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

[WittyUsername]

Just now, Barnack said:

Kill Bill Vol 1-2 was an original, Lord of the rings part 1-2-3 are not that old, Attack on the Titan part 1-2 was not on a single book, Hobbit part 1- 2-3 got split into 3 from one book I think ?

I was referring to the 2010s when I said “the past decade”.

 

Anyway, Kill Bill was always intended to be a single film before Miramax split it into two movies. As for the Lord of the Rings films, while it’s true that Tolkien intended for it all to comprise a single book, he was told to split it into three volumes, and each of the films were based on a single volume. IW & EG are not in the same boat as those. They were always intended to be two separate films. 

[Barnack]

14 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

and each of the films were based on a single volume.

Is that relevant ? I am not sure I get the semantic debate, almost every movie series planned from a beginning and end are part 1-2-x movies no ? Except star wars that wanted to start at Part 4.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Barnack

[LaughingEvans]

To both sides:

 

So what if it is 2 parts or not? What's the essential point here? 

[Barnack]

27 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

So what if it is 2 parts or not? What's the essential point here? 

A bit like a color palette being teal & orange, use of CGI vs practical, not calling your clearly remake/reboot movie a remake/reboot by putting the smallest continuity element in it, once the Internet start to say something is bad, people feel that it is a bad thing and want to distance it.

 

To the point that seeing the fact filmmaker achieved to make an giant 5+ hours saga split in 2 release for commercial and convenience reason is perceived has bad and an attack.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Barnack

[Captain Craig]

Peeks into thread.....still on this pt1/pt2 nonsense.....ducks back out.

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Peeks into thread.....still on this pt1/pt2 nonsense.....ducks back out.

 

If you wait for non-non sense in a fanboy wars thread...... I imagine you mean you wished for new nonsense.

[HeadShot]

4 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Can we please stop giving that website so much exposure?

alright lets use a more legitimate source

 

 

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, Thanos Legion said:

This is one of the stupidest debates in site history. Hopefully I have the good sense never to comment on it again. The only thing the Part 1/Part 2’ers demonstrate is that they don’t understand what makes something a Part 1+Part2.

Agreed. But them debates over semantics are usually stupid.

5 hours ago, HeadShot said:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/warner-bros-developing-harry-potter-film-featuring-original-cast/

 

yikes. plz no

Except for Emma Watson, the original cast members can use the money...…..Watson is the only one of the original main charecters who has had a successful career post Potter.

[Alexdube]

3 hours ago, LaughingEvans said:

To both sides:

 

So what if it is 2 parts or not? What's the essential point here? 

it's exactly what I was addressing 3 posts above yours

[cdsacken]

6 hours ago, HeadShot said:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/warner-bros-developing-harry-potter-film-featuring-original-cast/

 

yikes. plz no

Fuck yeah.

 

I got tickets to this show next year. I'm pumped!

[Walt Disney]

13 hours ago, LaughingEvans said:

To both sides:

 

So what if it is 2 parts or not? What's the essential point here? 

It really doesn’t make a difference. One poster brought it up, wanting credit for being right for saying it was a part 1/part 2 situation. However, there is a factually correct answer that it isn’t. Does it really matter if people want to believe otherwise? Not really. But there is an answer. It isn’t a case of semantics and it isn’t an unanswerable question.

 

[Alexdube]

6 hours ago, Walt Disney said:

It really doesn’t make a difference. One poster brought it up, wanting credit for being right for saying it was a part 1/part 2 situation. However, there is a factually correct answer that it isn’t. Does it really matter if people want to believe otherwise? Not really. But there is an answer. It isn’t a case of semantics and it isn’t an unanswerable question.

 

If you think there is a right and wrong answer to this, I'm curious to know how you explain what makes The Godfather a part I / part II / part III situation but not your Avengers movie.

 

 

[HeadShot]

2 hours ago, Alexdube said:

If you think there is a right and wrong answer to this, I'm curious to know how you explain what makes The Godfather a part I / part II / part III situation but not your Avengers movie.

 

 

Um Godfather is a trilogy not a "part" series. Each movie has it's own ending. 

