Crakajak06
Posts: 6
Joined: 25/8/2006
|
Your last post seemed rather angry, not to mention chock full of beautiful mental images, so let me attempt somewhat of a truce, if at all possible. This shall be done via the adressing of a few points. (dont worry not all of the same 9 from the last few posts) 1. When I mentioned the quick shooting of the movies, I was trying to get the point across that Spielberg was more concerned with the movies being fun than perfect, so the hair thing becomes small and completely unimportant. (a flip flub is a slang term for something incorrect in a film bc it is a film and not actually real. i.e. the hair thing) 2. You never mentioned before the thing about the "mystique being removed" and I never really thought of it that way, Im just one of those trivia-loving fans who liked knowing how those aspects of his character came about and I think it was done in a fun way. But if you like your heroes mysterious, to each his own. 3. Yes the tank chase has similarities to the truck chase, but I still do not think it was cut and pasted from the first movie. Yes the villians are the same, but thats not to do with the chase itself, but rather the whole movie. Yes he jumps from horse to the tank like the horse to truck trasfer, but he has a very differnt fight that involves a chain around the throat, a one-shot-kills-six(or so)-guys gag, play with the danger of the tire treads, and hanging from a bagstrap while being run into a dirt wall, none of which were in the first movie. The movies (being same time period and hero) are going to cross lines occasionally, but at least they changed it up quite a bit. 4. The ending of all three movies (not just one and three) dealt with the purification of evil by a deity, so you cant just pick on last cusade for that one. 5. Ok, he had a bad accent. He admitted it himself in a behind the scenes interview, so who am I to argue. I had thought that you meant he was a terrible actor, but I guess not. 6. No comment on the scottish accent thing, bc your last comment on it honestly confused me. Ok, we have a difference of opinions. I had felt the need to respond firmly to your original post bc it was titled "reasons why last crusade was crap." Had it been "reasons why I didnt like Last Crusade" my responses would have been less curt. Now that I have at least shown that you simply do not like the movie and that you offered no substantial or irrefutable evidence that could qualify the movie as "crap," I feel my job is done. So in conclusion, (yes I know, finally,) I wish to say that you may just want to be aware of how a bold, incorrect title can ruin any point you wish to make in the following work. p.s. I may have sounded condescending, but as an aspiring filmmaker myself, I know that the difference between calling someone's work crap and saying you don't like it is a big one. I was condescending to bring you down a knotch to realize that you aren't any better at making movies than Spielberg and Lucas, in fact youd probably be way worse (as would I), not to bring myself up. So careful with the stinging criticism.
|