In Time

[FireIceTalon]

No, I only start joining a thread after deebye has posted something in it.
My POADS (post only after deebye standard).

I'm regretful that I posted in this thread. I thought it might be a thread about a movie, but it once again turned into a political/socio-economic debate where everyone uses BIG WORDS and INTERNET RESEARCH in an attempt to prove how wrong the other party is, instead of actually talking about a movie.

The Lounge used to be a fun place to hang out in. It really isn't that way now. I'm not opposed to political debate, but it seeps into almost every single damn thread. At the end, it's just the same two or three people posting massive replies and rebuttals to each other and I all I can do is just picture their look of smugness when they hit the "post reply" button while the rest of us try and figure out why the hell we even visit this forum anymore.

I fully admit that I've fallen for some of the near-troll political posts and replied to them, but I really wish I would have just kept my mouth shut.

I've tried to inject a little levity here and there to lighten the mood, and even posted banal threads about stuff that most people can relate to in a NON POLITICAL WAY to try and get others (and I know you are out there) to once again participate in this amazing forum, but it never works.

I watched the remake of Conan the Barbarian the other day, and it was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Only the first 10 or 15 minutes were even worth watching (Ron Perlman plays Conan's dad and Ron Perlman rules something fierce!). The guy who plays Conan should never act again. The closest analogy I can muster is that he's like Dr. McCoy in the original Star Trek series. He hates everything and is all quiet and brooding in a nonchalant kind of way, but when he's supposed to get angry and go barbarian he just goes "Dammit Jim!" and swings his sword around until people die.

True, and on that note I wont discuss it any further in this thread, but those who engaged me before, feel free to make another thread if you want to continue.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Conan remake yet, loved the originals as a kid. But I have a feeling it was just like Clash of the Titans...a ton of CGI with poor acting and no plot. The original was greatness though, loved that movie back in the day too. Wonder how that new 3 Musketeers remake is.

[LochnarITB]

I watched the remake of Conan the Barbarian the other day, and it was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Only the first 10 or 15 minutes were even worth watching (Ron Perlman plays Conan's dad and Ron Perlman rules something fierce!). The guy who plays Conan should never act again. The closest analogy I can muster is that he's like Dr. McCoy in the original Star Trek series. He hates everything and is all quiet and brooding in a nonchalant kind of way, but when he's supposed to get angry and go barbarian he just goes "Dammit Jim!" and swings his sword around until people die.

I heard they were remaking that and I thought to myself "Why?". Of course, I felt that way when I heard they were remaking Footloose too. The one that really makes me shake my head and worry is not a remake, but a supposed "reboot" of Doctor Who for the big screen. BBC did a fine job of rebooting the series, although folks like my mother completely disagree, but a large part of what makes it so great is the British sense of humor that's thrown in when it makes sense to. Well, the more subtle version of British humor in this case. =) I can't see Hollywood bringing that to the big screen. They aren't interested in a reboot so much as a piece of the pie and, I'm sure in the process, of Americanising it to the point of it being unrecognizable as Doctor Who. At least there's just been talk and no cast, director, producer, etc. has been announced for it.

Edit: Whoops, director is in place, just not the script, cast, production crew. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2...sfeed=true

Noooooooooooo.... Why oh why must they hate me so? No no no no no no, Dr Who does not belong on the big screen. What are they going to do, break it up into 20 minute chunks and send everyone out to intermission in between each one? So much of the fun is in watching a blur of "what happened?" "how did he do that?" only to have that theme well up and the TARDIS go flying down the wormhole, sending you off to wonder how he's going to get out of this mess. A big screen movie is not going draw a kid "mumble mumble" years ago to set his alarm for 2am to get up and watch one of the doctors for a half hour, in black and white, on the local PBS station. Another childhood nerd's treasure being lost to today's kids finally figuring what is truly cool!

[Kevin]

Noooooooooooo.... Why oh why must they hate me so? No no no no no no, Dr Who does not belong on the big screen. What are they going to do, break it up into 20 minute chunks and send everyone out to intermission in between each one? So much of the fun is in watching a blur of "what happened?" "how did he do that?" only to have that theme well up and the TARDIS go flying down the wormhole, sending you off to wonder how he's going to get out of this mess. A big screen movie is not going draw a kid "mumble mumble" years ago to set his alarm for 2am to get up and watch one of the doctors for a half hour, in black and white, on the local PBS station. Another childhood nerd's treasure being lost to today's kids finally figuring what is truly cool!

My feelings are similar. The last Who movie (though it was straight to TV) was intended to (and did in fact) kill the franchise until the most recent reboot.

However a Doctor Who movie that is not linked with the current series and was developed for the big screen is not unprecedented. There was a 1965, and a 1966, movie. Of course you'll note that it hasn't been done again for over 4 decades and I'll agree.

It's possible this won't be a bad thing, but I'm with you. He's better on the small screen.

