Because you aren't cool enough. That party is way too hardcore.
I dunno, I am pretty hardcore. Sometimes I even eat my cereal without milk.
Blueh
02-15-2013 04:31 AM
Quote:
Posted by MrSimons
(Post 298623)
I dunno, I am pretty hardcore. Sometimes I even eat my cereal without milk.
Oh yeah? Well I sleep with my socks on and I'm tough enough to enter the Salty Splitoon.
MrSimons
02-15-2013 04:52 AM
Quote:
Posted by Blueh
(Post 298631)
Oh yeah? Well I sleep with my socks on and I'm tough enough to enter the Salty Splitoon.
Salty Splitoon is for lil babies. I've messed up every little wimp there.
MementoJoker
02-15-2013 10:08 AM
DO NOT WATCH A Good Day To Die Hard.
I saw it on IMAX and paid for this piece of rushed acting which will disappoint every single fan.
Waste of money.
Kiwi
02-15-2013 12:25 PM
really, it's the fifth movie, were you expecting something decent?
it's a shame people try and milk the money out of movie franchises instead of realizing when it's over.
Blueh
02-15-2013 01:25 PM
Alrighty. First day without Graal until Easter. 44 more days to go.
lol I thought everyone was already aware of how dumb and mindless the Die Hard movie was going to be.
Explosions big boom roll credits
Bruce Willis is just milking more money for his retirement.
Oh and here's everything I got my girlfriend for Valentines day. She took a picture and put it on Instagram of course. http://i.imgur.com/qS5uFEj.jpg
My favorite thing was the bamboo, I saw it last minute and thought it was the coolest thing ever.
MementoJoker
02-15-2013 09:03 PM
Quote:
Posted by Kiwi
(Post 298713)
really, it's the fifth movie, were you expecting something decent?
it's a shame people try and milk the money out of movie franchises instead of realizing when it's over.
Well, it was my friend's birthday who's never been to imax before and this was the only movie which was gonna play at 5. :(
Pimpsy G.
02-15-2013 09:13 PM
Quote:
Posted by Kiwi
(Post 298713)
really, it's the fifth movie, were you expecting something decent?
it's a shame people try and milk the money out of movie franchises instead of realizing when it's over.
People should treat films like paintings. You don't release a new Mona Lisa with blonde hair just because the painting was popular. You pronounce on its success and create more -unique- works of art while building up your reputation as an artist with each installment. Of course, publishers aren't artists, and businesses don't care about art. They're just around to make money from the art; since films are story based its a lot easier to continue the story with more movies and 'extend' the lifetime of the painting if you catch my drift. Which is sad really.
Noobly
02-15-2013 10:44 PM
Quote:
Posted by Pimpsy G.
(Post 298823)
People should treat films like paintings. You don't release a new Mona Lisa with blonde hair just because the painting was popular. You pronounce on its success and create more -unique- works of art while building up your reputation as an artist with each installment. Of course, publishers aren't artists, and businesses don't care about art. They're just around to make money from the art; since films are story based its a lot easier to continue the story with more movies and 'extend' the lifetime of the painting if you catch my drift. Which is sad really.
Sometimes, making more than one movie is good. For example, many people must wonder what happens after the movie, the sequels tell you what is supposed to happen.
Blueh
02-15-2013 11:12 PM
Quote:
Posted by Noobly
(Post 298865)
Sometimes, making more than one movie is good. For example, many people must wonder what happens after the movie, the sequels tell you what is supposed to happen.
Well true, but not all the time. Think about the movie Taken. If it's good enough to stand alone, there's a good chance it's supposed to. Now take something like Harry Potter, where a sequel is needed to answer the questions of the previous movie or to solve a new conflict that arose after the one in the first was resolved. If it all just ended when Harry broke the stone everyone would've been disappointed.
Pazx
02-15-2013 11:43 PM
Harry Potter didn't have sequels, it's part of a series, and I think that there's some distinguishing factors between the two.
Kiwi
02-16-2013 12:17 AM
Quote:
Posted by Blueh
(Post 298882)
Well true, but not all the time. Think about the movie Taken. If it's good enough to stand alone, there's a good chance it's supposed to. Now take something like Harry Potter, where a sequel is needed to answer the questions of the previous movie or to solve a new conflict that arose after the one in the first was resolved. If it all just ended when Harry broke the stone everyone would've been disappointed.
Spoiler
Harry didn't break the stone sir, he was under the impression that Snape was after the stone, and so he and his friends went into the chamber in an attempt to stop him, only to find it was Quirrel, at the time being possessed by Lord Voldemort. Instead of stopping Snape, he stopped Quirrel (killing him oops) from taking the stone for Voldemort and ending up retrieving it himself. He passed out, and Dumbledore, who had arrived at the castle early from the Ministry (who also had an idea of what had of what had happened. smart man, Dumbledore), took Harry and his friends to the hospital wing. He then took the stone to its owner, Nicolas Flamel, his dear 600 year old friend. They agreed it would be for the best to destroy the stone.
(this consequently killed Nicolas and his wife, because they relied on it for life, as it isn't really normal, even for wizards, to live for 600 years, but they were okay with it)
Quote:
Posted by Pazx
(Post 298887)
Harry Potter didn't have sequels, it's part of a series, and I think that there's some distinguishing factors between the two.
I agree with this. It's sort of something that's meant to have more movies, and the plot was already published in book form and already was loved. When you make movies out of a popular book series, it isn't really a matter of whether the major plot is excellent, because you already know it is, more of a matter of whether or not the creators of the movie do the books justice and don't completely muck it up. cough-percyjackson-cough
imo anyway
did that make any sense at all
Rexx
02-16-2013 04:34 AM
I never read Percy Jackson and the movie makes me not want to.
Blueh
02-16-2013 04:39 AM
Gah >.< 43 more days left without Graal. I feel like a crack addict going through withdrawal. If it weren't for the people I left behind this would've been easy.
