Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Ragnar]

1 hour ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

How about we do the Fincher wars now? That sounds a lot more fun than the same old shit.

 

Se7en

Fight Club

The Social Network

Gone Girl

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Game (it would be higher, but the ending sucked balls)

Panic Room

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Alien 3

 

All of those are at very least decent (except Alien 3, which sucks, and Button, which is.... average), mostly good. Say what you will about Fincher, but the man is a quality filmmaker.

Se7en an Fight Club all day!

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

How about we do the Fincher wars now? That sounds a lot more fun than the same old shit.

 

Se7en

Fight Club

The Social Network

Gone Girl

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Game (it would be higher, but the ending sucked balls)

Panic Room

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Alien 3

 

All of those are at very least decent (except Alien 3, which sucks, and Button, which is.... average), mostly good. Say what you will about Fincher, but the man is a quality filmmaker.

You're missing Zodiac which is top 2 - at least.

 

 

 

[Goffe]

2 hours ago, Sand-omJC said:

No one has yet to convince me LOTR is actually good.

there's no convincing to do when a take is that bad, sorry.

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, Sand-omJC said:

No one has yet to convince me LOTR is actually good.

Before someone would try something like this, have you ever thought that a movie was bad and been convinced otherwise by arguments ? (and not by re-watching the movies decade later) for example ?

[SpiritComix]

10 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

The CGI doesn't hold up too well in lotr2 and 3. Re watched them all a couple of months ago. The fellowship of the ring is one of the greatest films of all time. Then the other films had their moments.

 

One of if not the single best scene I've watched in cinema was the Helms Deep sequence, the atmosphere was incredible.

The trilogy as a whole is a masterpiece and has almost 15 years, Three giant movies made in just four years, with an overall budget of $281 million, 17 Oscars + another 428 awards wins. It was revolutionary*.

 

All things considered, I think the vast majority of the CGI hold up VERY well, 15 freaking years and still better than many 2017 movies with way bigger budgets (cough, cough, JL, Wonder Woman, Transformers, Beauty and the Beast, Spider-Man, etc).

 

 

*(Gollum from The Two Towers was what convinced James Cameron that movie special effects had finally advanced enough for him to make AVATAR)

Edited December 21, 2017 by SpiritComix

[Lordmandeep]

Lotr is a modern classic.

 

End of disussion

[RandomCat]

9 hours ago, Barnack said:

Before someone would try something like this, have you ever thought that a movie was bad and been convinced otherwise by arguments ? (and not by re-watching the movies decade later) for example ?

Well, it was a tongue in cheek comment, meant not to be serious in anyone's attempt to convince me that these overly long boring movies/books aren't overly long and boring.

[MCKillswitch123]

12 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

You're missing Zodiac which is top 2 - at least.

 

 

 

Holy shit, I totally forgot about Zodiac. I knew I was forgetting something.

 

It's not top 2 or even 3 for me, though, as Se7en, Fight Club and TSN are too good, but I'd put it at #4, just ahead of Gone Girl.

[Brainbug]

I feel like The Game is a bit underrated. Very fun little thriller.

[MCKillswitch123]

9 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

I feel like The Game is a bit underrated. Very fun little thriller.

It's a great movie... until the ending, which completely destroys all the tension and build-up, and makes little to no sense. The ending basically makes me take the movie a lot less seriously. It's still good overall and does a fantastic job at building up suspense, and Michael Douglas is very good in the part. But it would've been easily top 5 Fincher if the ending was satisfying, possibly close to #1, as its 1st and 2nd acts are pitch perfect thriller, but the ending is just pathetic. And not even in a neo-noir type way where it's rushed and leaves you cold, but that's kinda the point; it's just.... a dumb ending for a movie that was building and building and building to something that probably wasn't gonna live up to the hype, but still.

 

I do agree that it is underrated and very fun, however. Like I said, I continue to think that it's a good movie. It's just not better than simply "good". The ending is that bad that it literally brings the whole film down for myself, and that rarely happens with me.

[LaughingEvans]

14 hours ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

How about we do the Fincher wars now? That sounds a lot more fun than the same old shit.

 

Se7en

Fight Club

The Social Network

Gone Girl

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Game (it would be higher, but the ending sucked balls)

Panic Room

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Alien 3

 

All of those are at very least decent (except Alien 3, which sucks, and Button, which is.... average), mostly good. Say what you will about Fincher, but the man is a quality filmmaker.

I'm gonna have a war with you because you forgot Zodiac. 

[MCKillswitch123]

7 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

I'm gonna have a war with you because you forgot Zodiac. 

Bring it bitch

 

I already mentioned Zodiac and where it would fall in the list up there. And I also just edited the list to add it, so y'all stop complaining

Edited December 21, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[langer]

15 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Is Avatar the only pure franchise in this thread?

It's not a franchise yet...

[Broadwayfreak66]

5 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

Lotr is a modern classic.

 

End of disussion

LOTR is a classic, not a modern classic...it came out the same decade Fahrenheit 451 was published. 

