[ devi edit : This topic was split from the de : fx SMBH topic by metal mariachi who apologizes for the accidental deleted posts and such ]
devi ever wrote:I'll give all you twilight appreciators till Monday to plead your forgiveness to the Buffy gods or you're all perma-banned.
ahhhhh I should have known bringing up the fact that Twilight isn't that bad amongst cool people is not a good idea at all!!!! I DO love Buffy, as chance would have it. In fact, I've been watching that show since I was 11 years old and I own every season However, like I said before if I want vampires I go with True Blood (where the vampires DON'T turn ugly when they get pissed ).
No Seattle is warn and sunny compared to Forks which is on the peninsula. Personally I love the weather up here, I live in Olympia now and I lived in Seattle for nine years. I don't really like the sun you see and if it wasn't for the fact that I ware glasses I'd be fine with it raining all the fucking time.
1,2,3, Pull Out! wrote: Most of this is true except that it doesn't necessarily make it "bad" I enjoyed it in the same way I enjoy cheap zombie movies; it's just mindless simple entertainment. The books are kind of like typical summer blockbusters, they're not intelligent or original but they ARE entertaining, IMO. I just like to sit back and not have to think every once in a while, ya know? Maybe I should stop talking about this... this is perhaps the most uncool thing I have done...EVER.
Twilight was meant to be intelligent, though.
"Ooh, these constant references to abstinence, how deep!"
Stephen King wrote:Both Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good."
Speaking of J.K. Rowling, that new Harry Potter film actuary looks half decent. If it's shorter than 3 hours it's gonna suck though because that book had a lot going on.
Teej212 wrote:ive always hated when something tries to be something that its not. its annoying. for instance dan in real life. and twilight.
Uuuuuuuuggghhh, Dan In Real Life, don't even get me started on that movie. Has anyone noticed the standards for a good movie lately has stooped pretty low like EVERY movie nowadays gets a great IMDB rating. What's up with that? Oh, except for Transformers 2.
Last edited by 1,2,3, Pull Out! on Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I liked transformers 1, having seen the original cartoon, but I do not hear good things for the new film... but shall reserve judgement but secretly doubt how good it is.
It's actually about as good as the first one which I liked. There's more stupid shit and immature jokes and dumb stuff like that but there's also WAY more uber badassness and the fights are 100000000000000x better so it's better AND worse than the first one. And it's worth seeing just to see how badass Optimus is in this movie. I still like the original cartoon better than both of the live action ones but GOD DAMN Optimus has never been THIS awesome... ever....in anything. Also there's like 50 new Transformers so if your a big Transformers geek like me you can appreciate their little cameos.
1,2,3, Pull Out! wrote:It's actually about as good as the first one which I liked. There's more stupid shit and immature jokes and dumb stuff like that but there's also WAY more uber badassness and the fights are 100000000000000x better so it's better AND worse than the first one. .
I think you just unsold me, of late fast moving CG and things that blow up don't have much of a impact on me any more, so if the writing isn't all that hot then I find it boring. The fist one had a lot on wince moments in it so if it is more of the same or worse I'll wait for DVD.
I liked the second Transformers (flaws and all) but my one warning is that, Gods, the editing/direction is *fast*. You almost can't keep up with some of the scenes on a big screen. Things are whizzing from one side of the screen to the next and back so quickly that it really becomes hard to keep up! I hope it'll play better on video, 'cause it seems like it was directed for 11-year-olds hopped up on Red Bull.
Back to the topic of vamp flicks, I'm a complete sucker (no pun intended) for 'em. Dunno why, but I'll watch almost any piece of crap featuring vampires. And trust me, about 90% of said flicks are crap.
Love the Buffy mythos a lot (although for Joss' work, I'm a bigger fan of Firefly *sigh*). One really good vamp flick I can think of which hasn't yet been mentioned is "Near Dark", with Lance Henrickson. Also, for the time, there was a really good remake of the classic "Dracula" with Jack Palance(!?!?!) from the 70's. Oh, and Lili Taylor and Christopher Walken are both great in "The Addiction". And then there's the old Hammer flicks....
-- glitch.@$%!
_______ "I want to keep you alive so there is always the possibility of murder... later"
However, like I said before if I want vampires I go with True Blood (where the vampires DON'T turn ugly when they get pissed 