[DeeBye]

I heard someone on the radio today say that remakes are not just Hollywood being lazy retreading an old plot, but it's also the consumer who is lazy in choosing to attend them. Since they know the story there is less likelihood of being disappointed in the story.

It's a little from column A and a little from column B. Hollywood doesn't like to make movies that people don't go to, and people don't go to movies that Hollywood doesn't make. I'm not sure if the previous sentence makes any sense.

I think the film series that best exemplifies this is Saw. The first one was great. It was unique and very well made. It was also very profitable because it cost so little to make (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_%28fran...Box_office ). So now there are (or were? Is Saw finally done?) yearly Saw sequels that are all crap, but make huge amounts of profit. I should also mention that there are a billion franchises that ripped off the Saw formula and also cashed in. Most of them were terrible movies, but people went to them because "it's sorta like Saw".

I am not trying to bash reboots, remakes, or sequels/prequels as much as it seems that I am. Some of my favourite films fall into those categories. Zack Snyder's remake of "Dawn of the Dead" and the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes" were both really, really good horror films. There's also that sequel called "The Empire Strikes Back" that was a pretty decent film.

My eyes absolutely light up when I see a truly unique film in the genres that I enjoy, and is led by a good director/writer/cast. Things like Inception, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men (I made that image just now, Google rules) and Sunshine fall into that list.

But Conan sucked. Some movies just shouldn't be remade.

---

Anyway, I haven't seen the Conan remake yet, loved the originals as a kid. But I have a feeling it was just like Clash of the Titans...a ton of CGI with poor acting and no plot.

The remake of Clash of the Titans was infinitely better than the new Conan, and it sucked.

[FireIceTalon]

That's pretty bad, heh.

Inception was good. Always thought Leonardo DiCaprio was underrated as an actor, and it was quite creative in the same way In Time is. Children of Men - I saw it once and vowed never to watch it again. What a depressing movie.

[Taem]

No, I only start joining a thread after deebye has posted something in it.
My POADS (post only after deebye standard).

I'm regretful that I posted in this thread. I thought it might be a thread about a movie, but it once again turned into a political/socio-economic debate where everyone uses BIG WORDS and INTERNET RESEARCH in an attempt to prove how wrong the other party is, instead of actually talking about a movie.

The Lounge used to be a fun place to hang out in. It really isn't that way now. I'm not opposed to political debate, but it seeps into almost every single damn thread. At the end, it's just the same two or three people posting massive replies and rebuttals to each other and I all I can do is just picture their look of smugness when they hit the "post reply" button while the rest of us try and figure out why the hell we even visit this forum anymore.

I fully admit that I've fallen for some of the near-troll political posts and replied to them, but I really wish I would have just kept my mouth shut.

I've tried to inject a little levity here and there to lighten the mood, and even posted banal threads about stuff that most people can relate to in a NON POLITICAL WAY to try and get others (and I know you are out there) to once again participate in this amazing forum, but it never works.

True, and on that note I wont discuss it any further in this thread,

This movie reeks of the current political situation here in America and the rest of the world. I'm sorry, but for DeeBee to say [that] about THIS THREAD, while I might understand his frustration (but don't agree) with the way the Lounge is currently going, he's being overly zealous and quite frankly moronic to even state such things in THIS THREAD, which, again, deals with current political motives and movements. Every review out about this movie mentions that. This is not some secret mission by every reviewer in the world to turn the Lounge into some political discussion hub... Anyways, just thought I'd point that out!

[LochnarITB]

he's being overly zealous and quite frankly moronic to even state such things in THIS THREAD, which, again, deals with current political motives and movements. Every review out about this movie mentions that. This is not some secret mission by every reviewer in the world to turn the Lounge into some political discussion hub... Anyways, just thought I'd point that out!

To state such things in this thread? Deals with current political motives and movements? The poster in the original post asked if anyone had seen the movie. They stated their opinion that it was a very good movie and that others should see it. There was no mention about the political/socio-economic implications of the movie IN THE ORIGINAL POST. There was nothing moronic about DeeBye posting that it was another thread devolved into the all too familiar of late debate. Because every review of the movie supposedly takes the easy road and compares it to Occupy<my little corner of the world>, doesn't mean the Lounge can't rise above and discuss a movie for it's entertainment value or cinematic quality. To see everything as an opportunity to drag discussions down into your sandbox for just another cat fight strikes me as moronic. Anyways, just thought I'd point that out.

[Taem]

RE-EDIT: I was so rude on this post. I just got home from work and read what I wrote and I'm ashamed. My apologies to you LochnarITB and to you too Deebye. I was needlessly cruel in my reply, and for that I am sorry. I will remove the mean-spited things I said have said.

EDIT: To fight over this seems so petty. I really shouldn't respond at all. I don't want to fight.

