933 King Kong the most of the three, so I don't put too much stock in that. As for the destruction (catastrophe) of the earth and that being far-fetched, anything is possible and while I don't believe that the world will end in 2012 (or change) I do know that our little time of civilized existence here is absolutely nothing compared to the life of the planet, or the universe for that matter, who knows what could happen. Hey, but at least the girl solved that bed-wetting problem.

As for Star Wars, Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master, I don't think age has much to do with it. R2D2 is a droid, I have no idea what has been programmed into his (her?) robot brain and don't care to know. Simple is better sometimes, less is more. The main problem with the prequels. Gun-turret chairs in the Falcon? You're stretching on that one there. Now back to shemales, I have another site for movies.

Just one question though smc, who shot first?

edit: my 100th post, that was quick!

1. I was teasing with my questions. I certainly didn't expect such a serious essay answer, but it's interesting.

2. I have no idea what your "who shot first?" question is in reference to.

3. Congratulations on your 100th post.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by smc

2. I have no idea what your "who shot first?" question is in reference to.

A little help for your memory:
Han Solo, Greedo, Mos Eisley Cantina.
Watch the Original and the answer is clear without question.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Tread

A little help for your memory:
Han Solo, Greedo, Mos Eisley Cantina.
Watch the Original and the answer is clear without question.

Thanks for jogging my memory. Of course, Han shot first in the original. I know there was some controversy about George Lucas altering it in late 1990s, but I'm don't follow all things Star Wars enough to remember the details.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Thanks for jogging my memory. Of course, Han shot first in the original. I know there was some controversy about George Lucas altering it in late 1990s, but I'm don't follow all things Star Wars enough to remember the details.

Bah! It was Greedo who shot first. I have the DVD and the 80's era casette and when I play it in slo-mo, it always shows the blaster bolt leaving Greedos pistol first.