Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

J.Black wrote:Hmm, in Hollywood maybe.

Even without checking 4chan, i bet there is some Manga/hentai that covers that base though. We'll have to let Cheese verify it for us.

Hmm, I've never seen any on 4chan, not even around /d/ (which is a really fethed-up board), but the Rule 34 site might have it.

Oh God.

Rule 34 has Barney and Gordon from HL2 getting it on. I will look no further but will assume that there is some hot alien on alien action there somewhere.

My eyes, my eyes...... :,(

Oh, well if you're looking for hetero alien-on-alien there's tons of that.

What can you expect from filthy little heathens?

Here's what you get when races are diverse!

Their skin's a hellish red; they're only good when dead,

They're vermin as I said and worse!

They're savages, savages, barely even human! Savages, savages, drive them from our shore!

They're not you and me, which means they must be evil, now we sound the drums of war!

Orkeosaurus wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:I'm ignoring your post because I can't defend the movie's hackneyed plotline even though I kiss the director's ass.

I don't need to defend the movie's hackneyed plotline. Neither of us have seen it. I have read the scriptment, back in 2004, though I am certain it changed somewhat. But the aliens weren't quite the noble savages you seem to expect.

As Ebert says, it is not what a movie is about, but HOW it is about it. Feel free to read his 4 star review of Avatar here. Though obviously your mind is made up without seeing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Fixed. I am a huge douche who needs to pile on another argument for a cheap zing. I like little boys as well, especially since we share penile size.

See how easy that is.

dienekes96 wrote:
See how easy that is.

It is quite easy to fabricate an insult instead of simply pointing out what is happening, and allowing the target to find the insult in the revelation.

Its good to know that your first recourse is phallic imagery.

It was easy. It was also enjoyable. I will continue to look for opportunities for further fabrication.

Don't talk to me about having judged it before seeing it; you're just as bad with your fawning over it because of the director. At least I'm taking the movie on it's individual merits. Ebert's review only strengthens my belief that the movie is only worth anything on a visual basis.

I watched part of Transformers 2 and shut it off during one of the giant robot fights. Why? Because when there's no point to the events happening on screen I can't gather much enthusiasm for these events having cost a lot of money to display.

If you have any secrets about how the Na'vi are significantly flawed (besides justifiably hating/looking down on humans) I'd be interested in hearing them. So far everything I've heard of them puts them in the same box as every other Mary Sue forest magic elf race.

You need an outside force to instruct you to fabricate?

From this...

dogma wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:I like pretty pictures more than a compelling plot

Fixed. Do you want a squeaky toy as well?

To this?

dienekes96 wrote:

dogma wrote:Fixed. I am a huge douche who needs to pile on another argument for a cheap zing. I like little boys as well, especially since we share penile size.

See how easy that is.

Fail... I am not even sure why you would get so defensive, all Dogma did was point out the obvious. He didn't even take the time to poke you with a stick for fawning so hardcore over James Cameron.

I hate when some primitives win over high-tech force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to see humans dropping some nukes on Mary Sue elves.

One of my buddies voiced his fear that it would simply be a Sci-Fi Dances with Wolves... Dunno how I feel about that.

I agree that District 9 was probably one of those most interesting Sci-Fi movies I've seen in a while.

Re-watched Monsters vs. Aliens. Still way better...

As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys. Remember blackadder saying how much he liked other wars, where the enemy had spears and guava halves? I think that sounds more realistic, i mean seriously, blue guys with birds are going to fight PLASMA TANKS?

Ewoks!

lol Gornall.

Exactly! I mean.. come on!!? Clones of the galaxies finest soldier in armor and with laser guns getting trashed by 3 foot furballs with rocks?! I know it was a kids film but /facepalm

mattyrm wrote:As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys.

Yeah, it's not like that's ever happened before.

Just lucky dice IMO.

Platuan4th wrote:

mattyrm wrote:As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys.

Yeah, it's not like that's ever happened before.

-Of course the Zulus Lost the battle of Rork's Drift and had their heads handed to them in the war.

-Little Big Horn saw the the "savages with no technology" having better technology (repeating rifles and better horses) than the advanced guys. Custer didn't bring the artillery....

-Also US forces lost several small engagements to the filipinos and the Japanese had problems with certain headhunters in Borneo in WWII.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
the flip side is Pizzarro who just went berserk and smashed the Inca empire, without allies.

Yeah... generally the less technolgically advanced wins a few battles, but very rarely pull out the overall win.

There's a few exceptions to this however, the biggest ones coming to mind for me being Rome, Vietnam, Afghanistan (historically... making no comment about currently).

dienekes96 wrote:But hey, I love movies.

