Page 6 of 16
Re: Movies
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:42 pm
by Freshbite
I do believe we have different looks on what an idol is.
To me, an idol is a person that I currently find amusing or funny.
I do not necessarily want to turn into that person.
Re: Movies
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:54 pm
by Renegade_Turner
According to Assaultman67, things like "immortal" and "idol" can only be interpreted as "god", so you're caught there.
Re: Movies
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:15 pm
by Sandurz
Uhg, why does everything have to become a flame war?
I watched FMA: Conquerer of Shambala. It was pretty good. The plot line wasn't great, but it was ok. I really liked the animation. But that's to be expected, since it's a full length movie of a very popular series.
Re: Movies
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:20 pm
by Endoperez
Freshbite wrote:I do believe we have different looks on what an idol is.
To me, an idol is a person that I currently find amusing or funny.
I do not necessarily want to turn into that person.
"To me, a trilogy is a series in which a farm boy or an exiled warrior becomes [a king, a wizard, the hero of the land, the chosen one] under the guidance of [an old king, an old wizard, a retired hero, the one seeking the chosen one], and gets the girl."
I once thought that's what a trilogy is. I was 12 or so when I learned that's not what it REALLY means. I think it's time for you to accept that your definition of "an idol" is in the wrong and learn the real meaning, even though it's less funny.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:27 am
by underthedeep
if any of you are into rock music
THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
greatness
both of them.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:24 am
by Freshbite
Saw Alice in Wonderland, it was so-so.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:31 am
by zoidberg rules
Yeah, I heard that from a lot of people, still wanna see it though.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:56 pm
by Freshbite
Well, it's definitely not a waste of time, I'll give it that.
It's just that it was wise to watch it with a girlfriend rather than to watch it alone.
EDIT: Just watched "The Lovely Bones", and I've got to say; I hardly find any movies to be touching, but man, this one was damn close. Not sad as in bursting-into-tears, but rather a damn-son,this-is-some-heavy-shit kind of sad.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:07 pm
by Renegade_Turner
Lol not really. Saoirse Ronan was okay but a bit too hammy. Mark Wahlberg was embarrassingly bad, he should just stick to films where he's either (a) Killing People or (b) Fucking People. Also, reasons why anyone would cast Rachel Weisz in anything anymore are completely beyond me (aside from her obvious non-talent-related assets). Stanley Tucci was the only redeeming factor of The Lovely Bones. He was one badass villain. In fact, I wish the rest of them died and he survived.
You could say it's crude to suggest that the film should feature a sex scene, but when you have two people in Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz who are mainly just eye candy (although Wahlberg has his moments of brilliance, Boogie Nights was just amazing), having them be married but NOT having them...umm...consummating things, well...I don't know where I'm going with this, but if Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are together in a movie they should fuck, end of. At least off camera if not on camera.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:50 pm
by Freshbite
Looking back, they actually do have a sex-scene.
Surprisingly, it's even within the first 3 minutes of the film (right before the "12 Years Later"). Not any nudity, but it's clear that as soon as the camera slips away, they're doing it.
Renegade_Turner wrote:Stanley Tucci was the only redeeming factor of The Lovely Bones. He was one badass villain.
Yes, yes he was.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:56 pm
by Renegade_Turner
...that's not a sex scene. Watch Boogie Nights.
Stanley Tucci is like, sooooo my idol.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:02 pm
by Freshbite
Alright, I'll look it up.
...
"The story of a young man's adventures in the Californian pornography industry of the 1970s and 1980s."
... why the hell not?
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:29 pm
by Assaultman67
Renegade_Turner wrote:According to Assaultman67, things like "mortal" and "idol" can only be interpreted as "god", so you're caught there.
You mean "Immortal". and "Can be" not "can only be".
Quit misquoting me for your benefit.
Sandurz wrote:Uhg, why does everything have to become a flame war? ...
^
Troll.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:37 pm
by Renegade_Turner
Assaultman67 wrote:Renegade_Turner wrote:According to Assaultman67, things like "mortal" and "idol" can only be interpreted as "god", so you're caught there.
You mean "Immortal". and "Can be" not "can only be".
Quit misquoting me for your benefit.
No, I'm pretty sure your views were "can only be". That was about it. You didn't recognise the other side to the coin. You fail this time too.
Also, I'm pretty sure you're the one misquoting me for YOUR benefit. I definitely said "immortal". Not sure where you're coming from there, squire.
Re: Movies
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:53 pm
by Assaultman67
Renegade_Turner wrote:Assaultman67 wrote:Renegade_Turner wrote:According to Assaultman67, things like "mortal" and "idol" can only be interpreted as "god", so you're caught there.
You mean "Immortal". and "Can be" not "can only be".
Quit misquoting me for your benefit.
No, I'm pretty sure your views were "can only be". That was about it. You didn't recognise the other side to the coin. You fail this time too.
Also, I'm pretty sure you're the one misquoting me for YOUR benefit. I definitely said "immortal". Not sure where you're coming from there, squire.
No, im pretty sure your views are that you are a balloon.
You fail this time.
(moral of this post: Don't pretend to understand someone elses view better than they do. It doesn't even make logical sense)
(also "lol" at you not realizing there is a time stamp on your post edit ... nice move there
)