Moments when a piece of entertainment completely rocked you.

Shatner · Post by **Shatner** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:49 pm

My wife was heart broken that he wasn't cockney, like he is in Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3... and in the comics, but we don't read the comics.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:01 pm

Maxus wrote: I see what you did thar, Marvel. Or, since Disney owns 'em both...

I didn't notice, probably because Ronan has looked pretty much the same since 1965 and both characters were evil space emperors back when George Lucas was known as that guy who directed American Graffiti.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:42 pm

What he actually looked like in 1965:

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:10 am

Just saw Guardians of the Galaxy and loved it start to finish.

Laertes be crazy yo. There is no puppy kicking moment. Anything that I felt was bad was more of a staple of the genre (i.e. crayola-colored humans as aliens, or just plain humans as aliens). Yondu is like the antithesis of this guy and I don't even care. I loved it.

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:12 am

http://greliz.tumblr.com/post/863806946 ... -the-green

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:08 am

http://hocotate-civ.tumblr.com/post/781 ... tcha-slick

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:44 am

A young lady prevailed upon me to watch Event Horizon with her last night. God damn, that's a good film. Brooding, well-paced, absurdly atmospheric and well acted. It starts as this intelligent, understated film and gradually ramps up the horror and spectacle until it reaches a magnificent climax. Eye injuries in particular seem to be a big thing in that film. It did go in for the Smart People Always Turn Evil trope in a big way, but it was done in a way that felt right. I can't believe it took me this long to see it.

It was mentioned afterwards that the parallels between Event Horizon and the board game Betrayal at House on the Hill are strong. Everyone explores the haunted houseship, then one of you turns evil, takes control of the houseship and tries to kill the others.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:19 am

Event Horizon is basically like a prequel to Warhammer 40k in some ways. Ship goes into the Warp and caused shit to go crazy.

I've only actually watched maybe half of it, though. Should get around to finishing it.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:42 am

Laertes wrote:A young lady prevailed upon me to watch Event Horizon with her last night. God damn, that's a good film. Brooding, well-paced, absurdly atmospheric and well acted. It starts as this intelligent, understated film and gradually ramps up the horror and spectacle until it reaches a magnificent climax. Eye injuries in particular seem to be a big thing in that film. It did go in for the Smart People Always Turn Evil trope in a big way, but it was done in a way that felt right. I can't believe it took me this long to see it.

It was mentioned afterwards that the parallels between Event Horizon and the board game Betrayal at House on the Hill are strong. Everyone explores the haunted houseship, then one of you turns evil, takes control of the houseship and tries to kill the others.

You're like Roger Ebert with a beard. Everything you like is bad, and everything you hate is great. It's surreal.

I saw Event Horizon when it was in theaters. I also saw it because a young lady wanted to watch it with me, and I can say with confidence that even if your expected after-movie dinner options are likely vagina-based, that movie is not very good. And this is not just me. Event Horizon scored an amazing 24% at Rotten Tomatoes. More than three in four critics candidly admit that Event Horizon is basically a shitty film.

Now, I think that 24% is kind of harsh. It's a bad film, but it's not an astounding stinker. There are lots of films worse than Event Horizon that do better than 24% on Rotten Tomatoes. Event Horizon is deeply formulaic to the point where characters very frequently take actions that only make sense if you remember that you're in a genre movie and check your watch against the movie's runtime. The plot, such as it is, is pretty much nonsense and all the characters roll dice against horror movie archetypal reactions rather than having personalities. But for all that, it is at least pretty.

Kudos to the art department, who made a movie that was pretty much interchangeable with Ghosts of Mars stand out slightly by being nicer to look at.

-Username17

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:31 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:What he actually looked like in 1965:

Yeah, I mean, obviously got palette swapped, but that happens to everyone. Especially Wolverine.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:49 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Now, I think that 24% is kind of harsh. It's a bad film, but it's not an astounding stinker. There are lots of films worse than Event Horizon that do better than 24% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Ah, but Event Horizon made people expect that they were going to see a SF thriller instead of a "haunted house in space". I don't believe in rigid genre boundaries, but features that might be acceptable in a haunting horror piece are incompatible with even a very liberal SF thriller - particularly in space.

Several people I've spoken to about the film said that the most frightening part of the movie was when one crewmember spaces himself. It's notable that it's also the most realistic and plausible section of the film.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:20 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Kudos to the art department, who made a movie that was pretty much interchangeable with Ghosts of Mars stand out slightly by being nicer to look at.
-Username17

That's crazy talk. Natasha Henstridge in underwear is way nicer to look at than Holley Chant nekkid in a bathtub full of blood.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:10 am

erik wrote:Just saw Guardians of the Galaxy and loved it start to finish.

Absolutely this.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:31 am

FrankTrollman wrote:You're like Roger Ebert with a beard. Everything you like is bad, and everything you hate is great. It's surreal.

Frank, why do you hate Roger Ebert so much? Any reviews or opinions of his that you particularly loathe? (Hannibal is mine.)

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:37 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:You're like Roger Ebert with a beard. Everything you like is bad, and everything you hate is great. It's surreal.
Frank, why do you hate Roger Ebert so much?

I don't. I was making a mirror universe joke.

When Roger Ebert was alive, he came up with lots of bad reviews, but his ratio of reviews holds up pretty well. There are definitely some bad movies he liked and good movies he hated, but he was a pretty dependable reviewer. And of course, he made the definitive Human Centipede review.

This just came because Laertes in rapid succession raged about the universally admired Guardians of the Galaxy, and then raved about the universally panned Event Horizon. It was just kind of surreal, having him go off about how terrible a genuinely funny and innovative adventure comedy was and then acting all impressed by a laughably formulaic sci-fi horror movie from the 90s. It's like hipsterism to the point of self-parody.