Well there is one difference between us: I love cinema.

dienekes96 wrote:then how about this...it won more awards than all of your favorite movies put together

How about double fail? More money at the box office has never meant better in the same that more awards has never meant better either. Citizen Kane is widely regarded as one of the greatest films and a touchstone in the medium but when it was released it hardly won any awards. So what we know then is that the Academy doesn't mind giving awards to mediocre movies if they can appeal to the lowest common denominator to draw in a crowd. You also don't know my favorite movies so that is a bit of a disingenuous statement. It didn't win that many awards

dienekes96 wrote:How can anyone be a member of Dakka and not look forward to a Cameron film?

When you don't let blind devotion blind your judgment, it isn't hard.

I also disagree with your assesment of JC being the biggest influence on Warhammer but that is a different thread.

Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is?

Amount of bewbs.

In all seriousness, I find that almost without fail, if the critics pan a movie, I end up loving it, and vice versa. I guess I'm too uneducated to appreciate fine cinema, lowest common denominator, and all that jazz. TBH, If I want to really think about something and enjoy a good story, I'll bust out a book.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

When looking at a short period of time it can be, but looking over a longer period of time it means much less. If your movie-viewership only goes back a few years than I suppose it is fine but if you watch movies going back to the birth of the medium as well as global cinema then it again changes. To put it more simply, Awards don't tell us about the film, they tell us about the people and the culture of that time. Again, if you just use those awards as a measure they should almost never bring up Citizen Kane in Film School (either Academic or Trade) but talk a lot about Titanic. But guess what? Titanic will hardly be mentioned where Citizen Kane will be talked about extensively. Or how about AFI's (a group made up of mostly AMPAS members) list of 100 greatest American Films in which Titanic is number 83. It won more awards than the 82 movies picked as better films yet doesn't get the top spot.


Also, the indicator is whether you like a movie or not. I never try to justify liking a film with weak arguments such as money or awards. My argument is I like it, I don't care how many other people like it or how many others spent money to see it. Why I like it will be different from film to film but I have never liked a movie because of it's box office or number of awards. How silly is that? "Why'd you like that film?" "Oh, because it made a lot of money (or vice versa)"

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

When looking at a short period of time it can be, but looking over a longer period of time it means much less. If your movie-viewership only goes back a few years than I suppose it is fine but if you watch movies going back to the birth of the medium as well as global cinema then it again changes. To put it more simply, Awards don't tell us about the film, they tell us about the people and the culture of that time. Again, if you just use those awards as a measure they should almost never bring up Citizen Kane in Film School (either Academic or Trade) but talk a lot about Titanic. But guess what? Titanic will hardly be mentioned where Citizen Kane will be talked about extensively. Or how about AFI's (a group made up of mostly AMPAS members) list of 100 greatest American Films in which Titanic is number 83. It won more awards than the 82 movies picked as better films yet doesn't get the top spot.


Also, the indicator is whether you like a movie or not. I never try to justify liking a film with weak arguments such as money or awards. My argument is I like it, I don't care how many other people like it or how many others spent money to see it. Why I like it will be different from film to film but I have never liked a movie because of it's box office or number of awards. How silly is that? "Why'd you like that film?" "Oh, because it made a lot of money (or vice versa)"

Sorry, I see your arguments against why those standards are good, but you didn't say what qwualifies a movie as being "good."

If its experiential then I thought it was an award level film, which cancels out your lack of faith, which I find disturbing...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is?

Amount of bewbs.

In all seriousness, I find that almost without fail, if the critics pan a movie, I end up loving it, and vice versa. I guess I'm too uneducated to appreciate fine cinema, lowest common denominator, and all that jazz. TBH, If I want to really think about something and enjoy a good story, I'll bust out a book.

I hear ya and that is often the case. however, I've found if they garner both they are usually pretty decent, even if they may not be my cup of tea.

I liked David Lynch's Dune...

man, feel so much better saying that

Frazzled wrote:If its experiential then I thought it was an award level film, which cancels out your lack of faith, which I find disturbing...

It isn't entirely subjective but for the purposes of a place like this it is easier to go with that explanation, besides also being true. It can be difficult to seperate ones own personal preferences from objective viewing which is why for most people if they don't care for something that means it is bad and if they like it that means it is good. Of course the two aren't connected. There are films I don't care for that I think are good and ones I enjoy that are bad, bad movies.

I thought the standard of whether entertainment is "good" or "bad" is on how much it entertains?

And the AFI top 100 list is invalid because it does NOT include ANY of the Die Hard movies.

I think what Ahtman is trying to say, is that different people will like different movies.

What makes AFI more correct than Heat magazine? Is it only that they agree with your opinions on a more consistent basis?

Gornall wrote:I thought the standard of whether entertainment is "good" or "bad" is on how much it entertains?

And the AFI top 100 list is invalid because it does NOT include ANY of the Die Hard movies.

Yippekayay Mutha kah!!!