Ziffy88
About Pirates it's more of the why do they need to do it. Like Calypso and gathering to fight when only three ships actually did anything. It promised something big and didn't deliver.

I did have a problem with the motivation in the film in on a couple of occasions, like when the guy from the EITC didn't give the order to fire and just repeated "It's just bad business" over and over. I was like "Dude fight back! What the hell?!"

As for the three ships. You try organizing a naval battle in the 1500's. I think you're probably going to see only a few ships ever attacking at once. Theres only so much room. Plus from a film perspective all those ships fighing at once would've been so chaotic, and theyre was already enough going on with sparrow and turner and swan and that other dude all doing their own thing at the same time.

The one thing that really didn't make sense to me was that Barbosa was one of the 9 pirate lords. But in the first movie he was second in command to Sparrow before the mutiny. You'd think he'd have taken sparrow's peice of eight then and thats how he'd've become a pirate lord. But, no, he was a pirate lord when he took the job as jack's second in command in the first place. That wasn't really a good move for jack, why would he trust another pirate lord to be in his crew?

I mean theres a couple of plot holes and motivation issues, but they weren't so huge that i couldn't follow the story.

isukun
Toy Story 2 felt like a direct to video movie

I actually perfered Toy Story 2 to Toy Story 1. I thought on a whole the writing was sharper, the character interaction was better, and the emotional stuff was a little mor poiniant. Toy Story gets points with me for introducting a great premise, Toy Story 2 gets points for perfecting it.

I thought on a whole the writing was sharper, the character interaction was better, and the emotional stuff was a little mor poiniant.

I found the characters and premise far less convincing. The Prospector never seemed truly wrong and the toys from the previous movie seemed to be more getting in the way than actually protecting Woody's best interests. On top of all that, the animation seemed cheaper (lots of cycled and heavily tweened animation which you didn't get in the previous movie), the music was either repetitive (they use the same damn song three times in the film) or not as good as the previous film, and quite often the dialog sounded painfully cheesy or derivitive (in some cases, it felt like if they repeated the same idea over and over the audience would believe it contrary to the counter points made in the film). I will admit that the comedic elements were solid, but that doesn't make it a better movie overall. It kind of rubbed me the wrong way the same way Spiderman 2 did. They took an idea from the previous film and beat you over the head with it in a totally unnatural way. The difference, though, is that in Spiderman 2, at least I got the impression that Peter was right to go back to being a hero while in Toy Story 2, the movie gave me no real reason to believe Woody's return to Andy was for the better.

You just don't like movies were people question their lives. Both films does kind of deal with the same thing.

Both films were like that. Toy Story 2 had to deal with growing up and being left behind and choosing what to do with your life. Toy Story 1 was more being replaced by the new hotness. The reasons the toys were not against Woody's interest is that what the Prospector offers is a life alone, however the other toys offer a life with friends and love.

Spider-man 2 was a better movie than Spider-man 1. The villain was better, the action, direction, hell even the acting was a little stronger. The biggest plus points it really captures the life of Spider-man, which is his life sucked and is full of troubles and difficulties. Sure it had plot holes but that did not affect the overall story.

Well there's my 5 cents(greater than the 2 cents offered bad joke)Maybe I over thought or maybe I understood it.

I really liked the Toy Stories when I was a kid (yes I was a kid when I saw these). Maybe that's because it appeals more to kids but it has some things in it that only adults can understand. I must say that I DID like Toy Story 2 over its prequel, the horse (his name escapes me right now) was probably my favorite, since he was full of emotion, with him jumping around like crazy.

The reasons the toys were not against Woody's interest is that what the Prospector offers is a life alone, however the other toys offer a life with friends and love.

Except the Prospector wasn't offering a life alone without friends or love. That's why it didn't work as well for me.

Just him, a doll, a horse, and millions of faces staring at him. No more of your friends from home. Just you and the other woody characters. Which is also why the song was perfect for the film.

And whatever else might be in the museum with them. Actually, the whole appeal for Jessie was that being in the museum would actually get her AWAY from the solitude of being in storage. After going half crazy the first time, you'd think she wouldn't want to go through it all again a few years down the line. The point they seemed to be making in the movie is that a Toy's purpose is to bring joy to a particular child and they don't feel fulfilled unless they do that, even if it means getting tossed aside and shit on later. Basically, ultimate satisfaction comes through conformity, even if you get nothing in return. Not a great message.

