[Usiio]

motoh, on 30 January 2010 - 12:18 AM, said:

It was, my mistake. I'm tired today. Sorry. Fuck you *comma* Treelo.

~M

I fixd it for you.

[treelo]

Quote

It was, my mistake. I'm tired today. Sorry. Fuck you Treelo.

Either you're tired or. The Shat has. Control of your PC. I'm sorry but. You're wrong. Motoh.

Quote

Users are expected to refrain from trolling threads and to post with some level of maturity. Threads that have progressed far off topic or are heavily saturated with spam may be locked or deleted.
Users are also expected to converse with a decent level of social aptitude. Consistently misspelling whole posts, consistently posting with extremely poor grammar, or consistently speaking completely incoherently will not be tolerated.

The bolded sections always made me chuckle. However I see nothing along the lines of THOU SHALT REFRAIN FROM EMPHASISING THINGS WITH GIANT LETTERS, such things are formatting issues rather than grammar.

Now, would you deem this inaproppriate behaviour towards a moderator to get some cheap laughs and prevent me from further educating you in the rules of the forum you moderate? It's a possibility, once upon a time you were vindictive enough to do so. You could always edit my post to give yourself a valid reason.

[motoh]

'Users are also expected to converse with a decent level of social aptitude. Consistently misspelling whole posts, consistently posting with extremely poor grammar, or consistently speaking completely incoherently will not be tolerated.'

Our anti-derf clause.

~M

[treelo]

When did you go into politics?

[MrReinhardt]

Quote

derf clause

I see what you did there

[Usiio]

Derf claus doesn't exist. Santa claus on the other hand.....

[Shippou]

pathwriter, on 25 January 2010 - 09:53 PM, said:

What could people say about Twilight that would get it through your dense skull that it was atrocious? You're clearly latching onto the idea that the drooling masses are capable of seriously critiquing both the books and the movie. They aren't. Twilight is the lowest form of girl porn written at a junior high level. Of course it's going to appeal to masses of barely literate teenage and 20-something females, and they're a massive bloc when it comes to influencing something. But that doesn't make it good.

Clearly. I mean, forgive me for thinking that someone on this forum might have a tiny bit of logic and be able to actually support their opinion (read mindlessly following the masses) by backing it up with where they felt the movie could have improved.

I've already stated I'm not a fan of the movie. It's just that I'm apathetic to either extreme. When someone actually points out where the chemistry went sour, or what dialogue was spoken incorrectly, or what gestures were forced, then I'll sit here happy. That's all I'm asking for. What is so fucking hard to understand about giving me a specific example (I mean this shouldn't be too hard since the whole fucking movie sucks ass, right?) to demonstrate that people are actually judging the movie instead of just flowing along with the masses who think it's cool to bash a movie? It's a movie for Christ's sake, it's wasn't meant to revive the dead, fix the economy, promote world peace or anything else besides entertain people.

[motoh]

treelo, on 30 January 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

When did you go into politics?

When I suckered Wiggs into thinking I would make a good mod.

~M

[Symbios]

Shippou, on 30 January 2010 - 07:02 PM, said:

Clearly. I mean, forgive me for thinking that someone on this forum might have a tiny bit of logic and be able to actually support their opinion (read mindlessly following the masses) by backing it up with where they felt the movie could have improved.

I've already stated I'm not a fan of the movie. It's just that I'm apathetic to either extreme. When someone actually points out where the chemistry went sour, or what dialogue was spoken incorrectly, or what gestures were forced, then I'll sit here happy. That's all I'm asking for. What is so fucking hard to understand about giving me a specific example (I mean this shouldn't be too hard since the whole fucking movie sucks ass, right?) to demonstrate that people are actually judging the movie instead of just flowing along with the masses who think it's cool to bash a movie? It's a movie for Christ's sake, it's wasn't meant to revive the dead, fix the economy, promote world peace or anything else besides entertain people.

Here, let me break it down a bit for you.

Hollywood movies are generally labeled as having weak interpersonal relationship writing, and in particular, suffers the most when writing any sort of romance story. Oftentimes, romances are shoved into movies for marquee value. This is what gives Hollywood a general reputation around the world for being very bad at this sort of thing- this is why you rarely see romantic comedies being praised all that much, with the possible exception of hipster movies like Juno. Otherwise, the only "romance" movies that get any recognition are arthouse films that arn't so much focused on the characters as it is the cinematography.

So that brings us to Twilight, the lowest common denominator of harlequin romance. The whole film is focused on the supposed romance of these two people, unless you're so starved for action that you think seeing prettyboys flying around can get your blood pumping. In order for this to work, we need to care, and I mean care our asses off, for these two people. Of course, we don't. They're the most boring, vacuous, blank slate teenagers featured in recent years.

There's no denying that the writing is banal- you can almost hear the director giving the damn lines before they say them, and it makes you cringe to hear it. We don't need to hear someone say how much he shouldn't be with someone while being all over her. One thing I found particularly hilarious is when Bella is telling someone how she can't be with him and the whole while, she's playing with his sixpack. Nice cocktease there lady. The acting is wooden. I really don't know how I can word it any other way. Of course, I wouldn't know wtf to do with awful writing either.

