Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The Expendables 2

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Expendables 2 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:19:07 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14588
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
So.... where was all the swearing in The Expendables 2?

Bruce Willis kept referring to everyone as dirtbags and mongrels.

Did Norris really get his way and they cut out all the bad language but kept the headshots? It just seemed that some F-bombs would have been awesome.



_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 211
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:21:16 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

So.... where was all the swearing in The Expendables 2?

Bruce Willis kept referring to everyone as dirtbags and mongrels.

Did Norris really get his way and they cut out all the bad language but kept the headshots? It just seemed that some F-bombs would have been awesome.





I didn't know that. I thought Chuck was just supposed to have a problem with blasphemy? You'd think he'd prefer a few fuck yous to some goddamns!


(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 212
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:26:14 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14588
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
And where was the Novak Djokovic cameo?!

I am literally out of my rage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_HP47sK5wo

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 213
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:27:55 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you wouldn't compare Dumb and Dumber with The Life Aquatic or Stranger than Fiction with Kevin and Perry. It's like comparing chips with doughnuts. They have to be taken on their own merits and by that token the only criteria should be those upon which all film is judged. Story. Character. Structure. Dialogue. Etc, etc. (Although, even as I write that, I'm suddenly realising that something like Star Wars IV would probably score a 2 out of 5 on that basis!)



Exactly. Story, Character, Structure, Dialogue etc are things people are told in school you need in good stories. They are not 'Objective' criteria. Aside from which people can disagree on what is a 'good' story and so on. Take the 3 act structure. People have cited the Dark Knight's deviance from it as a dramatic flaw, but couldn't you equally say that slavish devotion to the 3 act structure is a bit cliched and therefore a dramatic failing?



They're not things people are told in school ... they're the very foundation of screenwriting and therefore film-making. You can't really ever deviate from the 3 act structure because at its heart it simply means a film has a beginning, middle and end. And everything in life has that. And breaking it down into its component parts, people like to toy with that structure ... Spielberg loves his 5 Act structure ... but it's still structure and it still relies on the same principles.

All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 214
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:35:23 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you wouldn't compare Dumb and Dumber with The Life Aquatic or Stranger than Fiction with Kevin and Perry. It's like comparing chips with doughnuts. They have to be taken on their own merits and by that token the only criteria should be those upon which all film is judged. Story. Character. Structure. Dialogue. Etc, etc. (Although, even as I write that, I'm suddenly realising that something like Star Wars IV would probably score a 2 out of 5 on that basis!)



Exactly. Story, Character, Structure, Dialogue etc are things people are told in school you need in good stories. They are not 'Objective' criteria. Aside from which people can disagree on what is a 'good' story and so on. Take the 3 act structure. People have cited the Dark Knight's deviance from it as a dramatic flaw, but couldn't you equally say that slavish devotion to the 3 act structure is a bit cliched and therefore a dramatic failing?



They're not things people are told in school ... they're the very foundation of screenwriting and therefore film-making. You can't really ever deviate from the 3 act structure because at its heart it simply means a film has a beginning, middle and end. And everything in life has that. And breaking it down into its component parts, people like to toy with that structure ... Spielberg loves his 5 Act structure ... but it's still structure and it still relies on the same principles.

All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!



I think most people would say that much of their life ends up being more like epilogue .

Doesn't your own Star Wars example show the flaws of these presuppositions, which yes very much are of the solid-sounding-but-limited taught in school variety? Does 2001 have 'great dialogue'? Does Kubrick generally have a high focus on realistic character? Does Malick have a strong focus on narrative? Does Fellini? How many examples do you need contrary to a rule before the 'rule' is shown to be nonsense?

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 215
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:36:21 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 216
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:51:38 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 217
RE: The Expendables 2 - 19/8/2012 11:56:12 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.



Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 218
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:03:32 AM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.



Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?



Then why read reviews in a film magazine? Because they are the very criteria they will be using.

And of course one doesn't go in with the intention of coldly analyzing specific elements. But if you watch a film and think "well, I just didn't care what happened to anybody" then that's a fault in the character development. If it drags a little in the middle. That's an issue with structure. So we're not talking about anally retentive film students breaking down a film piece by piece. It's what everyone does unconsciously and each individual brings their own criteria to those elements.

Anyway, this is going way off topic.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 219
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:04:30 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.



Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?