Well woody comes backs to his love and his friends. Jessie finds a new owner...hmmm...slavery Songs of the South anyone? Well he comes in to accept that yeah Andy will grow but Woody's not afraid. They have each other.

Wow How the hell did we went to movies coming in 2008 to the secret meanings of Toy Story 2 yeesh next we will talk about how the deep and thoughtful meaning of Sin City

SPeaking of which

When is the Spirit going to come out and will Frank Miller screw that up like his Batman and Robin comic

Don't forget another cash-in sequel on the Fantasy craze Narnia. Huzzah more Christian propaganda from the least Christian profession and companies. Maybe this time the Lion will chew some annoying kids. The first one wasn't very good. It really did feel like someone is cashing in on the popularity of Lord of the Rings, which is the better fantasy film and is what most sword epics are now based on which is unfortunate to say the least. I want to see a small time fantasy film. One that is not solved by two armies but just by small groups. Even Pan's Labyrinth had a battle(Though I did enjoy that along with the rest of an amazing film)

OOOO and Cloverfield!

Is the whole movie going to be shot to look like a camcorder? If so, that's highly disappointing.

Kind of, but I kind of get the point of what they're doing. It's more of a comment on how people treat disasters now. Still just because it has shakeycam doesn't mean it won't be good or enjoyable. Why does alot people on these forums seem to be very strict about movies. Like it's good or it blows. I don't see to many comments like give it a rent, or you can have fun with it for all the wrong reasons.

You guys need to learn how to watch movies(MST3k)

ozoneocean
Holy disenfranchisement Batman!
You can't just cut off Robin like that!

Remember the good old days from the TV series? Burt Ward and Adam West!
That's the Batman for me. The villains there were cooler.

I think it would be interesting if they did a campy remake just like the Adam West TV series. I wonder how many poeple would embrace it today....I wonder if Eartha Kitt would play Catwoman's mother or something.

I'm not particularly thrilled about the new 'Horton Hears a Who'. I loved the Dr. Seuss book as a kid. I understand they need to stretch the story out for two hours, but come on. ...But I have to say Blue Sky (the guys who did Ice Age) did a great job with the animation.

Ziffy88
OOOO and Cloverfield!

Holy crap I didn't know they had a new clip of that! The only one I saw was the first one of the party and the explosion. This one is so much better. I am really psyched to see this. So is it a Godzilla remake or what? I've heard so many rumors I don't know what to believe in. Or is it going to be like in 'Lost' where we never see the monster, leaving it up to our imagination (which would actually be cooler)?

Still just because it has shakeycam doesn't mean it won't be good or enjoyable.

Shakeycam bugs me in every movie its used in. It made movies like Blair Witch totally unwatchable. Excessive use of it makes viewing a movie nausiating. So yes, if the entire movie uses it, it WILL ruin the movie for me. If a movie gives me a headache or makes people motion sick from watching it, it isn't a good movie.

what hasn't ruined a movie for. Your avatar really does seem to match your personality for these things (nothing against you)

motion sickness eh?

You probably don't play too many FPS either it's normally the same effect. I'm not sure what could help with something like that though. It's not like you can narrow the view of stop the weapons bobbing. So yeah that could probably effect viewing.

I however don't get motion sickness from watching a video. So if they do this film well, if the story works, the effects are decent, and the acting doesn't distract from the film then should be awesome for a person like me.

I love monster films and with a different perspective for this film that's the cat's pajamas

As for Cloverfield, it's its own movie. It has no connections to any other films or series. Just a giant monster tearing up crap while people are trying to escape. The filming is more inspired by the YouTube generation. How pretty much everyone in the world has a camera on them. Which is a great shot in the clip posted above where everybody stops to take a picture of the head, because people are that stupid and will do that.

What about Iron Man dude that's going to be neat!

Ziffy88
What about Iron Man dude that's going to be neat!

Yeah my husband is really pumped to see that. He says Robert Downey Jr. is a great choice for Tony Stark. I think it's interesting that they decided to dump Tony in Afghanistan so it would rouse up our patriotism. Pffft, whatever.