[Walt Disney]

3 hours ago, Alexdube said:

If you think there is a right and wrong answer to this, I'm curious to know how you explain what makes The Godfather a part I / part II / part III situation but not your Avengers movie.

 

 

Well, for one, IW and EG aren’t called part 1 and part 2. But in all seriousness, calling it The Godfather Part I/ Part Ii/Part III was just the title. It wasn’t one movie that was split into 3 parts. Unless you believe that all franchises are just 1 movie split into multiple installments. But no one believes that. I don’t think I have to define what a franchise is for anyone.

 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was one movie split into 2 parts. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was one movie split into 2 parts. IW and EG are 2 distinct movies, with 2 different plots. They are both installments in the same franchise, but they are not the same movie. In order to believe they are the same movie, a person would have to have not understood the plots of IW and EG. Additionally, Kevin Feige was quoted in the article posted above stating that they are 2 distinct movies.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Walt Disney

[Alexdube]

5 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Well, for one, IW and EG aren’t called part 1 and part 2. But in all seriousness, calling it The Godfather Part I/ Part Ii/Part III was just the title. It wasn’t one movie that was split into 3 parts. Unless you believe that all franchises are just 1 movie split into multiple installments. But no one believes that. I don’t think I have to define what a franchise is for anyone.

 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was one movie split into 2 parts. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was one movie split into 2 parts. IW and EG are 2 distinct movies, with 2 different plots. They are both installments in the same franchise, but they are not the same movie. In order to believe they are the same movie, a person would have to have not understood the plots of IW and EG. Additionally, Kevin Feige was quoted in the article posted above stating that they are 2 distinct movies.

You can easily argue that both movies are part of the same plot. Again all of this is semantics and editorial decisions. You could also easily call them Avengers: Infinity War Part I and Avengers: Infinity War Part II and no one would be confused and say that it's "wrong" (except maybe you).

 

Listen this is cinema not algebra. There are no black & white answers to this not matter how hard you try to convince yourself

[Alexdube]

Alright let's change the topic. Not looking good for Spidey huh?

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, Walt Disney said:

Well, for one, IW and EG aren’t called part 1 and part 2. But in all seriousness, calling it The Godfather Part I/ Part Ii/Part III was just the title. It wasn’t one movie that was split into 3 parts. Unless you believe that all franchises are just 1 movie split into multiple installments. But no one believes that. I don’t think I have to define what a franchise is for anyone.

 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was one movie split into 2 parts. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was one movie split into 2 parts. IW and EG are 2 distinct movies, with 2 different plots. They are both installments in the same franchise, but they are not the same movie. In order to believe they are the same movie, a person would have to have not understood the plots of IW and EG. Additionally, Kevin Feige was quoted in the article posted above stating that they are 2 distinct movies.

Then there was the 1974/75 Three and Four Musketeers, where the decision to split the film into two films was not made until a couple of months before the film came out. It was shot as a Three and half hour epic,covering the entire Dumas novel,  with the actors signed to make one film, but the studio decided to split it into two films.with the breaking point being where the Intermission was going to be. Luckily for them, you had a complete story in the first half of the novel, the "Queen's Necklace" story; if fact most of the previous film versions of the novel only covered the first half.

Created quite a fuss, nothing like that had been done before,and the actors sued the studio over it, claiming they were paid for one film instead of two, The case was settled out of court, with the actors getting a hefty bonus. And every contract in the industry from then on included a clause about the actor getting more money if the film was released in two parts.

Edited September 6, 2019 by dudalb

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, Alexdube said:

Alright let's change the topic. Not looking good for Spidey huh?

You know, this routine of the Cameron fanboys basically wishing bad luck for every franchise that is not a Cameron franchise has gotten really old.

[Alexdube]

55 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You know, this routine of the Cameron fanboys basically wishing bad luck for every franchise that is not a Cameron franchise has gotten really old.

oh don't make me cry, you know there's about 90% of the people on this forum just dying to watch Terminator fail

[langer]

14 hours ago, Alexdube said:

oh don't make me cry, you know there's about 90% of the people on this forum just dying to watch Terminator fail

I'm dying to watch Terminator