There is, surely, a difference between criticising a reviewer for giving a 'wrong review' and disagreeing with a reviewer whose review doesn't agree with your view of the film. It might be semantics - but the first, as Prophet rightly says, is ridiculous. Because they're effectively telling the reviewer that can't possibly be his opinion because it is 'wrong'. And that's just silly.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 220
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 9:43:49 AM   
talpacino


Posts: 3685
Joined: 15/11/2005
From: The Royal County
Yeah it's pretty bad but not as bad as the first.

The opening action scene is good fun and you can't help but smile throughout the airport finale but other than that I can't really remember much of any worth. Any time there's no action and they're attempting to get all deep or even funny, it's fairly painful. The script is bloody awful but it did provide a few laughs with how bad some of the dialogue is.

Entertaining in parts but overall pretty poop.

_____________________________

Currahee!

It's a different film. It's a very different film! It's a different shark!

Suppose I shot ya..How'd that be?


(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 221
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 10:08:00 AM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1584
Joined: 31/7/2008
I've actually seen it!  Guess that makes about 6 of us now, in 9 or 10 pages?!

It's good.  A decent 3 stars at least.  The swings in tone are a little weird, but Action films have always kind of been like that.

Tip to cerebusboy, it is possible to post more than one quote and reply line at a time!

(in reply to talpacino)
Post #: 222
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 10:44:09 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom



Then why read reviews in a film magazine? Because they are the very criteria they will be using.




No, because if they did then Star Wars Episode IV, to use your own example, would not be a four or five star movie! And take, say, Ian Nathan's superb five star review of The Tree of Life. It is is very far from an invocation of ''narrative'' ''dialogue'' etc marking descriptors that the movie is then judged against.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 223
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 10:47:18 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.



Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?



There is, surely, a difference between criticising a reviewer for giving a 'wrong review' and disagreeing with a reviewer whose review doesn't agree with your view of the film. It might be semantics - but the first, as Prophet rightly says, is ridiculous. Because they're effectively telling the reviewer that can't possibly be his opinion because it is 'wrong'. And that's just silly.




You'd agree that it's acceptable for someone to say that something is a "bad review" and to cite not reviewing it in regard to other comparable films as a reason why? Prophet's the one who's all about the criteria; by his logic, a movie that DIDN'T appear to be judging films by these "objective" criteria, or that found them wanting in these areas but gave them a good review anyway, would be ignoring fundamental principles and therefore 'wrong' wrong or Wrong!

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 224
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:26:32 AM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!


If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?




But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.



Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?



There is, surely, a difference between criticising a reviewer for giving a 'wrong review' and disagreeing with a reviewer whose review doesn't agree with your view of the film. It might be semantics - but the first, as Prophet rightly says, is ridiculous. Because they're effectively telling the reviewer that can't possibly be his opinion because it is 'wrong'. And that's just silly.




You'd agree that it's acceptable for someone to say that something is a "bad review" and to cite not reviewing it in regard to other comparable films as a reason why? Prophet's the one who's all about the criteria; by his logic, a movie that DIDN'T appear to be judging films by these "objective" criteria, or that found them wanting in these areas but gave them a good review anyway, would be ignoring fundamental principles and therefore 'wrong' wrong or Wrong!



As I clearly stated above, we all instinctively use the same critiera, but as we watch a film we don't openly tick them off in a cold, scientific way. My original comment was because of a complaint about the review being "shockingly inept" when in fact what they meant was "I don't agree with this review". Those are two very diffent statements. The fact that the Tree of Life review references dialogue and narrative clearly emphasises my point and simply shows that his work is idiosyncratic. But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

I can see this is a wasted argument and you are very adept at misquoting or misinterpreting, dependent upon how it assists your argument. Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 225
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:31:04 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.



No, because a 'rule' is exactly that. Again: how many exceptions do you need to it before the 'rule' is demonstrably disproved and therefore absurd.? A lot of movies doing something doesn't make it a 'rule'. And I see you ignored my point about Kubrick, unsurprisingly.

All the "know the rules before you break them, kid!" crap is the stuff of cliched hackery.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 226
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:33:20 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

housand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

I can see this is a wasted argument and you are very adept at misquoting or misinterpreting, dependent upon how it assists your argument. Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.


Well, it was very nice of you to descend from Parnassus and talk about the the Universal Laws of Three Act structure and plot/character tick-boxing. I certainly feel enlightened.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 227
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:37:21 AM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.