-Username17

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:48 pm

Am I the only person who found the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' trailer to be deeply uninteresting?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:02 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:Am I the only person who found the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' trailer to be deeply uninteresting?

Deeply uninteresting? Like you can really plumb the depths of disinterest? It is like 2 min long, how deeply disinterested can you get?

Yeah that's probably just you. It may be shallow but frankly I want that in a trailer. Just give the surface view. You get goofiness and action with aliens. I think they were excellent trailers even. Not too much not too little. Introduce characters and expectations, whet appetites without giving away the cake.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:10 pm

erik wrote:Deeply uninteresting? Like you can really plumb the depths of disinterest? It is like 2 min long, how deeply disinterested can you get?

The absolute absence of interest, without any elements of repulsion or disgust. It did absolutely nothing for me. It was like a test pattern or static with a background of white noise.

Something other than word of mouth got people into the seats to see the movie and become wildly enthusiastic. I just have no idea what it was.

I mention this only because 'That Guy With the Glasses' (AKA 'The Nostalgia Critic' just did a bit about really, really good trailers. It made me think about how movie trailers are often the thing that people connect with and how frequently that connection is betrayed by the actual film.

Post by **fbmf** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:33 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:I mention this only because 'That Guy With the Glasses' (AKA 'The Nostalgia Critic' just did a bit about really, really good trailers. It made me think about how movie trailers are often the thing that people connect with and how frequently that connection is betrayed by the actual film.

That actually sounds interesting. Link?

Game On,
fbmf

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:42 pm

Recent 'Nostalgia Critic' stuff

Top 11 Trailers

(He has this thing where he does eleven instead of ten, because of more awesome.)

I also recommend his review of the remake of The Wicker Man.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:Something other than word of mouth got people into the seats to see the movie and become wildly enthusiastic. I just have no idea what it was.

If I was going to guess, it'd be the fact that it's a Marvel comics movie that isn't another rehash of Iron Man or Spider-Man. If this was a property of another studio or franchise that wasn't named Pixar (another Disney property) or LucasArts people would probably be a lot more skeptical/disinterested.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:23 pm

That's why I went to see it.

The only Marvel movies I'd call bad were Thor 2 and Fantastic Four. They've garnered a decent amount of trust from me.

And because going to see Marvel movies is something my father and I both enjoy doing. We don't have much else in common, so it's a father-son thing we do.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:34 pm

This is pretty much the reason to hate on Ebert

My response in spoilers so you can form your own opinions first.

He's not merely asserting that games are low art. He's not merely asserting no games yet produced have crossed his potential threshhold for "art". He's not asserting that "I don't like video games". He's asserting that the media itself is fundamentally incapable of being art.

That in and of itself is enough for me to disregard every critical opinion the man ever had.

Especially since as a film critic, his entire body of work is criticism of a type of art that consists of two-dimensional moving images with associated auditory components and video games are all two-dimensional moving images with associated auditory components. If he were coming from poetry or sculpture or dance or some other artform, where are enough differences between the media then he'd just be wrong -- but coming from the most similar media in existence he made it all the way to incomprehensibly hypocritical.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:42 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:
erik wrote:Deeply uninteresting? Like you can really plumb the depths of disinterest? It is like 2 min long, how deeply disinterested can you get?
The absolute absence of interest, without any elements of repulsion or disgust. It did absolutely nothing for me. It was like a test pattern or static with a background of white noise.

Something other than word of mouth got people into the seats to see the movie and become wildly enthusiastic. I just have no idea what it was.

I find that utterly bizarre. The scene where he declares that he is Star Lord and gets sad when nobody knows who that is, priceless. That is what got me to want to see the movie. Demonstration of solid comedic writing, and a setting/genre that I appreciate.

I already knew about Guardians of the Galaxy as a Marvel property (even had a subscription to one of the GotG comics as a lad) and had no interest in seeing it before I saw the trailer. Marvel has a pretty good track record the last few years, but I wasn't going to see it on that strength alone. It was the trailer that got me very interested.

I'm not saying there aren't a host of shitty trailers out there. I just think that GotG did the job correctly with theirs. It could have been better, but it got me interested and motivated to see the movie.

[edit: I disagree with Ebert, but only fault him for being a fuddy-duddy with respect to his view on games. Hell, plenty of games are a movie broken into a series of cut scenes anyway.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:49 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:This is pretty much the reason to hate on Ebert

My response in spoilers so you can form your own opinions first.

He's not merely asserting that games are low art. He's not merely asserting no games yet produced have crossed his potential threshhold for "art". He's not asserting that "I don't like video games". He's asserting that the media itself is fundamentally incapable of being art.

That in and of itself is enough for me to disregard every critical opinion the man ever had.

Especially since as a film critic, his entire body of work is criticism of a type of art that consists of two-dimensional moving images with associated auditory components and video games are all two-dimensional moving images with associated auditory components. If he were coming from poetry or sculpture or dance or some other artform, where are enough differences between the media then he'd just be wrong -- but coming from the most similar media in existence he made it all the way to incomprehensibly hypocritical.

I heard about that when it happened. He's regrettably wrong about video games, but I agreed with a ton of his views on movies and ratings (like how Passion of the Christ pretty much proved the MPAA will never hand out an NC-17 rating for violence).

See, it takes a repeated pattern of being wrong before I won't give you a fair hearing. The Republican Party, YECs, some economics schools...They all go on "Yeah, I've heard this shit before" list.

Ebert was an old man who had an old man's view on technology and media. And that's a shame. He might have really gotten something out of a few games.