The poster in the original post asked if anyone had seen the movie. [That person] stated their opinion that it was a very good movie and that others should see it. There was no mention about the political/socio-economic implications of the movie IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

You are correct, however the movie is inherently about what the Occupy movement stands for, the 99%. While I have not seen the movie myself, I have read several reviews on the movie and they [the reviews] indicate (to me) the basis of the In Time movie is about struggling to get back what is ours by right, and uses the concept of "time" instead of "currency", but the similarities between this and the "99%" are, to what I understand, undeniable. Which begs the question, with such a hot-button topic and a correlating, fictitious analogy of a movie, doesn't it seem likely that the subject of politics would inevitably creep up in this movie thread?

There was nothing moronic about DeeBye posting that it was another thread devolved into the all too familiar of late debate.

Deebye, I'm sorry for calling your point of view moronic. I respect you as a fellow Lurker and regret having said that. It really was uncalled for. I might not agree with everyone on these boards, but I should show some respect and civility when I'm here. To that end, mightn't it be better for you guys to use threaded view instead of linear view for topics like this that you feel have gone somewhere you don't care for? I'm not saying I don't agree/disagree with what was said about politics derailing threads recently, I'm only offering an alternative so you might still be able to enjoy threads that have been sufficiently derailed with political jargon by singling out what you want to read.

To see everything as an opportunity to drag discussions down into your sandbox for just another cat fight strikes me as moronic.

I wasn't directly involved in this thread. Sorry if I said something in that last post to offend you. If you are asking myself in particular not post political remarks in a thread which would clearly go that route in the end, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure what you want, or what your trying to say. Or perhaps you are just sick of threads getting derailed with all these petty squabbles - understandable. Would you mind clarifying this statement?

[LochnarITB]

I wasn't directly involved in this thread. Sorry if I said something in that last post to offend you.

The offense was in calling DeeBye's opinion moronic. He was voicing feelings that I felt, therefor calling my thoughts moronic as well, along with insulting someone that I consider a friend I've never met and a kindred spirit (except that I don't drink beer ), both residing in the great snowy north and preferring to bring a little lightness to a board that can sometimes get rather intense.

Or perhaps you are just sick of threads getting derailed with all these petty squabbles - understandable. Would you mind clarifying this statement?

This. As I said, once in a while, it would be nice to have a thread not go from (for example) an initial post saying a movie is "Easily one of the best movies to come out in a long while...." to a discussion about how bad politics/economics have gotten, etc. Just a little more light discussion of what we do to take our minds off such things. I have no qualms about having discussions of politics and economics here. I read more of them than one might think, hoping to keep an open mind and see various sides. But, this is a board which many very intelligent people frequent, folks with very diverse interests. I would love to see more of them posting without worry about being drowned out.

Probably clear as mud, but it will have to do. I'm moving on.

[DeeBye]

You are correct, however the movie is inherently about what the Occupy movement stands for, the 99%. While I have not seen the movie myself, I have read several reviews on the movie and they [the reviews] indicate (to me) the basis of the In Time movie is about struggling to get back what is ours by right, and uses the concept of "time" instead of "currency", but the similarities between this and the "99%" are, to what I understand, undeniable. Which begs the question, with such a hot-button topic and a correlating, fictitious analogy of a movie, doesn't it seem likely that the subject of politics would inevitably creep up in this movie thread?

I count 5 posts before the discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the movie, and just became the same old back-and-forth between the same old debaters rehashing the same old arguments.

There are roughly 2,482 movies that have the theme of the lower class rising up against the upper class. That does not make them movies about the Occupy movement, otherwise people would have been Occupying Nottingham a long time ago.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I can discuss a movie that contains political themes that I might agree or disagree with, without actually arguing about politics. A movie is much more than a thematic message.

RE-EDIT: I was so rude on this post. I just got home from work and read what I wrote and I'm ashamed. My apologies to you LochnarITB and to you too Deebye. I was needlessly cruel in my reply, and for that I am sorry. I will remove the mean-spited things I said have said.

I read your reply before your edit. You should have left it as it was. If I do get personally offended enough by something, I'll reply if I think I need to. If I don't reply, it's because I just don't care enough to argue the point.

[DeeBye]

Inception was good. Always thought Leonardo DiCaprio was underrated as an actor, and it was quite creative in the same way In Time is.

The first movie I ever saw Leonardo Dicaprio in was What's Eating Gilbert Grape? back in 1993. This was way before he ever became well-known. He plays the autistic little brother to Johnny Depp's character, and at the time I honestly thought they cast an actual autistic person in that role (this was right around the time a person with Down's Syndrome was acting in a TV series, so it wasn't totally off-base). What a fantastic movie, and what a great actor. Watching Gangs of New York and The Aviator sealed the deal for me.

Children of Men - I saw it once and vowed never to watch it again. What a depressing movie.

The cinematography in Children of Men was brilliant. This scene (Youtube video) in particular was amazing. It's CGI-aided, but it gives the illusion of a continuous 6 minute scene shot solely by a cameraman following Clive Owen's character in the middle of an urban warzone.

Children of Men was certainly depressing, but great movies don't need to have happy endings. In fact, I oftentimes feel cheated when an otherwise decent movie has a happy ending when it should have had a tragic one.