So two strikes for writing and acting. The only possible thing you can praise it for is having a competent director, and the only thing that makes you do is shake your head in pity because of wasted potential.

Here's a real big beef I have with it- teenage girls are smarter than this. Juno can be seen as a romance film. It was also well written and well-casted, and didn't feel the need to have these boring, vacuous characters running around delivering lines with soap opera staccato. Juno and her family are all funny, relatable human beings rather than boring pieces of cardboard with pretty faces.

What's funny is, you give me that vibe that you think people hate it simply for the premise. That's not the issue. True Blood on HBO had some romance in a vampire story and it was pretty good. Aside from that people are allowed to hate things if they want to, bringing up the ultimate insignificance of movies means you might as well not be in this argument to begin with. Anyway, the problem is that Twilight is just plain lazy, and what really sucks about it is that if you go look at recent vampire novels, there's a really set formula for the way women generally write them- sex and a dash of homoeroticism and some action that is labeled vampiric. I won't say Twilight's ruined the fantasy genre, but I will say it's ruined the vampire novel. It's awful, and it needs to go away.

[Boldfinger]

Shippou, on 30 January 2010 - 07:02 PM, said:

Clearly. I mean, forgive me for thinking that someone on this forum might have a tiny bit of logic and be able to actually support their opinion (read mindlessly following the masses) by backing it up with where they felt the movie could have improved.

Uh, I linked a review to you before when you said something like this and even quoted the parts I thought were relevant, and you just ignored it. Seems to me like you just see what you want to see around here. Just sayin'

[Cruzandercerberus]

Symbios, on 31 January 2010 - 01:53 AM, said:

Here's a real big beef I have with it- teenage girls are smarter than this. Juno can be seen as a romance film. It was also well written and well-casted, and didn't feel the need to have these boring, vacuous characters running around delivering lines with soap opera staccato. Juno and her family are all funny, relatable human beings rather than boring pieces of cardboard with pretty faces.

Teenage girls are retarded and are the reason for 99.9% of the garbage pop culture bullshit that exists world wide.

Juno was about a teenage girl who thought, talked, and acted like a cynical 30 something. Which incidentally is the movie's target audience.

[Shippou]

Symbios, on 31 January 2010 - 01:53 AM, said:

What's funny is, you give me that vibe that you think people hate it simply for the premise. That's not the issue. True Blood on HBO had some romance in a vampire story and it was pretty good. Aside from that people are allowed to hate things if they want to, bringing up the ultimate insignificance of movies means you might as well not be in this argument to begin with. Anyway, the problem is that Twilight is just plain lazy, and what really sucks about it is that if you go look at recent vampire novels, there's a really set formula for the way women generally write them- sex and a dash of homoeroticism and some action that is labeled vampiric. I won't say Twilight's ruined the fantasy genre, but I will say it's ruined the vampire novel. It's awful, and it needs to go away.

A lot of people do hate it simply because of the premise. I do appreciate the well thought out response though. At least I know there is one person who can give me a reason why they think the acting is bad besides saying, "Acting sucks, it's a horrible movie."

Quote

Uh, I linked a review to you before when you said something like this and even quoted the parts I thought were relevant, and you just ignored it. Seems to me like you just see what you want to see around here. Just sayin'

So you linking a review, which is the opinion of someone else, explains to me what part of the movie you thought could use improvement? I don't give a damn what the reviews say, that was not what I asked. I've always had a problem with people who complain about things, yet they cannot verbalize what is so horrible about them. The majority of Twilight haters seem to fall into this category. They can say they hate the movie, but cannot give a clear-cut and precise answer as to why. I mean, at least throw out that vampires are supposed to burn in sunlight, not sparkle. Give me something to work with, not, "Oh vampires suck blood, not cock" when Edward is obviously not gay.

[treelo]

motoh, on 30 January 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

When I suckered Wiggs into thinking I would make a good mod.

~M

With lies lie that you should run for president.

[.Sotek.]

Quote

So you linking a review, which is the opinion of someone else, explains to me what part of the movie you thought could use improvement? I don't give a damn what the reviews say, that was not what I asked.

Fairly sure someone would link a review because they agree with it and they're too lazy to waste time assuring you they're not jumping on a bandwagon in their own words.

Not quite sure why you even care if people say the acting sucked. It's an opinion, albeit unjustified. Saying you agree but then asking people to justify their opinion is just nit-picking on an incredibly retarded subject. For someone who's apparently apathetic to both extremes, you seem to want people on the "Twilight sucks" side of the spectrum to explain themselves an awful lot.

[Boldfinger]

Sotek is indeed correct. I linked the review because I was in concurrence with what was written. I'm also too lazy to rewrite it but I did copypasta the parts that mattered to me, so I'm not entirely lazy.

Claudia Puig, USA TODAY said:

...questionable casting, wooden acting, laughable dialogue and truly awful makeup... Director Catherine Hardwicke (The Nativity Story) relies heavily on extreme close-ups to make up for her lead actors' lack of emotional range. When the camera isn't trained tightly on their eyes and mouths, it's swirling around them... Stewart and Pattinson lack chemistry. Her subtle acting does not serve her well in this overheated setting. As Bella, she seems to have two expressions: blank and slightly less blank... Pattinson's native English accent comes through at inopportune moments...