No, because a 'rule' is exactly that. Again: how many exceptions do you need to it before the 'rule' is demonstrably disproved and therefore absurd.? A lot of movies doing something doesn't make it a 'rule'. And I see you ignored my point about Kubrick, unsurprisingly.

All the "know the rules before you break them, kid!" crap is the stuff of cliched hackery.



If 99% of people are doing something, I think it can be considered a rule!

And I'm sure everyone working in the industry, including all of the most experienced writers, directors etc, will very much appreciate that you have consigned their knowledge to cliched hackery. Don't bother responding as you're now blocked.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 228
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:37:46 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make.



You're the one proposing 'Rules'. I tend to think Gore Vidal's point that there are novels but no The Novel applies to movies. There's a reason why I invoked Kubrick. If you're supposed 'rule' is shown to be absurd when applied to one of the 20th century's greatest and most acclaimed directors then it might not be as Objective and Binding as you think. Your 'rules' are no such things.


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 229
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:40:04 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.



No, because a 'rule' is exactly that. Again: how many exceptions do you need to it before the 'rule' is demonstrably disproved and therefore absurd.? A lot of movies doing something doesn't make it a 'rule'. And I see you ignored my point about Kubrick, unsurprisingly.

All the "know the rules before you break them, kid!" crap is the stuff of cliched hackery.



If 99% of people are doing something, I think it can be considered a rule!

And I'm sure everyone working in the industry, including all of the most experienced writers, directors etc, will very much appreciate that you have consigned their knowledge to cliched hackery. Don't bother responding as you're now blocked.


99% are not doing it. I cited Kubrick and Malick as two good examples contrary to your supposed rule. You don't know what a rule is.

Oh noes!!! Blocked!!! I mean, I studied lit theory at yooni, but I certainly never heard about this "Three Act Structure" and "character"!! Please enlighten me o wise one!

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 230
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:43:35 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom



And I'm sure everyone working in the industry, including all of the most experienced writers, directors etc, will very much appreciate that you have consigned their knowledge to cliched hackery.


LOL! Yeah, I'm really sure you have knowledge on how Hollywood's most experienced writers and directors create their stories! William Goldman's on speed-dial is he? Hey, next time you're talking to "Three-Act" Tarantino tell him I'm really looking forward to Django Unchained!


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 231
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:46:04 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.


Ah a prophet not welcome in his own land You are spouting sub-creative writing access course banalities and 'rules' that are no such thing, Not dispensing Wisdom to the Great Unwashed. 'Efforts' indeed!

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 232
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:49:41 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.



O no!! Anyone know if David Thomson posts here, so I can fill the gap?


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 233
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:51:33 AM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006
Ah, the blissful silence. Obviously got under cerebusboy's skin.

Sorry mods, couldn't resist .

It's delightful not to have to listen to the bile and condescension. Now, can we get this thread back on track?

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 234
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:54:00 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Ah, the blissful silence. Obviously got under cerebusboy's skin.

Sorry mods, couldn't resist .

It's delightful not to have to listen to the bile and condescension. Now, can we get this thread back on track?



Bile and condescension? You're the one who thinks people who like Expendables 2 are too stupid to understand the ''rules'' (!) of Three Act Structure (OMG! Sounds complicated!) and characterisation .

I'll reply to what I want. All day long.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 235
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:55:13 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Now, can we get this thread back on track?


Hey, maybe you, O Enlightened One, should explain the Rules of Three Act Structure, Characterisation and Plot first? After all, how else are us poor, ignorant Expendables 2 fans meant to contribute to a film debate?

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 236
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:55:43 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Obviously got under cerebusboy's skin.



Trolls are good at that.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 237
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:58:54 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Don't bother responding as you're now blocked.


Wait, I thought you were just an "Expert" (!!) on film, not Boss of Humanity, or even a mod?

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 238
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 11:59:41 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom
Now, can we get this thread back on track?


You heard him people! Prophet of Doom gave an order: let's get moving!!

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 239
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:00:34 PM   
Harry Tuttle


Posts: 7993
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.
Why have you used 3 posts to answer one post?

Why requote bits of a post when you've already quoted it all but 2 posts previously?

Why not just break the original post down into multiple points in one post?

Plus IMO only one person on this thread is displaying troll like tendencies and it ain't Prophet.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Expendables 2 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094