 

That said, I think it's a bit overpraised as a franchise. The scores to the films are okay, but the story isn't very interesting or complex, the characters aren't very well developed, the morality is intensely simplistic, the cinematography and design is, again, just okay, and the acting ranges from *eh, good* to reeeaallly bad. And the entire Hobbit trilogy is just overlong, silly, and boring. It seems to get a lot of praise from those who like extensive, arcane worldbuilding and medieval action scenes. But worldbuilding alone really doesn't make a story, and that's why I have a problem with LOTR. People think it's "sophisticated" because of it's cosmic, intense worldbuilding, but that seems a little odd to me. Usually, the more a story is removed from reality, the less sophisticated, deep, meaningful, and thematically prescient a story can be, and the more emotionally stunted the story is.  That's why I tend to like stories that occur in a more realistic setting, I.e., in a relatively realistic depiction of earth, but that's just me. I can recognize thematics and character motivations and the like much easier that way.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Broadwayfreak66

[Life goes on]

23 minutes ago, Broadwayfreak66 said:

LOTR is a classic, not a modern classic...it came out the same decade Fahrenheit 451 was published. 

 

That said, I think it's a bit overpraised as a franchise. The scores to the films are okay, but the story isn't very interesting or complex, the characters aren't very well developed, the morality is intensely simplistic, the cinematography and design is, again, just okay, and the acting ranges from *eh, good* to reeeaallly bad. And the entire Hobbit trilogy is just overlong, silly, and boring. It seems to get a lot of praise from those who like extensive, arcane worldbuilding and medieval action scenes. But worldbuilding alone really doesn't make a story, and that's why I have a problem with LOTR. People think it's "sophisticated" because of it's cosmic, intense worldbuilding, but that seems a little odd to me. Usually, the more a story is removed from reality, the less sophisticated, deep, meaningful, and thematically prescient a story can be, and the more emotionally stunted the story is.  That's why I tend to like stories that occur in a more realistic setting, I.e., in a relatively realistic depiction of earth, but that's just me. I can recognize thematics and character motivations and the like much easier that way.

Says the Harry Potter fannerd! 

[SpiritComix]

43 minutes ago, Broadwayfreak66 said:

LOTR is a classic, not a modern classic...it came out the same decade Fahrenheit 451 was published. 

 

That said, I think it's a bit overpraised as a franchise. The scores to the films are okay, but the story isn't very interesting or complex, the characters aren't very well developed, the morality is intensely simplistic, the cinematography and design is, again, just okay, and the acting ranges from *eh, good* to reeeaallly bad. And the entire Hobbit trilogy is just overlong, silly, and boring. It seems to get a lot of praise from those who like extensive, arcane worldbuilding and medieval action scenes. But worldbuilding alone really doesn't make a story, and that's why I have a problem with LOTR. People think it's "sophisticated" because of it's cosmic, intense worldbuilding, but that seems a little odd to me. Usually, the more a story is removed from reality, the less sophisticated, deep, meaningful, and thematically prescient a story can be, and the more emotionally stunted the story is.  That's why I tend to like stories that occur in a more realistic setting, I.e., in a relatively realistic depiction of earth, but that's just me. I can recognize thematics and character motivations and the like much easier that way.

 

Oh lord! So many really bad takes in just one paragraph! 

 

 

[RandomCat]

At least I keep my bad takes to a sentence...

[Broadwayfreak66]

6 hours ago, Life goes on said:

Says the Harry Potter fannerd! 

...a story that was created by a woman who was narrativizing her own experiences with death and depression. It just means more than LOTR, a story loved for its world building and that's it. 

 

Furthermore, Rowling is much more accomplished at plotting, character development, emotion, and thematics than Tolkien is. FURTHERMORE, the franchise is more consistently acclaimed, Half-Blood Prince has far more beautiful cinematography than any LOTR film...I could go on an on and on, but I won't.

 

This is my opinion. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Broadwayfreak66

[Broadwayfreak66]

6 hours ago, SpiritComix said:

 

Oh lord! So many really bad takes in just one paragraph! 

 

 

Calling an opinion "a bad take" isn't worth the space. 

 

Its not a good story. It's main villain is a giant talking eye for christs sake, and it's a very straightforward quest narrative. That's it. It's short and sweet and okay, but not great, and not nearly as deep and sophisticated as people make it out to be. 

[Life goes on]

3 hours ago, Broadwayfreak66 said:

...a story that was created by a woman who was narrativizing her own experiences with death and depression. It just means more than LOTR, a story loved for its world building and that's it. 

 

Furthermore, Rowling is much more accomplished at plotting, character development, emotion, and thematics than Tolkien is. FURTHERMORE, the franchise is more consistently acclaimed, Half-Blood Prince has far more beautiful cinematography than any LOTR film...I could go on an on and on, but I won't.

 

This is my opinion. 

You’re right🤥...gape...gape... It’s your own geeky biased opinion.