I don't think Tony's in Afghanistan to rouse our patriotism, I think that it's just part of making the movie more contemporary. In the comics he was in Vietnam, because that's what was happening at the time. Sometime in the late 90's they changed all the references from Vietnam to the Gulf War, because Tony would have to be way too old for him to have been in Vietnam (ah, the magic of unaging characters...). If the story were still set in Vietnam, you would either need to come up for a reason as to why an American military developer is there in modern times, or set the movie in the '60s.

Inkmonkey
or set the movie in the '60s.

The don't do stuff like that nearly enough for comic movies. I'd love to see 'em take a golden age character and actually set them in the appropriate time period rather than update them to now

kingofsnake
The don't do stuff like that nearly enough for comic movies. I'd love to see 'em take a golden age character and actually set them in the appropriate time period rather than update them to now

Now THAT would be a brilliant thing. It'd very likely get a LOT more audience interest too. I'd LOVE to see superman set in the 30s-40s or whenever they came up with the idea, that'd be SO cool.

While I agree that would be very cool, I don't think Iron Man is the guy to do it with. Superman would be great, because in a lot of ways he just doesn't work in modern society. Too much of a stretch of believability.

kingofsnake

Inkmonkey
or set the movie in the '60s.

The don't do stuff like that nearly enough for comic movies. I'd love to see 'em take a golden age character and actually set them in the appropriate time period rather than update them to now

American Way and New Frontier both very good books and some decent art particularly the latter Darwyn Cooke and Dave Stewarts colors

that film noir batman book by brubaker

You probably don't play too many FPS either it's normally the same effect.

No, most FPSs don't involve rapid, random camera motions and blurry video. That would detract from the game if they did. I only mentioned motion sickness because a lot of people find movies with excessive motion on screen to be nausiating. It was one of the biggest complaints for the Blair Witch Project (most people I know hated that movie as well and the primary reason was the camera work).

Which is a great shot in the clip posted above where everybody stops to take a picture of the head, because people are that stupid and will do that.

Looking at footage of 9/11, Katrina, and the recent wildfires, I'd have to disagree. That was one of the things I found most unbelievable in the clip because people simply DON'T do that. Their sense of self preservation is much greater than their idle curiosity. When fire is raining from the sky, buildings are collapsing and explosions are going off a few blocks away, you don't stand around in the streets wondering what's going on like you would if an ambulance pulled up across the street.

Well I don't know about where you live but yeah they do that. The first thing they do is pull out their phones.

Sorry, but in a life or death situation, people don't pull out their phones and start taking pictures. Like I said, take a look at actual disaster footage and you'll see when the shit hits the fan and bad stuff's happening all around, people don't stand around and gawk, they run. In the video EVERYBODY in the street stops to take pictures. Cars stop moving, people are meandering as if there was an accident, which is not at all a realistic reaction to buildings getting hit by flaming debris, downtown collapsing and blowing up, and the head of the Statue of Liberty landing in the middle of the street.

The situation is more comparable to a modern day war zone. When the missiles start dropping, you DON'T see civilians casually wandering the streets to take pictures of the chaos.

Actually, while I think the movie scene is gigantically exaggerated, I believe Ziffy88 has a point. There will always be someone there taking pictures, or trying to see what's happening even if it puts his life in danger.

Using your example Isukun, how do you think some of those pictures during the middle of disasters or whatnot are taken? Most of the pictures taken around the Twin Towers were by regular people will cellphones or other cameras. Those pictures don't magically appear out of thin air; someone is photographing the mass exodus and the panic.

Steely Gaze
There will always be someone there taking pictures, or trying to see what's happening even if it puts his life in danger.

Yeah, they're called reporters. Sorry guys, I'm siding with isukun on this one.

I think you all are forgetting something vitally important. [tvtropes.org]

I take your argument and raise you 50

Anywhooo...in the California wildfires many of footages and pictures are from average people taking pictures with their cameras. Also whenever there is a police beating shooting or standoff there is always someone other than a reporter recording. Another thing even in war regular soldiers tape themselves.
Besides at the shot of people taking pictures it was really quiet they just an explosion and a head falls in the street.
Also the last shot of the video in the liquor store was taken from 9-11 footage...I shot exactly as some footage from 9-11. So I'm sticking to what I said. Sure when the monster appears and the buildings people would run away. But not every moment, as soon as they can they'll take a shot.
Also MST3k rules!